Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Starlink Direct to Cell

starlink.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

721–730 of 831 posts

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#721

Post by MaxikCZ »

leoh wrote: post #707
MaxikCZ wrote: post #618

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny how while you mean it ironically, it still is true. Its time people take responsibility of their actions.

I don’t understand how such fundamentally uneducated and unkind comments like this seem to be on nearly every HN thread these days

Because I think that "but I need a place to disconnect, I am undisciplined to do it on my own when I am under coverage" is a poor reason to justify advocating for stopping progress.

Comparing it with actual drugs and calling for the same "deny this to everybody so I dont have to use my willpower, please" is what grinds my gears.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#722

Post by _heimdall »

starspangled wrote: post #715
_heimdall wrote: post #676

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its hard to determine a conflict of interest when the role isn't clear though, and the problem there is that everyone can really go off of what they heard through the grape vine. If the role truly is advisory I wouldn't personally see that as a conflict of interest. Regulators are often asking for advise from those they are meant to regulate without it getting flagged as a conflict of interest (for better or worse).

I don't think it's that hard to determine. He has big companies involved in significant regulatory actions and oversight, he would stand to gain a lot by influencing things slightly in his favor. Sure, taken to absurdity everybody in government has a conflict of interest because they are alive on the same planet and have heir own views on things, but for the case of someone like Musk it's pretty clear. Politicians an…

I wouldn't be opposed to going after such situations as corruption or conflict of interest issues, but that's going to be a big can of worms.

From the FAA and Boeing to multiple health agencies and pharmaceutical companies, there are a ton of advisory type roles that involve industry leaders "recommending" policy. I'd be surprised if Musk ended up at the top of the list when sorted by impact, counted either by financial impact or number of rules and regulations impacted by industry.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#723

Post by BurningFrog »

nordsieck wrote: post #363
modeless wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. Starlink is indeed awesome and SpaceX deserves every bit of their success. But there will be competitors eventually, if for no other reason than foreign militaries sponsoring them. There's no inherent reason for this to be a winner takes all market. We can only hope the competitors are half as responsible as SpaceX has been about space debris risk and ensuring the satellites are not visible to the naked e…

IMO, one of the central problems is the cost of launching stuff into space. Today, SpaceX offers world leading low prices to launch satellites: $4 m / tonne[1]. But Starlink has access to launch at cost , which is $0.86 m / tonne[2]. Which is a huge advantage when launching an enormous number of satellites. One thing to keep in mind, especially for these LEO constellations: the lifetime of these satellites is 5-10 ye…

> But Starlink has access to launch at cost, which is $0.86 m / tonne[2]. Which is a huge advantage when launching an enormous number of satellites.

Starlink is a division of SpaceX. So what price it charges/pays itself is only an internal bookkeeping artifact.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#724

Post by openrisk »

refurb wrote: post #628
openrisk wrote: post #531

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might be onto something but we need a proper "evolutionary theory of bootlicking" before we get carried away. Its pretty clear that the all-too-common in space and time hierarchies, oligarchies, command-and-control pyramids etc. rely on trickle-down privilege to sustain. But the feeligs of disgust and disbelief at how a person can diminish themselves in the hope of some crumbs falling their way must also have str…

I’m not sure I understand your viewpoint. The OP said “the most successful businessman in the world”. Sure one can argue about how OP came to that conclusion, by what measure, etc, but the man produced a highly successful car company, in a field nobody has really been able to do it, under terms where everyone was counting down the days until it went bankrupt. That alone is an amazing feat. Then he went on to create a…

sorry, the burden is on you to distinguish genuine business accomplishment from what others might suspect, less charitably, is excellence in crony capitalism [1],[2].

The Economist made a feeble effort to rank countries in this respect [3] but it does not even include the tech sector in the "crony-prone" sectors (eyes rolling).

[1] "situation in which businesses profit from a close relationship with state power, either through an anti-competitive regulatory environment, direct government largesse, and/or corruption. Examples given for crony capitalism include obtainment of permits, government grants, tax breaks, or other undue influence from businesses over the state's deployment of public goods, for example, mining concessions for primary commodities or contracts for public works" etc.

[2] Crony Capitalism, American Style: What Are We Talking About Here? https://www.hbs.edu/ris/Publication%20Files/15-025_c6fbbbf7-...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony-capitalism_index

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#725

Post by piltdownman »

ianburrell wrote: post #314
marcus_holmes wrote: post #281

This is the nomad dream. Have a single phone service and wander anywhere on the planet with it. No more having to swap SIMs out on every border, being unable to use text-based 2FA, forcing friends to contact only via messaging apps, system messages in a foreign language, etc. It's not the coverage; that's mostly good. It's not the price; mostly SIM cards and plans are cheaper when travelling than they are at home. It…

Direct to Cell is not usable LTE service. It doesn't have the bandwidth. It is effectively 2G or satellite phone, with messages, voice calls, and slow data.

I'm afraid that you haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about. Look at the recent FCC issues around interference to benchmark current bandwidth and latency.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#726

Post by financetechbro »

mmaunder wrote: post #283

Vertical integration by Starlink of the cheapest launch capability in the world (by far) is the reason there are no competitors, and there will be no competitors. The pace of innovation at SpaceX is not THE reason - it’s an additional reason that no one has a snowballs chance in hell of ever catching Starlink. I’ve seen talk of competitor satellite networks or a possible competitor emerging. Folks it’s game set and m…

There is nothing “awesome” about monopolies

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#727

Post by rafram »

71bw wrote: post #562
Gare wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are virtually no unconnected places in most of Europe yet wilderness is still dangerous. It is good that rescue services can help you if accident happens (and it can happen even to the adequatly prepared).

>There are virtually no unconnected places in most of Europe yet wilderness is still dangerous. eg. 50.30819551805026, 16.50959758078629

Why that example? It doesn't look very remote to me.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#728

Post by yencabulator »

coliveira wrote: post #299
nehal3m wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, but given Elons current position there is basically no chance that’s going to happen in the next four years.

The future of the US: 90% of cars will be Tesla (other carmakers will go bankrupt), internet access and space exploration will be monopolized as well.

Attempting to make Ford disappear would be a political suicide.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#729

Post by positr0n »

aabhay wrote: post #424

Whats the latency lmao

Really good. It’s faster to send a packet from NYC to London via starlink than fiber because the speed of light in air/vacuum is c and the speed of light in fiber is roughly 2/3 c.

Even just going straight up and back down to a ground station within the same cell adds minimal latency.

350 miles * 2 / speed of light = 4ms

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#730

Post by griomnib »

southernplaces7 wrote: post #713
dotancohen wrote: post #698

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump is not a native either, his family is German and Scottish (just checked). So far as I know a native has never held the presidency in the US.

What silly political posturing. Native-born is the specific reference, and a perfectly valid one. By your logic, if the current descendants of people who have been here for many centuries by now aren't natives, than vast parts of the world's population are also not natives of the places where their families have lived for centuries. Why not go further and say that the "natives" also aren't natives since they also mig…

People were here, and Europeans showed up and killed nearly all of them, claimed all the land as their “manifest destiny”, and proceeded to subject the few original inhabitants they didn’t kill to lives of desperation.

Call that whatever you want.

Post reply on HN