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

731–740 of 831 posts

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#731

Post by leshow »

spaintech wrote: post #688

If we consider President Javier Milei’s perspectives on monopolies, as articulated in his address at the World Economic Forum [1], we can apply his reasoning to the case of Starlink’s potential dominance in direct-to-phone satellite connectivity. In his statements, Milei challenges the traditional view that monopolies inherently lead to market inefficiencies. Instead, he assumes that monopolistic positions, when achi…

What a warped world view. Libertarianism today just means supporting massive concentrations of private power, I guess.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#732

Post by numpad0 »

chrisco255 wrote: post #273
numpad0 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the fact that they haven't may be kind of indicative. Last I searched it had supported maximum local device density of just handful in miles.

That can't be true. I've stayed in campgrounds with dozens of Starlink dishes deployed.

Max density for dishes and phones are obviously different

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#733

Post by starik36 »

verzali wrote: post #568
starik36 wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure if they are dead in the water or not. However, they have until July 30, 2026 to deploy half of their fleet or they lose the FCC granted frequencies. The fleet is 3232 satellites. So far they launched 2 test satellites. They contracted most of the launches to either new rockets or ones in development, like New Glenn, Ariane 6, ULA Vulcan. They actually had to contract three Falcon 9 launches to help out with…

The FCC will be lenient, they have no reason not to be unless Musk is leaning on them.

I doubt that very much. Gwynne Shotwell stated multiple times that they will work with whoever. In addition, SpaceX is already contracted for 3 launches of Kuiper.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#734

Post by dotancohen »

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…

  > By your logic, if the current descendants of people who have been here for many centuries by now aren't native.
It's not my logic. The term Native American has an agreed, standard meaning. Trump's family does not meet that meaning. My comment was not an attack on your political views.

Are you suggesting that being born in a place makes one native? I'll accept that definition. Now go convince the rest of the world to update their definition of Native American.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#735

Post by starik36 »

JayPalm wrote: post #569
starik36 wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure if they are dead in the water or not. However, they have until July 30, 2026 to deploy half of their fleet or they lose the FCC granted frequencies. The fleet is 3232 satellites. So far they launched 2 test satellites. They contracted most of the launches to either new rockets or ones in development, like New Glenn, Ariane 6, ULA Vulcan. They actually had to contract three Falcon 9 launches to help out with…

The quick maths indicates that to achieve this, they’d have to launch 22.5 satellites per week every week for the next 18 months until that deadline. SpaceX seems to be launching at nearly twice that rate, having launched [1565 satellites]( https://spaceflightnow.com/2024/10/30/live-coverage-spacex-t... .) in the first 10 months of this year.

Keep in mind that Kuiper satellite is 600kg, while Starlink is 260. So you would have to adjust the math.

I am sure it's doable if all the space providers work together and there aren't any showstoppers.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#736

Post by jonplackett »

nwienert wrote: post #647
jonplackett wrote: post #630

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree a (temporary) monopoly is totally OK. Normal in fact. But the parent comment was specifically celebrating a long term, unassailable monopoly.

If you read it uncharitably. If you read it charitably, the “it’s awesome” can be referring to how quickly they made something work that otherwise wouldn’t for many more years.

> Starlink has a constellation two orders of magnitude bigger than any competitor. It’s over. And IMO it’s awesome

I feel like you are being overly charitable. The ‘it’s awesome’ comes directly after the ‘it’s over’

But TBH I’m pretty cyclical at the best of times.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#737

Post by mullingitover »

flyinglizard wrote: post #554
griomnib wrote: post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There can only be one Main Character, and Trump doesn’t share the spotlight with anybody. Elon will fuck up and his money won’t save him from what comes after that.

Elon knows well enough to act as a supporting character. He can't run for presidency anyway given he's not a native, and no other political post would be interesting enough. There'll be no falling out.

The recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that addressed Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and declared that they're only enforceable by Congress really opens a can of worms.

It sounds to me like the 22nd Amendment and the Article II natural-born citizenship requirement are also only enforceable by Congress. If you're making your plans based on a theory that Congress is able to do the right thing, or that the Supreme Court is not a hyper-partisan institution, I would have a strong C because plans A and B are pretty questionable.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#738

Post by adastra22 »

pyrale wrote: post #718
adastra22 wrote: post #577

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by per-launch capital cost? Maintenance? The increase in value of a F9 booster after use is more than the near-negligible per-launch maintenance cost.

> The increase in value of a F9 booster after use is more than the near-negligible per-launch maintenance cost. Do we have anything proving this besides the self-serving word of a privately owned company? I'm not saying it's false, I have no idea either. But there's a lot of highly specific speculation going on here, based on no reliable source.

Yes, insurance rates for satellites launching on reused boosters go down the more flight tested the booster is.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#739

Post by valval »

latentcall wrote: post #428
infobot wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You…wouldn’t be bullish on the most successful businessman in the history of the world? Sometimes I come here for a good laugh

Elon is successful yes but why do other men feel the need to stroke him off online all the time? Strange behavior. Are you expecting a kickback?

I find your view even more perplexing. I get that it’s entirely motivated by anger and contempt, but it’s still weird that someone would get upset over the respect someone else is getting online.

I suppose it’s some deep personality trait difference that makes us right wingers appreciate his work and what makes leftists hate his guts.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#740

Post by sangnoir »

perihelions wrote: post #609
sangnoir wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All nation's governments will absolutely ensure, overtly or covertly, that their national regulators limit any space-based supra-national system from being able to threaten their national telephony and data carriers The ITU is pretty overt about how frequency allocation governance works. Absolutely no one wants a free-for-all frequency regime, for a multitude of reasons - not even SpaceX. You may recall that Huawei…

- "...without having broken any laws, due to fears of future abuse..." Well, how did those predictions of the future perform? - "The Chinese government espionage campaign that has deeply penetrated more than a dozen U.S. telecommunications companies is the “worst telecom hack in our nation’s history — by far,” a senior U.S. senator told The Washington Post in an interview this week." https://www.washingtonpost.com/na…

Thank you for further buttressing my point: granting a foreign company with military links access to your telecoms infrastructure is a bad idea, for tangible reasons. Worse if there's no local oversight.
Post reply on HN