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

Starlink Defies Order to Block X in Brazil

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–207 of 207 posts

Re: Starlink Defies Order to Block X in Brazil

#201

Post by mrmlz »

orwin wrote: post #183
mrmlz wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

? Why would it be suppressed for 99%? Yeah its harder to censor people out in the open. FB and Zuck hid it - but i believe he recently said he regretted doing that. I dont see how hiding your motivation and allowing free speech is in fact anti-free-speech. Why do you see it as an attack? You are arguing that brazil has the right to limit free speech and that Elon should comply and censor his platform. That is what th…

It's suppressed for everyone who don't have Starlink or the mean/knowledge to pay for a VPN on their phone. Only fighting against account deletion when the demand is above-board like in Brazil, and secretly comply when it's hide and you only see side-effect like in Turkey is indeed anti-transparency, as you are announcing to the world: 'Text me and I'll do it, but not in the open'. Yeah, obviously it isn't a personal…

Reading this comment compared to your first - I'm having even more trouble understanding what you are really on about.

The first comment you initially agreed with the move then later lamenting on how the rich/elites can ignore what other countries decide, them being "above the law".

Musk is in this case _not_ complying with censorship in Brazil - correct? Musk has most likely complied with censorship in other countries - correct?

You initially agreed with him? Then going on a triade that he is childish and that his move will block communication for 99% of the people of brazil (this part I didn't understand until you clarified in your last comment). This is what i commented on in my first reply - that the action you where OK with but then he is childish i.e. FORM and probably his personality. So unless I misinterpreted you - then yes, I think that is a worthless attitude to have which derails society.

"If an individual thought himself above the law, or will of the people in DDR, I would have been on the wall. My father still has a part of it btw." - Well right, so you agree with censorship as long as the majority supports it or something like that. I don't on a fundamental level and i absolutely do not agree with you at all. But if those are you opinions then i don't understand why you'd see it as an attack when someone points out what you seem to believe/argue?

Because i absolutely attack/challenge your opinions which i do not agree with. With the caveat that i've misinterpreted what you are actually saying.

Re: Starlink Defies Order to Block X in Brazil

#202

Post by inemesitaffia »

greesil wrote: post #199
inemesitaffia wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll ask you an easy question. There's another LEO provider with around the number of sats you recommend. What's the provider and how much do they charge for fixed use in the USA? I worked at a cellular Telco serving customers with an ARPU under $20. Also worked at a satellite tech reseller. These unreachable poor people were my bread and butter. Your statements show ignorance about the markets, space and other minut…

It's not about existing competitors, it's about the optimal constellation design that (a) serves the customers needs and (b) doesn't create a hazardous LEO environment after one accident or ASAT event happens. I don't think anyone's seriously tried to serve the market that Starlink does at LEO. Iridium and Globalstar targeted low bit rate low power terminals, they never tried for home internet. This market could be s…

I don't know about constellation size issues wrt to customer needs. But I presume one important factor was making sure the terminal costs were lower than a mid-range phone. Especially since Kuiper claims to be focused on that. It was an issue with Teledesic. Cheap sats also mean treating them like cattle rather than pets and that the on orbit spares are one orbit away from replacement

Lasers mean low bandwidth usage areas don't need ground stations.

Being in VLEO means most talk about Kessler is just regurgitated claims by people who don't haven't bothered to read his papers and don't know the time taken to clear orbits by debris. Some of them don't even realize that if you change the apogee via collision the perigee changes too.

I don't know if it's possible to serve with the same number at this altitude, but I can see even Kuiper is going for over 5k sats and OneWeb is selling antennas for 9k (down from 25k) and monthly service for fixed users in the US is 2500/m. I remember congestion issues with less sats (I wonder why they use nco=1 when Kuiper is 4)

As for the risk, people are already claiming the (dubious) success was already self evidently inevitable even when we can't see evidence of profits and that Elon's done nothing special.

Not even the struggles of Iris², Rivada, OneWeb, Kuiper, and pretty much every launch provider will convince them though.

I'm looking forward to what competitors bring and I'm willing to bet I won't be able to buy a terminal for less than $0.5k (unsubsidized) and service for less than $50/m in Africa from another provider before 2028 (Artemis). But I'm hopeful I'm wrong. I was paying ~$250/m for 4G. Now lower via devaluation but Starlink is $23/m here

Re: Starlink Defies Order to Block X in Brazil

#203

Post by aguaviva »

edanm wrote: post #98
mcosta wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> In Israel, the People decided democratically (through their elected representatives) against some kinds of so-called "free speech" (for example: Palestine existence) This is both completely untrue, and has nothing to do with this post.

Approved by the Knesset on May 24, 2009 by a vote of 37-25, with 60 abstaining:

"Fundamentals of Finance – Amendment No. 40", sometimes referred to as the Nakba Law, is a 2011 Israeli law which received criticism for limiting freedom of speech pertaining to the founding of Israel and the Nakba. The law affects organizations which are funded, in whole or in part, by the government.[1]

The law authorizes the Minister of Finance to withhold a limited amount of state funds from any government-funded[1] institution or body that commemorates "Israel's Independence Day or the day on which the state was established as a day of mourning", or that denies the existence of Israel as a "Jewish and democratic state."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba_Law

Re: Starlink Defies Order to Block X in Brazil

#204

Post by greesil »

inemesitaffia wrote: post #202
greesil wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about existing competitors, it's about the optimal constellation design that (a) serves the customers needs and (b) doesn't create a hazardous LEO environment after one accident or ASAT event happens. I don't think anyone's seriously tried to serve the market that Starlink does at LEO. Iridium and Globalstar targeted low bit rate low power terminals, they never tried for home internet. This market could be s…

I don't know about constellation size issues wrt to customer needs. But I presume one important factor was making sure the terminal costs were lower than a mid-range phone. Especially since Kuiper claims to be focused on that. It was an issue with Teledesic. Cheap sats also mean treating them like cattle rather than pets and that the on orbit spares are one orbit away from replacement Lasers mean low bandwidth usage…

I'm haven't gone deep into Kessler syndrome but the guy himself thought we were already at a tipping point more than a decade ago. In hindsight I think the model needed updating, but adding tens of thousands of new satellites seems like pushing our luck. Maybe SpaceX sees this as an advantage. When you've got the least expensive launch system, you can afford to launch armored satellites and launch vehicles.

Geez I forgot about Kuiper. Good god what are they doing.

If you're concerned about terminal cost, the whole point of ATC is that someone puts up a cell tower with a LEO satellite backbone, and people can use cheapo $20 mobile phones.

Anyway, developed countries' rural broadband and military contracts are where it's at. I'm sure Starlink -could- make a profit if it isn't doing so already.

Re: Starlink Defies Order to Block X in Brazil

#205

Post by inemesitaffia »

greesil wrote: post #204
inemesitaffia wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know about constellation size issues wrt to customer needs. But I presume one important factor was making sure the terminal costs were lower than a mid-range phone. Especially since Kuiper claims to be focused on that. It was an issue with Teledesic. Cheap sats also mean treating them like cattle rather than pets and that the on orbit spares are one orbit away from replacement Lasers mean low bandwidth usage…

I'm haven't gone deep into Kessler syndrome but the guy himself thought we were already at a tipping point more than a decade ago. In hindsight I think the model needed updating, but adding tens of thousands of new satellites seems like pushing our luck. Maybe SpaceX sees this as an advantage. When you've got the least expensive launch system, you can afford to launch armored satellites and launch vehicles. Geez I fo…

AMN is doing this with starlink replacing 2g and hughes with 4g and spacex

Re: Starlink Defies Order to Block X in Brazil

#206

Post by greesil »

inemesitaffia wrote: post #205
greesil wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm haven't gone deep into Kessler syndrome but the guy himself thought we were already at a tipping point more than a decade ago. In hindsight I think the model needed updating, but adding tens of thousands of new satellites seems like pushing our luck. Maybe SpaceX sees this as an advantage. When you've got the least expensive launch system, you can afford to launch armored satellites and launch vehicles. Geez I fo…

AMN is doing this with starlink replacing 2g and hughes with 4g and spacex

I predict strong growth for them

Re: Starlink Defies Order to Block X in Brazil

#207

Post by 3cats-in-a-coat »

ldbooth wrote: post #191
3cats-in-a-coat wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Drama is the only way for him to continue covering up the massive Ponzi that his businesses have evolved into. Tesla won't last much longer. Their numbers are objectively terrible, and they're puffed up, the truth is even uglier. Boring is losing money fast, X is losing money fast, xAI is losing money fast, NeuraLink is losing a bit slower, but losing. SpaceX is propped up by US govt and Starlink is the only real ass…

I will say on the positive side ... Starlink/SpaceX is a huge asset. And the Tesla Energy Megapack has a huge forward market opportunity (utility grids are just getting started with battery energy storage for smoothing out renewables). And the Tesla charging products are the gold standard.

Li-ion batteries will quickly show themselves a terrible way to smooth out renewables. I mean purely economically. Initial cost, unreliable range in hot or cold weather, and over time.

Although considering they needed helicopters dropping 50 tons of water over ONE BURNING TESLA SEMI for like a full day, imagine when a megapack catches on fire. Oh my God, it will scorch the skies of the entire f*kin' planet. I'm kidding (I hope), but you get my point.

Yes SpaceX is the key asset 100%. But he can be kicked out of SpaceX if he keeps upsetting Some Important People, and he's a deeply unserious man-child, and he doesn't know when to stop.

Post reply on HN