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

321–330 of 831 posts

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#321

Post by schiffern »

modeless wrote: post #297
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…

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…

  >We can only hope competitors are half as responsible as SpaceX... about space debris.. and satellite [visibility]
Thank you. For those unaware, one of the SpaceX engineers gave a talk to professional astronomers on this topic.

https://youtu.be/MNc5yCYth5E?t=1717

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#322

Post by nehal3m »

ssl-3 wrote: post #311
nehal3m wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you Elon? Also monopolies are never awesome.

Must a monopoly always be bad? For example: Mitutoyo seems to have a monopoly on producing accurate digital calipers that have battery life measured in years (using one dainty little LR44 alkaline cell). They use approximately fuck-all for power whether switched on or off. Certainly, the market is open for others to produce an actually-competitive product with similar performance. All it takes is for the competition…

Yeah I should think so. edit: I don’t use this category of tools so for the sake of argument I will assume your assertion on Mitutoyo’s monopoly is accurate.

Without serious competitors, Mitutoyo has little reason to push the boundaries of performance or reduce costs further. Monopolies can result in complacency, where companies become gatekeepers rather than innovators.

In this case Mitutoyo may have a fine product but the monopoly introduces a systemic risk of lack of innovation or price gouging.

You’re assuming the market has chosen rationally but economic conditions, patent legacies, and lack of competition might simply be symptoms of market failure rather than optimal outcomes.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#323

Post by hedora »

shepherdjerred wrote: post #230
0xbadcafebee wrote: post #213

[flagged]

Can you elaborate on Musk being a nazi, or is that just hyperbole?

Nazi might be a bit much, but he’s pretty clearly guilty of treason.

He blocked a US funded military strike that would have sunk Russia’s navy a while back.

(The definition of treason in the US is extremely clear, and he obviously crossed the line.)

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#324

Post by serf »

ssl-3 wrote: post #311
nehal3m wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you Elon? Also monopolies are never awesome.

Must a monopoly always be bad? For example: Mitutoyo seems to have a monopoly on producing accurate digital calipers that have battery life measured in years (using one dainty little LR44 alkaline cell). They use approximately fuck-all for power whether switched on or off. Certainly, the market is open for others to produce an actually-competitive product with similar performance. All it takes is for the competition…

>For example: Mitutoyo seems to have a monopoly on producing accurate digital calipers that have battery life measured in years (using one dainty little LR44 alkaline cell). They use approximately fuck-all for power whether switched on or off.

metrology is vast. I am a fan of Mitutoyo too, but this is a poor example of a monopoly.

I have literally 3 different brands , including Mitutoyo, on my desk, and the Mitutoyo unit offers the worst value-to-dollar ratio and it's the hardest to read at a glance; it's only there because it's the coolant-proof unit I have on hand at the moment.

i'd gladly give up a bit of battery life for a backlight and some bigger character display; thankfully the market responded by offering this from about numerous other manufacturers..

>So here we are today, wherein: The free market has decided that Mitutoyo has a defacto monopoly on tools of this capability.

well, no.

Mitutoyo is great, but American shops, especially any DoD affiliated ones, push American made Starett like crazy. All of my less-discerning maker friends use Amazon/Harbor Freight/Chicago no-name Alibaba glass scale calipers and they're perfectly happy with them. My German friends often use Vogel/Hoffman/Mahr.

But anyway, whatever. I love my Mitus, and I even have a pair of their very first electronic scale calipers in a drawer somewhere ; the battery life was great even then.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#325

Post by jazzyjackson »

bilsbie wrote: post #193
Retric wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not going to work inside buildings, and they would need to charge you a fairly astronomical fee per minute. However, a Starlink mini dish can let you cheaply make calls from basically anywhere with some minor setup.

Could future versions work in buildings? What’s the issue there? Just that it’s father away than a cell tower is?

Whether a material is opaque to it. Buildings are transparent to lower frequency radio. Imagine that the satellites transmitted in visible light, doesnt really matter how powerful it is if you're in a room with no windows.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#326

Post by hcurtiss »

nikkwong wrote: post #308
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…

My family had starlink installed at a remote house we own for internet access. While we could get it up and running, the connection wasn't reliable and we encountered many issues. When we tried to contact Starlink for help, support was non-existent; sent us to multiple dead ends, and often wasted our times with repairs promised weeks into the future, over and over, which never surfaced. After 8 months of pain, we end…

Where was this? Members of my family have three different remote cabins surrounded by trees in Montana, Idaho, and Oregon, and all work perfectly. The early days were a little more glitchy, but with the constellation they have today, you don’t even need to aim.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#327

Post by iml7 »

mmaunder wrote: post #300
nehal3m wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you Elon? Also monopolies are never awesome.

Perhaps you’re not aware that SpaceX sued the US government to break ULAs monopoly on national security launches and brought down costs. And perhaps you’re unaware just how many national telcos world wide have a national monopoly and for the first time ever may have to compete with Starlink? Perhaps you’re also unaware of the grip that Russian rocket engine manufacturers had with the RD180 engine on the US launch sec…

[flagged]

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#328

Post by hedora »

travisjungroth wrote: post #39
kylebenzle wrote: post #2

So they now offer direct cellular coverage whereas before only offered internet? This is great for regions that need to be connected and the power elites, but for the rest of us it wouldn't change much. I disagree with almost all of Elon's "politics" but Starlink still has huge potential. Hopefully, he doesn’t abuse the power too much and focuses on making the world more connected, in the hands of the us government a…

> This is great for regions that need to be connected That's at least a billion people. I don't know what the intersection of that with the affordability is, though. I'm writing this from an Ayahuasca center in rural Peru connected with Starlink. Before, internet was a ten minute drive into town away. We're now connected when at one side of the center. It would be nice to have it all the way into the jungle. And when…

I’m writing this from starlink ten minutes from Silicon Valley.

Until recently, most of what you wrote applied to us too (our previous options were 128kbit theoretical dsl, 1 sec latency, or extremely flaky cellular).

Now that a double digit percentage of people on our street have starlink, the phone company finally ran fiber to the home.

Being able to make emergency calls from the many dead spots around here would be nice.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#329

Post by hcurtiss »

dyauspitr wrote: post #315
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…

It’s awesome but also worrying. Elon is a political timebomb. I wouldn’t put it past him to selectively deny people usage based on political alignment, sex etc. At least for now there are much worse geosynchronous competitors, but some future state where one doesn’t exist is worrying.

Wouldn’t put it past him? Can you offer even a single example?

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#330

Post by nehal3m »

mmaunder wrote: post #300
nehal3m wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you Elon? Also monopolies are never awesome.

Perhaps you’re not aware that SpaceX sued the US government to break ULAs monopoly on national security launches and brought down costs. And perhaps you’re unaware just how many national telcos world wide have a national monopoly and for the first time ever may have to compete with Starlink? Perhaps you’re also unaware of the grip that Russian rocket engine manufacturers had with the RD180 engine on the US launch sec…

On the one hand you’re arguing that SpaceX is awesome for breaking monopolies. On the other you’re saying it’s awesome that “it’s over” and they own the market now.

Perhaps you missed the irony.

Post reply on HN