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

411–420 of 831 posts

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#411

Post by sd8f9iu »

fasteddie31003 wrote: post #337
0xbadcafebee wrote: post #213

[flagged]

First, I'd recommend you understand the etymology of the word Nazi. The Nazi acronym is NSDAP, which stands for Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, or the National Socialist German Workers' Party. Elon is far from a socialist just the opposite IMO. If you don't like him stop being lazy and ignorant and better describe why you don't like him. I'm sick of lazy rhetoric like this.

The Nazi party was not socialist, it was just in the name. The Nazi party had a leftist socialist wing, which was expunged on the Night of Long Knives. Hitler himself generally stayed above such economic debates, and instead promised a sort of hazy race-based utopia that had elements of capitalism and socialism. Once the Nazis came to power, they did not try to seize private ownership of the means of production, but rather made corrupt deals with corporate powers (ironically not too dissimilar from Musk's current trajectory). When they did enact surface-level socialist programs such as consolidating labor unions into the Deutsches Arbeitsfront (DAF), it was done with incredible corruption that generally ended up suppressing labor and supporting management. As is common with extreme-right parties, Hitler basically used socialist rhetoric for its popular appeal, promising all of its advantages without the drawbacks (and similarly with capitalism). Once in power though, he did not enact socialist policies. I would not trust political entities based on their name, no more than I would trust the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to be democratic.

Musk does not have any incentive to help you and me, he has an incentive to use the government apparatuses to further his businesses. He is a good businessman who has made two very valuable companies; this does not mean he will use the government responsibly, e.g. by ensuring fair competition. As a simple example, after having relied on it for years, he is now trying to eliminate the EV tax credit because it will harm his competitors more than him [1]. This kind of regulatory capture is not good, and we should not cede government power to him or people with conflicts of interest like him.

[1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tesla-elon-musk-donald-trump-ev...

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#412

Post by okdood64 »

rafram wrote: post #69
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).

Definitely. But when Apple released their Satellite SOS feature, I expected that to remain the cutting edge for a while, and for all devices to eventually gain very limited satellite emergency call capabilities. Instead, it seems like we’re going straight from most devices having zero connectivity in the (US) wilderness to all devices having connectivity everywhere in the world, as soon as next year. That’s a lot of…

Sounds like the future. And a good one at that. The pros far outweigh the cons. If someone can't disconnect purposefully to be with nature, then that's on them.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#413

Post by panick21_ »

threeseed wrote: post #178
unsnap_biceps wrote: post #41

I really wonder if anyone is going to be able to catch up to SpaceX anytime soon. Kuiper seems dead in the water, the legacy operators seem unwilling to expand into LEO constellations.

Honestly not sure why they would want to. The world is continually moving towards being centred around cities where it makes sense to simply rollout fibre. Especially with gigabit speeds being the new standard. And even in Australia they are starting to move remote areas onto fibre.

Are the also rolling out fibre to ships and planes?

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#414

Post by okdood64 »

spacebanana7 wrote: post #233
rafram wrote: post #37

I feel so, so mixed about this. It’s going to be unambiguously good for wilderness rescue and disaster response. But I like camping and hiking in remote areas in order to remove myself from the world. And I think the lack of connectivity discourages unprepared people from taking on more than they can handle in the wilderness. If the wilderness becomes fully connected, will it spoil that feeling? Will it lead to the l…

There’s something of a parallel with the last hikers who walked in unmapped territory. We may be the last hikers to walk in unconnected territory.

Satellite phone and communicator devices have been around forever.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#415

Post by 7e »

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 none of that, it's the willingness of Starlink to run at a massive loss.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#416

Post by sd8f9iu »

omeid2 wrote: post #391
sd8f9iu wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are countless examples of Musk selectively banning people on Twitter based on political belief, such as this one [1]. And of course, he banned the @elonjet account, even after specifically saying he would not [2]. More specifically to StarLink, he banned Ukrainian forces from using them around Crimea [3]. [1] https://variety.com/2022/digital/news/twitter-suspends-journ... [2] https://x.com/elonmusk/status/15894…

[flagged]

I don't want private businessmen making decisions like that.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#417

Post by mikea1 »

cmdli wrote: post #365
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…

If you are right and Starlink will have no competition, then why would it not be regulated? Generally speaking, monopolies are regulated to prevent price gouging, including natural monopolies. And if its not a monopoly, then clearly the game is not over.

In the market for internet service, Starlink is a disruptor to existing ISPs. Especially for those servicing rural areas. I don't understand a reflexive reach to encumber a nascent business model with additional regulations. What problem are you trying to solve?

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#418

Post by panick21_ »

hedora wrote: post #323
shepherdjerred wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

Funny how people on twitter claim 'treason' but somehow the DoD disagrees. Who should we trust with this one I wonder.

The story as popularly told was simply inaccurate. I suggest you do some more research.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#419

Post by ryandrake »

nordsieck wrote: post #392
nrmitchi wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the past this at-cost dealing would have been considered monopolistic enough to force divestment (ie, almost exactly the same as Boeing and United Airlines divestment due to the Air Mail Act). > Air Mail Act of 1934: > This legislation prohibited the common ownership of airlines and aircraft manufacturers to prevent conflicts of interest and promote fair competition in the aviation industry.

> In the past this at-cost dealing would have been considered monopolistic enough to force divestment I guess we'll see what happens. As with most things monopoly related, the critical fight is over how to appropriately define the market. Presumably SpaceX would argue that Starlink is an ISP and that it just happens to use satellites to deliver its service. And if that doesn't work, then it's a satellite internet pro…

For obvious reasons I think it's pretty safe to say we can count on at least the next four years of zero regulation or government scrutiny of any company Musk is involved in, monopoly-related or otherwise.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#420

Post by car »

I heard that Google's project Loon was having issues with LTE time outs due to the distance of the balloons LTE antenna from the ground. How does this square with the much larger distance of LEO satellites?
Post reply on HN