61–70 of 72 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not every backpack is used for backpacking! I use mine largely for the not-so-exciting trek to the office :)
The point was the use case is better for people who are not traveling by foot
In fact, they almost don't do any marketing at all, and they probably don't need to, given how far ahead their service is at this point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not quite true with medicine. If US customers couldn't pay this, as in the insurance companies and or Medicare, then cost might come down but also research and development would effectively halt or other countries would stop getting lower priced drugs. United States pharmaceutical industries subsidize the world healthcare market for drugs. And you're up there's two things at play the government is subsidizing…
US drug prices mostly subsidize US drug advertising. The impact of high drug prices on R&D spending after you take this into account is fairly limited.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Compared to being in LTE coverage and only needing a smartphone with 2-3W power draw (around 10% of the Starlink Mini).
What makes you think you need satellite communications when there's (working) LTE? Obviously that's not the use case, just like you don't need fixed Starlink when there's (working) gigabit fiber available.
From an individual perspective, if you want Internet access and don't have to be in a specific place, the current alternative to Starlink is to simply limit your wilderness living to places with or near areas of cell phone coverage (which potentially results in tradeoffs, of course).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Compared to what? Even remotely comparable solutions drawing less power either cost something like $5-10 per megabyte (Inmarsat L-band, i.e. BGAN, Iridium Certus) or require even more power (Inmarsat Ka-band) and still cost something like 50 cent per megabyte! Monthly plans start at several hundred dollars, and terminals start in the low 4 to medium 5 digit ranges. If you can live without Internet when backpacking, e…
I don't think any of those are remotely common for recreational backpack hikers. Garmin inreach maybe, because it covers the two essentials this group actually wants of "check in with family" and "call for help." It would really surprise me if backpackers switch to this en masse, or if having it enabled anyone to start backpacking who currently can't because of this need being unmet. It'll probably get used on boats,…
- Car campers, vanlifers or people living in a place permanently, which can just use the heavy Starlink version or go where there is LTE coverage
- Thru-hikers who hike every waking hour and want to be as light as possible and for which this system isn't even remotely light enough
- Casual weekend hikers for which it's going to be too expensive and also unnecessary since they'll have Internet access on Monday again.
It's only really a consideration for those who regularly go on multiweek trips or live long-term in the wilderness and move camp on a weekly/monthly frequency (rather than daily or never), and these people seem to be relatively rare.
So basically, you can carry: - FlexSolar 40W panel: 1.35kg - Nitecore NB20000 ~75Wh battery: 300g - Starlink Mini: 1.1kg - Smartphone: 250g For 3kg you have something that should give 2-3 hours of Internet usage on an average EU/USA good weather day (assuming 20% solar panel for 10 hours = 80Wh/day, 25-35W power usage of Starlink Mini + smartphone). For each extra 1.65kg you get an additional 2-3 hours, resulting in…
> Not bad, but not good either It is insanely good. Out of this world. A few years ago I spent 3 years driving around Africa and looked into satellite internet options from all the existing providers. Any plan that offered anything remotely close to 1GB per month was 5x the cost of the entire 3 year expedition. This WILL change the world.
So basically, you can carry: - FlexSolar 40W panel: 1.35kg - Nitecore NB20000 ~75Wh battery: 300g - Starlink Mini: 1.1kg - Smartphone: 250g For 3kg you have something that should give 2-3 hours of Internet usage on an average EU/USA good weather day (assuming 20% solar panel for 10 hours = 80Wh/day, 25-35W power usage of Starlink Mini + smartphone). For each extra 1.65kg you get an additional 2-3 hours, resulting in…
The 630g Anker 737 PowerCore 24K might be a good option, and also the 765g HyperJuice 245W.
So this adds 0.3-0.45kg to the estimate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Not bad, but not good either It is insanely good. Out of this world. A few years ago I spent 3 years driving around Africa and looked into satellite internet options from all the existing providers. Any plan that offered anything remotely close to 1GB per month was 5x the cost of the entire 3 year expedition. This WILL change the world.
But if you are driving (and thus can haul unlimited weight including huge solar panels, batteries and inverters) it seems like the existing Starlink dish would be fine, and this looks like might be worse since it doesn't have automatic orientation.
What I'm saying is Starlink in general is a complete world-changer compared to just 5 years ago.
This mini just continues that trend.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What makes you think you need satellite communications when there's (working) LTE? Obviously that's not the use case, just like you don't need fixed Starlink when there's (working) gigabit fiber available.
I mean ideally (for Internet access purposes) one would have worldwide LTE coverage via cell towers and just use smartphones; the Starlink system is an alternative to that, so it makes sense to compare it. From an individual perspective, if you want Internet access and don't have to be in a specific place, the current alternative to Starlink is to simply limit your wilderness living to places with or near areas of ce…
As someone that has explored a lot of Australia, Alaska, Yukon, Africa and South America, I'm having trouble parsing your statement.
I've driven more than 1,000 miles for 10 days with absolutely nothing. No town. No people. No cars. Nothing.
I've canoed for 15 days well over 3,000 miles from the nearest town, road, building or electricity.
The idea you could cover the globe in LTE cell towers is unfathomable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean ideally (for Internet access purposes) one would have worldwide LTE coverage via cell towers and just use smartphones; the Starlink system is an alternative to that, so it makes sense to compare it. From an individual perspective, if you want Internet access and don't have to be in a specific place, the current alternative to Starlink is to simply limit your wilderness living to places with or near areas of ce…
> I mean ideally (for Internet access purposes) one would have worldwide LTE coverage via cell towers As someone that has explored a lot of Australia, Alaska, Yukon, Africa and South America, I'm having trouble parsing your statement. I've driven more than 1,000 miles for 10 days with absolutely nothing. No town. No people. No cars. Nothing. I've canoed for 15 days well over 3,000 miles from the nearest town, road, b…
The remaining 70% are ocean, and people sometimes go there too! Some densely traveled oceans actually do have LTE coverage, e.g. parts of the north sea, since it has existing infrastructure in the form of wind parks that make adding a base station fairly easy, but that's the absolute exception, globally.
A single direct-to-cell satellite can cover a circular area measured in hundreds or thousands of kilometers. Due to the Earth's curvature, that's simply not feasible using terrestrial base stations.