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

681–690 of 831 posts

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#681

Post by whywhywhywhy »

nikkwong wrote: post #340
hcurtiss wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

2023 in the Pacific Northwest. We were given the argument that tree cover was a problem quite early on in our attempted troubleshooting. The house is a waterfront property, with a clear view of sky to the east. Anyways, the suspected issue continued to evolve, and we were not able to get to the bottom of it with the support we received. Certainly, our experience could be an anomalous. But I certainly hear this happen…

Did you try a different wifi hotspot, convinced the one they ship with it sucks from my experience with it. Couldn't handle a connection maybe 8 meters away and one floor up, no walls.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#682

Post by mrweasel »

charliebwrites wrote: post #6

I wish I could pay Starlink directly and have global satellite based LTE instead of having to go through a specific carrier and be limited by other carriers’ reciprocity to specific countries and bands One space based cell plan for the whole world

Others have already touched on the technical and regulatory issues, but also think of pricing. Would they price is like the US carriers do, or would they price it like a Scandinavian carrier?

If they want customers all over the world, they'd need to match the cheapest offering, as it's hard to argue that the service for some reason is more expensive in the US. I tried finding the price for a US cell phone plan, I can't actually do it. AT&T is impossible to navigate and always seems to bundle a phone. Mint Mobile tries to push 3, 6 or 12 months, which isn't even legal and the plans still come in at $40 for what is a $25 plan here in Denmark (with no additional fees).

If Starlink launched a world view subscription, at competitive prices they'd immediately crash the US cell service market.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#683

Post by egorfine »

charliebwrites wrote: post #6

I wish I could pay Starlink directly and have global satellite based LTE instead of having to go through a specific carrier and be limited by other carriers’ reciprocity to specific countries and bands One space based cell plan for the whole world

> One space based cell plan for the whole world

And then one day: one censorship for the whole world.

No, thank you. The availability of different providers in different jurisdictions is crucial for thwarting world to function. I speak as a person from a country with government censorship implemented.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#685

Post by rplnt »

rdm_blackhole wrote: post #587
palotasb wrote: post #532

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_(satellite_navigation) panned out and that's a closer analogue.

It took roughly 20 years for the EU to deploy 30 satellites. How long do you think it's going to take to deploy 300 or so of them when the Ariane 6 had only one launch (with a partial failure) in the last 14 years? If you want to build a constellation, you need the means to send payloads in space at a relatively low cost. The EU can't do that so it will be an expensive and slow endeavor and by the time those 300 sate…

I agree with your overall point, but that's a super deceptive metric to use. First Ariane 6 was scheduled for 2020 and only the first one ever launched.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#686

Post by leovingi »

LightBug1 wrote: post #622
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…

Odd. You seem to be overjoyed at the possible birth of a monopoly situation? I think your emotions and tribal instinct would be better served towards something more benign, like football or baseball ... Lest your voting intentions become equally malignant.

A more charitable interpretation would obviously be that the OP is very happy with the products and services that these companies build and provide and if the alternative is between this never happening and the companies becoming monopolies, at least in the short-term, they are OK with it.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#687

Post by nurumaik »

mrweasel wrote: post #682
charliebwrites wrote: post #6

I wish I could pay Starlink directly and have global satellite based LTE instead of having to go through a specific carrier and be limited by other carriers’ reciprocity to specific countries and bands One space based cell plan for the whole world

Others have already touched on the technical and regulatory issues, but also think of pricing. Would they price is like the US carriers do, or would they price it like a Scandinavian carrier? If they want customers all over the world, they'd need to match the cheapest offering, as it's hard to argue that the service for some reason is more expensive in the US. I tried finding the price for a US cell phone plan, I can…

For travellers, they only need to match other global esims, which are quite expensive

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#688

Post by spaintech »

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 achieved through “innovation” and “without government interference,” can drive significant technological advancements and economic growth.

Applying this to Starlink, its emergence as a leading provider in satellite-based mobile connectivity could be seen as a result of substantial innovation and investment. Such a position enables the company to offer services that were previously unavailable or limited, particularly in underserved regions. Considering Milei’s argument suggests that in the absence of government-imposed barriers, a monopoly like Starlink’s can maintain competitive pricing to deter potential competitors, ensuring consumers benefit from both advanced technology and reasonable costs.

Milei emphasizes that market failures are often the result of state intervention rather than the natural outcome of market dynamics. In the case of Starlink, minimal regulatory interference could allow the company to operate efficiently, maintaining an environment where innovation thrives, and consumers receive enhanced services. Its the potential drive of the market (competitors) and innovation to keeps them in check with pricing and perceived consumer value. [2] [3]

[1] https://www.hoover.org/news/market-ourselves-argentine-presi...

[2] https://www.weforum.org/stories/2024/01/special-address-by-j...

[3] https://lexfridman.com/javier-milei-transcript/

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#689

Post by greenie_beans »

nordsieck wrote: post #34
jebarker wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Initially I thought the same re: hiking, skiing etc. The only issue I see is that cellphone battery life is terrible compared to inReach like devices. Not sure I'd want to depend on it for longer than a few hours.

> The only issue I see is that cellphone battery life is terrible compared to inReach like devices. Not sure I'd want to depend on it for longer than a few hours. I think it depends on the application you're using it for. If you're constantly using the gps - yeah, I'd definitely agree with you. But if you're using it purely for emergency communication, you can just turn off the cell phone, and it should be fine. It's…

ah yes, let me just trust a glass screen with a cold sensitive battery during an emergency
Post reply on HN