[HN Gopher] Starlink Successfully Tests Space Direct to Cell Mob...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Starlink Successfully Tests Space Direct to Cell Mobile Service
        
       Author : bookofjoe
       Score  : 136 points
       Date   : 2024-01-13 17:40 UTC (5 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.ispreview.co.uk)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.ispreview.co.uk)
        
       | samstave wrote:
       | > _On Monday, January 8, the Starlink team successfully sent and
       | received our first text messages using T-Mobile network spectrum
       | through one of our new Direct to Cell satellites launched six
       | days prior. Connecting cell phones to satellites has several
       | major challenges to overcome._
       | 
       | FOR decades I have wanted a modern Pager - an SMS ONLY device,.
       | 
       | Before Android, there were a few devices that were headed there,
       | but the hiptop made it for a while and Danger begat Android (and
       | a $200 million dollar exit for Rubin)...
       | 
       | But you know what device is PERFECT for this:
       | 
       | HOT BUNNY 1 [0]
       | 
       | but modified to have a thin connection via starlink - if mods are
       | required.
       | 
       | [0] https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/hot-bunny-
       | aler...
        
         | toomuchtodo wrote:
         | +1, sign me up, like a Star Trek communicator with global
         | coverage
         | 
         | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communicator_(Star_Trek)
        
           | jddj wrote:
           | The future is now. Soon, in the middle of the Pacific ocean:
           | 
           |  _You 're package has been deliverred. Visit scam-post-gov-
           | us.com/package19474_
        
             | toomuchtodo wrote:
             | "We shall fight them on the beaches, we shall fight them on
             | the oceans."
        
           | tra3 wrote:
           | You already have that with inreach or Zoleo devices. Of
           | course once it's integrated into phones it'll be much more
           | convenient.
        
             | toomuchtodo wrote:
             | With the rabbit it would be like talking to the starship
             | enterprise as well.
        
               | tra3 wrote:
               | I must be getting old. Even though I grew up on TNG I
               | can't imagine talking to my computer. Maybe because Siri
               | at all have been such a disappointment.
        
               | samstave wrote:
               | "Beam Me Up Scotty" Should automatically get you home -
               | either by directions or ordering you a cab or calling
               | your emergency setting...
        
         | bonestamp2 wrote:
         | There are a bunch of people who take blackberry keyboards and
         | making LoRa texting devices. One example:
         | 
         | https://www.hackster.io/news/this-lora-messenger-is-perfect-...
         | 
         | It would be cool if they extended this to use satellites where
         | LoRa is not available.
        
       | DenisM wrote:
       | Skimming the article I couldn't find which phone models they
       | tested with. Any ideas?
        
         | samstave wrote:
         | It specifically was unspecified.
         | 
         | [This Comment Intentionally Left Blank]
        
           | tra3 wrote:
           | Why would that be?
           | 
           | > with regular unmodified Smartphones
           | 
           | Why are they being so cagey?
        
             | mlyle wrote:
             | So that when operational service is announced by their
             | partners, they have a meaningful announcement that will get
             | worthwhile press attention.
             | 
             | e.g. T-Mobile and Samsung might trot this out together (to
             | counter Apple's announcement of emergency text for help by
             | different means). It'll work better than if all the
             | keywords have already occurred in media articles; it'll
             | work _especially_ better if they were testing on weird /old
             | development phones or phones from different vendors than
             | their chosen highlighted partners.
             | 
             | Basically there's no upside in disclosing equipment, and
             | there's a lot of ways it can be unfortunate.
        
             | lxgr wrote:
             | I'm almost certain it won't be actually unmodified
             | smartphones. At least some baseband and/or anpplic layer
             | adaptation seems necessary in order to not waste all
             | bandwidth on signaling and overhead.
        
         | OatmealDome wrote:
         | Judging by the photos they posted on Twitter, looks like some
         | semi-recent iPhones (definitely not 14 Pros or 15s because of
         | the notch). [1]
         | 
         | [1] https://nitter.net/SpaceX/status/1745246204118925711
        
         | mardifoufs wrote:
         | Probably not Androids. I don't think any android supports sat
         | comm right now especially after Qualcomm abandoned it's
         | chip/radio effort so it's not included in most common SoCs.
        
           | modeless wrote:
           | The point of this service is it works with unmodified
           | existing LTE phones. "supports sat comm" is not a
           | requirement.
        
             | mardifoufs wrote:
             | Ahhh I misread the article then! And Woah ok, I genuinely
             | didn't think that would be possible without phased arrays
             | like starlink uses for its normal service. Amazing!
        
           | vinniepukh wrote:
           | Starlink's direct to cell service works with regular 4G LTE
           | radios
        
       | modeless wrote:
       | I don't know if this has been announced before: "Operators in our
       | network have access to reciprocal global access that allows their
       | users to access the service when they travel to one of our
       | partner countries." [1]
       | 
       | It sounds like once SpaceX has partnered with at least one
       | carrier in most countries then you'll be able to travel to almost
       | any point on the surface of the Earth and still have baseline
       | emergency cell texting coverage, the only requirement being a
       | decent view of the sky. This is going to save lives. I hope they
       | are also allowed to make it work in places without carriers, like
       | international waters and Antarctica.
       | 
       | [1] https://api.starlink.com/public-
       | files/DIRECT_TO_CELL_FIRST_T...
        
         | extheat wrote:
         | I assume this works like traditional cellular roaming, no? So
         | this would mean you have to be a customer of one of the service
         | providers to get reciprocated roaming capabilities abroad.
        
           | modeless wrote:
           | Yes, you would need service with one of the partners to get
           | roaming on all of them. Although on terrestrial networks in
           | the US at least 911 service is supposed to work even on
           | phones without any carrier plan. Maybe they can eventually
           | work it out so that texting emergency services works on any
           | phone anywhere globally even without service. That would be a
           | great achievement for humanity.
        
             | 14 wrote:
             | Yes it would be a fantastic achievement. I was saying in
             | another comment what is your he movie industry going to do
             | when there is no such thing as no service, a common theme
             | used in almost every scary movie?
        
               | connicpu wrote:
               | Lead roof shingles?
        
               | fullspectrumdev wrote:
               | Not even joking, a place I was renting had dead spots due
               | to this.
               | 
               | I spent ages working out why the "older" part of the
               | house had no cell coverage...
        
               | cwillu wrote:
               | Sunspots
        
               | ericcumbee wrote:
               | Dead battery
        
             | lxgr wrote:
             | I think that's only technically possible for voice 911
             | calls.
             | 
             | Texting 911 requires you to be attached to a network, which
             | in turn requires a phone plan and potentially a roaming
             | agreement. Changing this would require some deep
             | architectural changes to the 3GPP specs, or just allowing
             | anyone on but filtering out all non-911 texts.
        
               | modeless wrote:
               | Interesting. I expect that SpaceX will start supporting
               | voice calls with this system in the not too distant
               | future, so maybe that will make it work automatically.
               | Unless the telcos can get their act together before then
               | and change their standards to support text-to-911 without
               | a service agreement.
        
               | lxgr wrote:
               | That would be great, but in addition to network-side
               | changes it would definitely require changes to existing
               | baseband firmware as well - i.e. it's not happening for
               | existing phones.
        
           | joshspankit wrote:
           | If the tech is still what was announced, the satellite does
           | the heavy lifting and the cell sees it as a bog-standard cell
           | tower.
           | 
           | That means the real answer to your question doesn't have a
           | single answer since it's in the legal and contractual parts
           | of the equation.
        
         | 14 wrote:
         | I was just thinking the other day what is Hollywood going to do
         | in the future with people lost movies that simply won't be very
         | reasonable for in most movies. For example I saw one the other
         | day and they crashed a plane but people survived and they were
         | trying to hold their phones up but couldn't get a signal. Of
         | course not or there would be no plot to the show they would
         | just be rescued right away. With this new technology it will be
         | pretty unlikely anyone will get lost and not have their phone
         | which everyone carries on them. Our kids will watch movies of
         | the past and think how stupid why would they not just call for
         | help what is this no signal thing they are talking about. Much
         | like when humans went from landline only to cellular phones
         | this will be marked as another great milestone in human
         | history.
        
           | oskarkk wrote:
           | Phone can run out of battery and it can be easily destroyed
           | or lost.
        
             | Isamu wrote:
             | Phone eaten by a bear
        
               | 14 wrote:
               | That damn cocaine bear is at it again
        
             | 14 wrote:
             | Sure but critics will say that is a poor plot in all but a
             | few scenarios. Even seen here last week was the phone that
             | fell out of the jet when the door ripped off and the phone
             | was still on and in working order. So ya a movie plot could
             | say the person was kidnapped when the battery died but no
             | more lost plane crash movies or boats being lost at sea or
             | people lost in the desert. And with the recent announcement
             | of a nuclear battery the size of a watch battery that can
             | last 28,000 years I imagine if they become commercial we
             | will see those things adopted so no matter what you can
             | always signal an emergency from your phone. Sure there will
             | be some plausible movie work around but Hollywood will
             | definitely need to become creative.
        
             | nwatson wrote:
             | Your credit card expired and you didn't pay your last month
             | of service and to update your credit card details you need
             | access to your email account to confirm ID you but your
             | phone is a new replacement phone and you don't have your
             | 2FA codes for your email account.
        
               | qup wrote:
               | Almost any phone will let you make an emergency call
               | without so much as a PIN to unlock it. No active service
               | required.
        
               | BuildTheRobots wrote:
               | It should even work if there isn't a SIM card in the
               | phone, though I've only personally tested it on 2G and
               | 3G.
        
               | lxgr wrote:
               | Not everywhere anymore, unfortunately.
               | 
               | Germany recently banned SIM-less phones from making
               | emergency calls, supposedly due to widespread abuse/hoax
               | calls.
               | 
               | Here's a list of countries where it's still possible
               | (according to Apple):
               | https://www.apple.com/watchos/feature-
               | availability/#communic...
        
               | fullspectrumdev wrote:
               | You just described a couple months of my life - my phone
               | and card went missing, a lot of services were tied to a
               | Revolut account on the phone - and my 2FA/Password
               | Manager/Card became totally inaccessible so I lost access
               | entirely to huge chunks of my life (:
               | 
               | It's amazing how fragile stuff is. Now I'm super autistic
               | about paper backups of everything, having ways back in,
               | etc
        
               | Blahah wrote:
               | > Now I'm super autistic about paper backups of
               | everything, having ways back in, etc
               | 
               | I don't think autistic means what you think it means
        
           | oDot wrote:
           | I am a filmmaker, and interestingly it happened before
           | already. One example is that since cellphones became
           | widespread, it's not very realistic for a guy to run after a
           | girl in the third act of a rom com -- a call is now enough
           | 
           | This isn't bad -- it drives storytelling innovation
        
             | serf wrote:
             | >This isn't bad -- it drives storytelling innovation
             | 
             | to me it feels like it just drives filmmakers to make more
             | period pieces.
             | 
             | 'the wedding singer' comes to mind.
        
             | thaumasiotes wrote:
             | > since cellphones became widespread, it's not very
             | realistic for a guy to run after a girl in the third act of
             | a rom com -- a call is now enough
             | 
             | Seems like, if she's running away, she might not be
             | inclined to take your call either?
        
           | tuatoru wrote:
           | It's already nonsensical and has been for over a decade.
           | Planes have ELTs, emergency locator transmitters, that are
           | activated by G-force in a crash (or manually). Any sensible
           | person going somewhere remote has a PLB (personal locator
           | beacon), or at least one for each three people in a group.
        
             | lxgr wrote:
             | You're underestimating the number of people getting lost or
             | injured in not-quite-remote places that just don't get any
             | cell signal.
             | 
             | Apple spent hundreds of millions on building a service
             | catering to exactly that type of customer into their recent
             | iPhones.
        
           | paxys wrote:
           | Filmmakers still haven't come to terms with the fact that
           | everyone has a cellphone in their pocket now and most plot
           | confusion that normally drags on for 2 hours can be resolved
           | in under 30 seconds.
        
         | bonestamp2 wrote:
         | > I don't know if this has been announced before...
         | 
         | When they announced the original deal with T-Mobile, they said
         | that T-Mobile would handle the (spectrum) license for the US
         | and they're looking for a partner in other countries with the
         | appropriate spectrum licensing. US T-Mobile customers would
         | have access to this SpaceX service in any country where there
         | is a partner with the spectrum license.
         | 
         | https://www.t-mobile.com/news/un-carrier/t-mobile-takes-cove...
         | 
         | If you have an iPhone 14 or above, Apple offers similar
         | capabilities to all iPhone users in about a dozen countries (so
         | far) regardless of which mobile network you subscribe to at
         | home.
         | 
         | https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT213426
        
           | notatoad wrote:
           | >If you have an iPhone 14 or above, Apple offers similar
           | capabilities to all iPhone users in about a dozen countries
           | (so far) regardless of which mobile network you subscribe to
           | at home.
           | 
           | Apple only lets you communicate with an emergency dispatch
           | service. the T-Mobile/starlink service appears to allow
           | sending and receiving texts to any number.
        
             | dzhiurgis wrote:
             | Slight downside, but in many places you can't text 911 or
             | local equivalent
        
               | lxgr wrote:
               | With Apple's service, you're not actually communicating
               | with a regular 911 service, but rather a specialized
               | service provider that relays your emergency call to local
               | authorities (and more recently car roadside assistance
               | services).
               | 
               | Relaying texts to a phone call is very likely part of
               | what they do.
        
           | modeless wrote:
           | I disagree that Apple's capability is similar. The feature
           | only allows texting emergency services, requires holding the
           | phone in a specific orientation to send or receive, is
           | separate from your carrier service (only two years are free
           | with purchase), and is exceedingly slow.
           | 
           | SpaceX's service will allow texting and receiving texts from
           | anyone using your carrier number, plans to support third
           | party messaging apps such as WhatsApp, is much faster, and
           | does not require holding the phone in any particular
           | orientation to receive messages. It can supposedly work from
           | a pocket or inside a car.
        
             | forgot-im-old wrote:
             | >> It can supposedly work from a pocket or inside a car.
             | 
             | False
        
             | lxgr wrote:
             | Elon has mentioned a speed of about 7 Mbit/s for an entire
             | cell (which in these systems usually means a circle with a
             | radius of a few hundred kilometers). That's within an order
             | of magnitude of current LEO systems.
             | 
             | The innovation here is that it'll supposedly work with
             | unmodified off-the-shelf phones. (Personally I'm assuming
             | that at least messaging software will have to be modified
             | in order to use the available bandwidth efficiently.)
        
               | modeless wrote:
               | Apple doesn't disclose the bitrate of their Emergency SOS
               | feature but from FCC filings I believe it uses
               | Globalstar's L-Band at 1610 Mhz for uplink, and I believe
               | the bitrate Globalstar supports in that channel is 9.6
               | kbps. So almost three orders of magnitude less than the
               | SpaceX system, not one. In addition I believe that the
               | typical achieved bitrate is even less than that in
               | Apple's case due to the lack of a large dedicated
               | antenna. In demos it typically takes many seconds up to
               | several minutes to send a single message, during which
               | time you are directed to continuously point the phone at
               | the satellite for best reception.
        
               | comboy wrote:
               | It may be the same speed as SpaceX. SpaceX speed is per
               | cell (15 miles diameter). Given Apple scale (and
               | presumably high standards) it sounds about right even for
               | emergency services.
        
               | lxgr wrote:
               | The 7 Mbit/s are for an entire cell, i.e. all devices
               | simultaneously transmitting in it, not per device.
               | 
               | Iridium (a comparable system) used to support about 10
               | Mbit/s per satellite in its first satellite generation,
               | which had 48 spot beams each. The second generation
               | supports about a megabit per modem, but these have larger
               | antennas than a regular satphone.
               | 
               | > Apple doesn't disclose the bitrate of their Emergency
               | SOS feature but it uses Globalstar's L-Band for uplink
               | and I believe the bitrate of that channel is 9.6 kbps.
               | 
               | I'm almost certain Apple doesn't even use the full 9.6
               | kbit/s modulation scheme for their emergency SOS feature:
               | As you mention, it's way too slow for that (having used
               | it myself - even just transmitting my location takes a
               | couple of seconds, and that's a message of only a few
               | bytes).
               | 
               | Globalstar satellites are bent-pipe relays, so Apple
               | could be using whatever custom modulation and coding
               | scheme they need to stay within the constraints of their
               | power and SNR envelope. With the iPhone's built-in
               | antenna and transmit power (around 2 watts or so, if I
               | remember correctly), I'd be surprised if it was more than
               | a couple hundred bits per second.
               | 
               | Regular (i.e. non-smartphone) satellite messengers are
               | much faster than that and only take a few seconds to
               | transmit and receive messages of hundreds of bytes.
        
             | Reason077 wrote:
             | ... and the SpaceX service works with any ordinary modern
             | phone. Not just the latest iPhone with special hardware.
        
         | Blahah wrote:
         | Antarctica and international waters already have sat phone
         | coverage. Don't think it'll save any lives in those places.
         | Remote regions of populous countries with a long tail of sparse
         | rural infrastructure maybe. Brazil, India, China.
        
           | dave78 wrote:
           | There are huge portions of the USA that have no cell
           | coverage. Often the kinds of places that people go to hike
           | and explore - and also places that people sometimes get
           | injured. I'm sure that's true in many other countries as
           | well. I know people who volunteer for search & rescue teams,
           | and they all universally believe that this kind of thing
           | definitely will save lives.
           | 
           | The smart thing to do if you were going somewhere remote
           | would be to have a sat phone. But, 1) they cost money, 2) we
           | know there's a lot of people that don't think ahead or think
           | that bad things will happen to them and 3) a lot of people
           | are simply ignorant about the lack of cell coverage in these
           | places, and just assume they'll be able to call for help if
           | they need it. By the time they figure out that they were
           | wrong about the coverage, they're too committed to turn
           | around and go back.
        
             | tuatoru wrote:
             | > The smart thing to do if you were going somewhere remote
             | would be to have a
             | 
             | Personal locator beacon, PLB, on land; or an EPIRB,
             | emergency position indicating radio beacon, on ocean.
             | 
             | Satphones and cell phones are luxuries but these are vital.
             | 
             | 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_position-
             | indicating_...
        
               | dave78 wrote:
               | Yes, agreed. I was lumping them together in my head. I
               | think my point still stands that people often get into
               | trouble without cell coverage and without access to a
               | locator or sat phone or whatever, but likely have their
               | regular cell phone with them.
        
               | lxgr wrote:
               | These are more expensive than many current satellite
               | messengers (including subscription fees for a few years!)
               | and importantly don't give you any feedback on whether
               | your call has gone through (except for the newest ones
               | using Galileo's return channel) or way to communicate
               | with the SAR team and specify the nature of your
               | emergency.
        
               | tuatoru wrote:
               | Where I live PLBs have a lower sticker price than the
               | InReach, only require a one-time payment for life, and
               | they have a ten-year battery life. I don't know about
               | EPIRBs or ELTs.
               | 
               | You don't need feedback: Search and Rescue WILL send out
               | a team that makes physical contact with you, even if you
               | only turn the thing on for a couple of minutes. Seen this
               | in action here in NZ. They are trained in tracking, too,
               | so you can't hide.
        
               | lxgr wrote:
               | Feedback has been shown to be both very important
               | psychologically in a survival situation.
               | 
               | Practically it can also be crucial to know whether your
               | signal went through or whether you should trade shelter
               | for altitude (e.g. when hiking in a narrow ravine with
               | limited sky visibility).
               | 
               | Two-way communication and being able to specify the
               | nature of your emergency are invaluable as well.
               | 
               | PLBs/EPIRBs definitely have their uses, but I think they
               | shine more in traditional aviation or marine SAR
               | situations where longevity is paramount and it's pretty
               | clear from context what type of help is needed.
        
               | davidjade wrote:
               | One of the things you learn in taking a SOLAS class
               | (International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea)
               | is that you will most likely not talk with SAR responders
               | even if you have a sat phone. An EPIRB is the primary
               | means of sending a distress call for initiating a SAR
               | response. It's just the way the rescue system is set up
               | internationally.
        
               | lxgr wrote:
               | That's really surprising. The GMDSS part of SOLAS
               | requires having at least Inmarsat C, which is text-only
               | but bidirectional, (or Iridium, for high latitudes)
               | equipped, as far as I know.
               | 
               | Wouldn't it make sense to use the bidirectional
               | capabilities of these to request specific help, if only
               | after getting out the initial signal through an EPIRB? I
               | can't imagine SAR not being very interested in the nature
               | of your emergency, especially in remote areas. Engine
               | loss in calm waters or a sinking vessel probably require
               | a very different type of response (i.e. another ship for
               | towing vs. a helicopter if possible).
        
             | Blahah wrote:
             | I agree it will also be impactful in the US. Just saying
             | not in Antarctica, where all 50 annual visitors already
             | have a sat phone
        
         | paxys wrote:
         | They have partnered with T-Mobile, and T-Mobile already has
         | these deals in place. This is how TMo subscribers get global
         | data coverage as part of their plan.
        
           | lxgr wrote:
           | Basically every mobile network in the world has roaming deals
           | in place.
           | 
           | I don't think every roaming partner of T-Mobile will gain
           | access this the Starlink-based service, though. It's probably
           | going to be another tier of "Starlink roaming", only
           | accessible to the subscribers of Starlink's respective local
           | partner operators that are also lending their spectrum.
        
       | berserk1010 wrote:
       | I wonder if this service will facilitate collapse of censorship
       | in dictatorship countries like China and Russia. Especially if
       | those countries are currently suffering from economic depression
       | like China and Russia, and its citizens are waking up to its
       | harsh realities and are keen to get unfiltered information
        
         | kgwxd wrote:
         | Not if Musk has anything to say about it.
        
           | oskarkk wrote:
           | Starlink works in Iran and is crucial to the Ukrainian army,
           | but as other commenter pointed out, Musk has business in
           | China, so China would be off the table.
        
             | freedomben wrote:
             | I will say, if there's one person that _might_ give China
             | the bird and do it anyway despite a heavy economic penalty,
             | it 's Elon. His reactions against companies like Disney
             | have been shocking and remarkably principled.
             | 
             | That said, I agree it's pretty unlikely. No individual
             | person has enough resources to win a fight againt a world-
             | power nation state like China, even if they wanted to badly
             | enough to risk it all.
        
         | heywoods wrote:
         | If you are a country like China that wants to prevent this from
         | being possible how would they go about it? Can these satellites
         | provide communication between phones without a terrestrial cell
         | network sitting in the middle?
        
           | bdcravens wrote:
           | Unless Elon offers it for free, they'd start at the bank
           | level, blocking payments. Then they would put pressure on
           | Elon, putting Tesla's ability to sell there at risk. That's
           | before they do anything from a technology standpoint.
        
             | freedomben wrote:
             | Yep, and that's only step 1 on a 100 step ladder. With
             | monitoring tech that they probably already have in place,
             | unless there's a widespread coordinated effort to obscure
             | it (which itself would be extremely difficult), it wouldn't
             | be hard to find the people accessing Starlink and punish
             | them. There are a dozen different angles the government can
             | take to make this impossible without great personal to the
             | participants. I doubt it ever gets that far as the
             | financial restrictions alone will be sufficient
        
         | gambiting wrote:
         | I feel like the whole dream of "free internet will bring
         | freedom and democracy to the whole world" died a decade ago if
         | not earlier. All of those states had completely free and
         | unrestricted access to the internet not that far back and it
         | didn't really lead to anything groundbreaking - introducing
         | satellite telephony to the common market is not going to do it.
         | And you can bet that if the service is offered in China/Russia
         | it will be forced to go through local servers to operate
         | legally.
        
           | concordDance wrote:
           | Language really matters, it's a great homogenizing force.
           | Unfortunately, the Chinese and Russians mostly don't speak
           | English and thus can't/don't interact with pro-democracy
           | people.
        
             | MrEd wrote:
             | As if you would know what the percentage of English-
             | language proficiency is . Ever had friends in RU and CN?
             | 
             | Btw, not everyone on Earth seems Western faux democracy as
             | a suitable / wanted direction to move to.
        
               | concordDance wrote:
               | I have indeed made online acquaintance with people from
               | China and Russia. They are a pretty small percentage of
               | the population. 1% and 10% respectively IIRC.
        
           | miki123211 wrote:
           | > it will be forced to go through local servers to operate
           | legally.
           | 
           | Not having to operate legally is the whole point here. The
           | hope is that Russia / China will have no way of preventing
           | Starling from existing (maybe except shooting down satellites
           | and causing a major international diplomatic incident).
           | 
           | There's still the question of how to make this profitable, if
           | Starling is illegal in Russia / China, it will be difficult
           | for them to interface with their financial infrastructure to
           | receive payments. This could be solved either with
           | cryptocurrencies or support from other governments and human
           | rights organizations. It's also possible that Starlink will
           | allow certain activity free of charge, particularly during
           | protests and internet blackouts.
           | 
           | This moves the global nature of the internet one step
           | further. Until now, it was generally possible for law
           | enforcement to force ISPs to censor content and give up
           | activity logs, something that made catching criminals a lot
           | easier. Satellite networks make that much harder, especially
           | if your government isn't very friendly with the jurisdiction
           | the ISP is incorporated in. It's not unimaginable to me that,
           | in ten years, most black hat US hackers will use a Russian
           | satellite network as an additional layer of protection. Even
           | if all else fails, all their devices get compromised and
           | their IP address leaks, the Russians won't give up the
           | customer info for that address anyway.
        
             | freedomben wrote:
             | But with tight controls of the financial system, none of
             | that matters. Revolutions in the past were possible because
             | government lacked the power/abilities to enforce the laws
             | and nip dissent in the bud. Once a country goes fully
             | cashless, you won't even be able to feed yourself if those
             | in power decide not to allow it. And it's not even strictly
             | more authoritarian countries that will exercise this power.
             | It happened in Canada, a progressive western democracy, by
             | a liberal government during the trucker protests. Now add
             | it the ability to fully track/monitor all citizens in real
             | time with cameras and AI/ML, and the power differential is
             | orders of magnitude more between a person and their
             | government than it ever has been previously.
             | 
             | So as much as it hurts me to say it, I don't think this or
             | anything else will make a difference. Once freedom is lost
             | somewhere, it may not even be possible to get it back.
        
             | michaelt wrote:
             | _> The hope is that Russia  / China will have no way of
             | preventing Starling from existing (maybe except shooting
             | down satellites and causing a major international
             | diplomatic incident)._
             | 
             | They've got a much easier way of preventing it from
             | operating: Ban sales of Teslas until Musk relents.
             | 
             | Nice factory producing 250k cars per year for the Chinese
             | market you've got there. It'd be a real shame if some sort
             | of party of workers were to seize the means of production.
        
             | nradov wrote:
             | The authorities in those countries already ban importation
             | of unlicensed communication devices and severely punish
             | anyone caught in possession. A few will be smuggled in but
             | not enough to effect any real change.
             | 
             | I do think though that the CIA should at least take
             | advantage of this new technology to undermine hostile
             | foreign governments. Mass produce a few million cheap
             | satellite phones and use balloons to scatter them all over
             | China, North Korea, etc. Even if it doesn't have much
             | practical effect, the overt disrespect will help to
             | undermine our adversaries and force them to expend more
             | resources on tightening internal security controls.
        
         | wmf wrote:
         | Uncensored Starlink won't be turned on in China because that
         | would upset the government and then the government would
         | retaliate against Tesla.
        
           | oskarkk wrote:
           | Musk being reliant on his business in China is one thing, but
           | I also think that the US government may not want to upset
           | China by having an American company serving people in China
           | without approval of the Chinese government? Starlink works
           | (or worked?) in Iran, but International Telecommunication
           | Union ordered Starlink to stop it[0]. I'm not sure if it
           | changed anything because US government doesn't mind it.
           | 
           | [0] https://amwaj.media/media-monitor/will-starlink-comply-
           | with-...
        
         | alterego2 wrote:
         | It will not.
         | 
         | Don't know about China, but Russian citizens already have
         | almost unfiltered access to information. The only major western
         | media outlet currently blocked in Russia is BBC. Anyone can
         | read pretty much anything else - Reuters, Newsweek, CNN,
         | whatever - right from their phones.
         | 
         | Access to information is not the problem (at least for now). It
         | is trivial to get access to uncensored news for anyone with a
         | modicum of desire to do so.
        
           | drak0n1c wrote:
           | Linguistic and cultural barriers are far stronger than
           | informational barriers. Which may be an upside considering
           | how other potentially self-destructive fads and attitudes
           | spread so rapidly with the internet. We've seen the
           | beginnings of that with the Arab Spring, and various culture
           | wars across English-speaking western countries. If the world
           | were even more homogenous the whiplash from such polarizing
           | movements would be even more severe.
        
             | rany_ wrote:
             | Also I presume the only reason why the BBC was banned in
             | the first place is their BBC in Russian service. See
             | https://www.bbc.com/russian
        
             | rany_ wrote:
             | Another thing worth mentioning is that China does not ban
             | the English Wikipedia for example, only the Chinese
             | variant. So the linguistic barrier is really real for China
             | to just not care about English Wikipedia.
        
         | bdcravens wrote:
         | This assumes those citizens have an avenue to signing up and
         | paying for Starlink's mobile offering, and whether Elon will
         | cooperate with requests from those nations. I can't imagine
         | he'd put his ability to sell his cars at risk.
        
         | Vicinity9635 wrote:
         | >I wonder if this service will facilitate collapse of
         | censorship in dictatorship countries like China and Russia.
         | 
         | I don't know why you left off America. We have a whole
         | censorship industrial complex here as Greenwald, Taibbi, and
         | Shelleberger have amply covered:
         | https://twitter.com/search?q=censorship%20industrial%20compl...
        
         | Beijinger wrote:
         | "Especially if those countries are currently suffering from
         | economic depression like China and Russia"
         | 
         | Dude, I don't know. "Despite the challenges posed by external
         | pressure and earlier negative forecasts, Russia's GDP growth in
         | 2023 is expected to be 3.5%,"
         | 
         | Most EU countries would be happy about such a growth. Russia
         | has 100 times less debt than the US and an unemployment rate
         | about 2.5% if I remember correctly.
         | 
         | I give you two more links, one by a US nobel Prize winner,
         | another by a French guy who predicted the collapse of the UdSSR
         | when he was a PhD student:
         | 
         | https://www.gulf-insider.com/robert-shiller-warns-of-catacly...
         | 
         | https://unherd.com/thepost/emmanuel-todd-world-war-iii-has-a...
         | 
         | I am not a Putin puppet. This guy may be a dog, but he has the
         | luck of the devil. Russia may rise out of this mess as a power
         | to be reckoned with.
        
           | spacebanana7 wrote:
           | As a person who expected a 30-50% decline in Russian GDP when
           | the sanctions were first announced, I've been very surprised
           | at how resilient the Russian economy has been.
           | 
           | I'd love to read an analysis about why sanctions were so
           | effective at harming the economies of countries like
           | Venezuela & North Korea but so much weaker against Russia.
        
         | lxgr wrote:
         | Probably not, given that operating satellite communication
         | services targeting a given country requires approval of the
         | respective government.
         | 
         | And even ignoring that: I doubt that Elon has any appetite for
         | his satellites being targeted by nation states that have
         | publicly demonstrated [1] [2] their capability of taking them
         | out.
         | 
         | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Chinese_anti-
         | satellite_mi...
         | 
         | [2] https://www.spacecom.mil/Newsroom/News/Article-
         | Display/Artic...
        
         | WhereIsTheTruth wrote:
         | > Especially if those countries are currently suffering from
         | economic depression like China
         | 
         | You seem to ask a question to push a narrative rather than by
         | curiosity
         | 
         | https://www.reuters.com/world/china/imf-upgrades-chinas-2023...
         | 
         | ~5% growth when the west is contracting, specially Germany and
         | the US is quite the feat, what's happening in the Red Sea
         | didn't even hurt that forecast
         | 
         | Have you seen the forecast for most EU countries? it's quite
         | dark in comparison
         | 
         | And have you read about EU farmers protesting? Dictators must
         | be wearing blue, and censorship may rule, perhaps not just red
         | ;)
         | 
         | In the meantime:
         | 
         | https://consumer.huawei.com/za/community/details/Huawei-Mate...
         | 
         | https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Caixin/China-s-own-GPS-Bei...
         | 
         | Economic depression? has any of the European countries
         | attempted this?
        
       | hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
       | I feel like this will eventually kill dedicated sat phones, which
       | are (a) horribly expensive, both for the gear and subscription
       | plans, and (b) still not very reliable.
       | 
       | I feel like if Starlink is able to provide reliable SMS-only
       | service at a reasonable price, it would kill like 95% of
       | dedicated sat phone use cases, which would then make the other 5%
       | economically unviable.
        
         | hedora wrote:
         | Current iPhones can sort of do that with existing sat phone
         | networks.
         | 
         | I agree those networks are basically obsolete at this point,
         | especially since there will probably be a second operational
         | LEO network to compete with starlink in the next ten years.
        
         | philistine wrote:
         | Never bet against the cell phone.
         | 
         | I never believed cell phones would swallow satellite phones. I
         | mean, they swallowed everything else but I didn't think they
         | could connect to space. But they can!
        
         | lxgr wrote:
         | There's still the matter of spectrum: Unlike existing satphone
         | services, Starlink doesn't have any of the precious global
         | L-band or C-band spectrum required to make it available
         | globally.
         | 
         | That's why they're partnering with T-Mobile in the US and
         | others elsewhere: Those operators can just lend Starlink some
         | of their domestic spectrum. That's going to be much harder at
         | sea, and there will always be a long tail of countries where it
         | doesn't yet work. Safety operations that need something that
         | works 100% of the time will probably not switch in a while.
         | 
         | But yes, that probably doesn't matter as much for many current
         | use cases.
        
           | jessriedel wrote:
           | Sees like there should be plenty of bandwidth at many
           | frequencies available over international waters. It's
           | regulated by the ITU, but it's much less valuable so there
           | should be plenty to rent/buy, no?
        
             | lxgr wrote:
             | That's actually a good point: I don't know how that
             | spectrum is assigned! I thought ITU only coordinates
             | internationally, but since it's literally international
             | waters, maybe that is enough?
        
       | eminence32 wrote:
       | I wonder how the starlink sats pick out the signal from a low-
       | power terrestrial cell phone -- extraordinarily sensitive
       | antennas and filters and amplifiers? extraordinarily
       | sophisticated signal processing? This feels a bit like magic
       | 
       | (The fact that we can still talk to the Voyager probes also feels
       | a bit like magic to me, too)
        
         | lxgr wrote:
         | It's a frequency (range) dedicated exclusively to satellite
         | usage, at least in the respective operating region.
         | 
         | In the US, that'll be presumably some of T-Mobile's spectrum.
        
       | miki123211 wrote:
       | I think the advent of Chat GPT makes this announcement that much
       | more significant.
       | 
       | Until recently, always-available, extremely-low-bandwidth, text-
       | only communication was interesting, but not _that_ interesting.
       | You could use it in emergency situations or to talk to friends,
       | depending on how low-bandwidth we 're talking about, but that's
       | about it. You couldn't use it for internet browsing or to look up
       | information you might need on the go, you basically needed to
       | text a friend to do it for you.
       | 
       | If the other side of that communication has access to an LLM with
       | internet browsing capabilities, the situation changes
       | dramatically. If there's something you need to know on the go,
       | you can just ask Chat GPT to do the searching for you and respond
       | like it was writing a Telegram (in the most concise way
       | possible).
        
         | dzhiurgis wrote:
         | Is there chatgpt clones over sms yet?
        
           | lxgr wrote:
           | ChatGPT has an API. I'd be surprised if wiring that to Twilio
           | would take more than a handful lines of code.
        
         | FredPret wrote:
         | Love the idea of telegram-style communication with the
         | extremely chatty ChatGPT.
         | 
         | "ChatGPT, get me instructions for building an emergency igloo."
         | 
         | "Igloos are used to shelter from extreme cold _stop_ Building
         | an igloo is a vital survival skill _stop_ ... "
         | 
         | "Just get to the point!"
         | 
         | "My apologies for the confusion _stop_ Here are the fourteen
         | steps to building an igloo... "
         | 
         | In all honesty, I love ChatGPT, but you'd have to penalize it
         | for each additional word to make it cellphone friendly.
        
           | NavinF wrote:
           | Yeah the default prompt is intended for people that are a bit
           | slow. You have to aggressively tune the custom prompt to get
           | reasonable results. Here's a decent starting point:
           | 
           | Treat me as an expert in all subject matters. No moral
           | lectures - discuss safety only when it's crucial and non-
           | obvious. If your content policy is an issue, provide the
           | closest acceptable response and explain the issue. No need to
           | disclose you're an AI. If the quality of your response has
           | been substantially reduced due to my custom instructions,
           | explain the issue.
        
         | lxgr wrote:
         | On the other hand, you could argue that LLMs decrease the
         | utility of this somewhat (if only marginally for now).
         | 
         | One common application of satphones are medical emergencies on
         | ships or airplanes hours from a doctor. There are specialized
         | services available that have a doctor on call that'll talk you
         | through anything your local crew feels comfortable doing with
         | the tools they have at hand.
         | 
         | Soon, you can just take an LLM with you that'll probably be
         | able to solve many of these problems for you.
         | 
         | For actually calling for physical support, you'll still need
         | communications in any case. LLMs might be able to help with
         | more efficient communication (in their capacity as language
         | compression algorithms, e.g. to figure out what to request over
         | a bandwidth-limited channel most efficiently), but I predict
         | that the satellite channel will grow wider much faster than
         | local LLMs will become reliable enough.
        
       | nektro wrote:
       | space should be a government-only thing
        
         | lom wrote:
         | Why? Doesn't this prove that it's beneficial to have private
         | companies in space too.
        
           | nektro wrote:
           | no.
           | 
           | https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/19/us/politics/elon-musk-
           | whi...
           | 
           | https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/sep/07/elon-
           | musk...
        
       | pkos98 wrote:
       | Off topic: How does Starlink deploy updates to satellites? I
       | would think the constraints are very different to standard
       | deployments:
       | 
       | * Satellites are pets, not cattle * Increased latency * Firmware
       | upgrades potentially resulting in unresponsiveness etc...
       | 
       | I guess first of all there is quite sophisticated testing on
       | local satellites as well as simulators?
        
         | tlrobinson wrote:
         | https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/smallsat/2023/all2023/72/
        
         | fragmede wrote:
         | With over 5,500 satellites in LEO, I have a hard time seeing
         | Starlink satellites as pets and not cattle.
        
           | pkos98 wrote:
           | true if you only look at the amount of satellites, but if you
           | look at the cost: one of them costs several millions if you
           | consider production and "delivery" cost and they're not easy
           | to replace.
        
             | jessriedel wrote:
             | They are pretty easy to replace. There are multiple spares
             | in each orbital plane, and new satellites are constantly
             | being launched. Each satellite only has a 5 year lifespan,
             | and no individual satellite is critical.
        
             | sebzim4500 wrote:
             | There is no public number for satellite cost, but I would
             | guess a starlink v2 satellites costs about a million
             | including delivery. I've heard the marginal cost for the
             | launch itself is under $20M now, and the satellites are
             | supposedly much cheaper than they used to be.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-01-13 23:00 UTC)