[HN Gopher] Starlink Direct to Cell
___________________________________________________________________
Starlink Direct to Cell
Author : tosh
Score : 185 points
Date : 2024-11-24 20:08 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.starlink.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.starlink.com)
| kylebenzle wrote:
| 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 and given away like GPS it could be
| the way to go to get the whole world connected.
| jxf wrote:
| > Hopefully, he doesn't abuse the power too much
|
| The best possible outcome for Starlink is that he gets
| distracted with something else and doesn't meddle in it
| whatsoever.
| travisjungroth wrote:
| > 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 you want to be disconnected, just turn your
| phone off or leave it behind.
| nordsieck wrote:
| > I don't know what the intersection of that with the
| affordability is, though.
|
| My understanding is that the monthly cost for Starlink varies
| pretty wildly across the world. Presumably the same would be
| true for this cell service - idle satellites have the same
| huge fixed cost and don't generate any revenue.
| shafyy wrote:
| > _Hopefully, he doesn't abuse the power too much_
|
| Haha, good one.
| bhauer wrote:
| I switched to T-Mobile at the last upgrade interval because of
| this. My family looks forward to no longer relying on Garmin
| InReach devices when out hiking.
| jebarker wrote:
| 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.
| blinded wrote:
| Same. Done a few trips to alaska and had to coordinate
| pickups and food drops via garmin inreach. Battery life on
| those is way better and more durable.
| nordsieck wrote:
| > 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 also possible to pursue a hybrid approach by bringing a
| battery to change the phone.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| > It's also possible to pursue a hybrid approach by
| bringing a battery to change the phone.
|
| Or, as I have done on multi-day trips, a solar panel and a
| battery.
| njarboe wrote:
| Yea. My inReach device stays charged for months when it is
| off.
| kortilla wrote:
| Turn off your phone?
| jebarker wrote:
| With an inReach I have the option of periodically tracking
| my position and uploading that to a site my loved ones can
| check. Even whilst doing this I can leave the device on for
| a multi-day trip without worrying about battery drain. I'm
| not saying you couldn't do this with a cell phone, but the
| inReach is just a more robust solution for a safety
| critical application.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Why switch carriers for that, you can get the same
| functionality built-in to iPhones and it's not dependent on
| carrier.
| neilalexander wrote:
| If you aren't on an iPhone already, switching carriers might
| be easier.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| That's a fair point. I did make some assumptions.
| kortilla wrote:
| iPhone sos does not allow you to just text random stuff to
| arbitrary people. It's emergency only and a preselected
| "family group"
| LeoPanthera wrote:
| That is not true. If you don't know, don't guess.
|
| https://support.apple.com/en-us/120930
| vl wrote:
| If you have zero signal, modern iPhone allows you to
| connect to satellite and text using iMessage. I just used
| it this week multiple times during massive Pacific
| Northwest blackout.
|
| Works surprisingly well. You have to be outside and hold
| iPhone in the specifics position pointed at satellite, it
| tells you where to turn iPhone to to get signal.
| kortilla wrote:
| Did they get rid of the limitation of having to setup a
| special family group in advance?
| hipadev23 wrote:
| I'd still carry an old-school PLB (not a satellite messenger
| subscription service) for the enduring battery-life,
| ruggedness, and reliability when it matters. And use LTE-
| Starlink for the basic non-urgent but super convenient
| communication needs.
| scottwd9 wrote:
| The inReach is basically indestructible. A cell phone, not so
| much.
| rscho wrote:
| Starlink: Direct to Target
| charliebwrites wrote:
| 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
| hackernewds wrote:
| It will happen over time
| nordsieck wrote:
| > It will happen over time
|
| I'm optimistic.
|
| I think that, once SpaceX starts launch Starlink satellites
| with Starship, they'll be able to increase their globally
| available bandwidth by a factor of 5-10x (although it might
| take 5 years to roll out). A lot of that bandwidth will be
| eaten up by existing demand. But hopefully some of it will
| enable novel services like global cell service through a
| single provider (even if it's limited to low bandwidth
| applications like text and voice).
| Retric wrote:
| 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.
| christophilus wrote:
| > astronomical fee
| inglor_cz wrote:
| Compared to what?
|
| Traditional satellite phone corporations used to charge
| something like 8 USD/min.
| Retric wrote:
| Compared to leveraging the existing cellular networks and
| using satellites for rare edge cases. ~8$/minute or say
| 1$/minute averages out to a more reasonable number when
| less than 5% of calls use it.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| Not for somebody whose job is outside the existing
| networks, such as sailors.
| Retric wrote:
| Sailors can make calls using the ships Wi-Fi via full
| sized Starlink dishes, they need coverage on land.
|
| But even ignoring that the contention is low in the
| middle of the ocean and satellites have hardware either
| way, driving down the market rate for calls at sea.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| The setup cost for Starlink on a boat is still massively
| higher than on land.
| Retric wrote:
| 250$/month gets you 50GB/month on the open ocean, 1TB for
| 1,000$/month is lower ost per GB.
| https://www.starlink.com/boats
|
| Calls are ~0.75 MB/minute which works out calling 24/7
| for a full month for 250$, or more realistically it would
| almost entirely be used up sending other kinds of data
| and a sub cent per minute opportunity cost for using that
| data on calls.
| dasv wrote:
| Yes, but compared to the setup for equivalent satellite
| services it is very cheap. The Inmarsat antennas need
| active compensation and they sit inside big radomes,
| while the Starlink antennas are smaller and do not need
| to move thanks to being phased arrays.
|
| The bandwidth, latency and stability that Starlink has is
| also leagues better than geosynch based solutions, for a
| much lower monthly price.
|
| Even without considering the better performance, the
| price makes it viable now to have a internet connections
| in places it did not make financial sense before.
| jcims wrote:
| Terrestrial fees
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| LEO fees?
| tomjen3 wrote:
| I think OP is pointing out the pun in this case.
| bt1a wrote:
| I concur, and I appreciate the pun :)
| ubj wrote:
| Yep, definitely beyond sky-high prices :)
| moffkalast wrote:
| Well it's not rocket science.
| ChocolateGod wrote:
| Could Starlink receivers not act as a mesh like network and
| broadcast LTE themselves, gaining inside coverage.
| Retric wrote:
| Starlink is used in low density areas. You could setup LTE
| towers at a remote mine and use Starlink for the back haul,
| but for their customers using WiFi calling gives the same
| benefit without extra hardware.
| User23 wrote:
| My 5g doesn't work inside of many buildings.
| ignoramous wrote:
| > _One space based cell plan for the whole world_
|
| The baseband on handheld devices do not have that much power to
| transmit and receive from Starlink directly; and hence the
| partnership with MNOs. With 5G (after Google & Meta got
| involved, the designs took on a Cloud/Internet-heavy focus),
| Starlink very well might have "slices" carved out exclusive for
| its own use world over.
|
| See also: _Cloudflare 's Zero-Trust SIM_ (2022),
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32982697
| rblatz wrote:
| > The baseband on handheld devices do not have that much
| power to transmit and receive from Starlink directly;
|
| That is exactly what this is about, direct from standard
| handsets to starlink satellites.
| philipwhiuk wrote:
| > The baseband on handheld devices do not have that much
| power to transmit and receive from Starlink directly
|
| It turns out they do.
| FpUser wrote:
| >"One space based cell plan for the whole world"
|
| And a single entity to decide who gets disconnected if they do
| not behave
| ggernov wrote:
| I was curious about this! I wish this was a perk of owning /
| purchasing a Tesla or a more expensive option of Starlink
| terminal.
| rlt wrote:
| It's kind of crazy Tesla hasn't partnered with SpaceX to
| provide Starlink as an option.
| dzhiurgis wrote:
| Kinda not. Generally if you got road you got reception.
| Only wilderness areas don't. For few people who go camping,
| etc the standalone miniterminal makes most sense.
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| > Generally if you got road you got reception.
|
| Er, if you got highway, maybe? I assure you there are
| plenty of roads that have poor cell reception.
| seb1204 wrote:
| 100% speak to A German high speed rail traveller and she
| will tell you all about the white spots
| petesergeant wrote:
| Any idea of the etymology for calling it a "white spot"?
| Assuming this is a German thing
| numpad0 wrote:
| I think the fact that they haven't may be kind of
| indicative. Last I searched it had supported maximum local
| device density of just handful in miles.
| kortilla wrote:
| I suspect the primary reason they took this approach is that
| licensing for these frequencies is astronomical if you want to
| cover the entire US. That would bleed them dry as they build
| out the constellation and try to ramp up user count.
|
| Partnering with a national carrier handles the licensing aspect
| and if the tech pans out the economics could shift to allow
| them to buy national spectrum and offer direct service.
| paxys wrote:
| Are you planning to be in direct line of sight to a Starlink
| satellite 24x7?
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| Starlink's certainly planning on that, more or less.
| paxys wrote:
| Unless they can remove buildings from this world, that
| isn't going to be a reality.
| schiffern wrote:
| Not really feasible. The only reason Starlink DTC works is
| because it's _not_ trying to supply coverage inside dense
| cities.
|
| Musk mentions this in the very first announcement of Starlink.
| https://youtu.be/AHeZHyOnsm4?t=191
| Reason077 wrote:
| Starlink would need to license LTE spectrum in every country it
| operated. Much easier to work with local carriers and piggyback
| on their existing bandwidth.
| kelnos wrote:
| I see where you're coming from, but I prefer to have the
| relationship with a single entity (my cellular carrier) and get
| access to both. Simpler to deal with.
|
| Agreed on the potential complication if/when I'm in another
| country, but, well, everything can't be simple...
| minetest2048 wrote:
| Adding to this: I wish I can just buy a 4G modem for my cubesat
| and get 24/7 access through Starlink without waiting for my
| cubesats to be in view of my groundstation...
| jareklupinski wrote:
| i wouldnt need more than 1MBit to ssh into my servers
| comfortably, and pull directions to the nearest "full power
| hotspot" if i want to listen to music while i work or
| something
| innagadadavida wrote:
| Doesn't Globestar still have more satellites in orbit? With Apple
| supporting them, hoping there will be some consumer choice. This
| looking like regular cellular will become the new landline
| company.
| grecy wrote:
| Globestar have 48 Satellites in orbit [1]
|
| Starlink has 6,426 [2] (Though that number is likely out of
| date by the time you read this)
|
| [1] https://www.groundcontrol.com/knowledge/calculators-and-
| maps...
|
| [2] https://www.space.com/spacex-starlink-satellites.html
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| I think his point is that most Starlink satellites do not
| have this technology, but he's probably still wrong
| quantitatively.
| grecy wrote:
| > _I think his point is that most Starlink satellites do
| not have this technology_
|
| Ah, thanks, I missed that.
|
| Wait another month, there will be at least another ~500 in
| orbit.
| nordsieck wrote:
| To put some numbers to it, it looks like SpaceX started
| launching direct to cell satellites at the beginning of the
| year[1], and by July they had over 100 in orbit. Not sure
| how many are in orbit right now, but I wouldn't be
| surprised if it were close to 200.
|
| ---
|
| 1. https://spacenews.com/spacex-deploys-direct-to-
| smartphone-sa...
|
| 2. https://www.satellitetoday.com/connectivity/2024/07/03/s
| pace...
| kotaKat wrote:
| > With Apple supporting them
|
| Oh, no. Apple owns them at this point. 20% ownership, and they
| have 85% of Globalstar's current satellite capacity for
| themselves. GSAT isn't really putting new customers on the
| constellations and Apple is funding all the replacement
| hardware.
|
| https://www.theverge.com/2024/11/1/24285347/apple-globalstar...
| yfw wrote:
| More unsustainable satellite pollution
| lupusreal wrote:
| You don't have a clue what you're talking about, so from what
| did you derive these harsh feelings? Starlink satellites are in
| LEO, without active boosting they decay in mere years.
| goda90 wrote:
| A decayed satellite doesn't just disappear though. There's
| particulate pollution from it burning up, not to mention the
| pollution from rocket launches.
|
| There's also the light pollution that the astronomy community
| has been complaining about for years.
| lupusreal wrote:
| Ah, "unsustainable" meaning it annoys earth-bound
| astronomers. Cell phones in general must be unsustainable
| then, since they annoy radio astronomers.
|
| Actually, we can sustain this just fine. The public derives
| virtually zero measurable benifit from astronomy,
| particularly the sort done from Earth.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| For astronomy, sinking costs of space launches present an
| opportunity to move the actual telescopes into space, where
| the atmosphere doesn't stand in the way at all.
|
| I read a long description of an astronomer's journey to a
| prestigious Chilean observatory deep in the desert. He
| wasn't particularly happy about either the isolation or the
| bloodsucking bugs that could not be entirely exterminated
| and carried diseases.
|
| Compared to that, remote work on a space-based telescope
| might be preferable from the human perspective, too.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| There are about 6 thousand Starlink satellites out there and
| their total count may grow to some 40 thousand in the future.
|
| But even if we abstracted the LEO to just one sphere, it would
| be quite a bit BIGGER than the Earth alone.
|
| If 40 thousand, say, small cars were distributed across the
| entire globe including oceans, would you call the result
| "unsustainable pollution"? In fact, compared to what we live in
| today, such a world would be positively pristine. We are used
| to having 40 thousand cars in every city of 80 thousand people,
| which is usually just a small dot on the map.
|
| Space is big. Even near-Earth orbits are mindbogglingly huge.
| Even if there were millions of satellites on low Earth orbits,
| that space would still be several nines of vacuum.
| OutOfHere wrote:
| Just wait until they initiate Kessler syndrome, sending junk
| upward, polluting the entire orbit, up and down. It's just a
| matter of time.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| Kessler syndrome is a theoretical construction, yet too
| many people speak of it as a certainty-beyond-any-doubt,
| like you do.
| OutOfHere wrote:
| Some people aren't smart enough to appreciate theory.
| These people don't even learn the hard way either. They
| take their disbelief and excuses to their grave. For the
| rest of us, good theories aren't just admired from afar,
| they're acted upon _before_ they materialize.
| idunnoman1222 wrote:
| They're in low earth orbit they eventually deorbit they
| have a lifecycle
| ant6n wrote:
| > If 40 thousand, say, small cars were distributed across the
| entire globe including oceans, would you call the result
| "unsustainable pollution"?
|
| Cars don't produce light pollution, which I believe is what's
| being mentioned here.
| echelon wrote:
| Misanthropes [1] look at human civilization as a disease.
|
| Look instead at what we've accomplished.
|
| Think about the hard steps to life and intelligent life. About
| how silent the universe appears. Consider then how we're taking
| leaps towards making the cold and bleak universe self-aware. We
| are a part of evolution.
|
| What would be tragic would be for this earth to simply boil
| away. Its life giving gasses and materials to vanish, unused,
| and life to be forgotten. Return to an unthinking rock.
|
| [1] Maybe it's uncharitable to label you as a misanthrope, but
| looking broadly at this behavior in general.
| unsnap_biceps wrote:
| I think it's fair to be concerned about what we're losing
| without being labeled as a Misanthrope. I think the progress,
| in its entirety, is worth it, but I'm still a little sad at
| the night sky having even more artificial things that take
| attention away from the stars. Looking at the night sky as a
| child seemed timeless to me, and that's no longer the case.
| kortilla wrote:
| You can't see Starlink satellites in the night sky except
| shortly after sunset or before sunrise when they are still
| in daylight and you aren't. They don't produce visible
| light on their own.
|
| The night sky will be exactly the same otherwise so you're
| doing a lot of handwringing over nothing.
|
| Real astronomers are complaining about many other things.
| Streaking in long exposures and noise in other spectrums.
| But that's not relevant to anyone looking at the sky with
| the naked eye or an amateur telescope.
| carstenhag wrote:
| I'm sort of undecided here. Yeah it's great for some use
| cases & many people, we should probably do it, seems worth
| it.
|
| But also, before having 40k thingies on the orbit that will
| decay/break within years, why not think of a better strategy
| or the implications of this? We shouldn't repeat all the
| mistakes we have made in the past.
| nradov wrote:
| A lot of smart people have been trying to think of a better
| strategy for decades. This appears to be the best we can do
| within our current understanding of physics. A better
| strategy would require antigravity technology or faster
| than light communications or something similarly unlikely.
| reizorc wrote:
| Does this mean they can track the location of specific IMEIs from
| orbit?
| kylebenzle wrote:
| They always have been...
| kortilla wrote:
| spacex? No, the direct to cell sats require much larger
| antenna to pick up cell signals. The regular Starlink sats
| aren't capable of that.
| lupusreal wrote:
| HawkEye 360 has been doing this for a few years.
| maxrmk wrote:
| This is really interesting. Based on their wikipedia I can
| see they collect a lot of RF traffic - are IMEIs identifiable
| with the raw data captured that way? I'm surprised they are
| not encrypted. I say this as someone who knows nothing about
| the space.
| bri3d wrote:
| In 2G/3G networks, IMSI is unencrypted in the initial
| handshake process while the handset gets a TMSI, so it can
| very trivially be passively observed, but only at specific
| points in time.
|
| In 5G this is somewhat fixed - the handset uses its Home
| Network Public Key to encrypt the device-specific IMSI
| (producing a SUCI) which only the Home Network can decrypt.
| The MCC and MNC (carrier information) are still sent in the
| clear to allow the encrypted SUCI to route to the correct
| Home Network for decryption.
| dzhiurgis wrote:
| Which means military has been doing this for decades
| mrtksn wrote:
| What I wonder about the Starlink constellation is, how secure it
| is physically? There are people burning down 5G towers. How
| plausible would be for a conspiracy nut to create a rocket to
| take out the satellites? Maybe starting a cascading effect?
| bitmasher9 wrote:
| If you can make a rocket that reaches a Starlink Satellite then
| there are many other targets the same rocket can hit that would
| be more damaging.
|
| Rockets are a military technology, and are treated as such.
| mrtksn wrote:
| Lot's of conspiracy theorists have become quite wealthy with
| the raise of Bitcoin, as it was very popular among them early
| on.
|
| Military tech or not, its just atoms. Very interesting people
| are quite rich now, they will have access to precision
| machining advanced materials and chemicals if they have the
| motivation.
| rblatz wrote:
| This is such an unhinged take, what if a super villain
| decided to build missiles to attack satellites? You
| understand that's something nation states struggle with,
| that billionaire status doesn't even guarantee success on.
|
| Some bitcoin bro with a net worth in the millions is not
| building orbit reaching guided missiles in their garage.
| And if they were the satellites would be the least of our
| concerns.
| xnzakg wrote:
| I doubt there is enough overlap between people able to build a
| rocket capable of taking out satellites and people who are
| afraid of 5G.
| ant6n wrote:
| Could perhaps melt them with a powerful laser?
| markasoftware wrote:
| > how plausible would it be for a conspiracy nit to create a
| rocket to take out the satellites?
|
| not plausible at all. Most /countries/ aren't able to launch a
| rocket to orbit.
| mrtksn wrote:
| Those countries just don't have the motivation to do such a
| thing. Those who have the motivation had done it despite
| embargoes.
| Tostino wrote:
| At the level of nation-state funding, sure thing that's
| possible.
| nordsieck wrote:
| It's not very likely.
|
| USC students just broke the non-government, non-corporate
| rocket launch altitude record, reaching 143.25km[1]. But that
| is still a long way from the ~500km that Starlink operates at.
|
| On top of that the person would have to develop a guidance
| system and payload capable of targeting and sufficiently
| damaging one of these satellites - not an easy feat.
|
| Finally, it seems unlikely that a single hit would cause a
| chain reaction. There aren't that many satellites that are part
| of Starlink. Imagine 6000 cars spread over the surface of the
| Earth. Except that they're even more sparse than that because
| many of them are at different altitudes.
|
| Additionally, SpaceX has already had to deal with the result of
| the debris field from the Russian Cosmos satellite that was
| destroyed by a Russian anti-satellite missile.[2]
|
| Starlink has a lot of protection compared to other
| constellations since the satellites occupy such low orbits that
| most debris spontaneously deorbits in 5-10 years.
|
| ---
|
| 1. https://viterbischool.usc.edu/news/2024/11/usc-student-
| rocke...
|
| 2. https://spacenews.com/starlink-satellites-encounter-
| russian-...
| numpad0 wrote:
| They don't fly sun synchronous orbits, so a giant vertical
| laser cannon near equator running 24/7 can kill them all in
| matters of days. I think. Carrying this out likely also
| constitute a de facto declaration of war against the US.
| daRealDodo wrote:
| Can anyone explain how upload would work? How can an unmodified
| cellphone upload data to a satellite?
| mise_en_place wrote:
| Your cell phone uses the nearest base station, the base station
| will handover to the satellite infra.
| rblatz wrote:
| No, that's just satellite backhaul for a cell tower. That's
| not hard, but also typically if you can get power to a base
| station you can run fiber along the same poles the power runs
| on.
|
| This is direct from handset to satellite, it's clearly
| explained in the link.
| Gare wrote:
| > That's not hard, but also typically if you can get power
| to a base station you can run fiber along the same poles
| the power runs on.
|
| Or a directional microwave link to the next station in
| sight.
| Gare wrote:
| Why do you need satellite if you can connect to a base
| station? This makes no sense.
|
| No, they claim direct phone to satellite link.
| navigate8310 wrote:
| Aren't those satellites going to generate simulated cell
| tower signals so you won't require any modification
| whatsoever?
| maccam94 wrote:
| very slowly, with the radio at maximum power, and no
| obstructions
| mbreese wrote:
| My thinking is that you can think of Starlink satellites as LTE
| towers that just happen to be ~350 miles away from your phone.
| It happens to work because while they are far away, the
| satellites have a very clear line of sight (directly down) with
| few (no) obstacles.
|
| The complication is that the base stations will be moving much
| more rapidly than traditional terrestrial towers.
| emusan wrote:
| There are a few factors that make this possible:
|
| 1. As others have pointed out, the link budget (how much energy
| loss a particular radio link can handle before it is broken)
| for D2C satellites assumes a nearly direct line of sight from
| your handset to the satellite. This is much easier to achieve
| with satellites in space than it is with traditional cell
| towers that might have numerous walls/buildings in the way.
|
| 2. The D2C satellites use massive phased array antennas that
| are able to point a very narrow beam very accurately to the
| ground. This provides a substantial amount of antenna gain that
| further helps the link budget. The gain from the antennas
| allows the satellites to pick up even relatively weak signals
| from a handset.
|
| There are other tricks as well, but these account for the
| largest differences. Of course, doppler gets in the way, but it
| is a solvable problem.
| rafram wrote:
| 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 last
| few truly remote places in the US suddenly being overrun with
| TikTok crowds? I honestly have no idea, and it's a little scary.
|
| But it feels like an anachronism that we don't already have
| worldwide connectivity, and I guess this was just bound to
| happen.
| Gare wrote:
| 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).
| rafram wrote:
| 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 change to come all at once.
| growt wrote:
| ,,There are no unconnected places in most of Europe" Then you
| haven't traveled with the German railway yet!
| aaomidi wrote:
| Honestly, lack of connectivity completely makes these places
| you speak of inaccessible for a lot of people.
| jrflowers wrote:
| People have been making TikTok videos in the wilderness this
| entire time, they just wait until they get service to upload
| them.
| rafram wrote:
| Sure, and people were making YouTube videos in the wilderness
| before that, but the accessibility that came with TikTok and
| Instagram created a phenomenon increased demand tenfold at
| many parks. That's why you have to _win a lottery_ to hike
| Angels Landing in Zion now.
|
| Now we get wilderness livestreams! What will that do?
| jrflowers wrote:
| > Now we get wilderness livestreams! What will that do?
|
| My guess is there will be some more wilderness livestreams
| streams, largely made by the people that are already going
| out to these places to produce content.
|
| Are you particularly worried about a group of people that
| so far had no interest at all in taking pictures or videos
| in the wilderness but will now show up in droves to make
| competing bits of strictly-live content? Who are these
| users??
| handfuloflight wrote:
| > Now we get wilderness livestreams! What will that do?
|
| Encourage others to explore the wilderness?
| bdangubic wrote:
| or like most other tech - do the opposite "why would I
| explore in person when I can watch it from my couch"
| jes5199 wrote:
| surely there are other wildernesses? is demand so high that
| there aren't any left?
| cj wrote:
| > ENGINEERED BY SPACEX
|
| It would be very interesting to see some kind of diagram
| depicting all of the corporate entities Musk is involved in and
| how each entity does business with one another.
|
| xAI just raised billions to help Tesla build out FSD (or at least
| that was part of the pitch).
|
| His empire is divided into so many corporate entities, but they
| all cross-pollinate and are clearly under his direct control for
| the most part.
|
| The closest comparison I can think of is Berkshire Hathaway (one
| person/group controlling multiple wide ranging private and public
| companies).
| lupusreal wrote:
| Starlink and SpaceX have an even closer relationship than most
| other Musk companies; Starlink is a wholly owned subsidiary of
| SpaceX.
| tgma wrote:
| > Starlink is a wholly owned subsidiary of SpaceX.
|
| Starlink is not a separate entity -- it's a division of Space
| Exploration Technologies Corp.
|
| From Terms of Service[1]:
|
| > Your order for two-way satellite-based internet service
| ("Services") and a Starlink antenna, Wi-Fi router and mount
| ("Starlink Kit" or "Kit") is subject to the terms ("Terms")
| of this Starlink agreement for the United States and its
| territories. These Terms, those terms incorporated by
| reference, and the details you agree to in your online order
| ("Order") form the entire agreement ("Agreement") between you
| ("customer" or "user") and Space Exploration Technologies
| Corp. (known as "Starlink" in these Terms).
|
| [1]: https://www.starlink.com/legal/documents/DOC-1020-91087-
| 64?r...
| kortilla wrote:
| Starlink isn't a company. It's a product offered by spacex.
| Just like Falcon, Starship, and Dragon.
| paxys wrote:
| While your overall question is valid, Starlink is simply a
| division of SpaceX. There's no "relationship" to consider. They
| are one and the same.
| skissane wrote:
| > His empire is divided into so many corporate entities, but
| they all cross-pollinate and are clearly under his direct
| control for the most part.
|
| My understanding is that, given Tesla is a public company, any
| collaboration between Tesla and other Musk companies needs to
| be approved by the board (or maybe by other C-suite executives)
| without Musk in the room. Musk can come up with the idea for a
| collaboration, but then the decision that it is in the best
| interests of Tesla and all its shareholders to proceed with the
| collaboration needs to be made independently of him.
|
| By contrast, I don't think the rules apply as strictly to his
| other companies since they are privately held. The law cares a
| lot more about protecting shareholder rights in public
| companies than in private ones.
| Hamuko wrote:
| Wasn't Musk pulling Tesla engineers to go work on Twitter?
| elAhmo wrote:
| The board at Tesla is basically Elon's buddies. There is no
| oversight or independence there, they do what he wants.
|
| If law was applied equality to billionaires as it does to
| regular people, he would be in jail for fraud.
| briandear wrote:
| If shareholders are happy, what business is it of yours? If
| they aren't happy, they can sell the shares.
| dullcrisp wrote:
| SEC destroyed
| elAhmo wrote:
| Following the law should be above the shareholder gain.
| Mentality like yours is what got us in this situation
| where people are blatantly abusing the government for
| personal gain.
| User23 wrote:
| > The board at Tesla is basically Elon's buddies. There is
| no oversight or independence there, they do what he wants.
|
| This is true at most companies with a competent CEO.
|
| My uncle had an inimical board that tried to remove him,
| but he somehow replaced them all one by one before they
| could. Needless to say he replaced them with people who
| didn't want to remove him ("buddies"; but what kind of a
| leader surrounds himself with people that want him to
| fail?). He's never told me how he did that despite my
| asking several times.
| calmbonsai wrote:
| Some companies have board governance rules that mandate a
| majority of the board seats be of "outside and
| independent" individuals, but of course this can easily
| be gamed and, of course, these rules themselves can be
| put to a vote during shareholder meetings.
|
| Still, it's always worth considering these structures
| before one invests--especially in med-to-large-cap public
| companies.
|
| Alternatively, in private small-cap and venture-boards,
| the seats are nearly always filled by founders and lead
| investors and I would argue that's a "good thing".
| Onavo wrote:
| Berkshire is very different, they are a hedge fund/holding
| company and their main business is trading companies.
| samwillis wrote:
| It's similar (ish), but I think unfortunately the comparison
| distracts from your core point and observation.
|
| Musk Inc. is, in essence, a privet equity company. He raises a
| fund, and invests it along with his own cash into a business he
| knows well, and with which he believes he can disrupt the
| status quo.
|
| He's very hands on, understanding all the important core
| details, setting culture, and pushing _hard_. But he also
| delegates to experts he brings in to run his businesses.
|
| It's obviously not the same as PE, but there are distinct
| similarities. With each of his companies he clearly can't take
| an active role all the time, but what his team are experts at
| is identifying the areas he needs to be on top of, and they
| will quite literally fly him in for it. It seems to me it's
| always the start of something, be it a new company or project.
| He will be there 24/7 getting it off the ground, but then hand
| over to lieutenants to run.
|
| It's a formula that seems to work again and again. We're (well
| those of you in the US) are in for an interesting time over the
| coming year as he has a new project to kick start.
| cj wrote:
| I'm curious why this is being downvoted (seems to hit the
| nail on the head)
| numpad0 wrote:
| You're describing a corporate conglomerate, in style of pre-
| modern to early industrialization era.
| unsnap_biceps wrote:
| 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.
| FL33TW00D wrote:
| Rocket Lab and Peter Beck are your best hope!
| CtrlAltmanDel wrote:
| How can it be that a LTE smartphone, costing ~$100 and doing all
| the things a smart phone can do, and being designed to connect to
| a cell network via a tower a few miles away, can somehow also
| function as the pizza sized $500 Starlink dish?
| maccam94 wrote:
| It uses a different transceiver on the satellite which is
| broadcasting a ~standard LTE signal, at a miniscule data rate
| kortilla wrote:
| It doesn't. The throughput here is multiple orders of magnitude
| lower than what you get from Starlink
| tedd4u wrote:
| >E-UTRAN Node B, also known as Evolved Node B, is the element in
| E-UTRA of >LTE that is the evolution of the element
| Node B in UTRA of UMTS.
|
| Thanks, wikipedia! [1]
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENodeB
| brcmthrowaway wrote:
| My question is how the laser backhaul works. If the satellites
| are constantly moving how do they adjust since lasers require
| line of sight?
| Polizeiposaune wrote:
| The constellation is subdivided into orbital planes, with ~20
| to ~60 satellites in each plane chasing each other around the
| planet.
|
| The following is somewhat speculative:
|
| The bearing to the next satellite ahead or behind you in the
| same plane should be roughly constant; likewise, the bearing to
| satellites in adjacent planes orbiting in the same direction
| will change slowly during most of the orbit.
|
| Near the poles the required slew rate will likely be too high
| to keep the side-to-side links working but that's also a part
| of the planet where subscriber density will be low so losing
| that capacity for periods of a few minutes when near the poles
| likely won't matter.
| faebi wrote:
| Which bandwidth can a phone reasonably expect given nobody around
| for kilometers? Are we talking kbits or mbits? Is there some kind
| of theoretical maximum?
| heywoods wrote:
| Does this allow the ability to circumvent LTE networks in
| countries like China? Do we have the capability to send messages
| to any/all phones in China if we (USA) wanted to?
| IshKebab wrote:
| Technically, yes. But there's no way they would actually do
| that. Good question about the emergency message feature...
| pyrale wrote:
| For that, Starlink would have to use the frequency band that
| the phone (and, therefore, the relevant operator) is using.
| Such frequencies are assigned by states to operators, and using
| them from space would be extremely easy to detect. That is why
| Starlink either has to make a deal with in operators, or
| acquire a licence to use a frequency band in every country it
| wants to operate.
|
| I assume that if Starlink was trying to do this without
| agreement, in violation of the interational treaty on radio
| regulations, the USA would have to prevent them from doing so.
| If the USA did not, I don't see what would prevent China from
| shooting down Starlink's constellation.
|
| As a side note on the technology, since Starlink satellites
| orbit 340km from earth, I wonder if they emit a directed
| signal. If they don't, I don't see how they intend to respect
| borders when sending messages down.
| wmf wrote:
| Yes, the beams are highly directional.
| wmf wrote:
| Technically yes.
| Reason077 wrote:
| This is supposed to launch in New Zealand during 2024, in
| partnership with a local carrier. Was being heavily hyped a year
| or so back, but I haven't heard much recently?
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| The Commerce Commission charged One NZ for making false claims
| around Starlink: https://www.teslarati.com/starlink-criminal-
| charges-new-zeal...
| mkl wrote:
| There are a few stories in the last week. Seems like it's in
| testing but has been waiting for lower satellites with
| appropriate capabilities:
| https://www.interest.co.nz/technology/130898/telco-one-nz-be...
|
| Probably both happening until next year:
|
| > But in September the telco (and Optus across the Tasman and
| other Direct to Cell exclusive partners) removed "launching
| 2024'' references from its website. --
| https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/commerce-commission-take...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-11-24 23:00 UTC)