6 ms·

More detail here: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/25/spacex-and-t-mobile-team-up-to-use-starlink-satellites.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/25/spacex-and-t-mobil

by arbuge 4y ago

More detail here: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/25/spacex-and-t-mobile-team-up-to-use-starlink-satellites.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/25/spacex-and-t-mobile-team-up-... "T-Mobile users will be able to use messaging, MMS and certain messaging apps, from remote points across the lower 48 states, Alaska, Puerto Rico and Hawaii and even some remote points in the water. Eventually, the service will work with voice, Sievert said. T-Mobile plans to include the service in its most popular mobile plans but did not disclose specific pricing. Musk said the service will work with Starlink’s second generation satellites, which have very large antennae and will be able to transmit directly to a cell or mobile phone. The service won’t require mobile users to get a new phone. Musk said in or after a natural disaster, even if all the cell towers are taken out, the planned service should work."

mlindner 4y ago
> T-Mobile plans to include the service in its most popular mobile plans but did not disclose specific pricing. No, he said that it would "most likely" be included with the most popular mobile plans for free.
- judge2020 4y ago
  "I would expect our pricing for this service to be the un-carrier's favorite price: we expect, on our most popular plans, for this service to be included for free" https://youtu.be/Qzli-Ww26Qs?t=851 https://youtu.be/Qzli-Ww26Qs?t=851
  - mlindner 4y ago
    Yes, that's what I said. Edit: Downvotes are happening for some reason. "most likely" and "I would expect" mean basically the same thing unless we're playing grammar police. The entire point of my above post was to deny the fact that they "did not disclose specific pricing". That was the part that was incorrect that I was correcting, as shown in the long form direct quote.
    - judge2020 4y ago
      The direct quote is more descriptive as it claims "we expect" instead of "most likely". The quote implies that it's based on preliminary cost data and could change, while "most likely" almost sounds like it's based on a dice roll and is vague about exactly what is contributing to the uncertainty of the statement. He chose his words carefully.
    - tshaddox 4y ago
      > "most likely" and "I would expect" mean basically the same thing And so does just saying the claim with no qualifiers. Of course when you’re making a claim you’re expressing that you expect it to be the case with high likelihood. That’s what making a claim is.
      - mlindner 4y ago
        I have no idea what you're saying. My ONLY point was that it wasn't unknown pricing data, it was stated to be free.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
TMWNN 4y ago
>T-Mobile plans to include the service in its most popular mobile plans but did not disclose specific pricing. Hopefully this includes $20 Kickstart!
danellis 4y ago
Interesting. Is there no distance limit? I don't know how 5G works, but in 2G there was a limit of about 30km, since that's as much as the timing advance would allow for (sending the signal early so that it arrives in its timeslot despite the speed-of-light delay).
- kevin_nisbet 4y ago
  I'm also pretty out of date, but I believe in LTE (4G) the max distance was closer to 100km, with the timing advance controlled in the radio protocol. As I understand it, the 5G radio protocol should be fairly similar to 4G, it wasn't completely reinvented for once. Based on my read of the summary of a couple Mbps per cell and focusing more on low bandwidth services like texting makes me suspect they're right at the limits of what the tech will allow. Since they're advertising compatibility with existing hardware, makes me suspect there is an extension somewhere in the standards that allows the timing window to be increased, or maybe there's some clever hackery going on, like only scheduling every other timing window and cutting bandwidth in half. Which might work on the uplink, but on the downlink I think it's more complicated to support something like paging, where the UE is mostly idle, and only wakes up occasionally, that things don't get out of sync with the moving satellite.
  - yaantc 4y ago
    Yes indeed, LTE max cell size is 100 km. There's a system using LTE to backhaul Internet traffic from planes (WiFi in cabin, with a LTE to the ground), working with larger cells of up to ~900 km from memory, but it doesn't use standard LTE for example. It uses a modified variant made to support the possibly larger propagation delay coming with larger cells. For 5G (NR), the max cell size has been increased and depends on the OFDM subcarrier spacing. For a 15 kHz SC, same as LTE, the max cell size is 300 km. This value is halved each time the SC doubles. There's work on-going to extend NR to non-terrestrial networks. I don't know where it stands right now, but it'll likely add larger cells support. But it's not there yet for sure.
- dvdkhlng 4y ago
  I'd think that the distance limit for _terrestrial_ mobile networks comes from the guard interval of the OFDM modulation [1]. I.e. on longer distances the time-offset between different different reception paths (due to reflections) of the signal becomes so long that you cannot compensate those with just a complex gain-factor of the OFDM vectors. AFAIR LTE (4G) even uses different guard intervals depending on rural vs. city setting because that time-offset is larger in rural areas (less base station density). I would not expect those problems to be relevant for satellite communication as ground<->satellite does not suffer much of the multi-path signal propagation of terrestrial systems. (IIRC DVB-c sat-TV broadcasts did not even use OFDM, at least not for the older "v1" DVB-c standard). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthogonal_frequency-division_multiplexing#Guard_interval_for_elimination_of_intersymbol_interference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthogonal_frequency-division_...
swyx 4y ago
does this extend to TMobile based mvno’s like Mint Mobile? cant tell
- xeromal 4y ago
  Doesn't seem logical as this feels like a premium service. We'll find out soon enough though.
lrvick 4y ago
Certain messaging apps... All bets are on centralized and/or proprietary ones that can afford to pay for the privilege. I have been saying from day one that Starlink is well poised to end net neutrality.
- adev_ 4y ago
  > All bets are on centralized and/or proprietary ones that can afford to pay for the privilege Or not. App like Silence (https://silence.im/ https://silence.im/) have been able to do secure e2e messaging using SMS as transport layer for almost one decade now.
  - lrvick 4y ago
    SMS makes it very hard to be anonymous. Not a good option IMO.
    - adev_ 4y ago
      > SMS makes it very hard to be anonymous. Not a good option IMO. How is that even related ? Silence is the equivalent of Signal over SMS instead of the usual Mobile Data: There is nothing by design in Signal to stay anonymous. E2E encryption are mainly there to prevent eyes dropping, not to provide anonymity.
      - lrvick 4y ago
        I was simply pointing out Starlink supporting SMS is not good enough, even with layers like Silence on top.
        crangos 4y ago
        A major use case is in emergency situations or catastrophes when no classical cell service is available. If you are hoping to message someone to rescue you, I don't think anonymity is your concern.
comboy 4y ago
> to transmit directly to a cell or mobile phone. If it could talk directly with mobile phones it's a game changer. But I don't understand how it could be physically possible without phased array and satellite tracking for a phone to transmit anything back to satellite. If achieved, even a few bytes per minute would already be big.
- lxgr 4y ago
  It's supposedly already been demonstrated by a different company: https://techcrunch.com/2021/09/29/lynk-demos-global-satellite-connection-for-ordinary-phones-and-prepares-for-commercial-launch/ https://techcrunch.com/2021/09/29/lynk-demos-global-satellit...
- LoveMortuus 4y ago
  You could also just have the recipient in the first part of the message block so that the devices that aren't the recipient either just ignore the message or can't decode it. My biggest question is how do you send a signal to a satellite with your mobile phone. And they're even saying without additional hardware which makes it even more difficult. Or are they just hoping that there would be no obstructions from your device and the satellite, no roof and a good sunny weather? Although my knowledge is lacking, my understanding is that 2G has good range at the expense of low data rate. But I have a feeling that many modern phones no longer support 2G, since (at least here in Slovenia, Europe) many providers have over the years lowered or totally removed the number of 2G towers.
rocqua 4y ago
The quotes here are only about transmitting to cellphones, not about receiving from cellphones. Is uplink also a part of the plan?
- omellet 4y ago
  If it's TCP then there's an uplink implied.
Abishek_Muthian 4y ago
> Musk said the service will work with Starlink’s second generation satellites, which have very large antennae and will be able to transmit directly to a cell or mobile phone. This has far greater implications than dead zones, yacht's (or) Oil rigs; 'Telecommunication during natural disasters'! With increasing number of extreme weather events, Our conventional telecommunication systems(especially base stations) cannot stand a chance against natural(man made?) disasters. Yet, Apart from few nerd group projects like disaster.radio I see no real work in building disaster resilient telecommunication network. P.S. If you live in India, Especially in south-western India and are interested in https://disaster.radio https://disaster.radio project for your region then give me a ping. I've been trying to get it started for ages.

by arbuge 4y ago

mlindner 4y ago

> T-Mobile plans to include the service in its most popular mobile plans but did not disclose specific pricing. No, he said that it would "most likely" be included with the most popular mobile plans for free.

judge2020 4y ago
"I would expect our pricing for this service to be the un-carrier's favorite price: we expect, on our most popular plans, for this service to be included for free" https://youtu.be/Qzli-Ww26Qs?t=851 https://youtu.be/Qzli-Ww26Qs?t=851
- mlindner 4y ago
  Yes, that's what I said. Edit: Downvotes are happening for some reason. "most likely" and "I would expect" mean basically the same thing unless we're playing grammar police. The entire point of my above post was to deny the fact that they "did not disclose specific pricing". That was the part that was incorrect that I was correcting, as shown in the long form direct quote.
  - judge2020 4y ago
    The direct quote is more descriptive as it claims "we expect" instead of "most likely". The quote implies that it's based on preliminary cost data and could change, while "most likely" almost sounds like it's based on a dice roll and is vague about exactly what is contributing to the uncertainty of the statement. He chose his words carefully.
  - tshaddox 4y ago
    > "most likely" and "I would expect" mean basically the same thing And so does just saying the claim with no qualifiers. Of course when you’re making a claim you’re expressing that you expect it to be the case with high likelihood. That’s what making a claim is.
    - mlindner 4y ago
      I have no idea what you're saying. My ONLY point was that it wasn't unknown pricing data, it was stated to be free.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

TMWNN 4y ago

>T-Mobile plans to include the service in its most popular mobile plans but did not disclose specific pricing. Hopefully this includes $20 Kickstart!

danellis 4y ago

Interesting. Is there no distance limit? I don't know how 5G works, but in 2G there was a limit of about 30km, since that's as much as the timing advance would allow for (sending the signal early so that it arrives in its timeslot despite the speed-of-light delay).

kevin_nisbet 4y ago
I'm also pretty out of date, but I believe in LTE (4G) the max distance was closer to 100km, with the timing advance controlled in the radio protocol. As I understand it, the 5G radio protocol should be fairly similar to 4G, it wasn't completely reinvented for once. Based on my read of the summary of a couple Mbps per cell and focusing more on low bandwidth services like texting makes me suspect they're right at the limits of what the tech will allow. Since they're advertising compatibility with existing hardware, makes me suspect there is an extension somewhere in the standards that allows the timing window to be increased, or maybe there's some clever hackery going on, like only scheduling every other timing window and cutting bandwidth in half. Which might work on the uplink, but on the downlink I think it's more complicated to support something like paging, where the UE is mostly idle, and only wakes up occasionally, that things don't get out of sync with the moving satellite.
- yaantc 4y ago
  Yes indeed, LTE max cell size is 100 km. There's a system using LTE to backhaul Internet traffic from planes (WiFi in cabin, with a LTE to the ground), working with larger cells of up to ~900 km from memory, but it doesn't use standard LTE for example. It uses a modified variant made to support the possibly larger propagation delay coming with larger cells. For 5G (NR), the max cell size has been increased and depends on the OFDM subcarrier spacing. For a 15 kHz SC, same as LTE, the max cell size is 300 km. This value is halved each time the SC doubles. There's work on-going to extend NR to non-terrestrial networks. I don't know where it stands right now, but it'll likely add larger cells support. But it's not there yet for sure.
dvdkhlng 4y ago
I'd think that the distance limit for _terrestrial_ mobile networks comes from the guard interval of the OFDM modulation [1]. I.e. on longer distances the time-offset between different different reception paths (due to reflections) of the signal becomes so long that you cannot compensate those with just a complex gain-factor of the OFDM vectors. AFAIR LTE (4G) even uses different guard intervals depending on rural vs. city setting because that time-offset is larger in rural areas (less base station density). I would not expect those problems to be relevant for satellite communication as ground<->satellite does not suffer much of the multi-path signal propagation of terrestrial systems. (IIRC DVB-c sat-TV broadcasts did not even use OFDM, at least not for the older "v1" DVB-c standard). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthogonal_frequency-division_multiplexing#Guard_interval_for_elimination_of_intersymbol_interference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthogonal_frequency-division_...

swyx 4y ago

does this extend to TMobile based mvno’s like Mint Mobile? cant tell

xeromal 4y ago
Doesn't seem logical as this feels like a premium service. We'll find out soon enough though.

lrvick 4y ago

Certain messaging apps... All bets are on centralized and/or proprietary ones that can afford to pay for the privilege. I have been saying from day one that Starlink is well poised to end net neutrality.

adev_ 4y ago
> All bets are on centralized and/or proprietary ones that can afford to pay for the privilege Or not. App like Silence (https://silence.im/ https://silence.im/) have been able to do secure e2e messaging using SMS as transport layer for almost one decade now.
- lrvick 4y ago
  SMS makes it very hard to be anonymous. Not a good option IMO.
  - adev_ 4y ago
    > SMS makes it very hard to be anonymous. Not a good option IMO. How is that even related ? Silence is the equivalent of Signal over SMS instead of the usual Mobile Data: There is nothing by design in Signal to stay anonymous. E2E encryption are mainly there to prevent eyes dropping, not to provide anonymity.
    - lrvick 4y ago
      I was simply pointing out Starlink supporting SMS is not good enough, even with layers like Silence on top.
      - crangos 4y ago
        A major use case is in emergency situations or catastrophes when no classical cell service is available. If you are hoping to message someone to rescue you, I don't think anonymity is your concern.

comboy 4y ago

> to transmit directly to a cell or mobile phone. If it could talk directly with mobile phones it's a game changer. But I don't understand how it could be physically possible without phased array and satellite tracking for a phone to transmit anything back to satellite. If achieved, even a few bytes per minute would already be big.

lxgr 4y ago
It's supposedly already been demonstrated by a different company: https://techcrunch.com/2021/09/29/lynk-demos-global-satellite-connection-for-ordinary-phones-and-prepares-for-commercial-launch/ https://techcrunch.com/2021/09/29/lynk-demos-global-satellit...
LoveMortuus 4y ago
You could also just have the recipient in the first part of the message block so that the devices that aren't the recipient either just ignore the message or can't decode it. My biggest question is how do you send a signal to a satellite with your mobile phone. And they're even saying without additional hardware which makes it even more difficult. Or are they just hoping that there would be no obstructions from your device and the satellite, no roof and a good sunny weather? Although my knowledge is lacking, my understanding is that 2G has good range at the expense of low data rate. But I have a feeling that many modern phones no longer support 2G, since (at least here in Slovenia, Europe) many providers have over the years lowered or totally removed the number of 2G towers.

rocqua 4y ago

The quotes here are only about transmitting to cellphones, not about receiving from cellphones. Is uplink also a part of the plan?

omellet 4y ago
If it's TCP then there's an uplink implied.

Abishek_Muthian 4y ago

> Musk said the service will work with Starlink’s second generation satellites, which have very large antennae and will be able to transmit directly to a cell or mobile phone. This has far greater implications than dead zones, yacht's (or) Oil rigs; 'Telecommunication during natural disasters'! With increasing number of extreme weather events, Our conventional telecommunication systems(especially base stations) cannot stand a chance against natural(man made?) disasters. Yet, Apart from few nerd group projects like disaster.radio I see no real work in building disaster resilient telecommunication network. P.S. If you live in India, Especially in south-western India and are interested in https://disaster.radio https://disaster.radio project for your region then give me a ping. I've been trying to get it started for ages.