8 ms·
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’ re
by charliebwrites 2y ago
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 2y agoIt will happen over time
- nordsieck 2y ago> 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).
- lxgr 2y agoThat's still many orders of magnitude too little. We're currently talking data rates on the order of (optimistically) 5 Mbit/s for a cell with a diameter of 15 square miles, i.e. something like 0.1 Mbit/s per km^2. In very rural areas (which is the use case!), that's infinitely better than nothing, but anywhere people live, this is effectively nothing, and there is currently no way around ground-based infrastructure.
- Retric 2y agoIt’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 2y ago> astronomical fee
- inglor_cz 2y agoCompared to what? Traditional satellite phone corporations used to charge something like 8 USD/min.
- Retric 2y agoCompared 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 2y agoNot for somebody whose job is outside the existing networks, such as sailors.
- Retric 2y agoSailors 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 2y agoThe setup cost for Starlink on a boat is still massively higher than on land.
- dasv 2y agoYes, 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.
- ggernov 2y agoI was curious about this! I wish this was a perk of owning / purchasing a Tesla or a more expensive option of Starlink terminal.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- rlt 2y agoIt’s kind of crazy Tesla hasn’t partnered with SpaceX to provide Starlink as an option.
- dzhiurgis 2y agoKinda 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 2y ago> 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 2y ago100% speak to A German high speed rail traveller and she will tell you all about the white spots
- petesergeant 2y agoAny idea of the etymology for calling it a "white spot"? Assuming this is a German thing
- ben_w 2y agoTerra Incognita — the part of a map that is blank and therefore white: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wei%C3%9Fer_Fleck https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wei%C3%9Fer_Fleck
- ignoramous 2y ago> 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 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32982697
- rblatz 2y ago> 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 2y ago> The baseband on handheld devices do not have that much power to transmit and receive from Starlink directly It turns out they do.
- Tuna-Fish 2y agoThey do, but only with very low bandwidth. The initial service is just sms messages, nothing else.
- FpUser 2y ago>"One space based cell plan for the whole world" And a single entity to decide who gets disconnected if they do not behave
- kortilla 2y agoI 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.
- joecool1029 2y agoIt's not acquiring the spectrum that's an issue right now. It's it not interfering with terrestrial networks. Euro carriers already pushing back against relaxing emissions restrictions for DTC specifically: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10930985930353/1 https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10930985930353/1
- throwaway2037 2y agoHelp me: Is DTC "direct-to-consumer"? I tried to Google for it, but I didn't find anything obvious. Else, hat tip for this FCC find! What a great share on HN.
- quailfarmer 2y ago“Direct to cell”
- paxys 2y agoAre you planning to be in direct line of sight to a Starlink satellite 24x7?
- PaulDavisThe1st 2y agoStarlink's certainly planning on that, more or less.
- paxys 2y agoUnless they can remove buildings from this world, that isn't going to be a reality.
- PaulDavisThe1st 2y agoah, people live in cities with hi-rise buildings. silly me.
- schiffern 2y agoNot 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 https://youtu.be/AHeZHyOnsm4?t=191
- chrisco255 2y agoThat was 9 years ago and a lot has changed since then. They're moving to 3rd generation devices which have higher bandwidth and now have thousands of satellites deployed. Once Starship is able to deploy payloads, they'll increase the number of satellites even more quickly.
- schiffern 2y agoA lot has changed, but the calculus of fiber vs. satellites hasn't. Fiber (and fiber-served cellular) is good for high density, satellites are good for low density.
- Reason077 2y agoStarlink would need to license LTE spectrum in every country it operated. Much easier to work with local carriers and piggyback on their existing bandwidth.
- mrandish 2y ago> license LTE spectrum in every country I think this is the biggest reason. All nation's governments will absolutely ensure, overtly or covertly, that their national regulators limit any space-based supra-national system from being able to threaten their national telephony and data carriers. Why? Preventing losing national capabilities, government revenue (taxes, licenses & other domestic carrier fees, lobbying, kickbacks, bribes, etc) and, most importantly, losing the ability to snoop at will on calls and data (at least metadata if not full-take). Even in countries where the major carriers are all based in other nations, existing towers being land-based creates jurisdiction for the government to control and tax. While many westernized democracies like to proclaim their commitment to freedom, rule of law and individual human rights - in practice there are currently zero governments on earth free enough to not consider loss of that absolute control over citizen's private communication an existential threat. Even in places where existing laws don't currently make it illegal, as soon as technology enables it - it will certainly be made illegal (by any means necessary). I assume SpaceX is smart enough to understand this reality.
- sangnoir 2y ago> All nation's governments will absolutely ensure, overtly or covertly, that their national regulators limit any space-based supra-national system from being able to threaten their national telephony and data carriers The ITU is pretty overt about how frequency allocation governance works. Absolutely no one wants a free-for-all frequency regime, for a multitude of reasons - not even SpaceX. You may recall that Huawei 5G equipment was expunged from domestically-controlled, western infrastructure without having broken any laws, due to fears of future abuse. Your suggestion of a foreign company unilaterally, and illegally[1] imposing it's foreign-controlled, space-based phone network goes much further than whatever fears Washington had over Huawei. 1. Pretty much every country on earth with a government regulates how radio spectrum is licensed for telecommunications, not for the purposes of control as an end, but coordination and preventing interference.
- kelnos 2y agoI 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 2y agoAdding 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 2y agoi wouldnt need more than 1MBit to ssh into my servers comfortably, and pull directions to the nearest "full power downlink" if i want to listen to music while i work or something
- markps 2y agoHave you looked into AWS Ground Station? I don’t know if it’s economical, or has enough locations for 24/7 access, but it might be better than once an orbit.
- minetest2048 2y agoAll ground station as a service are limited by radio licensing, you need to apply for transmit license to the country that the groundstation is located to legally transmit to your cubesat. Its not as easy as spinning up an EC2 instance Some regulation horror: https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-R/space/Pages/API.aspx https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-R/space/Pages/API.aspx . Worst case you need to wait 7 years! to get your radio license Compare this to a 4G modem / smartphone, its amazing that you don't need to file spectrum license to another country version of FCC everytime you travel. It. Just. Worked.
- fragmede 2y agoThat sounds super fascinating. Can you tell us more about your cubesat?
- verzali 2y agoThere's IDRS that does this for satellites.
- minetest2048 2y ago
- harrall 2y agoI can’t imagine satellites being able to compete with cell towers in bandwidth or capacity. There are millions of cell towers. During a major event, cellular companies set up portable cell towers (COWs) and even these are not enough. And a cell tower that is right next to you still pales in comparison to a single cable in bandwidth.
- torginus 2y agoYup. Small cell size is actually a feature for cell phone communications. You have to share bandwidth with everyone in your cell - the smaller the cell, the less crowding. This is a general starlink issue, which is why I don't understand how is it economically or physically viable in crowded areas, such as cities, where the majority of human population lives.
- verzali 2y agoIt's not. They don't have the capacity to cover densely populated areas and it will always be cheaper to build out infrastructure on land in those areas than to launch something into space.
- torginus 2y agoHonestly try as I might, I have failed to undestand your reply. Who is 'they' in your post? Aren't you actually agreeing with me in actuality (in that cells are better than satellites for densely populated areas)?
- chucksmash 2y agoIt's not a matter of agreeing accidentally, they just plain agree with you.
- tssva 2y agoThey aren't trying to compete with cell towers. SpaceX is partnered with traditional carriers in each country where LTE service will be available and the Starlink service is intended to supplement those services by providing service where existing cell towers can't.
- 1024core 2y agoDoesn't T-Mobile come close to that? I've heard that T-Mo works in most countries across the globe.
- ianburrell 2y agoDirect to Cell has pretty low bandwidth. The total bandwidth is 4Mbps per cell, with each person getting kpbs. If they do offer internet, it will be like 2G or dialup.
- teleforce 2y agoThanks Ian. I was looking into the bandwidth (apparently most important parameter in cellular service) offered but nobody is mentioning including the Starlink landing page for the service. Sure it mentioned LTE but it can be anything from 1 to 100 Mbps and LTE+ can be well into Gbps. Here is the previous post last year on Direct to Cell by Starlink and the main complains is about the puny bandwidth [1]. But if you are outside the town in remote places or in the middle of ocean any communication albeit a few bytes is most welcome, beggars cannot choose. For most IoT services it should be adequate but if you're inside tropical jungle or Amazon forest it will not work need to climb tree for the reception to work. [1] Starlink Direct to Cell: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37848212 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37848212
- mrweasel 2y agoOthers have already touched on the technical and regulatory issues, but also think of pricing. Would they price is like the US carriers do, or would they price it like a Scandinavian carrier? If they want customers all over the world, they'd need to match the cheapest offering, as it's hard to argue that the service for some reason is more expensive in the US. I tried finding the price for a US cell phone plan, I can't actually do it. AT&T is impossible to navigate and always seems to bundle a phone. Mint Mobile tries to push 3, 6 or 12 months, which isn't even legal and the plans still come in at $40 for what is a $25 plan here in Denmark (with no additional fees). If Starlink launched a world view subscription, at competitive prices they'd immediately crash the US cell service market.
- nurumaik 2y agoFor travellers, they only need to match other global esims, which are quite expensive
- egorfine 2y ago> One space based cell plan for the whole world And then one day: one censorship for the whole world. No, thank you. The availability of different providers in different jurisdictions is crucial for thwarting world to function. I speak as a person from a country with government censorship implemented.