upvote
* only when you’re outdoors with good line of sight and only in geographic areas they allow.
reply
I’m not sure if that’s true of these use cellular frequencies.
reply
You can already try it with T-Mobile and it’s pretty limited. Great if you need sms and there’s no other towers around. Still requires line of sight.
reply
The limitations on the current T-Satellite service have a lot to do with the spectrum being shared with terrestrial towers and the low number of satellites.

The new constellation will be physically closer, with much larger antennas and a much larger number of satellites with a much higher capacity per satellite. It will also use dedicated spectrum with no terrestrial interference. Coverage and speed will be improved tremendously.

reply
You’re still limited to the transmission and receive capabilities of mobile devices which already struggle with current cell networks. I’m Not arguing it won’t be nice for people truly remote, but people keep acting like this will replace cell towers, which it won’t.
reply
The limitations of mobile devices are mostly due to regulation (power limits and spectrum allocation and other requirements) and not inherent to the technology of handheld devices. And despite this, you can increase performance almost arbitrarily if you are able to increase the size and power and number of the antennas on the other side.

Yes, the Gen3 Starlink Direct-to-Cell constellation won't replace cell towers in urban or suburban areas. But I believe it could replace them in rural areas.

reply
That's usually how satellites work.
reply
There’s some folks here that seem to think otherwise
reply
You really want Starlink to be bad, huh?
reply
Did I say that? I’m being realistic and not drinking the Elon koolaid. I think starlink is great and it’s hugely improved life for a lot of people and made remote work a lot nicer.
reply
Wifi indoors, starlink outdoors
reply
I explicitly do not want that
reply
Do we really need that? Most of us are fine with relays. The coverage in remote parts could be handled by way fewer sattelites. 100k is a lot of sattelites. Seems that with 100k leo we’d have 24/7 live coverage of every inch on earth but do we really want that?
reply
> we’d have 24/7 live coverage of every inch on earth but do we really want that?

I think you misunderstand the maths a bit. If the goal is high bandwidth, which requires high density, for specific, randomly distributed, parts of the earth, then, by the fundamental laws of gravity and orbits, you'll also have coverage over the rest of it, whether you like it or not.

reply
Just coverage is already provided by the 600-something direct to cell satellites already in orbit yes, but you need more if you want it to be useful beyond loading text-only posts or sending SMS
reply
Internet works on phones?

The more you know.

reply
It also creates a private internet on which “private enterprise” does not have to abide by the Constitution or any subordinate laws.

Sure, it’s just “fear mongering” now, just like digital ID, digital currency, mass surveillance, and speech police were 30 or so years ago, but what happens when terrestrial cable internet gets too expensive and everyone’s subject to Elon’s space internet?

It’s basically the similar playbook as the cable/copper phone network giving way to the internet and wireless and … whoopsie … you also have a tracking and permanent surveillance device on you with no ability to keep thousands of corporations harvesting your body for data and information.

reply
This would allow you to throw a flock camera up literally anywhere on earth. If we are being honest, we are probably only a couple years out from real Orwellian mass surveillance states, totally censored and mined communications, and general purpose compute restricted or made illegal I wouldn't even be surprised. All the incentives lead right to that and we are halfway there in many ways already.
reply
I hate to break it to you, you are already in an "Orwellian mass surveillance state" and just don't realize it, just as the majority of people in the Orwellian mass surveillance state also were not aware of.

Case in point, are you aware that the whole 2+2=5 line was a deliberate falsification of a perfectly sound and even healthy statement that Orwell stole and perverted, i.e., 2 + 2 + the people's enthusiasm = 5 ???

Then, when you start finding out that the CIA, at the same time that it was conducting its MKUltra "experiments", was aggressively buying up all the rights to 1984 and then pushed them into schools and made the movies in close collaboration with Propagandawood; you have to at least start asking yourself extremely uncomfortable questions about whether 1984 was actually a warning or preconditioning, aka grooming.

reply
The CIA did help fund some movies of 1984 to make them more anti-totalitarian and anti-Soviet, but that's not the same thing as them buying up all the rights to it.
reply
There are already zero private companies that have to follow the constitution, since it never applied to them, ever.

As another person mentioned, radio crosses international boundaries, but it is regulated by regulating ground equipment and people and organizations on the ground. You'll see some countries on https://starlink.com/map that are greyed out because of regulatory issues... for example, some countries such as India heavily control the use of satellite comms

reply
Do ISPs have to comply with the 1st ammendment? My understanding was that they have some sort of common carrier law but net neutrality did not hold up.
reply
It doesn’t. The network is governed by the FCC and any other regulatory agency where they place RF on the ground.
reply
You have a very peasant perspective. And that's not meant as an insult, it's just the kind of perspective of a peasant about what is going on in the kingdom, let alone in the palace's inner chambers.
reply
Do you think Starlink is somehow extraterritorial or something? They're no more or no less a "private internet" than any other ISP. People need to get a reality check. Hacker news is becoming one of the most luddite places on the internet.
reply