I just hope they're not relying on the internet for anything tactical.
I've got deep concerns about the politics side of the company, and the future implications of them being able to decide where and who gets coverage. But from a technology perspective it's doing things I didn't really think were possible a decade ago. Having signal in the bottom of the pit, or way out the back of the Pilbara is just crazy.
When most of the Earth's surface has internet, it will be hard to imagine what life was like when it didn't.
I recently had a gig collecting soil samples in rural Alberta, and we relied on Starlink to upload the data as we worked.[0]
It was surreal trundling through a remote farmer’s field in a skid-steer with a funny-looking square dish on top, surrounded by a herd of bison or cattle.
Stepping outside of the machine to take a piss on a tree and hearing the motors in the dish whir as it repositions itself to get a better connection was startling and neat. It’s one thing to read about the dishes having that functionality but another to experience it while you’re doing something as mundane as a basic bodily function.
Pulling the dish and the mount off the skid-steer and tossing it in the back of the truck, and seeing the off-the-shelf Ryobi battery and inverter that powered it, all scuffed up and covered in dirt, makes you realize that as magical as it is right now, it’s just a machine. People thought that transistor radios were pretty magical when they came out but eventually they just became an everyday thing.
Soon enough these things won’t be so big and expensive, and there will be a market of providers offering even better service. What comes then will be scary from a privacy perspective, but it may also enable so many positive things that we can’t yet imagine.
“The most profound technologies are those that disappear.”
I think we'll miss it. I've known both the "pre-connected" and "post-connected" eras. There's a lot to love about being "connected".. and a lot to not like. Constant connectivity kind of sucks and we'd all do better to detox/disconnect meaningfully every so often.
In general my phone doesn't ring. I respond to written messages every few hours. That works for me but it might not work for you.
I'm joking, but it's also kind of true, isn't it?
So it's almost certainly the case that Starlink itself would not be profitable if it had to pay for its own launches. If Starlink paid for its own launches, the launch business would be closer to profitability but still not profitable, i.e. you'd have two unprofitable businesses instead of one.
It might be the case that once you get enough satellites up and replace them consistently enough that margins go positive, and then you can start paying back the cost of "the rocket business" (i.e. more than the marginal cost of launch) but... it's not at all clear that's even theoretically possible. At least not without launch costs coming down significantly from where they are today, which Starship is not clearly en route to achieving.
By now, Starlink is profitable even if launched with Falcon 9 - and Starship is coming online.
Starlink could be seen as a 'fire sale' of launch capacity rather than a sound business move.
Claims are based on nonsense.
Launch 20 million satellites at 600k is clear from reading the financials
Seems within the realm of possibility at this point in the company’s growth cycle?
There's always people out there to minimize success of others.
It's not first. It's nothing new. It's not innovative.
There's an old article in WSJ that claimed SpaceX told investors that starlink was profitable if you excluded certain costs. We found out from the IPO that that was nonsense. SpaceX was charging starlink the internal cost of launch. Not the public pricing that everyone else charges.
That makes sense if you're not trying to split the company.
That's a sentence I wasn't expecting, lol
https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=kidme5
https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=georgeg23
Or as I’ve explained to other people it’s great that AAA will tow me a hundred miles if I need it, but if I can’t call them then what good is it?
I just checked a few weeks ago and “Roam” does no longer include international coverage at all. Only “Roam unlimited” does, and only for 30 days at a time which entirely defeats the purpose for me. Also no way to replenish this quota or buy additional, you have to go back to your country for it to reset.
My SIM card already gives me 14 days of roaming included, so Starlink is just marginally better for my use case.
I’m sure it’s regulations related but still a bummer :(
Buying a local SIM at the airport is equally a pain, but by combining both techniques you have more chance of a working connection.
Last year, you couldn't get API access at all unless you went through one of their distributors or spent $1M+/year on Starlink, but now you can use the API [0] as a normal business customer. It's got pretty good telemetry and management features.
1. https://starlink.com/en-cw/support/article/babe863c-25ec-9df...
2. Peedcast, Marlink, or Peplink
3. where is my ground station, defer updates to a ground station, de/re-activate a ground station remotely, pool usage for all ground stations, remote reboot, all traffic is through a corporate VPN, bound multiple ground stations automatically.
https://www.t-mobile.com/business/solutions/iot/connectivity...
Royal caribbean got my friend pulled into security and questioned for hours for a RPI, and they permitted it but held it locked away separately until you deboard at the end of trip (theres ''you cannot board at all with this item, figure it out or throw it away'' and theres ''we hold it until end of voyage'')
you usually spend 4+ hours away until you see your bag again at boarding time - you might board in morning and don't get access to your room/bag until 1-4pm
=====
Royal: Electrical items and electronic equipment not designed for personal grooming—including baby monitors, clothing irons, garment steamers, extension cords, power strips, multi‑plug outlets, HAM radios, cybersecurity devices, and electronic‑crime equipment—are prohibited.
Cunard: Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacons (EPIRB), amateur (ham) radios, communication scanners, wide-band receivers, satellite phones, satellite receivers and transmitters, transformers, lasers and laser pointers, network devices (wired and wireless) including routers, switches, and scanners.
Virgins: Satellite phones, networking gear such as Starlink or routers, EPIRBs, HAM radios and any device that can be used for deliberate electronic or cybersecurity interference or criminal activity.
Disney: (This sentence is listed under weapons) Satellite receivers, emergency position indicating radio beacons (EPIRB), communication scanners, wideband receivers and walkie-talkies (The following is listed under electronics) Extension cords, power strips, multi-plugs and surge protectors Ham radios Streaming devices (Amazon Fire Stick, Apple TV, Google Chromecast, Roku, etc.)
Norwegian: Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacons (EPIRB), ham radios, satellite phones, transformers, lasers and laser pointers, Any form of radio/ telephone signal jamming equipment, Portable Modems, Walkie-talkies, Any multi-functional device developed for interaction with access control systems onboard the ship
Seabourn: Communication Devices including Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacons (EPIRB) ham radios, communication scanners, wide-band receivers, satellite phones, personal satellite dish/receivers, routers, and transformers.
It's like going to a prison and paying for it. A pretty gilded one sure but still.
If there were real safety concerns I could understand but usually it's just because they want you to buy their overpriced drinks and internet service. After already paying a fortune for the trip.
And you can't keep information secret anyway. In case of a quarantine people would be locked in their cabins. Better to have them have the information.
Besides, I'm extremely anti-authoritiarian, I would be the first to start a mutiny. It's another reason I wouldn't want to go on a boat, I don't take orders.
Edit: also, this supply is a little strange. The specs say input voltage can range from 24-48V, but the image they have shows an input of 24-28V.
They’re almost universally returned
If it were me I’d just bite the bullet and make it a 48V only device to simplify things
Current arrangement is just a headache for non-technical consumers
I’m agnostic to the connector but really frustrated with consumers expecting any old 12-24 volt source will work
I run my Mini on my truck at LFP voltage and it does fine at about 10 feet. Before I cut and shortened the provided Mini power cable, I tried it at full length, and the voltage drop was too much.
Main point though was the PSU requirements should be specific enough that consumers are forced to use proper PSUs (or at least research into how to properly adapt to their system), not just whatever they have on hand
I read elsewhere the battery has 71Wh and lasts 4.5h. That's 15.77W/h if it indeed uses 100% of the battery's capacity.
Let me reiterate. I think this is actually awesome and I'm sure 4.5hrs is a big accomplishment. Starlink is awesome. I just think for any product you need to discount the stated battery life significantly.
I love my mini 1 but occasionally I have to move it around and it's annoying to wait minutes for reconnect if the power cable is adjusted.
If it's 71Wh and it lasts 4.5h, the h cancels out and it just becomes 15.78W.
[0] - https://starlink.com/support/article/18836c7e-2d97-6153-fe67...
Phone now has satellite that makes me reachable. In case of emergency I bust out the mini and the laptop and I join the bridge.
This is not in theory, I actually joined emergency calls a few times.
Probably don’t need mini2 at this time. It only removes the power brick for me.
Then there this guy who hiking with a laptop, a big ass powerbank and a starlink lol.
The 200W panel: https://www.renogy.com/products/renogy-400w-solar-panel-blan...
Prices vary from just $40 to $80. It's certainly possible.
Or buy double the power one.. they still comes in pretty much the same form-factor. Example: https://www.amazon.com/FlexSolar-Portable-Waterproof-Emergen...
^ This one is 100 watts.. still costs less than $100.
Permanently mount the panels on your roof and you’ll never spend a single second dealing with them, and you’ll be getting power every second the sun is up. Driving, camping, filling gas tank, at grocery store, waiting at border, etc etc.
A bad setup is junk. A good setup is indispensable.
I don't see anything here that would meaningfully improve it assuming your truck has a reasonable power situation when it's not running. Mine runs off house batteries in the camper. And for whatever the price difference is from $150 you can buy a much more versatile power bank for camping.
There are plenty of adapters for drill batteries for Mini 1.
I also run monerod, p2pool, i2pd and tord nodes, the purpose of which is defeated by central infrastructure.
But yeah friends have reccomended tailscale I have just never gotten fuzzy feelings whenever I revisit it. If we want to build a NAT-less world then everyone needs to get a static ipv6 and run an eepsite or onion service, and we can just use pubkeys for addressing.
That said, another option not mentioned is cloudflare tunnels. I run cloudflared on a proxmox'd tiny PC. My internal services are accessible to me externally, but secure. Easy to set up the security layer (sign in through your google account, github account, IP restrictions, WARP and lots more).
Any ISP you use will also qualify as central infrastructure. You aren't making any sense. Just rent something that lives in a datacenter and get on with life.
https://starlink.com/support/article/1192f3ef-2a17-31d9-261a...
> Starlink offers two IPv4 policies, "default" and "public". The default IPv4 configuration uses Carrier-Grade Network Address Translation (CGNAT) using private address space from the 100.64.0.0/10 prefix assigned to Starlink clients via DHCP. Network Address Translation (NAT) translates between private and Starlink public IPv4 Addresses. Starlink supports native IPv6 across all Starlink routers, kit versions, and service plans. All IPv6 compatible Starlink router clients are assigned IPv6 addresses.
> The Starlink public IPv4 policy is an optional configuration available to Local and Global Priority customers. A public IPv4 is reachable from any device on the Internet and is assigned to Starlink network clients using DHCP. Although truly static IPs are not available, a reservation system retains the public IPv4 address and IPv6 prefix even when the system is off or rebooted. However, relocating the Starlink or software updates may change these addresses. Public IPv4 addresses are available to the Local and Global Priority service plans. The public IPv4 option can be enabled from the account dashboard, see instructions here. Note: Starlink WiFi routers do not support port forwarding or firewall rules for IPv4 or IPv6.
That last bit means you need to use your own router plugged into the ethernet port of the transceiver.
Also, 99%+ of RV internet users get by without static/public IPs, and millions of home internet users do too. I'm a hacker and network administrator, it's not a big deal for me. They give public routable v6 /56 everywhere, so if it's a huge issue for you, you could set up dyndns and use v6, or run an overlay network.
Those are the three options for your mandate.
the non-government intervention option is just for Starlink to prove the market, and others can move in. SpaceX is willing to sell them the ride for a decent price, in relative terms.
There are milder options too such as making sure enough frequency allocations remain for competitors.
Fundamentally, I am in the Camp that I fucking hate Musk, I didn't use to. But its undeniable, how influential he is in SpaceX and Starlink in particular.
I remember all the podcasts and haters shitting on him in, I think 2016, when the complete Starlink leadship was fired. We don't know all the details, but it's said that they wanted to do a whole other round of test sats and so on. Musk wanted to push harder on go live sooner. That' seems to have turned out quite well with no major issues in the first generation.
So SpaceX and Musk most certainty deserve a big reward for that. I agree that just rushing into 'its monopoly we must destroy the monopoly' isn't the right approach.
> Those are the three options for your mandate.
Those are not actually the only 3 only options. That's an incredibly narrow minded approach.
I have some idea but I'm sure there are more.
For example, what often works with infrastructure like this is open access rights. What if we can decouple the ground and sats infrastructure.
Allow anybody to build terminals for it. And then potentially eventually even have terminals that can use multiple such systems. I'm not an expert on these systems and how exactly they connect but long term I assume this would be possible. Because that's exactly what "GPS" does today, it connects to like 6 different systems. You could pay SpaceX a one-time fee for that. Or a license per terminal.
Or you could start to establish some standard for laser connectivity in space that eventually everybody can connect to a waste laser data network in space.
You can also make other rules. Like net neutrality, SpaceX isn't allowed to block certain things or do certain things.
Government could also chance its mentality to spectrum and maybe the buy to own spectrum model isn't fantastic.
That said, nationalization is on the table as well. One can make the argument that having multiple such system isn't really worth it. Having one and then giving it out in a different way isn't crazy. SpaceX could still be a transport provider.
Also less controversially, I think the 'monopoly' thing is way worse when it comes to the Ukraine. That is a situation where the government should be clear about how to handle it. We can't have Musk doing his own foreign policy.
“Nationalize SpaceX” is a Musk-haters’ fantasy.
And Elon/SpaceX doesn’t get to decide foreign policy via Starlink, at least not since Starshield. Maybe he has influence with Trump, but not direct control of how the government does or doesn’t use Starshield.
But people act as if this was some crazy thing to nationalise infrastructure are silly. The US has less history of that then others but the exception you made are pretty fucking big. And of course other countries then the US exists.
Penn Central is bigger Starlink ever was. Yes it was failing, but it could have been sold for parts.
> And Elon/SpaceX doesn’t get to decide foreign policy via Starlink, at least not since Starshield. Maybe he has influence with Trump, but not direct control of how the government does or doesn’t use Starshield.
Pretty sure the Ukranians are using both Starshild and normal Starlink.
> Maybe he has influence with Trump
And a big reason he has influence is that he controls critical infrastructure. That will always get him a seat at the desk. Not sure why this is hard to understand.
If that is facism to you then you need to go back and read some political science.
Neither regulation nor nationalisation are 'facism'. In fact facism is well known for not nationalizing and instead forming a tight government-cooperation integration.
Social democratic and socialist regimes have done more nationalisation.
Like when my country, Switzerland, nationalised the railways 1898:
https://sbbhistoric.ch/wp-content/uploads/S-048_VARIA_338-sc...
Is this Switzerland facist?
Yeah no shit. You started hating him when you learned that he voted differently than you lol
Perhaps it had more to do with, erm, you know, his history of attacking people, mistreating workers, spreading misinformation, promoting far-right conspiracy theories, misleading investors, and using his power to interfere in politics and even international conflicts ...
And that's just clearing my throat ... horse trading? disowned by his own children? comments by his ex-wives, the list is endless, actually ...
The guy's evidentially a twat.
Fool you once, shame on him, fool you 25,429 times ... shame on you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink_in_the_Russo-Ukrainia...
> In 2022, Elon Musk denied a Ukrainian request to extend Starlink's coverage up to Russian-occupied Crimea during a counterattack on a Crimean port; providing service would have violated US sanctions.[13] Media reports erroneously characterized it as Musk "turning off" Starlink coverage in Crimea.[14][15]
> Throughout the evening and into the night, he personally took charge of the situation. Allowing the use of Starlink for the attack, he concluded, could be a disaster for the world. So he secretly told his engineers to turn off coverage within 100 kilometers of the Crimean coast. As a result, when the Ukrainian drone subs got near the Russian fleet in Sevastopol, they lost connectivity and washed ashore harmlessly.
He then said he was "mistaken".
Does Isaacson make stuff up like "secretly asking engineers to turn it off" or was he asked to change it?
https://www.businessinsider.com/walter-isaacson-biography-el...
Also, why didn't you include the next sentence from your Wikipedia link?
> In October 2026, Starlink restricted Ukrainian access by imposing a speed limit of 160 km/h, disrupting several combat missions and preventing its use to intercept jet-powered Russian drones, in an attempt to get Ukraine to stop long-range strikes on Russia’s oil industry.[18][19][20]
Park was practically empty and it was a bright and sunny day.
(Not to mention - parks are much better enjoyed if you just don't work when you're there)
At least for me, with my job and lifestyle, it means I can be on the road at times I would previously have been stuck at home/work waiting on that one last call.
That means I can now head out on Wednesday after work, drive 3-5 hours to the middle of no-where, and work Thursday and Friday. But each of those days, I am able to be done working and then at a camping site with my family. Go on hikes, fish, swim, etc.
So now my whole family can enjoy being in the wild, and I don't have to burn up vacation days. And we don't have to try to jam it all into a weekend were you feel like your just travelling the whole time.
Side note.. Having no signal on the west coast can actually be extremely dangerous, with how fast some wild-fires have spread. You can have one 10 miles away and not know it with the wind blowing the other way, and if it shifts direction, you can have a very limited time and path to get away.
Being able to check tools like WatchDuty and weather reports from the middle of nowhere is a safety feature.
Ski 8-noon, then work in the warm.
Desert hike 6-10 then work in the cool.
That way if work is engaging - maybe you get into a nice flow state - you can keep going into the evening and your body already got the outdoors it likes.
I really like this mode a lot.
This allowed me to take a longer vacation while still separating work time from hiking time. The emotionally draining work days coincided with much-needed recharge time in between the strenuous camping/hiking days and the weekend of more hiking.
I've had good and bad remote work vacations. My best was when I was able to link together 11 days out of town and only have to work 2 of them.
This sounds ideal but my kid is too young to not require me not working. Maybe in the future for me.
Again it’s just tradeoffs mixed with cultural differences. It’s ok.
Starlink is only extending work time when it should be vacation time
It is just tradeoffs. It’s ok to have those.
But broadly speaking, life is better in most first world countries that aren't the US.
But on a global standard across all peoples, even those in the informal economies? US probably works out better.
Not that being a bit better off than subsistence farmers in extreme poverty is a high standard to cross, it's still a pretty low bar. I'd still recommend scoping your claims accurately.
I spend enough time in these places that I'm happy with the balance. I don't run the dish mounted all the time. I don't go out to watch movies, though that could be nice when you are north of the 45th in winter and nights feel like they are 16 hours long. Also it's nice if you forgot to check if your offline maps are still downloaded.
Cries in Ireland
Even if we think about trackers that people will wear when going hiking and things like that for help, they have their utility in their place.
It's obviously possible to say "I'm going to be unreachable", but people don't really like that, and it becomes a push-pull unless you're doing something where you genuinely have no service or connection. For a long time, being on an airplane allowed this sort of ability to disconnect: even if there were $5/minute in-seat phones, nobody reasonably expected to be able to reach you if you said you'd be on a flight. A few hours where you could fully tune out the noise of the world, no questions asked.
Wilderness backpacking trips have maintained this sort of unreachableness fairly well–I've had a Garmin inReach for years, and used it to keep family apprised of our movements, and once to coordinate a fairly serious situation where a large wildfire kicked up near our exit, but ultimately the slow messaging and short length limits prevent any real communication. Cell phones have also started getting satellite functionality, but it doesn't work very well, yet, at least as far as I've seen.
I see this march towards internet everywhere all the time as ultimately leading to expectations of connectivity, even in the most remote places–then "will you have made camp by 6pm on Tuesday? If so can you join this quick call?" becomes a real question people feel entitled to ask, notifications start coming through when you turn it on to check the weather, "I'm going back to my tent to check a few emails before bed" might be something you hear around the campfire...
I once had a hiking partner on a classic hut to hut hike on the north island (Tongariro Northern Circuit, it's where they filmed mount doom and mordor) who walked out of the hut at night to find a ridge to get service to do a job interview with a company in the UK.
The disconnection from real life is a huge part of why I like to wander off into the woods, and I pray that I will never be expected to have internet in these remote places.
> Employees have the right to refuse contact outside their working hours unless that refusal is unreasonable. This means an employee can refuse to monitor, read or respond to contact from an employer or a third party.
We don't have "at-will employment", so you can't be fired for arbitrary reasons. And if you were to treat someone poorly or fire them for refusing to be available for free after hours, you would end up in serious trouble in front of the Fair Work Commission.
This is the main value of governments, have them regulate these things for your protection!
In societies where all of this is encoded in law they seem to be doing worse off than where these things are based on trust.
Products like Apple Vision Pro promised working on productivity apps with beautiful views of Yosemite displayed behind the virtual computer screens. But now with a cell phone and voice mode (I don’t have starlink but I have enjoyed it in the past), I can work on my app while I’m taking a break in the middle of a bike ride.
I often say I love the work that I do but I don’t like being at the computer. Specifically that the best work I’ve done is sitting at a desktop in one place for hours at a day for years on end. To me, things like voice mode on mobile is a revelation. I long dreamed of doing productive work on the go, and this is a way I can do that. I’m not sure I want starlink personally, but I can certainly see the appeal of setting up at a park and getting a few hours of work done before putting it all away and doing a hike to the summit.
I've thought about doing something like that but having to file personal taxes in those states and triggering some kind of issue for my employer who only has a presence in two states has stopped me from doing it.
Am I misunderstanding something or are people just less risk averse than me when it comes to taxes?
Of course, a mobile hotspot will work both indoors and outdoors, but not have the Coverage.
There's no shortage of people that work in extremely remote areas that are effectively isolated or cut off or Reliant on Wi-Fi wherever they can find it in between cellular covers that might be spotty at best.
We have to remember that there's more land in the world that people don't heavily occupy compared to the land where people do heavily occupy it.
Technological changes are always ecological, never purely optional. They change expectations, mores, etc.
For me, PERSONALLY, I love having connectivity just for the peace of mind. And no, I didn’t carry work laptop on vacation. After a day outdoor, I loved to be able to retreat to a corner for online activities at night. I don’t want to stare at the dark night the whole night, every night.
Where was I speaking on behalf of others?
You are also sad that .... spinning the wheel ... the optionality exists.
It's optional. You don't have to use that option. But nooo that's not acceptable. You want the option to not exist at all for you and everyone. Otherwise, you will continue being "deeply saddened" ??!?!?
Optionality is never truly optionality when it comes to technology. I would think that people on Hacker News would understand this, even if they disagree with my opinion on this specific issue.
If a complete stranger's personal choices about internet access deeply sadden you, you might want to consider some therapy.
Behaviors that were opt-in become opt-out. Behaviors that were opt-out become mandatory.
Think about how cell phones or social media changed social etiquette. Even if you opt out of those things personally, you're still living with the changes.
Admittedly this won't have an effect so widespread, but for those of us who spend a lot of time out in the mountains, deserts and forests where there is no service, I'm certain we'll see an effect.
I'm not sad because some guy somewhere will check his Slack messages on a hike. I'm sad because of how this will change the world.
Eh. You still have free will. It's about costs. If something truly matters to you, you'll find a way.
Starlink + 60w foldable solar + battery bank in the sidebag of an adventure bike is the meta.
But yes - leave it at home when "getting away from it all".
Yes there’s satphones, but then might as well have the entire internet for the same price or less. The $10/mo Starlink standby plan seems well worth it for insurance
Going into the wild and having internet is awesome. You can enjoy the wild, internet, and alternate. It's not like you have to enjoy the wild for 24 hours straight.
Also 5g speeds in a suburban or urban area are significantly different from the wilderness. I have some property an hour drive from Portland. While some people can get a signal and their phone says "5G", the distance to the cell towers is great enough that actual connectivity is extremely spotty. It takes minutes to download a single photo. Starlink is much more consistent. You actually get better performance if you're farther from civilization.
I think a lot of folks underestimate both how large the US is, and how bad high speed cell coverage is, in many of those areas
Unless you run a business that literally requires 24/7 connectivity, it's healthy and fine to step away. If your employer won't respect your time with your family, they don't respect you.
It's up to you to decide if you can live with that. I could not.
But I also agree with parent OPs sentiment - going offline, putting your phone away really connects you back to real world and family. This has been studied ad nauseam. Same as food, substance or any indulgent abuse - it's up to you to control yourself.
Why do you assume that OP's employed? And if they are, why do you assume that they can afford to just walk away?
For the second, I get it. Not everyone can. I shouldn't have when I did, but it worked out okay for me after a few months of pain. And I'd do it again in a heartbeat. We had to downsize our lives and I switched to a field I never thought I'd work in. Turns out I love it, and have way more time for my family, even if we can't do massive vacations now.
If they're working outside of their 9-5, shame on them.
You don't need to use it. But nice to have.
I’m going to say this with the knowledge that I will be attacked for it, but since Starlink came to these natural places, I’ve had a more difficult time sleeping. Plus my tinnitus is worse every time it’s around me. I know I am sensitive to electromagnetic fields. They caused me insomnia, tinnitus, and increase my anxiety and episodes of psychosis. I believe this is due to genetic changes I have in my calcium, potassium and sodium ion channels.
I’ve done all the double blind test on this I could and these KU bands really affect me. They spread out over 13 mile hexagonal shape whenever someone has a Starlink running.
When I’m in these places my phone has its data connection turned off, unless I’m doing something like posting on HN complaining about electromagnetic radiation.
What would you do if you went camping 5x as much?
There's a very different psychology when you're completely self-reliant, with no communication with civilization. It's hard to express precisely, but it's powerfully liberating and a much more immersive alternative from everyday civilization. The door is shut on other options for a few days, at least.
(Yes, there's risk - though that can be greatly overemphasized and there's risk in everything - and you need to rely on yourself (and your group) to mitigate those risks and respond effectively to them, not on others. One leading trainer I read said that, once you're out of harm's way, the first thing is think. Nothing is going to happen immediately; the ambulance isn't going to be there in 5 minutes; the doctors won't see you for days, at least.)
The risk isn't the focus. It's just you and world around you.
Not everyone can do that - they have responsibilities they can't turn off, they have health challenges, they may want a compromise, like one of those emergency pager devices. I'm saying the effect of actually being disconnected is real, powerful, and valuable.
Connectivity, when and where it's useful, it can be really extremely helpful. [BLANK_AUDIO]
1. My iPhone, which has exactly the right amount of satellite communication for me: SOS and simple two-way texting, only when I actively point it at the right place in the sky, and
2. Aviation band handheld radio as a true last resort. Have one anyway as a pilot, and I figure it's unlikely I'll go more than a few hours without seeing some airliner I can talk to. Illegal to use those bands for this? Technically. Am I worried about the FCC putting me in jail if I'm down to my last fallback to get a critical message out? Nope.
Half the time I expect when someone throws a genuine emergency out on 121.5 the peanut gallery will all light up screaming that THEY'RE ON GUUUUAAAAARRRRRRDDDDDDD instead of realizing they should shut up and help the poor guy calling for it.
Plus actually working in a nice place like that is in itself a luxury worth the price.
If only this incredible technical achievement could not be linked to such a toxic individual… eh one can only dream, maybe greatness requires a bit of madness.
Most people I know who spend significant time outdoors here have one and keep it on our person whenever we're on something more intense than a well marked day hike. This is true of everybody I know from those of us who do 2-3 night backpacking trips between marked campsites to backcountry skiing to mountaineering. It's one of the first things that is advised to tourists here is to borrow one from a gear shop or visitor centre before going into the backcountry.
Here at least it is viewed as common sense safety on the same level as carrying layers and water.
I couldn't disagree more with being stranded without communication being the heart of camping. Satellite comms have absolutely increased safety, and allowed for bigger expeditions to be handled. I have multiple mentors a few decades older than me who had friends die in situations that would have likely been recoverable today. I'm not planning on taking a starlink backpacking, but the one on my truck camper has been a transformative tool in how I'm able to recreate.
And don’t forget who most of that cash would go to.
Frankly, there is the argument that all of this tech and optimization was there for others to develop but no one cared that much and its only now after you and others realize how good it is that you want to just go in and take it "because its so vital to national security".
Furthermore why can't someone just copy them? Drop a ton of money on poaching their engineers and just copy whatever the government needs?
Clearly leadership at SpaceX including Musk are a driving force behind this being so good...just look at the trash all the other companies are peddling. The magic might just go away if its nationalized and if it does then you probably can't just go "oh sorry bro heres your company back pls give us more magic".
How do you guarantee that Starlink doesn't turn to crap if you don't nationalize it?
Its a silly question. Governments have successfully operated various telecommunication systems for a long time.
Lots of modern telecommunications and sat tech comes out of the government.
But this will depend on each countries experience. I think one can make a solid argument that the denationalization of telco systems in the 90s was a mistake.
Same goes for the breakup of AT&T. The better option would have been to just nationalize the baby bells. And make AT&T focus on long distance competition and the technology. Maybe also nationalize Bell Labs and keep it operating financed from a the income of the Baby Bells.
Because what actually happened is that these Baby Bells simply got massive monopolies, made gigantic profits and were then able to do lots of other infrastructure plays and then mostly glob back together.
> take it "because its so vital to national security".
I think for that you don't need to take it. If you take (forced sale) it, it would be because you want to provide universal access subsidized without lining Musk pockets even more. But you would need a real long term vision for this to be worth it.
> Furthermore why can't someone just copy them? Drop a ton of money on poaching their engineers and just copy whatever the government needs?
Because the system is already built and working, why spend the capital on building the same thing again.
For me some kind of open access law would make more then nationalization. But the suggestion to nationalize isn't crazy.
I just can’t fathom the logic here. You say that you don’t want to line Musk’s pockets, but seizing SpaceX/Starlink would cost a trillion dollars or more and all of that money would go to Elon Musk! The government would have to issue a trillion dollars of bonds, agreeing to pay interest on them for decades, and then hand all of the money over to Elon Musk who then doesn’t have to pay that interest.
You’re deluding yourself to think that it’s even feasible. And it’s also a bad idea just on general principles.
I agree that the breakup of AT&T was a mistake though.
> You’re conflating “buying” with “seizing.”
if a government just seizes a multi trillion corporation, that government has just signed its economic death warrant. no one will ever trust it again and everyone will start examining jumping ship options.
it will actually lose more economic value the very next day than the value of the corporation it seized. probably in just the bond market alone.
and this even ignores the court challenges that will follow and likely undo the action but not the damage.
in the echochambers like reddit and bluesky.
I call it the toaster fucker problem. Man wakes up in 1980, tells his friends “I want to fuck a toaster” Friends quite rightly berate and laugh at him, guy deals with it, maybe gets some therapy and goes on a bit better adjusted.
Guy in 2021 tells his friends that he wants to fuck a toaster, gets laughed at, immediately jumps on facebook and finds “Toaster Fucker Support group” where he reads that he’s actually oppressed and he needs to cut out everyone around him and should only listen to his fellow toaster fuckers.
And the government should have that assets so it can use it how it wants, subsidise it, deploy it for military reasons, restrict it and soo n.
Yes, Musk would make a lot of money in a one time payment, but he would lose control over the asset and not continue to profit of new subsidies and other ways the government might want to use it.
And it wouldn't cost 'a trillion'.
> agreeing to pay interest on them for decades
Starlink returns are higher then the interest on bonds.
So you are essentially returning future profits to the government.
The government can raise the capital and buy the assets, just like google or amazon could. The logic is the exact same.
> Elon Musk who then doesn’t have to pay that interest.
Not sure what you are talking about.
Musk would have to pay income and capital gains tax, so government would get it pretty cheap.
> You’re deluding yourself to think that it’s even feasible.
Government have nationalised much bigger infrastructure before. Even the US government let alone many others.
Seems like you have a case of US recency bias.
In addition to this he's literally exercising his own foreign policy goals over those of the US. I normally wouldn't have an issue with this if he was actually standing up for something reasonable instead of nazi shit but the company has already been built entirely off of government dollars. If Lockheed Martin came along and said they wouldn't build F-35s for someone Congress offered them to everyone would absolutely lose their minds but it's Elon so apparently this is fine.
Do you think that Elon should have unilateral, unchecked ability to export military weapons communications systems? Even to Ukraine? I expect the answer to that is no, for you and most people.
But all SpaceX has done is enforce the terms of Starlink licensing. Terms that were there from the beginning that disallowed them from using it for weapons, and ones that are required by ITAR.
Ukrainians are of course very clever and are fighting for their country, and found workarounds to the limits that SpaceX put in. SpaceX then found how to block those. I don't begrudge the Ukrainians this, but at the same time SpaceX cannot allow their civilian network to be used for military purposes. It would be blatantly illegal for SpaceX not to block these uses when possible.
If you think Elon should not be allowed to make these decisions, then you should support precisely what they've done: unconditionally disallow any non-civilian use of Starlink. The military can use Starshield, which is under control of the military and for which the commander in chief decides the rules.
Yes, this is really a thing, yes, I'm being sarcastic.
Every other tactical comms vendor offers some sort of bare module/modem assembly for system integration, usually just a modded PCB that's inside their existing offerings with a few different JST connectors instead of whatever giant $500 amphenol twist lock they use.
Do you know if they offer a sort of pay as you need it plan like when you go out of town you can just buy bandwidth in blocks and use as needed?
I guess it makes sense, space is a long way away after all...
> SpaceX has already sold commercial missions for Starship.
A few maybe, we don't know how many. And just because they did, in the past, doesn't mean they will in the future.
Frankly, from monetary perspective its really not that relevant anymore. They need to launch far more for Starlink and future Starlink Mobile.
The whole commercial launch market is tiny in comparison. The only thing that could be volume would be a competitor to Starlink, or data centers. SpaceX want's to do both themselves.
If SpaceX says 'no' only to Starlink competitors, people can claim 'anti trust' but if they say 'no' to literally everything, that's harder to do.
SATCOM isn't new.
We're left wing. Elon's right wing. We've got our knickers in a twist because an influential person dares to have a worldview different from our own. But must we broadcast this? Every time?
They have about 400 satellites already in orbit. It's not available for public sale yet but I believe they're close.
AST SpaceMobile is planning cellular in space. I think it is supposed to be faster than Starlink Direct-to-Cell but slower than regular Starlink. It uses fewer, 12 currently, 45 in 2027, and 248 total, larger and higher satellites.
China has two large 10,000+ constellations planned with hundreds already launched.
I heard Amazon is actually launching their stuff on Falcon 9 right? Putting side the embarrassment, it is more expensive base cost if you have to piggyback on your main competitor. They will never reach cost parity.
China will likely catch up. They are motivated. But I assume that wont be available to Americans?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_internet_constellation?#ConstellationsHindsight is now 20/20 that Starlink is a huge success. I guess all you guys forgot, and now think that the success of Starlink was obvious all along. Bitcoin and TypeScript are also things I remember HN being dismissive of at first that have both been very successful since.
I really really despite Elon Musk for plenty of things but i don't think Space-X is not successful, i just think its not worth its share price.
But i'm for sure not liking that one person can just decide to put stuff into our space and disrupt research and my view without paying for it somehow.
And the biggest issue ish Elon Musks behaviour: he is for sure no one who would take something like atmospheric poisening serious until its too late or someone forced him to do so.
The reason I gave, and am still giving for rooting against this technology is that it gives local politicians an excuse to skimp out on building out traditional infrastructure which I still think is superior by a wide margin. I believed back then, and I still believe that as long as local governments fail to deliver traditional infrastructure then Starlink might succeed, and it would be worse for everyone except SpaceX. I just hope they don’t succeed.
* It was Starlink, and putting it on offensive weaponry is against the T&Cs. That's not Musk's whim. That's just the rules.
* It was Starshield, in which case it was the Pentagon that throttled its access, since Starshield is controlled by the Pentagon not Elon Muskhttps://www.nytimes.com/2026/10/22/us/politics/starshield-ou...
Then, recently, SpaceX changed the terms such that the 100GB and 300GB subscriptions are no longer usable internationally (technically outside of North America). You have to pay for the unlimited service tier and even then can only use it for 30 days before returning to the home region.
A huge decrease in utility and a tripling in cost. A new device with a built-in battery is definitely not going to make up for that.
(Still a great service when it works, am posting this from remote western Mongolia.)
(I would like to link to the actual law, but the URL ChatGPT gave me doesn't load and I don't know if that's because ChatGPT's wrong or the South African government's website is having problems).
Wow, that's crazy (in a good way). They have no Google either?
In SA specifically they're not affected by the 30% rule as they sell digital services.
It's also not a massive up-front risk at current prices (~£180 for the mini). Considering the no-minimum period policy, it's worth a shot even if it's just for redundancy that you can roam with.
Now, I wonder if adding a battery to it isn't actually a drawback when you want to travel with it, as I suppose you won't be able to put it in checked-in luggage, and it's large enough that it will take over your cabin backpack.
I love the concept and technology, marvellous, but all ruined by the erratic and arrogantly offensive behaviour of this overgrown narcotic child. Their mentality is repelling and the approaches are unreliable enough for feeling nauseous by the thought of giving them money. It is good I have choice (i.e. not in some connectivity black spot with urgency to connect).
We're considering buying a motorhome in the next couple of years and my experience with Starlink made me think it was a practical necessity going forward.
This kind of constant meddling in the pricing structure makes me want to not touch it with a barge pole though. Yes, satellites are expensive, but that's not an excuse for not coming up with a viable business plan and pricing structure that you can stick with over a reasonable term.
Not get people to pay a lot of money for the hardware based on decent plans and quotas, and then jack up pricing and restrict features almost immediately. It's a bait and switch.
Long before he announced he intended to vote Republican in 2022.
If by "moved to the right" you mean "he fell off the far end and if he were a politician his politics would be considered radical extremism", sure.
In the New York Times, maybe. Everyone seems pretty pleased that USAID isn't wasting taxpayer money.
Do you know what soft power is?
1. Evolution of Musk promised cuts to federal expenses:
- October 2024 - $2 trillion per year
- March 2025 - $1 trillion per year
- April 2025 - $150 billion per year
Independent sources put the savings around $10 billion per year (the target shrunk 200-fold!).
2. Very important example of conflict of interest AND harm to the government: independent sources expect IRS workforce cuts to <<reduce>> federal revenue by <<$198 billion over a decade>>.
3. To your direct point
- most of USAID’s money was spent through American organisations, not sent abroad directly (>80% of companies holding USAID contracts were American)
- in practice USAID ran important early-warning systems: famine warnings and perhaps even more importantly disease surveillance (ever heard of... pandemics?)
Cut the nose to spite the face.
Did Musk/DOGE cut military spending (13% of budget; Musk's sponsored admin wants to double it)? Healthcare spending (27%)? Social security (23%)?
He went after politically convenient, and even worse, personally convenient targets.
It's like that joke about looking for the wallet not where you lost it in the dark, but where the light is better...
You'd think the average well educated HN commenter wouldn't fall for such easy to sport propaganda (and also spot obvious conflicts of interest). But I guess ideology beats everything and it's more important to win against "the other team".
Have you ever considered that you might just be part of the terminally online right?
This site isn't your personal far-right soap box. If you want to keep posting the same low-effort takes again and again without meaningfully engaging with counter-arguments, platforms like Substack are a much better address.
We are witnessing the death of irony: https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=gadders
Lol.
What does the competition even offer here?
This "just eat your gruel and be grateful" attitude on Hacker News is becoming very common now but remains surprising. This is the attitude of serfs, not hackers.
It's so weird to me the attribution of collective efforts to a single individual.
> his company used to offer an even better option
Yes, it's a degradation in service not unlike a bait-and-switch.
I just don't understand how you can hold your mental model of the world.
Yeah, totally never happened with Steve Jobs and Apple.
Why didn't you reply to the guy blaming Musk personally for the plan changes?
So what, nobody is allowed to launch any product unless it also has a competitor?
I meant that Starlink adjusting prices shouldn't be surprising, if anything it is still cheap (IOM).
I got a mini on sale at HD for ~200, paid 0/mo -> 5/mo now $10/mo to keep online as a backup. Amazing tech IMO and cheap.
But somehow, those handouts and moats have produced exactly zero credible competitors for SpaceX and Starlink.
If you hate Magnus Carlsen, you can talk about how much time he gets to practice playing chess, and imply that is cheating and the secret of how he beats all his competition at chess championships.
Just don't expect anyone who knows much about chess to be convinced.
Short story at least, please. What's a day over there like for you?