6 ms·

I think most of this thread is missing the part where this will also work for cellphones and give you truly global coverage.

onemoresoop 2mo ago
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?
- nomel 2mo ago
  > 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.
- connicpu 2mo ago
  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
roysting 2mo ago
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.
- kortilla 2mo ago
  It doesn’t. The network is governed by the FCC and any other regulatory agency where they place RF on the ground.
  - roysting 2mo ago
    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.
- tarpitt 2mo ago
  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.
- kube-system 2mo ago
  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 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
- asdff 2mo ago
  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.
  - roysting 2mo ago
    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.
dawnerd 2mo ago
* only when you’re outdoors with good line of sight and only in geographic areas they allow.
- bilsbie 2mo ago
  I’m not sure if that’s true of these use cellular frequencies.
  - dawnerd 2mo ago
    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.
    - modeless 2mo ago
      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.
      - dawnerd 2mo ago
        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.
        modeless 2mo ago
        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.
dopa42365 2mo ago
Internet works on phones? The more you know.
downrightmike 2mo ago
I explicitly do not want that

onemoresoop 2mo ago

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?

nomel 2mo ago
> 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.
connicpu 2mo ago
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

roysting 2mo ago

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.

kortilla 2mo ago
It doesn’t. The network is governed by the FCC and any other regulatory agency where they place RF on the ground.
- roysting 2mo ago
  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.
tarpitt 2mo ago
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.
kube-system 2mo ago
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 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
asdff 2mo ago
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.
- roysting 2mo ago
  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.

dawnerd 2mo ago

* only when you’re outdoors with good line of sight and only in geographic areas they allow.

bilsbie 2mo ago
I’m not sure if that’s true of these use cellular frequencies.
- dawnerd 2mo ago
  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.
  - modeless 2mo ago
    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.
    - dawnerd 2mo ago
      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.
      - modeless 2mo ago
        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.

dopa42365 2mo ago

Internet works on phones? The more you know.

downrightmike 2mo ago

I explicitly do not want that