from Hacker News

Starlink direct-to-cell enabled for hurricane helene emergency messaging

by nynx on 10/6/24, 6:27 PM with 164 comments

• by caseyy on 10/6/24, 7:15 PM

  This is what the future of communication looks like. It's really a massive step forward. No one will have to die from exposure when their cars break down, no planes will go missing, and no more black spots in natural disasters. It is also quite dignified and civilised that we are using this technology first to help the most vulnerable.

  Communication is and has always been an important element in human organisation. Imagine if corrupt governments could no longer shut down the internet and cell service. Even a world war probably wouldn't disrupt this. People will be really empowered by this technology, we just need more competition in this space. But one step at a time.

  Also: simmer down Elon fans and haters, this is not only about Elon. Look at the bigger, global picture.

• by ggreer on 10/6/24, 7:31 PM

  I was curious why direct-to-cell hasn't been enabled everywhere, and it looks like it's because AT&T claims it would cause them an 18% decrease in network throughput/capacity. AT&T petitioned the FCC to block direct-to-cell rollout because of this.[1] SpaceX responded that AT&T's estimates of interference are incorrect, and that AT&T fails to account for many factors. Also, SpaceX argues that the public good of having cell phone access in remote areas outweighs the slight reduction of network capacity in areas with existing coverage.[2]

  My guess is that the truth is somewhere in the middle. All else equal, adding more cell towers to an area will increase interference and decrease performance for existing networks, but I doubt it will be as bad as AT&T claims. Also T-Mobile made a deal with SpaceX to be the sole network with direct-to-cell for the first year after rollout. It seems more likely than not that AT&T is trying to hurt their competition using the FCC. If a different cell network had gotten an exclusive contract, I'm sure it would be T-Mobile petitioning the FCC to block direct-to-cell rollout.

  No branch of the US government keeps statistics on how many people get lost in the wilderness and die each year, but it's definitely in the hundreds and possibly over 1,000.[3] Considering how often a working cell phone could save them, I think it's worth enabling direct-to-cell everywhere.

  1. https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1081242986780/1

  2. https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1021391547062/1

  3. https://nypost.com/2020/07/04/why-hundreds-of-people-vanish-...

• by __MatrixMan__ on 10/6/24, 7:30 PM

  I wonder what the user experience was like. Did they have to select "Starlink" instead of "T-Mobile"?

  If not, was there some kind TMobile-signed-starlink's-key situation?

  It's an interesting interplay between preferring user consent versus wanting things to just start working when they need to.

• by jeffbee on 10/6/24, 9:58 PM

  Starlink is nice but does the US not possess an air platform that can loiter while providing mobile phone service? Seems like a useful thing to have for civil defense. Wasn't Project Loon supposedly capable of covering a state-sized area with 4G coverage?

• by stavros on 10/6/24, 7:42 PM

  Does anyone know how this works? Do the satellites speak LTE/5G? Can cell phones really communicate with satellites directly without larger antennas?

• by lopkeny12ko on 10/6/24, 7:17 PM

  Off topic: what is up with the persistent anti-Musk crusading in this thread (and on HN in general)?

• by tahoeskibum on 10/6/24, 10:15 PM

  I'm not surprised that China, Russia & UK have plans for their own constellations, and eventually India too.