Space internet with Android 14! (Satellite connectivity)

[saltycaramel]

Yeah deploying this feature to tens or hundreds of millions user is no biggie. 

[williamcll]

Aren't there satellites that broadcast 5G?

[saltycaramel]

9 minutes ago, williamcll said:

Aren't there satellites that broadcast 5G?

 

 

The second generation of Starlink satellites will allegedly broadcast to mobile phones on the PCS 1900MHz 5G band, thanks to a big fat 25m^2 foldable antenna. 

 

Supposedly by the end of 2023, allegedly. (safer to allege left and right when Musk is involved)

[Donut417]

33 minutes ago, saltycaramel said:

 

 

The second generation of Starlink satellites will allegedly broadcast to mobile phones on the PCS 1900MHz 5G band, thanks to a big fat 25m^2 foldable antenna. 

 

Supposedly by the end of 2023, allegedly. (safer to allege left and right when Musk is involved)

That’s if they get Starship off the ground. Which if I recall right is what is needed to deploy these satellites. 

[Senzelian]

2 hours ago, Donut417 said:

That’s if they get Starship off the ground. Which if I recall right is what is needed to deploy these satellites. 

I'm sure NASA is going to lend them the SLS, which works great as the recent launch has shown.... Oh wait....

[wanderingfool2]

2 hours ago, Donut417 said:

That’s if they get Starship off the ground. Which if I recall right is what is needed to deploy these satellites. 

They apparently can be launched on a Falcon 9, at least the guess is that but it will fit but the big issue is that it would have to fit vertically which essentially means it won't be viable in the future to launch like that.  They could get a prototype into space that way though.

 

But yea, the general thought is that Starship needs to fly for it to be economically viable.

 

3 hours ago, saltycaramel said:

Supposedly by the end of 2023, allegedly. (safer to allege left and right when Musk is involved)

I think that might depend.  The beta will sure be by the end of 2023, but I bet the sat will be potentially launched before 2023...iirc they are thinking they might attempt a sat insertion during their sub-orbital launch.  They are currently doing static fires on the engines so the suborbital flight is I think nearing quite quickly.  If the FAA hadn't delayed the environmental assessment by a year it might have already been launched.

[mr moose]

22 hours ago, saltycaramel said:

Yeah deploying this feature to tens or hundreds of millions user is no biggie. 

your argument was heavily insinuating that apple was first and google are somehow being disingenuous or dishonest for announcing their version of it now.  Once you learned that satellite smart phones are not new and apple wasn't the first you change it to be about reaching a larger audience as being the big thing that is important. 

 

Like every other apple thread,  people just don't bother with what the industry is doing or has been doing for the last few decades and instead make some remarks about how good apple is for inventing stuff (that already exists) and how weak everyone else is.  All this rhetoric does is perpetuate silly myths like "apple invented the smart phone" and "Apple invented the touch screen" and "without apple computers and phones would not look like they do today". 

[saltycaramel]

8 minutes ago, mr moose said:

your argument was heavily insinuating that apple was first and google are somehow being disingenuous or dishonest for announcing their version of it now.  Once you learned that satellite smart phones are not new and apple wasn't the first you change it to be about reaching a larger audience as being the big thing that is important. 

 

 

No dude, you’re the one too thick to understand that the product you linked has got nothing to do with what we’re talking about here and with the reasons to be excited (like the Google exec in the OP) about mass deployment of this kind of connectivity on regular everyday smartphones.

 

Can’t help you with that. 

[mr moose]

Just now, saltycaramel said:

 

No dude, you’re the one too thick to understand that the product you linked has got nothing to do with what we’re talking about here and with the reasons to be excited (like the Google exec in the OP expressed) about mass deployment of this kind of connectivity.

 

Can’t help you with that. 

Keep your insults to yourself.

[saltycaramel]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Keep your insults to yourself.

Don’t insult my intelligence with specious arguments and Android-based washing machines with satellite connectivity.

[mr moose]

8 minutes ago, saltycaramel said:

Don’t insult my intelligence with specious arguments and Android-based washing machines with satellite connectivity.

 

Washing machines?

 

It really seems you have nothing to support your postulations and I am not interested in a pointless argument.

 

[wanderingfool2]

22 hours ago, saltycaramel said:

 

No dude, you’re the one too thick to understand that the product you linked has got nothing to do with what we’re talking about here and with the reasons to be excited (like the Google exec in the OP) about mass deployment of this kind of connectivity on regular everyday smartphones.

 

Can’t help you with that. 

...uhm you do realize what Moose posted was showing that sat. phones are a thing that exist already.  Apple supposed announcement is using essentially sat frequencies to communicate with sats.  Thus making it exactly like the product that already out there (with the exception that it won't be able to support voice).

 

Here's the hint, SpaceX's mobile phone has been in rumors for years now.  Only the FCC filing back a while ago has made it more concrete; at that stage they would have already had their prototype in a lab likely running.  From there it's about announcing the plan.

 

They literally had to also communicate with Google and Apple in regards to this.  I could easily argue the other concept then, that Apple was trying to steal the thunder by announcing their product (knowing SpaceX/T-Mobile were going to be pushing their standard).

 

Ultimately, your claim that they are somehow trying to steal Apples thunder is I think false.  It's them just announcing their product, and given that they had to do the FCC filing it makes sense that they would make their announcement at that stage.

 

*edit - because I don't want to tack on a new post*  Looks like Apple's Sat phone is essentially just an SOS device.  They are literally having to do compression on text messages to get the data sent.  So it very much is akin to what Moose posted (except even more primitive).  On top of that, after the 2 year period looks like they might consider charging people for the feature, they are also requiring the sat company to dedicated 85% of it's capacity to Apple...the company (GSAT) has been losing money for the last 6 years at least; and requires them to do capital raises to launch more sats...I truly see SpaceX's/t-mobiles solution working a lot better.

[saltycaramel]

 

For sure it's better to create an optimized hw+sw+UX system than just settling on emulating cell towers, crossing fingers and praying that random run of the mill Android phones just connect and have predictable performances.

 

Straight from Elon's mouth.

[Senzelian]

8 hours ago, saltycaramel said:

crossing fingers and praying that random run of the mill Android phones just connect and have predictable performances.

 

I don't think run of the mill Android phones will even get the feature. Will probably launch on Pixel and Galaxy first.

[saltycaramel]

1 minute ago, Senzelian said:

I don't think run of the mill Android phones will even get the feature. Will probably launch on Pixel and Galaxy first.

 

If I remember correctly at the T-mobile/Starlink event it was implied that this feature was aimed at being backward compatible with any phone that supports the relevant 1900MHz band.

[Senzelian]

3 minutes ago, saltycaramel said:

 

If I remember correctly at the T-mobile/Starlink event it was implied that this feature was aimed at being backward compatible with any phone that supports the relevant 1900MHz band.

I don't think Google will make the feature available for Android 12 and 13 and instead will only make it available on Android 14.

[saltycaramel]

5 minutes ago, Senzelian said:

I don't think Google will make the feature available for Android 12 and 13 and instead will only make it available on Android 14.

If it’s cell tower emulation, it doesn’t have to be a “feature” in software, it’s a drop-in transparent feature, the phone just thinks it’s connecting to a ground tower.

 

That’s what was implied…sounded awesome for press releases and media coverage…then reality hits and even Elon concedes that “For sure, a dedicated hw+sw feature works better”..

[Senzelian]

5 minutes ago, saltycaramel said:

If it’s cell tower emulation, it doesn’t have to be a “feature” in software, it’s a drop-in transparent feature, the phone just thinks it’s connecting to a ground tower.

 

That’s what was implied…sounded awesome for press releases and media coverage…then reality hits and even Elon concedes that “For sure, a dedicated hw+sw feature works better”..

When Lockheimer tweeted that they're working on it for Android 14 it was pretty clear that it won't be a "drop-in transparent feature" to me.

[AnonymousGuy]

3 hours ago, saltycaramel said:

If it’s cell tower emulation, it doesn’t have to be a “feature” in software, it’s a drop-in transparent feature, the phone just thinks it’s connecting to a ground tower.

 

That’s what was implied…sounded awesome for press releases and media coverage…then reality hits and even Elon concedes that “For sure, a dedicated hw+sw feature works better”..

No chance they're going to "drop in" a feature that's probably going to melt batteries.  "oh yeah just real casual connect to a tower 400km away"

 

Meanwhile I'm less than 1km away from a tower and I get 2 bars...

 

IMO the best implementation is a pocket size external antenna dongle that boosts reception significantly so you're not having to fuck around trying to make a tiny phone antenna work.  If you're out somewhere there is no reception you're going to be able to pack that dongle with you no problem.

[Kisai]

4 hours ago, AnonymousGuy said:

No chance they're going to "drop in" a feature that's probably going to melt batteries.  "oh yeah just real casual connect to a tower 400km away"

 

Meanwhile I'm less than 1km away from a tower and I get 2 bars...

 

IMO the best implementation is a pocket size external antenna dongle that boosts reception significantly so you're not having to fuck around trying to make a tiny phone antenna work.  If you're out somewhere there is no reception you're going to be able to pack that dongle with you no problem.

No the best option is to go look look at what sattelite phones already look like:

https://www.gpscentral.ca/product/iridium-satellite-phone-9555/

This costs less than an iphone by the way. Usually how it works is that satellite phones behave as regular cell phones when no satellite is available. That is done because the satellite modem is a separate part of the device, hence the fat antenna on it.

 

So this is how you'd convert your smartphone into a satellite phone:

https://www.canadasatellite.ca/Iridium-GO-WiFi-Smartphone-Adapter-p/Iridium-GO-WiFi-Adapter.htm

 

Remember that LTE is all VoIP technology, and current generations of Smartphones support doing LTE voice calls over WiFi. 

Note the footnote:

Quote

Please Note
The Iridium GO! is connects to the interent at 2.4kbps, which is a quarter of 9.6kbps dial up modems.  As such, its internet capabilities are limited to Iridium email and several other apps that are specifically designed for to work with the Iridium GO!

 

You ain't streaming anything with it.

[saltycaramel]

WSJ: Apple approached satellite companies in 2019, that’s why they have a foot in the door before anyone else 

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/apples-iphone-satellite-service-kicks-off-smartphone-space-race-11662901201?st=7nxsbuhechqpg9m&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

 

Quote

Satellite-industry executives say Apple was able to clinch an early foothold by approaching satellite companies as early as 2019. The iPhone maker eventually struck an exclusive deal with GlobalstarInc. for 85% of the satellite company’s network capacity. That decision blocked rival hardware makers from using Globalstar’s infrastructure to launch competing services.

 

“They’ve sort of locked this up, and it’s really down to Apple to decide how far they want to take it,” said Tim Farrar, president of telecom-industry consulting firm TMF Associates, noting that only one or two other companies have the right combination of already-launched satellites and access to wireless airwaves to effectively reach smartphones.

 

“Wild to think” some people compare this to putting out a “Wild to think, amirite?” tweet 3 years later in 2022..

[Sauron]

Quote

Wild to think about user experiences for phones that can connect to satellites.

Not that wild... for all intents and purposes it would be the same as normal infrastructure except with worse latency.

On 9/3/2022 at 9:30 PM, Senzelian said:

Depending on how well this would actually work it could be interesting as either a backup solution or to fill in rural spots, in which LTE connectivity is simply not available.

You could just make land infrastructure to reach these places, in most cases it would be cheaper and easier to maintain than satellites. Also it doesn't increase the risk of kessler syndrome by a few orders of magnitude. In a general sense I'm not opposed to having some satellite coverage, particularly for ships or planes, but going for worldwide coverage when land infrastructure already covers plenty and could easily be expanded seems absurd to me. It only makes sense if you're a company looking to make money as a carrier rather than someone looking to solve a real problem.

[saltycaramel]

The “Wild to think..” humblebrag to signal “We’re working on this too, I swear! Just wait!” should become a meme…

[wanderingfool2]

49 minutes ago, Sauron said:

You could just make land infrastructure to reach these places, in most cases it would be cheaper and easier to maintain than satellites. Also it doesn't increase the risk of kessler syndrome by a few orders of magnitude. In a general sense I'm not opposed to having some satellite coverage, particularly for ships or planes, but going for worldwide coverage when land infrastructure already covers plenty and could easily be expanded seems absurd to me. It only makes sense if you're a company looking to make money as a carrier rather than someone looking to solve a real problem.

Well Kessler syndrome is less likely to be happening with Starlink's case (and I highly suspect this announcement is the result of the SpaceX/TMobile).

 

While it does make things a bit more cluttered, a collision at it's current orbit makes it less likely to start an unrecoverable chain due to how LEO the sats are.  I think without additional thrust it's like a 5 year decay.  At least it's better than some of the other LEO ones, where their end of life is to put it in an orbit that's not used and let it just wait there until something crashes into it (that if anything is going to cause a Kessler syndrome).

 

A note regarding coverage though, it's LEO, so to get coverage over seas you need to by default also get coverage over land.  I bet as well that the new V2 sats for Starlink likely would have it's current configuration anyways, so adding mobile to it only adds a bit of extra hardware.

 

It's also more difficult to make land based infrastructure to those places, as it means having to have a line dragged into the area and getting environmental assessments (because it's a remote area you know one likely would have to be done).  It would actually be quite costly.  Building a cellphone tower costs about 250k (likely more in an isolated area), which is about what the sats themselves cost (minus launch costs)...but each sat. would be able to cover a lot larger of an area.

 

2 hours ago, saltycaramel said:

WSJ: Apple approached satellite companies in 2019, that’s why they have a foot in the door before anyone else 

Google ultimately has bee working towards this kind of thing for years as well.  So it's not fair to try claiming that Apple will be the innovator of this like so many people are saying, or that Android is only announcing this because of Apple.

 

The fact is, all companies have been working towards this for years (Project Loon comes to mind).  The fact is Apple shouldn't be getting any additional credit for what they are doing.

[Sauron]

2 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Building a cellphone tower costs about 250k (likely more in an isolated area)

According to verizon the cost of a 5g tower is somewhere in the 20 to 30k range and I assume older tech like 4g is only going to be cheaper. More expensive installations probably include multiple service types but that's not really necessary if you just want to get coverage somewhere (it's not like starlink satellites include GSM). As for the area covered, while the theoretical area is greater the number of possible concurrent users is not. Plus again the cost of maintenance (in the satellites' case this just means complete replacement, unlike a cell tower). Oh, and rocket emissions are not negligible.

 

Dragging a line is pretty easy and not very expensive at all, there are plenty of high up isolated places in the alps that have a cabled internet connection while there's no cellular service because of the mountains. You can also use a few repeaters instead if cabling is challenging for some reason.

 

And in general these are all edge cases while starlink is being rolled out to be a direct alternative to traditional infrastructure.

2 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

I bet as well that the new V2 sats for Starlink likely would have it's current configuration anyways, so adding mobile to it only adds a bit of extra hardware.

I wouldn't be too sure, you can't just add network technology designed to work over a few dozen km and expect it to work over hundreds of km. If starlink is getting cellular service it must be through voip using their existing network.