SpaceX based 4G/5G coverage coming to New Zealand(one.nz)
one.nz
SpaceX based 4G/5G coverage coming to New Zealand
https://one.nz/why-choose-us/spacex/
53 comments
Assuming that you’re still capable of verbal comms. The good thing about a PLB is that it’s generally a fairly definitive signal that something is wrong at a specific location. It also requires less dexterity to trigger and potentially has a bit higher signal to noise than accidental emergency calls.
Source: Australian with a PLB that I take offshore sailing and bushwalking. Also have a 2yo who is impressively adept at getting a locked phone to enter emergency call mode.
Source: Australian with a PLB that I take offshore sailing and bushwalking. Also have a 2yo who is impressively adept at getting a locked phone to enter emergency call mode.
What's your take on having a PLB at sea? Are there scenarios where an EPIRB is required?
EPIRBs are required by law in Australia. They are attached to the vessel though, the PLB is attached to you. That's an important detail when those two things become suddenly separated.
I totally agree. Since 111 calls go to any available provider, regardless of your home network, this in effect means anyone in NZ has 100% Emergency service coverage. That's huge!
>This will make PLB (personal location beacons) redundant
Wouldn't this make the subscription satellite communications devices like inreach redundant, rather than PLBs? A safety conscious person in the wilds would probably still want a dedicated emergency device (?), only now it has another possible communication method to make it even more reliable.
PLBs as I understand it are designed specifically to be one-shot foolproof devices with no secondary comms, with guaranteed battery lives (15 years I think), robust cases etc. that just sit there until you press the 'Save me' button. A phone (or inreach which is closer but still has messaging etc.) is not a real replacement for that functionality as I see it. Mainly because the other things you use it for mean it can run out of batteries or whatever.
Wouldn't this make the subscription satellite communications devices like inreach redundant, rather than PLBs? A safety conscious person in the wilds would probably still want a dedicated emergency device (?), only now it has another possible communication method to make it even more reliable.
PLBs as I understand it are designed specifically to be one-shot foolproof devices with no secondary comms, with guaranteed battery lives (15 years I think), robust cases etc. that just sit there until you press the 'Save me' button. A phone (or inreach which is closer but still has messaging etc.) is not a real replacement for that functionality as I see it. Mainly because the other things you use it for mean it can run out of batteries or whatever.
You are bang on about having a redundant PLB seperate from other comms channels.
I carry a PLB and an InReach when I am in remote areas. Partly because I’m often by myself but also InReach does go down sometimes and I’d prefer to have a dedicated reliable channel to search and rescue that I can just leave I my bag and forget about except replacing every 10 years!
I carry a PLB and an InReach when I am in remote areas. Partly because I’m often by myself but also InReach does go down sometimes and I’d prefer to have a dedicated reliable channel to search and rescue that I can just leave I my bag and forget about except replacing every 10 years!
How will anybody be able to make emergency calls from anywhere if it is super expensive?
In my country, calling official emergency numbers is always toll-free, and these calls can be made even from handsets without a SIM at all. I believe this is a legislated requirement for holding a spectrum license.
My guess is that it will be paid for by the government. Likely it won't be use super often as most people will have 4g/5g coverage already. This will just cover the instance where that isn't the case.
It probably will more than pay for itself, too. If it saves just one or two unnecessary S&R missions a year...
Am I reading something else, or have they changed it? The linked page says:
" Emergency We’ll ensure One New Zealand customers are safe during an emergency, so anyone with an appropriate One New Zealand phone will be able to call 111 in an emergency (when voice satellite calling is available). One New Zealand has dedicated part of its mid-band spectrum to enable the service. "
This says its only One (formerly Vodafone) customers.
edit: I notice the FAQ says something different and contradictory (which is what the parent mentioned), I wonder which is the truth?
" Emergency We’ll ensure One New Zealand customers are safe during an emergency, so anyone with an appropriate One New Zealand phone will be able to call 111 in an emergency (when voice satellite calling is available). One New Zealand has dedicated part of its mid-band spectrum to enable the service. "
This says its only One (formerly Vodafone) customers.
edit: I notice the FAQ says something different and contradictory (which is what the parent mentioned), I wonder which is the truth?
It doesn't say it's only One... it just mentions it works for One and thus vaguely implies it doesn't work for others. The FAQ makes it explicit that all phones that support the band will be able to dial 111.
The way I read this was: anybody with a phone with support for the same 4g/5g frequencies that One operate one.
Frequencies have always been an issue with choosing a phone. I remember Telstra (Australia) rolled out a great 3g network (branded NextG) you needed a phone that supported 850mhz 3g. Early on, there were only a small set of phones that worked on this range.
I suspect (guess) that the same will be for this satellite 4G service.
Frequencies have always been an issue with choosing a phone. I remember Telstra (Australia) rolled out a great 3g network (branded NextG) you needed a phone that supported 850mhz 3g. Early on, there were only a small set of phones that worked on this range.
I suspect (guess) that the same will be for this satellite 4G service.
Not sure it's going to change much at all.
I do a lot of bikepacking and everyone carries Garmin inReach or similar which allows you to send SMS and SOS via satellite in case of emergency.
You ideally want a seperate device like that because it has up to 14 days battery life and is a backup to your phone.
I do a lot of bikepacking and everyone carries Garmin inReach or similar which allows you to send SMS and SOS via satellite in case of emergency.
You ideally want a seperate device like that because it has up to 14 days battery life and is a backup to your phone.
>I do a lot of bikepacking and everyone carries Garmin inReach or similar which allows you to send SMS and SOS via satellite in case of emergency.
You only hang out with well-off people, congrats. This will be great for people who don’t want to shell out another $15-20/mo + $300 for a device but still want to enjoy the outdoors.
You only hang out with well-off people, congrats. This will be great for people who don’t want to shell out another $15-20/mo + $300 for a device but still want to enjoy the outdoors.
> You only hang out with well-off people
Or people who think their lives are worth more than a few hundred dollars.
If you're travelling into remote areas with just your phone then you're going to be in a lot of trouble.
Or people who think their lives are worth more than a few hundred dollars.
If you're travelling into remote areas with just your phone then you're going to be in a lot of trouble.
Yet millions of people enjoyed the wilderness before sat technology existed.
Having dropped my phone and smashed it in the middle of bushwhacking I second the need for a secondary device. But no reason it couldn't just be another phone.
I think Garmin's days are numbered in this area. You can buy a small prepaid mobile phone as a backup and leave it off, it won't weigh much and be far cheaper.
I am going to guess One New Zealand won't allow prepaid mobile phones to use the service initially other than 111 emergency calls.
I am going to guess One New Zealand won't allow prepaid mobile phones to use the service initially other than 111 emergency calls.
Unfortunately it's only possible to buy high quality rugged cases for very expensive phones. Keeping your prepaid in your backpack might work for you, but I was strongly encouraged by my local backcountry search and rescue volunteers to keep my emergency communication device in immediate reach on the shoulder strap so that I can get assistance if partially incapacitated. This might be different if you don't recreate alone.
> I think Garmin's days are numbered in this area
Garmin and similar devices have proven reliability anywhere in the world.
SpaceX may prove itself to be a better proposition but it won't be anytime soon.
Garmin and similar devices have proven reliability anywhere in the world.
SpaceX may prove itself to be a better proposition but it won't be anytime soon.
I wonder what the feasibility is of deploying solar powered cell towers that use Starlink as an uplink. If a cell signal can go 25 miles then you should be able to locate the cells 50 miles apart. That would give you about 400 cell sites that that cover 1000 square miles. What is the cost / feasibility of doing something like this?
It wouldn't surprise me if that more or less is the plan. It's probably not particularly cheap but it probably beats having to install many thousands of kilometers of cables all over rural New Zealand.
But let's do the back of the envelope math. A typical 5G base station would use a couple of KW of power. My guess is they'd use ones with more range, which probably means more power. Let's call it 5kw. I'm not an expert but that seems a reasonable number. Maybe it's a bit high. Maybe it's a bit low. I don't know, I'm probably biasing to too high.
So, if you'd need to power that 24x7 using solar you obviously need some battery and enough solar panels to top those up even on the most cloudy days. If you have a 50kw solar setup, you'd be generating 10x more power than you need on a sunny day for about one third of that day. So you end up with roughly 3x more power than you need at best and probably some reasonable portion of that on average. On a bad day that might drop by a factor 20. So, you need probably at least a week or two of battery to play it safe. If you assume a complete absence of light, you'd need about 120 kwh per day. Of course that's not realistic. So it could be a bit less than that as you always get at least some power. A tesla powerwall would be not enough, a tesla megapack (~2.7M $) would probably be overkill. Probably about a quarter to a fifth of that would be plenty. Probably less.
Not particularly cheap but doable probably. Add a windmill to the mix and you can probably get away with a lot less solar and battery. Probably a few hundred thousand would go a long way and a few tens of thousands would be on the low end of the spectrum. Let's call it 100K per site plus or minus 25% or so. Doing ten of these cost a million. Doing 1000 of these 100 million. Doing 10000 of these a billion.
New Zealand is a 100000 square miles (to stick with your numbers and miles). So, you'd need about 40000 of these things. So a few billion. I bet there are probably multiple creative ways to get that number down a bit. So, not cheap but doable. At worst billions in cost.
But let's do the back of the envelope math. A typical 5G base station would use a couple of KW of power. My guess is they'd use ones with more range, which probably means more power. Let's call it 5kw. I'm not an expert but that seems a reasonable number. Maybe it's a bit high. Maybe it's a bit low. I don't know, I'm probably biasing to too high.
So, if you'd need to power that 24x7 using solar you obviously need some battery and enough solar panels to top those up even on the most cloudy days. If you have a 50kw solar setup, you'd be generating 10x more power than you need on a sunny day for about one third of that day. So you end up with roughly 3x more power than you need at best and probably some reasonable portion of that on average. On a bad day that might drop by a factor 20. So, you need probably at least a week or two of battery to play it safe. If you assume a complete absence of light, you'd need about 120 kwh per day. Of course that's not realistic. So it could be a bit less than that as you always get at least some power. A tesla powerwall would be not enough, a tesla megapack (~2.7M $) would probably be overkill. Probably about a quarter to a fifth of that would be plenty. Probably less.
Not particularly cheap but doable probably. Add a windmill to the mix and you can probably get away with a lot less solar and battery. Probably a few hundred thousand would go a long way and a few tens of thousands would be on the low end of the spectrum. Let's call it 100K per site plus or minus 25% or so. Doing ten of these cost a million. Doing 1000 of these 100 million. Doing 10000 of these a billion.
New Zealand is a 100000 square miles (to stick with your numbers and miles). So, you'd need about 40000 of these things. So a few billion. I bet there are probably multiple creative ways to get that number down a bit. So, not cheap but doable. At worst billions in cost.
plus the helicopter access (since almost by definition these new sites are in hard-to-access places) for cleaning the solar panels and other maintenance. snow on solar panels can be an issue, as well as just dust and other
If they're planning true 100% coverage, a lot of NZ's back country is mountainous so I doubt you'd get the max range as that would be in ideal, presumably flat, areas.
However, the power requirements are probably a lot lower than a typical urban base station as they will be getting hardly any traffic.
However, the power requirements are probably a lot lower than a typical urban base station as they will be getting hardly any traffic.
Probably not much? Basically all of NZ (that isn’t urban) is mountainous… attitude helps with line of sight.
This'll be a game changer. Kiwi's are pretty outdoor people and this'll help emergency services a lot. It'll be fantastic being able to use maps etc while in places that they aren't traditionally usable, I look forward to it!
[deleted]
One New Zealand's largest competitor Spark operates a country wide LoraWAN network, can SpaceX theoretically offer LoraWAN connectivity or would the TX power requirements be far more than a typical Lora device could sustain on battery/solar?
There already is a lora based satcomm company (Swarm) - their pricing is very competitive.
...owned by SpaceX.
https://spacenews.com/spacex-to-acquire-swarm-technologies/
https://spacenews.com/spacex-to-acquire-swarm-technologies/
The rural mobile coverage in Aotearoa New Zealand is terrible. I'm excited about this. This probably will get me to switch from Spark because at the moment they have the best rural coverage.
What kind of speeds do you see with Spark (and at what price)?
It's slow and expensive. In comparison, I moved from Uruguay where you could get 5G almost everywhere, and in VERY rural areas it drops to 4G. Per GB of pre-paid data, NZ is 20,000% more expensive than Uruguay, in a straight-up apples to apples comparison.
Most of rural NZ has zero coverage. And i'm not talking very rural, you can still be IN WELLINGTON CITY and still have no coverage. I lose coverage sometimes biking along the waterfront. If you go 30 minutes outside of the city centre, there's basically no coverage. Along major highways, like driving from Wellington to Auckland, MOST of the route has zero coverage.
Most of rural NZ has zero coverage. And i'm not talking very rural, you can still be IN WELLINGTON CITY and still have no coverage. I lose coverage sometimes biking along the waterfront. If you go 30 minutes outside of the city centre, there's basically no coverage. Along major highways, like driving from Wellington to Auckland, MOST of the route has zero coverage.
This is a comical exaggeration of the coverage in NZ. Almost the entire drive from Welly to Auckland is covered, with a large proportion in 4g. Anyone can trivially look up a coverage map to confirm this, and I'm telling you as a Kiwi that the above comment is almost entirely fictional. I don't know of anywhere in Wellington city without coverage, maybe some random blackspot between buildings?
Yeah, I'm never without coverage in Wellington on Spark. Even our rural property in a valley gets 50-70Mbs on 4G.
Imported phone? Sounds like yours may support some but not all of the frequency bands used by the NZ provider
Could well be. I had this kind of issue with an imported phone in NZ.
Cell phone planes in NZ are typically much less expensive than the US, you can get a decent plan for NZD 20/month, where in the US I couldn't find much for less than USD 30/month, which is over twice as much. I hear that in other countries it can be a lot cheaper.
Contrary to the parent I've found coverage to be fine, and haven't noticed losing coverage in places that I'd expect it.
Contrary to the parent I've found coverage to be fine, and haven't noticed losing coverage in places that I'd expect it.
"We will provide 2-4mbps download or uplink per beam. [...] Each beam will cover a 50km diameter on the ground."
So 150-200 times 2-4 Mbps is 300-800Mbps for the whole country.
There are about 5 million people in New Zealand. About 13 percent are rural. Let's say 30% of those are in areas where this would be useful, or about 4%. 200,000 people, and about half are the age and temperament to have a cellphone. Let's say they're using this data 1% of the time. That's 1000 people at a time, on average. So the useful data rate per active person is about 800kbps. That's not great, but still usable even for 240-360p video streaming, music streaming, navigation, normal web stuff. About 2.5 Gigabytes per month per 100,000 subscribers (although due to time of day, etc, that's probably more like a usable 1-1.5GB per month). For casual users with wifi at home, that's not that bad. I think my wife uses about that much or less.
There are about 5 million people in New Zealand. About 13 percent are rural. Let's say 30% of those are in areas where this would be useful, or about 4%. 200,000 people, and about half are the age and temperament to have a cellphone. Let's say they're using this data 1% of the time. That's 1000 people at a time, on average. So the useful data rate per active person is about 800kbps. That's not great, but still usable even for 240-360p video streaming, music streaming, navigation, normal web stuff. About 2.5 Gigabytes per month per 100,000 subscribers (although due to time of day, etc, that's probably more like a usable 1-1.5GB per month). For casual users with wifi at home, that's not that bad. I think my wife uses about that much or less.
Interesting point about total bandwidth accross NZ, but I think your calculations are a little optimistic. Rural NZ is not distributed evenly. The only calculation that matters if how many people per beam/cell, and how good the performance is on any given cellular device. The device may limit the performance regardless of other users.
If there are 10 people (0.5 people per sq km) in a given 50km2 beam, then they could at best get 200-400kbs.
Even a high country shepard is likely to be in a 50km2 block with many other people working at the same station.
Anyone on a popular walking track in the middle of nowhere is also likely to be around other people.
I am sure 2-4mb is a starting point and doubling that would be possible.
If there are 10 people (0.5 people per sq km) in a given 50km2 beam, then they could at best get 200-400kbs.
Even a high country shepard is likely to be in a 50km2 block with many other people working at the same station.
Anyone on a popular walking track in the middle of nowhere is also likely to be around other people.
I am sure 2-4mb is a starting point and doubling that would be possible.
2-4mbps is better than 0 even if it is divided by all users in that area.
Especially considering that in a lot of areas this will open up coverage to, you could be the only user relying on it anyway.
Especially considering that in a lot of areas this will open up coverage to, you could be the only user relying on it anyway.
I think pricing will determine how useful it is. If you take the 2% of the population in the 50% of the country that doesn't have terrestrial coverage then the bandwidth isn't really that bad - it's the same or better than other options in a comparable footprint or reasonable cost with the bonus it'd be on the same device you normally carry with you which auto switches back to high speed when you're in town.
Better than nothing?
It should provide messaging and voice calls. Basically, 1G phone.
I don't think there was any SMS on 1G cellular, which was purely analog.
Some early mobile networks, especially those that had out of band signalling like some of the early euro specific ones, supported short messaging as a first class feature. However, aside from attaching a modem to your cell phone, it was not widely adopted until GSM and digital based protocols took over (2G)
More like 2G
Voice is only coming in 2025.
This will a game changer! Even if their service is super expensive, anybody will be able to make emergency calls ANYWHERE! This will make PLB (personal location beacons) redundant!
I hope something similar comes to Australia soon