Royal Caribbean to use SpaceX's Starlink to provide internet onboard their fleet(rclinvestor.com)
rclinvestor.com
Royal Caribbean to use SpaceX's Starlink to provide internet onboard their fleet
https://www.rclinvestor.com/press-releases/release/
234 comments
On a positive note, seas are not really known for their trees
I can confirm this
It is indeed a pitty. Imagine how much carbon could be captured if these pesky seas had their fair share of trees.
Or maybe we should replace all the trees by Oceans, because they're a much more efficient carbon sink !
Well good news then! This seems to be the current strategy.
It's quite hard to imagine, because those trees could mess up other carbon sequestration cycles already present in oceans. E.g. phytoplankton uses CO2 but need sunlight to do so.
The ocean captures a lot of CO2…
Also, they aren't known for having high densities of people, unlike the east coast of the US.
Except on cruise ships ... 2000-3000 per boat, though, yeah, nothing like Manhattan
Sure, but consider the density of population covered by a single satellite in space. You could have dozens of boats serviced by a single satellite and have much, much lower density than any city.
Since it's the middle of the ocean, you're competing with nobody else (besides, maybe, large ships that also pay for Starlink)
Since it's the middle of the ocean, you're competing with nobody else (besides, maybe, large ships that also pay for Starlink)
IIRC adding ships and planes to the mix likely won’t make a big difference to the home/land user as they are geographically far apart.
The bottleneck is the bandwidth/users a single satellite can serve at any given time, as a single satellite serves users below where it is at that point in the sky. So when satellites start orbiting over the ocean or remote/uninhabited locations, they are sitting idle.
The bottleneck is the bandwidth/users a single satellite can serve at any given time, as a single satellite serves users below where it is at that point in the sky. So when satellites start orbiting over the ocean or remote/uninhabited locations, they are sitting idle.
>IIRC adding ships and planes to the mix likely won’t make a big difference to the home/land user as they are geographically far apart.
I would think that latitude distance is irrelevant and longitude distance is everything.
A ship going across the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans would have the satelites all to themselves. A ship sailing ports in the Caribbean would be in a very congested region.
Airplanes fly at a very high elevation which should allow them to access satellites covering less dense cells.
I would think that latitude distance is irrelevant and longitude distance is everything.
A ship going across the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans would have the satelites all to themselves. A ship sailing ports in the Caribbean would be in a very congested region.
Airplanes fly at a very high elevation which should allow them to access satellites covering less dense cells.
> I would think that latitude distance is irrelevant and longitude distance is everything.
Why would you think that? There's nothing special about north south directions versus east west directions.
> A ship sailing ports in the Caribbean would be in a very congested region.
Congested by what exactly? Most of the countries in the Caribbean don't have Starlink.
Why would you think that? There's nothing special about north south directions versus east west directions.
> A ship sailing ports in the Caribbean would be in a very congested region.
Congested by what exactly? Most of the countries in the Caribbean don't have Starlink.
The nice thing about these cruise ships are that they aren't using one satellite dish per user, which massively reduces transmission overhead.
What's the backhaul for those ships though? I thought point to point transmission wasn't available yet and therefore you needed to be relatively close to the backhaul point.
I stayed at a rural Airbnb that had it in place of a wired connection. It was pretty good for download (100mbps fairly consistently) but the latency jitter and upload speeds made it almost unusable for video calls and it did cut out for a minute or so once or twice over the course of a few days.
It's definitely a nice option but it's hard to rely on. I certainly wouldn't want to work remotely using it as my main connection for any length of time.
It's definitely a nice option but it's hard to rely on. I certainly wouldn't want to work remotely using it as my main connection for any length of time.
My requirements may be different but my experience is that it's usable for remote work but, yes, you need to be tolerant of it cutting out for a bit every now and then (but, hey, that happens with Comcast 50 miles outside of a major city) and maybe drop off video for a call especially if you have reasonable cellular backup.
It really is pretty much Starlink or nothing in many rural locations in the US.
It really is pretty much Starlink or nothing in many rural locations in the US.
I used Starlink for fully remote work for a couple years in a rural area (US West). I had occasional 5-15 second drops until the satellite-picking algorithm was updated (from the closest satellite to the satellite with the best signal). Ever since, it has been nearly flawless for my remote job purposes; however, speedtesting indicates a mild slowdown over time.
I was an early-ish adopter, so I have the first gen hardware. I think that may make some difference.
I was an early-ish adopter, so I have the first gen hardware. I think that may make some difference.
Like many things that are overcrowded, the experience is vastly different when you leave the lower 48. Remember this is a global service. 95.75% of the world's population do not live in the US.
I used Starlink in rural Australia where the alternative was non-fuctional 3G tethering and it was very fast without a single dropout in many days. Friends in off-grid cabins in Western Canada have the same experience.
I used Starlink in rural Australia where the alternative was non-fuctional 3G tethering and it was very fast without a single dropout in many days. Friends in off-grid cabins in Western Canada have the same experience.
> Remember this is a global service
International service. Maybe they are aiming to be a global one, but not there yet. Starlink is not available anywhere in Africa nor Asia, two of the most populous continents in the world, together accounting for more than 50% of the total population.
International service. Maybe they are aiming to be a global one, but not there yet. Starlink is not available anywhere in Africa nor Asia, two of the most populous continents in the world, together accounting for more than 50% of the total population.
And also exactly in those places internet is most needed
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1124283/internet-penetra...
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1124283/internet-penetra...
I assume that the number of people willing to pay $50-100 per month there is not that high, though
If the minimum price you can pay for Starlink is $50 and they think of themselves as a "global service", then do I have news for them...
$50 a month shared by a whole village. Not so bad.
[deleted]
There have been anecdotal reports of some people taking their RV dishes to places like the Philippines and having it work.
Same in a random rural location in Germany. Works perfectly with <3s downtime in a week.
My experience with the fixed version was not like this, it worked very well, and this is in a location with huge trees in all directions(redwoods).
> Even when I have full line of sight to all of the sky, it cuts out with some frequency (multiple times per hour) for anywhere from a couple seconds to half a minute.
This would be incorrect. If it has proper line of sight this does not occur. You're experiencing some other problem that most people do not experience.
> Starlink is fantastic in some ways, but I think they've massively oversold it, and I'm not sure they'll ever catch up as they're recruiting people faster than they're adding satellites.
This isn't a problem over the ocean as there's no one out there. It will be extremely high speeds in such places.
> I worry that this push to sell to more-lucrative customers at sea is just going to make the service even worse for nobodies like me.
It can't make service worse on land because the systems are disjoint. Speeds in one cell do not affect speeds in another cell.
This would be incorrect. If it has proper line of sight this does not occur. You're experiencing some other problem that most people do not experience.
> Starlink is fantastic in some ways, but I think they've massively oversold it, and I'm not sure they'll ever catch up as they're recruiting people faster than they're adding satellites.
This isn't a problem over the ocean as there's no one out there. It will be extremely high speeds in such places.
> I worry that this push to sell to more-lucrative customers at sea is just going to make the service even worse for nobodies like me.
It can't make service worse on land because the systems are disjoint. Speeds in one cell do not affect speeds in another cell.
The sea customers shouldn't directly impact land use, esp. in the current bent pipe mode. May have impact once laser interconnects re fully functional, but most likely not.
The biggest obstacle for future growth is launch capacity, which hopefully Starship will address. If Starship doesn't fly in time, Starlink is toast
The biggest obstacle for future growth is launch capacity, which hopefully Starship will address. If Starship doesn't fly in time, Starlink is toast
They're charging substantially more for their boat service, and with the added bonus that boats are utilizing satellites in areas where they'd otherwise be running idle.
That’s unfortunate to hear. I was considering buying this for travel and I’ve been looking for objective feedback. I’m seeing very mixed results.
Worth waiting for their laser links to come online and see if they improve things. May be coming by the end of the year.
I'm planning on moving onto a liveaboard boat next year and was really excited about Starlink until the price was revealed to be way out of reach for yachtsmen who aren't in the super-rich bracket. People assume boat owners have lots of money but the very fact of owning a boat means they often don't!
I've been tempted to try RV Starlink as an alternative but I don't think having my livelihood reliant on 'Elon Musk might think I'm taking the piss and cut off my internet' is a great idea. Realistically 4G and 5G coverage is good enough where I'm intending to go that it's not a huge issue.
I've been tempted to try RV Starlink as an alternative but I don't think having my livelihood reliant on 'Elon Musk might think I'm taking the piss and cut off my internet' is a great idea. Realistically 4G and 5G coverage is good enough where I'm intending to go that it's not a huge issue.
> until the price was revealed to be way out of reach for yachtsmen who aren't in the super-rich bracket
To save others the googling: $5000/mo for Starlink Maritime, equipment cost $10000.
To save others the googling: $5000/mo for Starlink Maritime, equipment cost $10000.
Makes sense. This is the target demographic for this service.
Each ship can then split the bandwidth up into nice rentable subsets and charge an arm and a leg to guests so they can watch YouTube.
Each ship can then split the bandwidth up into nice rentable subsets and charge an arm and a leg to guests so they can watch YouTube.
RCCL charges, last time I checked, $20/day (which does not seem onerous for access to high speed internet on the ocean) for customers to use internet on each vessel (this might have changed, haven't been on one of their boats since COVID started). Access for crew and staff is heavily subsidized as a perk. This is more of a high volume customer selecting a vendor who can provide a better offering (versus O3b MEO [1]) at possibly a better cost (at volume) imho. TLDR SpaceX via Starlink is eating the TAM of disparate satellite data providers (Iridium via T-mobile partnership and direct US DoD sales, O3B and OneWeb via mobile terminals and high end marine/aircraft deals, etc). When you've made enough rockets, you go where the margin is (which, for global satellite comms, is ~$75B/year).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O3b
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O3b
> $20/day (which does not seem onerous for access to high speed internet on the ocean)
Seems onerous to me when considering that it's shared with x other people. But I also don't know anything about cruise ship internet economics.
Seems onerous to me when considering that it's shared with x other people. But I also don't know anything about cruise ship internet economics.
We paid like $350 for a couples massage on a cruise. It was almost worth it, until in our relaxed state the spa workers tried to sell us $80 lemon water claiming it would cure chronic diseases, and my blood pressure shot up to its max.
Upsells after, or God-forbid, during a massage are just the absolute worst.
Let me just lay down and forget the world for an hour and leave in bliss please.
Let me just lay down and forget the world for an hour and leave in bliss please.
"That's a tight shoulder you've got there, it would be a shame if I accidentally missed it."
I had a similar experience after a massage. She tried to sell me "energising face moisturiser" for $150.
I said I would feel more energised keeping the money in my pocket.
I said I would feel more energised keeping the money in my pocket.
It's only good for the occasional email, in some ways its a great way to disconnect
> RCCL charges, last time I checked, $20/day (which does not seem onerous for access to high speed internet on the ocean)
This seems quite high to me. $20/day for a full working day of access, fine. But for checking my email once a day while on holiday to see if anything urgent has come in? That's excessive!
This seems quite high to me. $20/day for a full working day of access, fine. But for checking my email once a day while on holiday to see if anything urgent has come in? That's excessive!
But for checking my email once a day while on holiday to see if anything urgent has come in?
Saving $20 to not check your email and find out what breaks when you're unavailable is a win win.
Saving $20 to not check your email and find out what breaks when you're unavailable is a win win.
They could offer the ‘are you feeling lucky’ package.
Free all day every day to check to see if something urgent has come in… $200 an hour to use VPN / Web to fix that something urgent.
This is how I managed to break the cycle of checking work things on my latest holiday. Was I actually going to do anything about ‘something urgent’ there and then? No? Well don’t bother checking.
Nothing bad happened.
Free all day every day to check to see if something urgent has come in… $200 an hour to use VPN / Web to fix that something urgent.
This is how I managed to break the cycle of checking work things on my latest holiday. Was I actually going to do anything about ‘something urgent’ there and then? No? Well don’t bother checking.
Nothing bad happened.
This assumes you're checking it for work reasons, and not for, say, healthcare, or financial reasons.
Plenty of people have reasons to check email that are not about work, and where they could reasonably need to be contactable. It's quite a privilege in many ways to be able to fully disconnect.
Plenty of people have reasons to check email that are not about work, and where they could reasonably need to be contactable. It's quite a privilege in many ways to be able to fully disconnect.
If you're in a situation where you might urgently need to check an email then boarding a boat and going out in to the middle of the ocean as far from an Internet connection as humanly possible is probably an less than optimal IT strategy.
If you or a loved one has potentially urgent healthcare issues - then a cruise is not sensible.
I've had relatives who have had to cancel in the past because of this - travel insurance is a good investment (and there's a reason it gets more expensive the older / sicker you get...)
My general point here is, something, anything, urgent has come up. What're you gonna do? Swim to shore? I can think of the convenience of forgetting to pay a bill and then doing it online - in which case it's up to you to figure if whatever internet fee you pay would save you on potential late fees.
My general point here is, something, anything, urgent has come up. What're you gonna do? Swim to shore? I can think of the convenience of forgetting to pay a bill and then doing it online - in which case it's up to you to figure if whatever internet fee you pay would save you on potential late fees.
Being out of contact was often the absolutely normal state of affairs until 25 years or so ago. If you must be reachable, stay by the phone. Otherwise, someone may not be able to get in touch with you right now in many circumstances.
People will gladly pay $10,$20, $30 dollars without flinching for things line cigarettes or alcohol. I would bet people are more addicted to the internet then those things. Not a lot of people can disconnect easily like us HN crowd /s.
Also from my recent experience on RCCL, it was not working all day. I would attempt to refresh a messaging app periodically during the day and have it fail half the time.
This is my experience as well. Just came back from RCCL last week. We bought the "Streaming" package for internet access ($100+ for 7 days). But we couldn't get any connection half of the time.
their onboard networks are frequently oversaturated amd. most of the boats in service are over 20 years old and lack the infrastructure, with wifi networks pieced together with cheap consumer grade hardware. The RC cruise I went on for my bachelor party a few years back had el cheapo Netgear routers dotted around the coridoors, ziptied to cat5 cables in turn ziptied to exiting lines and conduits, which gave us a chuckle.
It's less than "resort fees" some hotels charge for what is basically wifi access.
For that cellular data is fine and cheaper.
Not in the middle of the ocean.
How many cruises go out of reach of cellular networks for many days? Mediterannean cruises should be within reach od EU cellular networks most of the time.
Emphasis on the Mediterranean. Right, you have free data roaming in EU, but the world is a much bigger place. Those cruise lines operate all over the world where getting a local SIM card with any amount of data is usually inconvenient or sometimes impossible. Satellite internet is usually the only way you can get online while on a cruise ship in a lot of countries and it is an extremely desired amenity onboard. Have no internet for any reason for an hour (and that happened a lot in some places), thats all fun, don't have it for a day, and you'll get almost a mutiny. Also satellite internet is very much needed for crew and navigation.
My point being that having relatively cheap and reliable internet on a cruise ship is a big pro even if your cruise is in Med. I'm sure that absolutely every cruise line is trying to get starlink terminals onboard as soon as possible.
My point being that having relatively cheap and reliable internet on a cruise ship is a big pro even if your cruise is in Med. I'm sure that absolutely every cruise line is trying to get starlink terminals onboard as soon as possible.
cellular networks are out of reach during a Helsinki-Tallinn crossing, so I would not deem this to be too rare for most cruise ships.
There is typically cellular in the sea that you can use. Which is pricey, but for low data usage probably fine.
[deleted]
cruise ships, like airlines are notorious penny pinchers. this is more for publicity than anything. keep in mind that beams are full now will only a couple thousand active users, which is what these large ships have. they'll have to charge a lot to keep the usage down.
Please note I have not cruised the last two years, but I remember there was something like a $5 a day option on Carnival for email only, no web browse just email.
A lot of cruises have free on-board internet, especially those aimed at a younger audience.
[deleted]
Link is broken, missing query parameter. Should be https://www.rclinvestor.com/press-releases/release/?id=1613
Cruises were one of the last places in the developed world where people could be completely disconnected from the internet. I used to go on yearly transatlantic cruise vacations. As someone who works online, I never feel "on vacation" unless I'm fully offline. That's becoming harder and harder these days. While I do think this is a cool technology, on a personal level, I'm mourning the loss of one of the last truly disconnected spaces in our world.
Lock your phone away in the hotel safe, put it on airplane mode, or just leave it in your bag. Connectivity is going to be available anywhere, but you still control your own utilization of it.
you are missing the point - its not about me throwing my phone away, its about other people knowing that contacting me is physically impossible, and not expecting me to even have a phobe
I feel like this is a "you" problem, not a "them" problem.
In the sense that you haven't laid out a clear boundary to the "other people". You don't have to go on a cruise ship to get away from email etc. You just say, "I'm offline from x to y".
I suspect you are not comfortable actually telling the other people this - I'm not sure if it's employer, customer, or family. In all cases though the right solution is to be clear, and give advance notice. There will likely be some push-back (especially given your past behaviour) but be firm.
Feel free to browse all you like. Feel free to post pics to Instagram. But resist the urge to answer emails or messages. Let that wait.
Ultimately people will treat your boundaries based on how _you_ treat your boundaries. It's a you problem first, not a them problem.
In the sense that you haven't laid out a clear boundary to the "other people". You don't have to go on a cruise ship to get away from email etc. You just say, "I'm offline from x to y".
I suspect you are not comfortable actually telling the other people this - I'm not sure if it's employer, customer, or family. In all cases though the right solution is to be clear, and give advance notice. There will likely be some push-back (especially given your past behaviour) but be firm.
Feel free to browse all you like. Feel free to post pics to Instagram. But resist the urge to answer emails or messages. Let that wait.
Ultimately people will treat your boundaries based on how _you_ treat your boundaries. It's a you problem first, not a them problem.
Tell them to fuck off.
Seriously. Set boundaries. Using "no access" as an excuse implies that if you're reachable you're on the hook to serve other people's desires at all times. People need to know that there are times in your life that are reserved for you only, and some people have a problem with that, so you have to tell them yourself in no uncertain terms.
Seriously. Set boundaries. Using "no access" as an excuse implies that if you're reachable you're on the hook to serve other people's desires at all times. People need to know that there are times in your life that are reserved for you only, and some people have a problem with that, so you have to tell them yourself in no uncertain terms.
Setting boundaries is a healthy skill to exercise, but if you need an excuse you could try hiking or camping? There are still plenty of places on land without cell coverage.
And if you must have the phone in case you need to call for help, take the battery out or turn it completely off so they can't call you.
Who in your life is demanding to be able to contact you at any random point in time, unless you explicitly tell them it's physically impossible for you to communicate with them?
There are a (very) few people who would expect to be able to reach me relatively quickly in an emergency unless I told them I was going to be off the grid or at least intermittently available for a few weeks. I don't think that's either unusual or unreasonable.
Not unusual, but it seems like you would want to be contacted in an emergency. So it's a good thing that cruise ships will be getting great internet service. You still have the choice to ignore non-emergency calls and only take emergency calls.
Maybe? If I'm in the middle of the Atlantic and can't do anything maybe not. In any case, I'd be reasonably confident that regular satellite communications today would get a regular emergency message through assuming someone knows what ship you're on.
I tell people that they can’t reach and do an OOF mail. Works like a charm. The only person who I say can reach me is my dad and all other numbers are blocked.
Set up your voice mail greeting and email appropriately.
Tell them you're going on vacation and won't have phone coverage. Then switch your phone off.
Remember the olden days, when if you wanted to take a picture you'd use a camera not a telephone?
Nothing prevents you from doing that now.
[deleted]
While partially true, that won't be the case for most people. And that can change your experience in a way you can't control (think of people at a concert filming the entire thing on their phone, or even everyone sitting around a dinner table on their phones).
> or even everyone sitting around a dinner table on their phones
I mean, you can find people who share your convictions.
I mean, you can find people who share your convictions.
Or you can just ask that folks agree to keep their phones away for the duration. There may be less pushback than you expect.
I mean, you can live in reality where no one is going to dump friends who use phones
Sure, but people should either decide to be ok with their friends using phones or get friends who also dont use phones. The middle ground of having friends who use phones but hating them for it is stupid.
Many mountain regions with beautiful hiking paths will remain disconnected from internet access for quite some time. So if you are fit enough, I strongly suggest to hike. You and everyone you are hiking with, will have no option to check mails or slack. It is also a great way to connect and spend time with family and friends.
https://www.alaska.org/tours https://you.com/search?q=alaska+hiking+trails
https://www.alaska.org/tours https://you.com/search?q=alaska+hiking+trails
> Many mountain regions with beautiful hiking paths will remain disconnected from internet access for quite some time.
SpaceX also just partnered with TMobile to bring direct-to-phone satellite internet. It'll probably take a while to happen, and the announced specs are pretty limited, but it's basically going to be everywhere.
SpaceX also just partnered with TMobile to bring direct-to-phone satellite internet. It'll probably take a while to happen, and the announced specs are pretty limited, but it's basically going to be everywhere.
Certainly there are places without Internet access. That said, as someone who leads group hikes, I'm not sure I could in good conscience advise people, in general, to just leave their phones at home when they go hiking if they want to get off the grid. And, if I was regularly in remote places with no cell phone reception these days, I'd probably think something like a Garmin InReach was probably a good idea.
It’s not the same.
Similar to how you can’t just stay off social media to avoid the influence of social media. The entire world has changed, and people behave differently because they are on social media. And their behavior affects you and the ambiance of places you go to.
Similar to how you can’t just stay off social media to avoid the influence of social media. The entire world has changed, and people behave differently because they are on social media. And their behavior affects you and the ambiance of places you go to.
Plus so many places just expect you to have a phone. For tickets and access to places, to view a menu and order in a restaurant, to access maps and information.
My last friend who still uses a "dumb" phone with no internet has started to struggle over the last few years as more places just require a smartphone. He's increasingly excluded from services.
My last friend who still uses a "dumb" phone with no internet has started to struggle over the last few years as more places just require a smartphone. He's increasingly excluded from services.
Hm, I'm doubtful.
I have a smartphone, but I use it for text messaging, calls, navigation, and not much else. Tickets I buy online and print. I've never been to a restaurant that required a phone to see the menu or order, and I'd likely walk out if they did.
The maps/navigation is convenient, but if push came to shove I'd print the directions like I used to do before phone navigation was a thing.
I have a smartphone, but I use it for text messaging, calls, navigation, and not much else. Tickets I buy online and print. I've never been to a restaurant that required a phone to see the menu or order, and I'd likely walk out if they did.
The maps/navigation is convenient, but if push came to shove I'd print the directions like I used to do before phone navigation was a thing.
> Tickets I buy online and print
I do not own a printer (30 years old), and neither do any of my siblings. If I want to print something I'd have to do it at work but don't know how to make the work printers work (despite being a software engineer at a company with a "good" printer setup). I travel internationally and don't print anything for that anymore.
> I've never been to a restaurant that required a phone to see the menu
I've never been to a place with a web menu and tried to get a physical menu.
> if push came to shove I'd print the directions
That's true if you know where you're going ahead of time, but if you're out and decide you now need directions to a coffee shop, ATM, public toilet, pharmacy, etc, you often need to look them up. You can ask for directions, but only if you speak the language, can find someone who knows, etc.
I have a vague bad feeling about all of this change, but I can't really justify it. These are the ways things are going and I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing in general, although there are negatives to it.
I do not own a printer (30 years old), and neither do any of my siblings. If I want to print something I'd have to do it at work but don't know how to make the work printers work (despite being a software engineer at a company with a "good" printer setup). I travel internationally and don't print anything for that anymore.
> I've never been to a restaurant that required a phone to see the menu
I've never been to a place with a web menu and tried to get a physical menu.
> if push came to shove I'd print the directions
That's true if you know where you're going ahead of time, but if you're out and decide you now need directions to a coffee shop, ATM, public toilet, pharmacy, etc, you often need to look them up. You can ask for directions, but only if you speak the language, can find someone who knows, etc.
I have a vague bad feeling about all of this change, but I can't really justify it. These are the ways things are going and I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing in general, although there are negatives to it.
To justify it, there’s the SPF issue. When everything is online, then any failure in the chain between you and the target URL breaks it. Phone doesn’t work for any multitude of reasons, no internet access, et cetera. Printed matter is very robust.
Yeah, if I'm traveling, especially internationally, I'm going to probably have a printed backup of my itinerary, any pre-purchased tickets, etc. I absolutely don't want to be in a situation where my phone goes out and I don't know where I'm staying that night.
I certainly don't obsessively print things but I don't work in an office and I probably want to print at least a few pages in a given week.
I certainly don't obsessively print things but I don't work in an office and I probably want to print at least a few pages in a given week.
> if push came to shove I'd print the directions like I used to do
If push came to shove, I'd send smoke signals to my friend across town when I want to invite them to a party.
If push came to shove, I'd send smoke signals to my friend across town when I want to invite them to a party.
If I go sit down at a restaurant and they can't tell me what they can make in the kitchen without me scanning a QR code I'm getting up and walking out.
There are some cities now where this choice means you'll only be eating at home. I don't know about you, but I'm not willing to live like a monk just to avoid using my phone. That's why internet free cruises were so great.
Which cities?
Taipei city, I can confirm many restaurants now do this. I suspect many restaurants in China have gone this route for a while now as their service landscape is more phone-heavy.
This is very cruise dependent. Any near-shore cruises may have a constant cellphone connection.
I feel like you could though, if you wanted, have an offline vacation anywhere. I know people who go camping and turn their phones off the entire time until they return.
I feel like you could though, if you wanted, have an offline vacation anywhere. I know people who go camping and turn their phones off the entire time until they return.
That's why I said transatlantic cruises. And yes, I could, if I want to isolate myself and treat my vacation like a punishment, but I still like to socialize and engage with the world around me on vacation, so it's nice to live in a world where there are a lot of people and events and no one is online nor expecting you to be.
I see your pain. That's why I posted a related startup idea here recently. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32493174 It's basically a villa / meditation center without internet connection. One interesting sample is in UK. https://unplugged.rest/
Regarding travel, Eric Schmidt had an interesting story. I think he spoke on Tim Ferriss's podcast that once he was on a business trip to North Korea with a group of people. Before boarding the plane, he was instructed by homeland security people to not bring in any connected devices, including phones. So everyone in the group went in without smartphones. For the next 2 weeks "everyone in the group became best friends" and they "had so much fun and many interesting conversations." (I'm paraphrasing) But once they return to airport and got their phones back, "we all immediately sunk into our phones and stopped talking to each other."
Maybe your best bet is North Korea? Seriously though, I think more and more people will see the benefit of occasionally entering into an "internet free" zone, by themselves or in groups. Preferably the zone is designed specifically for offline experience, not an augmented one relying on the guest's own "will power" to resist the pressure of internet.
Regarding travel, Eric Schmidt had an interesting story. I think he spoke on Tim Ferriss's podcast that once he was on a business trip to North Korea with a group of people. Before boarding the plane, he was instructed by homeland security people to not bring in any connected devices, including phones. So everyone in the group went in without smartphones. For the next 2 weeks "everyone in the group became best friends" and they "had so much fun and many interesting conversations." (I'm paraphrasing) But once they return to airport and got their phones back, "we all immediately sunk into our phones and stopped talking to each other."
Maybe your best bet is North Korea? Seriously though, I think more and more people will see the benefit of occasionally entering into an "internet free" zone, by themselves or in groups. Preferably the zone is designed specifically for offline experience, not an augmented one relying on the guest's own "will power" to resist the pressure of internet.
There are still a number of developing African countries which can offer you what you're looking for: https://www.statista.com/statistics/725778/countries-with-th...
If you're looking for a more familiar environment, small-town Montana will probably still suit you: https://getinternet.com/which-states-have-best-worst-interne... https://broadbandnow.com/research/best-states-with-internet-...
If you're looking for a more familiar environment, small-town Montana will probably still suit you: https://getinternet.com/which-states-have-best-worst-interne... https://broadbandnow.com/research/best-states-with-internet-...
Your Statista link doesn't show any data. It says that one needs to pay for their premium product to see the stats.
Hmm, worked for me. The World Bank data is also up to date: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IT.NET.USER.ZS?location...
I specified developed places. I want offline spaces, not places lacking basic necessities.
A spot like https://www.hotels.com/ho1182686048/maisons-d-hotes-laguiri-... is staggeringly affordable, with neither wifi, nor consistent mobile reception anywhere nearby, but abundant food, water and space.
I go on cruises with my computer full of videos. I will relax on deck while watching a movie (usually something funny) and time and time have someone how I get should good internet streaming. Then I get weird looks because I say I have no internet access, too many people do not even know that they so not need the internet to use their machines.
Worse, my single most important use of the computer I take is the deck plans of the ship I am on, it is invincible the amount of details you can find if you download the right plans. I find all the places onboard that often many cruisers do not know are there.
Worse, my single most important use of the computer I take is the deck plans of the ship I am on, it is invincible the amount of details you can find if you download the right plans. I find all the places onboard that often many cruisers do not know are there.
Sounds interesting, what sort of places have you found?
"one of the last truly disconnected spaces"... that's gone for a LOOONG time.
I remember remote-debugging a critical crash from a cruise ship in 1996. (Via fax. It was... an experience :)
I remember remote-debugging a critical crash from a cruise ship in 1996. (Via fax. It was... an experience :)
MH370 disappeared more recently than that. Hard to believe it could happen again though - particularly with the forthcoming phone to sat services from SpaceX and Apple.
Wonder if you could make this into an interesting short story, or maybe even a screenplay for a movie using lots of creative license.
I don't think I could. But if you want to take it and run with it, it's all yours.
(Give me a credit shout-out when you're all famous ;)
(Give me a credit shout-out when you're all famous ;)
Maybe you should take up caving!
One of my favorite experiences was sitting on the balcony of a cruise ship, watching the ocean go by, with my laptop on my lap. I really wanted to live and work like that for a while. Of course, I can't afford it, and the internet was barely able to pull up sites like HN. But the internet is part of how I relax and connect to people.
Nothing stops from using it, isn't it?
I love cruises and do it a lot. Never use internet on it, unless it was absolutely necessary.
I love cruises and do it a lot. Never use internet on it, unless it was absolutely necessary.
Not sure if you're religious or interested in certain spiritual practices, but almost all organized religions have silent retreats. No phones allowed and talking is only allowed in specific contexts or times. I aim to do this once per quarter.
Do your due diligence though because "silent" has quite the range.
Do your due diligence though because "silent" has quite the range.
[deleted]
What if they fine (sorry charge) you $1 / Mb to use it?
Perfect! But as Starlink becomes more common, I expect the costs to go down.
Like prison phone calls?
You could just not purchase the internet package?
Should we hold back the progress of the world, including something that's literally lifesaving in remote areas, because you don't have enough discipline to use a power button?
I am very, very, sick of this purely self aggrandizing "tragedy."
I am very, very, sick of this purely self aggrandizing "tragedy."
Attacking another user like this will get you banned here. Please make your substantive points thoughtfully and respectfully.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
First of all, I didn't say we should hold back progress. Just that I'm personally mourning the loss of disconnected spaces.
Also, it's not an issue of self discipline when social norms dictate that everyone around me is using their phones, and expecting me to do so to interact with them. On a cruise ship there used to be no such expectation. No boss expecting me to be aware of new emails, no friends expecting me to respond to their Facebook invites if I want to come to their parties, no one at the bar expecting me to follow them on Instagram, and no restaurants asking me to scan their QR code if I want to eat.
I don't know when the last time is you've tried to live for a week without a phone, but its become next to impossible unless you're in a protected environment like a cruise ship or a wilderness retreat.
Also, it's not an issue of self discipline when social norms dictate that everyone around me is using their phones, and expecting me to do so to interact with them. On a cruise ship there used to be no such expectation. No boss expecting me to be aware of new emails, no friends expecting me to respond to their Facebook invites if I want to come to their parties, no one at the bar expecting me to follow them on Instagram, and no restaurants asking me to scan their QR code if I want to eat.
I don't know when the last time is you've tried to live for a week without a phone, but its become next to impossible unless you're in a protected environment like a cruise ship or a wilderness retreat.
What are you talking about? Just leave the phone at home and go outside. Tell your boss you don’t have coverage. There’s nothing to mourn here maybe besides your lack of really easy self discipline and frankly I’m having a hard time empathizing with or understanding it.
Better yet, tell your boss (and everyone else) you check for texts twice a day, and emails once a day, and respond with similar timeframes. If it's urgent, well, they know where you are. They can come and see you.
They'll whinge at you for living in the 20th Century, but your stress levels will be down.
Embrace the fact that no-one is irreplaceable, and train your understudies.
They'll whinge at you for living in the 20th Century, but your stress levels will be down.
Embrace the fact that no-one is irreplaceable, and train your understudies.
If I'm on vacation, I'll tell my boss I'm on vacation. Maybe I'll skim work emails and even handle ones when I can do so quickly but I'm under no obligation to do so.
Try to see both sides of this rather than assuming no utility to the world from people intentionally entering an Internet-free zone for several days.
As we enter the era of increased satellite connectivity, it makes sense that some cruises would offer no Internet access to passengers as a perk. That would have nothing to do with the crew having access.
As we enter the era of increased satellite connectivity, it makes sense that some cruises would offer no Internet access to passengers as a perk. That would have nothing to do with the crew having access.
How did I assume that? It's identical to just handing your phone to someone with more willpower than you.
Or shocker: you could just leave your phone at home when you go on your trip.
JFC why do people have to magnify this into something when it's literally nothing?
Edit: comment above made a stealth edit where my comment now appears disjoint. I'll leave my comment as is other than this warning.
Or shocker: you could just leave your phone at home when you go on your trip.
JFC why do people have to magnify this into something when it's literally nothing?
Edit: comment above made a stealth edit where my comment now appears disjoint. I'll leave my comment as is other than this warning.
> It's identical to just handing your phone to someone with more willpower than you.
It's not identical because the rest of the people surrounding you aren't in a low-internet or no-internet bubble.
I love the internet. I also like to unplug, and it's really annoying to unplug and then have a few people not bought into the idea around you.
It's not identical because the rest of the people surrounding you aren't in a low-internet or no-internet bubble.
I love the internet. I also like to unplug, and it's really annoying to unplug and then have a few people not bought into the idea around you.
So go on a cruise where that's the prearranged theme.
Like seriously, there is no problem here, no tragedy.
When I hear what you're saying it's roughly equivalent to "I wish I could go out to bars and talk to people who don't have TV" about 2 decades ago. It's preposterous to assert this is some big deal, or that you don't have your own agency to create an unplugged environment with like minded people if you like.
Like seriously, there is no problem here, no tragedy.
When I hear what you're saying it's roughly equivalent to "I wish I could go out to bars and talk to people who don't have TV" about 2 decades ago. It's preposterous to assert this is some big deal, or that you don't have your own agency to create an unplugged environment with like minded people if you like.
> So go on a cruise where that's the prearranged theme.
The person you lambasted had said this:
> it makes sense that some cruises would offer no Internet access to passengers as a perk
I saw the comment in that minute before you responded-- this was in it. Further, there were cousin comments articulating the same view.
You're not being very kind.
> When I hear what you're saying it's roughly equivalent to "I wish I could go out to bars and talk to people who don't have TV" about 2 decades ago.
Here it's more like "I wish I could go to a bar somewhere near me without a TV blaring".
The person you lambasted had said this:
> it makes sense that some cruises would offer no Internet access to passengers as a perk
I saw the comment in that minute before you responded-- this was in it. Further, there were cousin comments articulating the same view.
You're not being very kind.
> When I hear what you're saying it's roughly equivalent to "I wish I could go out to bars and talk to people who don't have TV" about 2 decades ago.
Here it's more like "I wish I could go to a bar somewhere near me without a TV blaring".
Just because you don't want <X> does not mean you get to demand everyone else also does not get <X>.
You want to be disconnected from the internet? Great, more power to you. You want those around you to also be disconnected from the internet? In the most sincere way possible, fuck you.
If you can't fight the urge to bust out an internet client upon seeing someone else mess with one, that's a You problem and specifically a lack of self-discipline.
Unless you literally own the cruise ship and you are literally the law onboard as captain/owner of the ship, nobody has to accomodate your lack of self-discipline.
Of course, if you want help resolving your lack of self-discipline that's a different story, and I'm sure many folks would be happy to give you advice on that front.
You want to be disconnected from the internet? Great, more power to you. You want those around you to also be disconnected from the internet? In the most sincere way possible, fuck you.
If you can't fight the urge to bust out an internet client upon seeing someone else mess with one, that's a You problem and specifically a lack of self-discipline.
Unless you literally own the cruise ship and you are literally the law onboard as captain/owner of the ship, nobody has to accomodate your lack of self-discipline.
Of course, if you want help resolving your lack of self-discipline that's a different story, and I'm sure many folks would be happy to give you advice on that front.
> Unless you literally own the cruise ship and you are literally the law onboard as captain/owner of the ship, nobody has to accomodate your lack of self-discipline.
vs. What we're replying to:
> As we enter the era of increased satellite connectivity, it makes sense that some cruises would offer no Internet access to passengers as a perk. That would have nothing to do with the crew having access.
And again, it's not my lack of non-discipline: it's me enjoying being in places where the other people I'm with are disconnected. I value disconnected experiences; if a quarter of people around me are nose-down in a phone, that devalues the experience for me a fair bit. There are likely decent markets for disconnected experiences.
vs. What we're replying to:
> As we enter the era of increased satellite connectivity, it makes sense that some cruises would offer no Internet access to passengers as a perk. That would have nothing to do with the crew having access.
And again, it's not my lack of non-discipline: it's me enjoying being in places where the other people I'm with are disconnected. I value disconnected experiences; if a quarter of people around me are nose-down in a phone, that devalues the experience for me a fair bit. There are likely decent markets for disconnected experiences.
If you go on a cruise ship marketed to like-minded passengers like you, yeah, someone probably has proper authority to throw some complaints around. Namely whoever is the captain of the ship.
The post I replied to (you) reads, in part, as follows: "I also like to unplug, and it's really annoying to unplug and then have a few people not bought into the idea around you."
Absolutely, find cruise ships without internet connection if you're that deep into that sort of thing. Nobody's stopping you, nor is anyone stopping cruise lines from not providing internet.
What I'm saying is: You don't get to just go on some cruise ship and then complain people around you don't act exactly like you. That is absurd.
The post I replied to (you) reads, in part, as follows: "I also like to unplug, and it's really annoying to unplug and then have a few people not bought into the idea around you."
Absolutely, find cruise ships without internet connection if you're that deep into that sort of thing. Nobody's stopping you, nor is anyone stopping cruise lines from not providing internet.
What I'm saying is: You don't get to just go on some cruise ship and then complain people around you don't act exactly like you. That is absurd.
> What I'm saying is: You don't get to just go on some cruise ship and then complain people around you don't act exactly like you. That is absurd.
I don't think anyone is doing that (straw man)-- which is part of why your reaction seems so over the top to me. At worst, people are bemoaning the loss of one more low-network space; which then morphed into a discussion of why a deliberate low-network space might be considered worthwhile beyond the personal choice of not using one's phone.
And then you started putting words in my mouth about me not being able to refrain from using my phone.
I don't think anyone is doing that (straw man)-- which is part of why your reaction seems so over the top to me. At worst, people are bemoaning the loss of one more low-network space; which then morphed into a discussion of why a deliberate low-network space might be considered worthwhile beyond the personal choice of not using one's phone.
And then you started putting words in my mouth about me not being able to refrain from using my phone.
You represented Internet on a cruise ship as an unqualified advancement in progress and appeared to be disgusted with anyone thinking otherwise. Also, I did not make a substantial edit, just a minor one for clarity. I can’t imagine you would’ve written something significantly different, after reading the whole chain.
[deleted]
T-Mobile just started advertising that they can be used on any flight. I think this is just a second signal that the market is moving towards Free(ish) WiFi on planes, boats, etc.
Direct to cell service will be very slowand restricted. Not comparable to Starlink powered service you will be able to get on flights.
I haven’t seen the specific announcement this thread is referring to, but it sounds like it will essentially be an extension of the free inflight messaging T-Mobile has long offered on Wi-Fi equipped flights, except that it will work on flights without Wi-Fi. Extremely low bandwidth and limited to only messaging apps, but an extension of a service they already offer.
The free inflight messaging that T-Mobile offered was just a "free offer for customers of T-Mobile" deal on services provided by an in-flight internet provider. Basically a "free doordash premium subscription for chase sapphire reserve customers" type of a deal.
Regardless if you are a T-Mobile customer using that deal or not at all, you join the in-plane WiFi AP, it goes to the captive portal, and there you get options like "tmobile customers offer", "single flight pass", and "monthly flight pass". Once you pick your option and get through it, you have internet access. And regardless which option you went with, you get the exact same type of internet connection as everyone else on that flight.
From what I've personally seen, it was done through GoGo Inflight Internet[0] heavy majority of the time.
0. https://gogoair.com
Regardless if you are a T-Mobile customer using that deal or not at all, you join the in-plane WiFi AP, it goes to the captive portal, and there you get options like "tmobile customers offer", "single flight pass", and "monthly flight pass". Once you pick your option and get through it, you have internet access. And regardless which option you went with, you get the exact same type of internet connection as everyone else on that flight.
From what I've personally seen, it was done through GoGo Inflight Internet[0] heavy majority of the time.
0. https://gogoair.com
T-Mobile's plan is "New SpaceX satellites have giant antennas that your smartphone can reach with a puny bandwidth, if you don't have cell signal you can use that satellite connection for messengers and maybe calls". Royal Caribbean's plan is "We have lots of space and power on these giant cruise ships, let's put a couple dedicated Starlink antennas on them to sell better WiFi to our passengers".
Plan 1 won't encroach on plan 2 yet, unless all you care about is Whatsapp.
Plan 1 won't encroach on plan 2 yet, unless all you care about is Whatsapp.
[deleted]
It will be interesting to see when Starlink is going to have some competition. SpaceX managed to get to market first with a low cost network of cheap satellites. But there are others that are trying to do that as well (e.g. OneWeb). There are a few other companies like Amazon with similar ambitions. But it seems they each are years away from going live.
Also, SpaceX is the cheapest way to get to orbit now so a lot of these companies are probably struggling on the cost front.
Also, SpaceX is the cheapest way to get to orbit now so a lot of these companies are probably struggling on the cost front.
HN discussions on starlink are so interesting, the idea that satellite internet is competing with copper or fiber is insane to me. There are tons of issues, but holy shit this is incredible. I think most commenters really don't understand what the SOTA was in terms of cost, reliability, bandwidth, and latency.
I think this greatly helps Royal Caribbean with younger customers who simply cannot be 100% disconnected. I have customers I need to be available for if something goes wrong. I won't even consider a 7-day cruise. But now I can. Looking forward to this new service.
I have a goal of taking a ~14-day transatlantic cruise with Royal Caribbean and working 4hrs a day from my laptop onboard. This news makes that much more of a feasible option!
I’m going to guess that they already had/have large satellites for television and/or emergency services though?
TV is one-way from high orbit; you just need a receiver. People have had that at home for decades already. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DirecTV_satellite_fleet
Emergency service - distress, weather, etc. - go through constellations like Iridium. Low bandwidth, high latency.
Emergency service - distress, weather, etc. - go through constellations like Iridium. Low bandwidth, high latency.
Their needs are mostly about cheap internet costs reasonably close to shore. Presumably they will continue to need their existing systems on repositioning cruses until Starlink’s satellite to satellite communication works but 90% of their needs can be met without that.
I expect that except for trans-Atlantic/Pacific, Starlink already has more than sufficient coverage. My Starlink connection in Baja California Sur goes through a hop in Arizona, 800 miles away.
This means that all of the Caribbean is likely covered as well as all of Costal Americas.
This means that all of the Caribbean is likely covered as well as all of Costal Americas.
For Alaska cruses they do reposting via the Panama Canal by crossing the which isn’t completely over Ed by Starlinks current network. https://satellitemap.space/?norad=48119
They would also see gaps when traveling further offshore to avoid bad weather etc, until global coverage working.
They would also see gaps when traveling further offshore to avoid bad weather etc, until global coverage working.
Deployment isn't complete until end of 1Q 2023, by which time Starlink expects to have global coverage.
Use on individual ships isn’t going to wait after instillation of global coverage when they can start saving money on day one. Especially as global coverage is likely to be less than perfect at the beginning.
The satellite you see currently needs to be able to see a ground station, there’s no hopping between satellites. Coverage will be limited to these line of sight constraints until the communication between satellites works.
> until the communication between satellites works.
which is Q4 2022, and Royal Caribbean implementation is Q1 2023, so that's moot.
which is Q4 2022, and Royal Caribbean implementation is Q1 2023, so that's moot.
In theory Royal Caribbean implementation finishes in Q1 2023, but that doesn’t mean individual ships aren’t going to have Starlink in Q3 2022.
Further, Starlink is aiming for Q4 2022, but that’s not guaranteed.
Further, Starlink is aiming for Q4 2022, but that’s not guaranteed.
Not just emergency - several companies provide satellite internet service that cruise ship passengers can use.
https://www.cruisecritic.com/articles.cfm?ID=1419
https://www.cruisecritic.com/articles.cfm?ID=1419
[deleted]
I'm curious how no other company has managed to even directly compete with Musk when it comes to a service like Starlink. I believe it had to go through regulatory approval. Did no other companies get contracts to provide a similar service, or is this just regulation enabling monopolies?
SpaceX has the in house launch capacity, they can launch at cost. Nobody else can do that yet.
Tons of companies can provide services to cruise ships, with bandwidth and latencies depending on how sophisticated their satellites are, and their choice of orbits.
SpaceX has 3 direct competitors in similar orbits. All 3 have global (ITU) regulatory approvals, but are behind on building and launching things.
SpaceX has 3 direct competitors in similar orbits. All 3 have global (ITU) regulatory approvals, but are behind on building and launching things.
> I'm curious how no other company has managed to even directly compete with Musk when it comes to a service like Starlink.
Simple: to provide maximum speed to the end users, you want a large amount of small cells so you can better use the allocated frequency spectrum. However, launches used to be really expensive, so operators had to go for high orbits covering large areas - Iridium, for example, cost 5 billion dollars to build for 77 satellites, meaning a cost per satellite of ~64 million dollars (hardware+launch).
In contrast, SpaceX is at ~250k-500k dollars for the satellite and anything from 30-60 million dollars per launch of 60 satellites, so total cost of ~750k-1.5 million dollars per satellite [2]. That's a whole order of magnitude less cost than Iridium.
And on top of that, SpaceX's lower orbit also means better service quality due to lower latency and better signal quality. Established satcom providers physically cannot compete with that.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iridium_satellite_constellatio...
[2] https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2019/12/spacex-starlink-satell...
Simple: to provide maximum speed to the end users, you want a large amount of small cells so you can better use the allocated frequency spectrum. However, launches used to be really expensive, so operators had to go for high orbits covering large areas - Iridium, for example, cost 5 billion dollars to build for 77 satellites, meaning a cost per satellite of ~64 million dollars (hardware+launch).
In contrast, SpaceX is at ~250k-500k dollars for the satellite and anything from 30-60 million dollars per launch of 60 satellites, so total cost of ~750k-1.5 million dollars per satellite [2]. That's a whole order of magnitude less cost than Iridium.
And on top of that, SpaceX's lower orbit also means better service quality due to lower latency and better signal quality. Established satcom providers physically cannot compete with that.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iridium_satellite_constellatio...
[2] https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2019/12/spacex-starlink-satell...
It isn’t regulatory - Amazon and OneWeb also have regulatory approval for satellite broadband constellations and have little to show for it.
It is all about efficiency. You have to build and launch thousands of satellites, and no company other than SpaceX has driven down the cost of those two things enough to make it feasible.
It is all about efficiency. You have to build and launch thousands of satellites, and no company other than SpaceX has driven down the cost of those two things enough to make it feasible.
I was on a Princess cruise last week that had broadband quality internet provided by SES Networks: https://www.ses.com
I don't think it's yet clear that Starlink is sustainably profitable. Why would other companies enter a market segment where that is the case? Without VC backing, i mean.
I known there is a guy at work that already uses starlink for his home internet service (he lives out in the middle of nowhere). Could he keep using starlink while traveling, including on a cruise ship, without incurring any additional costs?
No. The "travel in an RV" otherwise meaning traveling outside of your home cell is extra. And the maritime version is $5,000/month
This is not entirely accurate. You can use Starlink in RV mode on a vessel, you just don't get the higher throughput and availability of having two antennas and the orchestration for them. There is some nuance.
https://youtu.be/zN8ECQrot8g
https://youtu.be/zN8ECQrot8g
I'm pretty sure that Starlink will start identifying and dealing with nautical customers who don't use the nautical package. Right now, it's like a legacy mode. But after enough nautical antennas have shipped, they're not going to deprioritize the $5k/month customers
I believe the "RV" version of the service costs more but lets you move around over land- but they charge even more if you want to use it at sea.
The reason is that SpaceX only can support so many users in a given region because each satellite has limited bandwidth.
The reason is that SpaceX only can support so many users in a given region because each satellite has limited bandwidth.
I think the main issue is Starlink still needs a nearby groundstation to work.
That gets harder at sea...
I guess Royal Caribbean never goes that far from land?
That gets harder at sea...
I guess Royal Caribbean never goes that far from land?
The colors are awful, but here is the projected coverage map for maritime use:
https://api.starlink.com/public-files/maritime-coverage-map....
Near-shore coverage is there because of the nearby ground stations, yes. But per that map they expect to be covering two large bands of open ocean later this year, and the rest next year. Satellite-to-satellite communication will allow users to make use of it without nearby ground stations via multiple in-space hops.
Given that this press release has them deploying Starlink in their cruise ship fleet at the end of Q1 2023, that fits the above map's projections. So Starlink already has a major customer lined up for their upcoming service.
https://api.starlink.com/public-files/maritime-coverage-map....
Near-shore coverage is there because of the nearby ground stations, yes. But per that map they expect to be covering two large bands of open ocean later this year, and the rest next year. Satellite-to-satellite communication will allow users to make use of it without nearby ground stations via multiple in-space hops.
Given that this press release has them deploying Starlink in their cruise ship fleet at the end of Q1 2023, that fits the above map's projections. So Starlink already has a major customer lined up for their upcoming service.
Won't need a ground station once they have the inter-satellite laser links working.
Royal Caribbean owns Silversea Cruises, and those guys go as far north and south as possible. Also everywhere else in between. This is s godsend to them, and the guests are going to appreciate it.
I have a Starlink and live in an RV and use it across the U.S. You can set it up wherever you just have to toggle a setting in your account for that (easy to do from the app). As others have mentioned, I do not believe oceanic coverage is available unless you pay the much larger fee.
Meh. Having seen a lot of benefit from reducing internet usage, I am split on this. I could really do OK with years of no internet. HN and a few news sites are all that I regularly visit and I am doing so much better now.
How much does a used cruise ship go for? I want to create a cruise ship based incubator. If a startup succeeds they eventually get their own ship.
Just make sure it goes better than it did for these guys:
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/sep/07/disastrous-voya...
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/sep/07/disastrous-voya...
I can already foresee a new wave/trend of fancy people working remotely from cruise ships.
I mean, regardless how you feel about Starlink, Elon, etc... this is only logical.
This being cruise ships, will it cost a kidney or half your house and a kidney?
> fantastic in some ways, but I think they've massively oversold it
Seems like par for the course for most Musk ventures
Seems like par for the course for most Musk ventures
I would agree with the main sibling comment here. Pithy remarks about Elon Musk, about anyone really, generally don't add anything to the discussion and are very tired topics, particularly when they aren't even humorous in any way.
You actually make a fairly decent point (FSD being forever "soon" is one example), however in most of the businesses that Elon Musk operates in, delays or outright failures are extremely common (Tesla made electric cars appealing. Basically was impossible. SpaceX developed rockets in a "few years". Basically unheard of since Apollo-era. And so on).
So I would probably lean on the side of "give the dude some slack"?
You actually make a fairly decent point (FSD being forever "soon" is one example), however in most of the businesses that Elon Musk operates in, delays or outright failures are extremely common (Tesla made electric cars appealing. Basically was impossible. SpaceX developed rockets in a "few years". Basically unheard of since Apollo-era. And so on).
So I would probably lean on the side of "give the dude some slack"?
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32658796.
Could we please tone down these comments about Musk? Literally every thread about SpaceX/Tesla/etc has dozens of them. It's not interesting at all anymore, and adds nothing to the discussion. Everybody has already heard this opinion dozens of times.
I don't disagree with your sentiment, but I think it's interesting that this reached the front page of HN at all, and I have to think it's _because_ of the cult of personality around Musk.
Some of these comments suggest that having satellite internet onboard a cruise ship is a new thing. It's certainly not.
After some quick googling it looks like the current provider is O3b Networks (now part of SES), using modem equipment manufactured by ST Engineering iDirect.
I somehow doubt that when O3b Networks won that contract in 2013 it made the front page of HN. But now, there's "SpaceX's Starlink" in the title and it sits on #7 on the front page with 130+ comments.
Some of these comments suggest that having satellite internet onboard a cruise ship is a new thing. It's certainly not.
After some quick googling it looks like the current provider is O3b Networks (now part of SES), using modem equipment manufactured by ST Engineering iDirect.
I somehow doubt that when O3b Networks won that contract in 2013 it made the front page of HN. But now, there's "SpaceX's Starlink" in the title and it sits on #7 on the front page with 130+ comments.
I don't venture too far on the internet, but the only thing like a cult of personality around Musk I've seen is the anti-Musk cult going on and on about how he is a "garbage human", he's a fraud, not a real engineer, and how annoying his cult followers are, when it comes to any vaguely related topic.
This story for example, of the comments where Musk is first mentioned in a thread, 3 (including the dead one) are anti-Musk, and 1 is neutral (using Musk as shorthand for Musk's businesses), and zero are positive. Nothing rabidly pro-Musk.
So I rather think stories like this are being upvoted because people like hearing about travel, internet and comms, rockets, satellites, and the like. I don't think it's very charitable to think it's only due to some vapid Musk fan club.
This story for example, of the comments where Musk is first mentioned in a thread, 3 (including the dead one) are anti-Musk, and 1 is neutral (using Musk as shorthand for Musk's businesses), and zero are positive. Nothing rabidly pro-Musk.
So I rather think stories like this are being upvoted because people like hearing about travel, internet and comms, rockets, satellites, and the like. I don't think it's very charitable to think it's only due to some vapid Musk fan club.
Funny you should say that - how much does Tesla spend on marketing vs other car companies?
How much does spacex spend on marketing?
Just because some people (excluding you) think his products are awesome, doesn't mean he oversold it.
How much does spacex spend on marketing?
Just because some people (excluding you) think his products are awesome, doesn't mean he oversold it.
Tesla launched a car into space. That's significantly more costly than the vast majority of ad campaigns.
Also, Elon constantly oversells his products every chance he is given - Tesla shows, any interview, I think he managed to do it even when he went on SNL.
Also, Elon constantly oversells his products every chance he is given - Tesla shows, any interview, I think he managed to do it even when he went on SNL.
> Tesla launched a car into space.
It was a dummy payload. Sure the car was more expensive than a block of concrete, but not by much.
Elon claims SpaceX was started because he couldn't inspire people with a martian greenhouse photo. So it is "in character" for him to do inspiring things if possible along the way.
It was a dummy payload. Sure the car was more expensive than a block of concrete, but not by much.
Elon claims SpaceX was started because he couldn't inspire people with a martian greenhouse photo. So it is "in character" for him to do inspiring things if possible along the way.
The point is that it was a marketing stunt for Tesla. It was inspiring alright - inspiring people to associate Tesla with cool space stuff, and hopefully buy one.
Sure, but the cost to Tesla was one car, one camera, one video transmitter and probably the most expensive part, a license for David Bowie's Starman.
Perhaps that's "significantly more costly than the vast majority of ad campaigns", but only because the vast majority of ad campaigns are not very costly at all (I guess the dominant ad campaign by number is a limited online or local print one for a small business, costing in the low 4 figures). Certainly it wouldn't be significantly more costly than the vast majority of ad campaigns for car manufacturers, though.
Perhaps that's "significantly more costly than the vast majority of ad campaigns", but only because the vast majority of ad campaigns are not very costly at all (I guess the dominant ad campaign by number is a limited online or local print one for a small business, costing in the low 4 figures). Certainly it wouldn't be significantly more costly than the vast majority of ad campaigns for car manufacturers, though.
A shame his mouth counterbalanced much of the value from those fantastic stunts.
Tesla didn’t launch a car into space, SpaceX did. It was either a car or a chunk of concrete.
If you don't think that was a marketing stunt for Tesla, I don't know what to tell you.
If you think Tesla paid for it, I don’t know what to tell you.
I think he constantly undersells compared to the CEOs and marketing dept of other companies talking about their products.
I haven't seen other CEOs randomly mention on every interview they attend that their company is literally intended to save mankind from complete disaster by moving us to another planet.
I also haven't seen any other car company CEO claiming that the car they sell you will literally pay for itself in 1 year by collecting faires as a robotaxi starting from 2019.
I also haven't seen any other company CEO claiming that their company will give you virtual immortality by uploading your brain into a computer.
Well, I should say for all of these, any other CEO that is not running a scam company.
I also haven't seen any other car company CEO claiming that the car they sell you will literally pay for itself in 1 year by collecting faires as a robotaxi starting from 2019.
I also haven't seen any other company CEO claiming that their company will give you virtual immortality by uploading your brain into a computer.
Well, I should say for all of these, any other CEO that is not running a scam company.
Really? Every second company I seem to hear about is literally saving the planet from global warming, valiantly defending and saving the weak and oppressed, battling bigotry, bringing truth and enlightenment to the world, all sorts of wild hypocrisy and lies.
Musk claims to be worried about the earth becoming uninhabitable and has the goal of starting a colony on Mars to mitigate that risk. Do you think that's just a lie he's telling to somehow get richer? That he doesn't really have that concern or aim? What's the scam here?
Sure he is over-optimistic and hypes is products and over-promises. When it comes to rockets, so does NASA, Boeing, ULA, Aerojet Rocketdyne, Northrop Grumman, Blue Origin, Arianespace... well probably most of them. When it comes to electric or autonomous cars, so does GM, Ford, Toyota, VW, Uber... also probably most of them.
Musk claims to be worried about the earth becoming uninhabitable and has the goal of starting a colony on Mars to mitigate that risk. Do you think that's just a lie he's telling to somehow get richer? That he doesn't really have that concern or aim? What's the scam here?
Sure he is over-optimistic and hypes is products and over-promises. When it comes to rockets, so does NASA, Boeing, ULA, Aerojet Rocketdyne, Northrop Grumman, Blue Origin, Arianespace... well probably most of them. When it comes to electric or autonomous cars, so does GM, Ford, Toyota, VW, Uber... also probably most of them.
> Do you think that's just a lie he's telling to somehow get richer? That he doesn't really have that concern or aim?
Yes, that aim is impossible for the forseeable future, and for the effort and resources you would spend making a self-sustaining Mars colony, if it's in any way possible, you can definitely make the Earth habitable after any possible disaster that doesn't destroy the whole orbit.
For the others, find me one other example that has so constantly spread such lies.
Yes, that aim is impossible for the forseeable future, and for the effort and resources you would spend making a self-sustaining Mars colony, if it's in any way possible, you can definitely make the Earth habitable after any possible disaster that doesn't destroy the whole orbit.
For the others, find me one other example that has so constantly spread such lies.
He saves taxpayers billions of dollars bidding on competitive contracts providing the government with launch services (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_launch_market_competitio...). He has an ambitious plan to send people to Mars which you don't happen to like.... So what's step 3? Where's the scam?
It's not that "I don't like" the plan, it's that the plan is impossible. We don't have anything like the technology required to created a self-sustaining colony on Mars, and we may never have it.
Also, I'm not saying that SpaceX or Tesla are a scam, they are clearly companies that have achieved huge milestones and are producing and selling real products. I'm just saying that he massively over-promises and over-hypes his products, far beyond what other CEOs of actual companies do.
He does sometimes end up over promising so much that he has run afoul of false advertising laws, or very near - particularly with "full self-driving".
Also, I'm not saying that SpaceX or Tesla are a scam, they are clearly companies that have achieved huge milestones and are producing and selling real products. I'm just saying that he massively over-promises and over-hypes his products, far beyond what other CEOs of actual companies do.
He does sometimes end up over promising so much that he has run afoul of false advertising laws, or very near - particularly with "full self-driving".
It is that you don't like it, unless you know exactly what his goal is and are in an authoritative position to say it is impossible.
You also are saying they're scams.
> Well, I should say for all of these, any other CEO that is not running a scam company.
And just about all the rocket and self driving and electric car companies and government organizations I listed massively over promised things. Tesla and Space X aren't the worst of the bunch as far as I can see. How are you measuring these over promises compared with others?
I think what this looks like is you just personally hate Musk and are trying to come up with reasons for it that don't sound petty or unreasonable. You don't have to, you're allowed to hate him for whatever reason you like, and you don't have to explain yourself to anybody.
You also are saying they're scams.
> Well, I should say for all of these, any other CEO that is not running a scam company.
And just about all the rocket and self driving and electric car companies and government organizations I listed massively over promised things. Tesla and Space X aren't the worst of the bunch as far as I can see. How are you measuring these over promises compared with others?
I think what this looks like is you just personally hate Musk and are trying to come up with reasons for it that don't sound petty or unreasonable. You don't have to, you're allowed to hate him for whatever reason you like, and you don't have to explain yourself to anybody.
> It is that you don't like it, unless you know exactly what his goal is and are in an authoritative position to say it is impossible.
He is saying that his goal is to make humanity multi-planetary, so that it can survive a disaster that may happen to the earth.
This goal is impossible with anything resembling current technology. This is obvious if you think about it even for a little bit. So it's either a lie, or he hasn't thought about it for more than a little bit.
> You also are saying they're scams.
No I'm not. I'll repeat it again: SpaceX and Tesla are serious companies producing worthwhile products that people want. They have both broken ground in areas where no company has broken ground for a long long time, and they have generally left older companies in their spaces in the dust.
This doesn't mean that Musk doesn't try to present them as even more than they actually are, for purposes that I'm sure are part ego boosting, part clever marketing. He often outright lies while doing so, or promises impossible goals in impossible timelines.
He is saying that his goal is to make humanity multi-planetary, so that it can survive a disaster that may happen to the earth.
This goal is impossible with anything resembling current technology. This is obvious if you think about it even for a little bit. So it's either a lie, or he hasn't thought about it for more than a little bit.
> You also are saying they're scams.
No I'm not. I'll repeat it again: SpaceX and Tesla are serious companies producing worthwhile products that people want. They have both broken ground in areas where no company has broken ground for a long long time, and they have generally left older companies in their spaces in the dust.
This doesn't mean that Musk doesn't try to present them as even more than they actually are, for purposes that I'm sure are part ego boosting, part clever marketing. He often outright lies while doing so, or promises impossible goals in impossible timelines.
> He is saying that his goal is to make humanity multi-planetary, so that it can survive a disaster that may happen to the earth.
Great, that's a cool goal. Especially with so much concern about existential threats to humanity on earth.
> This goal is impossible with anything resembling current technology. This is obvious if you think about it even for a little bit. So it's either a lie, or he hasn't thought about it for more than a little bit.
Or he wants to improve on current technology, like he's been doing.
> No I'm not. I'll repeat it again: SpaceX and Tesla are serious companies producing worthwhile products that people want. They have both broken ground in areas where no company has broken ground for a long long time, and they have generally left older companies in their spaces in the dust.
Okay you backed down on that now, but you did say it before in the part I quoted.
> This doesn't mean that Musk doesn't try to present them as even more than they actually are,
Like all companies including the many competitors I listed.
> for purposes that I'm sure are part ego boosting, part clever marketing. He often outright lies while doing so, or promises impossible goals in impossible timelines.
I still think it's that you hate Musk and are fixating on him. When I asked you to explain why it's a scam for example, you couldn't. So just a bit more thinking through things seems to help bring a bit more clarity and perspective.
I mean you're asking about other companies and CEOs, I can't understand it you must be willfully looking the other way. The CEO of BP has has branded himself a visionary leader who is fighting climate change, for example. And that kind of bullshit is common among petroleum corporations, that was just the first example I searched for.
So, it's just all pretty rich to hear you talking about how other CEOs are great and don't do all these terrible things you imagine Musk does. I mean, there are perfectly good reasons to hate Musk, but when you start trying to say other CEOs are much better by comparison and that's your justification for it, I think that demonstrates it's not very rational in this case.
Great, that's a cool goal. Especially with so much concern about existential threats to humanity on earth.
> This goal is impossible with anything resembling current technology. This is obvious if you think about it even for a little bit. So it's either a lie, or he hasn't thought about it for more than a little bit.
Or he wants to improve on current technology, like he's been doing.
> No I'm not. I'll repeat it again: SpaceX and Tesla are serious companies producing worthwhile products that people want. They have both broken ground in areas where no company has broken ground for a long long time, and they have generally left older companies in their spaces in the dust.
Okay you backed down on that now, but you did say it before in the part I quoted.
> This doesn't mean that Musk doesn't try to present them as even more than they actually are,
Like all companies including the many competitors I listed.
> for purposes that I'm sure are part ego boosting, part clever marketing. He often outright lies while doing so, or promises impossible goals in impossible timelines.
I still think it's that you hate Musk and are fixating on him. When I asked you to explain why it's a scam for example, you couldn't. So just a bit more thinking through things seems to help bring a bit more clarity and perspective.
I mean you're asking about other companies and CEOs, I can't understand it you must be willfully looking the other way. The CEO of BP has has branded himself a visionary leader who is fighting climate change, for example. And that kind of bullshit is common among petroleum corporations, that was just the first example I searched for.
So, it's just all pretty rich to hear you talking about how other CEOs are great and don't do all these terrible things you imagine Musk does. I mean, there are perfectly good reasons to hate Musk, but when you start trying to say other CEOs are much better by comparison and that's your justification for it, I think that demonstrates it's not very rational in this case.
Overselling is not about ad spend. It's about promises given.
Nothing. Because you clearly seem inspired to defend him on the internet instead :)
Though there's a distressing culture of nerds who salivate at every brain fart he puts out into the world
Though there's a distressing culture of nerds who salivate at every brain fart he puts out into the world
tjr225(2)
Now this is a perfect market fit for two shockingly polluting industries that probably should be banned by the developed world.
Starlink is fantastic in some ways, but I think they've massively oversold it, and I'm not sure they'll ever catch up as they're recruiting people faster than they're adding satellites. I've now used it all around the country, and it seems particularly bad on the US east coast.
I worry that this push to sell to more-lucrative customers at sea is just going to make the service even worse for nobodies like me.