SpaceX, T-Mobile to connect satellites to cellphones in remote areas
wsj.com
wsj.com
"T-Mobile users will be able to use messaging, MMS and certain messaging apps, from remote points across the lower 48 states, Alaska, Puerto Rico and Hawaii and even some remote points in the water.
Eventually, the service will work with voice, Sievert said. T-Mobile plans to include the service in its most popular mobile plans but did not disclose specific pricing.
Musk said the service will work with Starlink’s second generation satellites, which have very large antennae and will be able to transmit directly to a cell or mobile phone.
The service won’t require mobile users to get a new phone. Musk said in or after a natural disaster, even if all the cell towers are taken out, the planned service should work."
Based on my read of the summary of a couple Mbps per cell and focusing more on low bandwidth services like texting makes me suspect they're right at the limits of what the tech will allow. Since they're advertising compatibility with existing hardware, makes me suspect there is an extension somewhere in the standards that allows the timing window to be increased, or maybe there's some clever hackery going on, like only scheduling every other timing window and cutting bandwidth in half.
Which might work on the uplink, but on the downlink I think it's more complicated to support something like paging, where the UE is mostly idle, and only wakes up occasionally, that things don't get out of sync with the moving satellite.
There's a system using LTE to backhaul Internet traffic from planes (WiFi in cabin, with a LTE to the ground), working with larger cells of up to ~900 km from memory, but it doesn't use standard LTE for example. It uses a modified variant made to support the possibly larger propagation delay coming with larger cells.
For 5G (NR), the max cell size has been increased and depends on the OFDM subcarrier spacing. For a 15 kHz SC, same as LTE, the max cell size is 300 km. This value is halved each time the SC doubles.
There's work on-going to extend NR to non-terrestrial networks. I don't know where it stands right now, but it'll likely add larger cells support. But it's not there yet for sure.
AFAIR LTE (4G) even uses different guard intervals depending on rural vs. city setting because that time-offset is larger in rural areas (less base station density).
I would not expect those problems to be relevant for satellite communication as ground<->satellite does not suffer much of the multi-path signal propagation of terrestrial systems. (IIRC DVB-c sat-TV broadcasts did not even use OFDM, at least not for the older "v1" DVB-c standard).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthogonal_frequency-division_...
However 3G and onwards were based on CDMA tech (which was the competing 2G tech to GSM), which is very different. CDMA doesn't have strictly managed cells, but rather the basestation picks the signals out of a cacaphony (very simplified). So the same issue doesn't apply.
2G was much more static than CDMA, it had a strict capacity of a number of calls per cell. But the range (up to this 30km) was pretty good because when a phone transmitted the air was clear. CDMA cells used to 'breathe': Have much lower reach during busy times (because weak signals could no longer be identified) so gaps could drop in the network. ON the other hand, 2G got busy with a fixed capacity.
2G did have prioritisation though when the network was full. If you called 112 (the international emergency number) it would kick someone else off to make space for you.
All bets are on centralized and/or proprietary ones that can afford to pay for the privilege. I have been saying from day one that Starlink is well poised to end net neutrality.
If you're a firefighter trying to call for assistance from base camp, you don't care about net neutrality. You want your emergency phone call to have priority over everything else. You want the net to be extremely non-neutral.
On the general internet, where bandwidth is plentiful, net neutrality can keep certain pathological things from being a thing. On a specialized network where bandwidth is very scarce, it can be the cause of pathology.
Or not.
App like Silence (https://silence.im/) have been able to do secure e2e messaging using SMS as transport layer for almost one decade now.
How is that even related ?
Silence is the equivalent of Signal over SMS instead of the usual Mobile Data: There is nothing by design in Signal to stay anonymous.
E2E encryption are mainly there to prevent eyes dropping, not to provide anonymity.
I somehow doubt for instance they would have a way to allow a federated and often self-hosted messaging protocol like Matrix over an anonymization networking layer like Tor, which is the only chat solution I use.
Breaking net neutrality even a little bit has consequences like creating network effects further favoring centralized solutions forcing vulnerable people like journalists, dissidents, female healthcare seekers, etc, to take on a lot more risk.
If SpaceX has bandwidth limitations they should cap everyone to dialup speeds and keep it neutral.
If they insist on breaking net neutrality, people like me will be forced to do stupid nonsense like piping arbitrary TCP/IP as base64 blobs via chatbots over some whitelisted app like Whatsapp. Or masquerade traffic as port 53 DNS queries like dnstunnel.
Protocol/app whitelisting will most discriminate against those with low technical ability.
We have been down this road.
https://techcrunch.com/2020/03/18/lynk-sends-the-first-text-...
I believe they have some sort of similar solution in place for free messaging on in-flight wifi. Having a look at how they've done that might give a better idea for what this will look like than speculation.
Still, it's a hard problem. They want to prioritise connectivity on an extremely low bit-rate channel that covers an extremely large geographic region. Messaging apps needs to be a part of that connectivity solution, but you can't have one user making the entire cell unusable by everybody else. I don't know if there is a 'net neutral' way to do that, but would love to hear your ideas.
No, he said that it would "most likely" be included with the most popular mobile plans for free.
Edit: Downvotes are happening for some reason. "most likely" and "I would expect" mean basically the same thing unless we're playing grammar police.
The entire point of my above post was to deny the fact that they "did not disclose specific pricing". That was the part that was incorrect that I was correcting, as shown in the long form direct quote.
And so does just saying the claim with no qualifiers. Of course when you’re making a claim you’re expressing that you expect it to be the case with high likelihood. That’s what making a claim is.
If it could talk directly with mobile phones it's a game changer.
But I don't understand how it could be physically possible without phased array and satellite tracking for a phone to transmit anything back to satellite. If achieved, even a few bytes per minute would already be big.
My biggest question is how do you send a signal to a satellite with your mobile phone. And they're even saying without additional hardware which makes it even more difficult.
Or are they just hoping that there would be no obstructions from your device and the satellite, no roof and a good sunny weather?
Although my knowledge is lacking, my understanding is that 2G has good range at the expense of low data rate. But I have a feeling that many modern phones no longer support 2G, since (at least here in Slovenia, Europe) many providers have over the years lowered or totally removed the number of 2G towers.
This has far greater implications than dead zones, yacht's (or) Oil rigs; 'Telecommunication during natural disasters'!
With increasing number of extreme weather events, Our conventional telecommunication systems(especially base stations) cannot stand a chance against natural(man made?) disasters. Yet, Apart from few nerd group projects like disaster.radio I see no real work in building disaster resilient telecommunication network.
P.S. If you live in India, Especially in south-western India and are interested in https://disaster.radio project for your region then give me a ping. I've been trying to get it started for ages.
Hopefully this includes $20 Kickstart!
Anyone else remember this strange rumor about iPhones including satellite capability a year ago?
https://www.macrumors.com/2021/08/29/iphone-13-to-feature-le...
Now you have Apple’s event in a couple weeks themed “Far Out” with space pictures.
I wouldn’t be surprised at all if Apple announced something similar, possibly with Globalstar instead.
Of course, Apple’s solution will likely only work with iMessage. So of course Musk comes out first, with the “we are doing it too, but it will work with any phone.”
Interesting times.
If I’m in the middle of nowhere and need to send an urgent message I wouldn’t want to be worrying about whether the recipient had an Android phone.
This page, from Google, makes it quite clear their protocol is an open standard, and Apple are the only closed one.
Apple could and should totally adopt the carrier version of RCS though. And it would be great if Google would let apps like Textra in too
Obviously Apple will make the process as painful as possible to encourage buying iPhone.
5 years from now you'll be choosing a particular android or apple phone because its good for satellite, just like you choose a particular one today because it's small, or fast, or has a good camera
They just need to get the satellites up.
It’s kind of sad people fall for this. It also has lethal consequences as people assume it can do things it very well can’t (cruise control+ is really what the feature is). It’s a very obvious grift and SEC and FTC regulators have apparently been asleep at the wheel to enforce it. Wouldn’t surprise me if there’s a shareholder lawsuit at some point. Certainly if the stock collapses once someone beats Tesla to level 5.
[1] https://www.motortrend.com/news/new-tesla-models-will-featur...
Sure his talk was dumb and a lot of people fell for it, but that's just how marketing works.
(note the FSD mode here is basically a brick on the accelerator)
FSD requires constant human supervision. It has nothing to do with level 3 or above.
Of course, they are launching with SpaceX. They might get sherlocked before even finishing their product.
Speculation is that initially there would be a small number of satellites periodically passing overhead, leading to the 30 minute send/receive times, and likely not supporting non-SMS messaging apps well.
What makes you think that? (Messages doesn’t need to be on your carrier’s network to send/receive MMS/SMS messages.)
This is Apple we are talking about. They wouldn’t make this play without some form of vendor lock-in. They will probably choose to lock in based on hardware (“must have iPhone 14 for this capability!”) — but I wouldn’t be surprised to see them lock in on the software side as well.
If I were Tim Cook, I might play both sides. “Bandwidth is limited, so for now, this will only work with iMessage.” This gives them room to open it up later for more good PR, and allows them to test the reaction of having it only work with their proprietary software.
I have no insider knowledge here. I follow this space closely due to co-owning an independent repair business that primarily works on Apple products.
The value-add now is that you keep and iPhone so you have iMessage. You stay blue bubble etc.
The value add of satellite is that you have service on a mountain (or a plane?). The value is that most androids won’t have that (a musk-maybe-one-day project aside).
It’s way more likely they’ll make it exclusively available on high end phones. Thats a way more obvious play for apple.
I understand, but an iMessages¹-only Messages² is a non-starter at Apple because it causes complexity and customer confusion, two things that Apple is stellar³ at minimizing.
¹protocol ²app ³overall, always exceptions
End game will be their own private networks but that's still a while away
T-mobile has 110 million subscribers and the population of USA is 329 million people.
They want this as a differentiator from Android. Starlink will work on Android too.
So maybe it would actually make sense for Google to partner with them somehow (I believe they’re also a SpaceX investor) but I’m not sure how.
The Apple Event will put it front and centre.
Musk coukd have announced it a year ago, it wouldn't have mattered.
* Everywhere in the US and US territories including ocean waters you will get T-Mobile service through Starlink satellites, no additional hardware needed (for the person owning the cell phone anyway)
* Beta service starting end of 2023
* Included for free with most T-Mobile plans other than the cheapest plans
* More limited features may be added earlier, i.e. texting or emergency calling
* Total available bandwidth will be 2-4 megabits per cell zone so this is not intended to be a replacement for conventional cell service but a way to provide service to completely or almost completely unpopulated areas of the US
* T-Mobile wants to encourage other carriers in other countries to give up similar mid-band bandwidth (what T-Mobile is giving to SpaceX) and to any carriers who do, T-Mobile will offer reciprocal roaming where anyone from those countries visiting the US will also be able to use this service and T-Mobile will do the same for T-Mobile customers visiting in those other countries.
One unclear point: It supposedly depends on gen2/v2 satellites which depend on launching Starship, but there was a comment that they may launch a "v2 mini" on Falcon 9 and it was unclear if those will also support the hardware for T-Mobile service.
This is big. Only concerning part seems to be the large antenna required on the satellites, which would probably incur some extra scrutiny by regulators, but IMO the benefits of something like this far exceed the downsides.
There's a good chance this might mean these are limited to the ~350 KM shells, which will deorbit faster (limiting debris risk), and will go into sunset sooner.
So baseline, a modern cell phone can connect to a tower about 45 miles away. Stsrlink satellites orbir about 10 times out from that. They are solving this problem by some very clever phased array technology to be deployed on the satellites themselves, because when it comes to radio, you can often solve the problem of signal reception by boosting either the transmitter or the receiver side of the story.
This is how we've kept in touch with the Voyagers all this time. The Voyager radio technology is getting no better, but the technology we can throw at it from a ground station has been out-stripping the loss due to distance and degradation (or at least approximately keeping pace).
Isn't that primarily because of the Earth's curvature and obstructions/hills?
Starlink satellites are about 330km up, so one order of magnitude further. But they also have basically unobstructed line of sight (if you are under blue sky). Compared to the normal conditions a cell phone has to deal with that might get you a substantial improvement. I think it's plausible that at least some existing phones can do it, with the tiny bandwidth you would expect from a poor signal.
I'm declaring shenanigans right now on Elon's pitch but what else is new. It makes me sad that this thread is full of (probably) SWEs in a complete froth who took this at face value with little understanding of how antennas work. No, your existing phone will not be able to work on this service, full stop.
The issue is not getting signal from the satellite to your phone. That's the easy part - after all, your phone receives GPS signals. Satellites have powerful transmitters and high-gain antennas. Even GPS which is considered extremely low-power has a TX power of around 20-25 watts and EIRP is probably an order of magnitude higher after the antenna (probably enough to turn your eyeballs into Easter eggs if you were standing in front of it). The issue is going the other way. For messaging to work, your phone needs a two-way connection. Your current iPhone/Android handset is simply not designed for satellite communication.
"But muh Garmin inReach" ..... have you stared at one and wondered "why can't my iPhone do this"? First, the antenna is the size of a thumb, it looks like a helical antenna to me, which would make sense given that most satellite communications uses something called "circular polarization" to combat things like the Faraday effect. This requires an antenna specifically designed for it. Your iPhone doesn't have one, which means more signal loss. Iridium phones look similar - very Michael Douglas in Wall Street industrial design. Satellite phones and communicators are designed to direct most of the energy upwards towards the sky. Your existing phone does not so you are losing most of the energy in an omnidirectional pattern. Even things like 406 MHz emergency beacons send extremely short message bursts - just a few bytes - the link budget needed to sustain an IP connection (uplink) with an existing handset just isn't there.
So I'm expecting Elon to deliver on the magical complicated-super-antenna that works with your existing mobile handset right around the same time he gives us his FSD Cybertruck. Which is to say, never.
This is extremely low bandwidth and intended for sending extremely high latency text chats. Elon said in the presentation that it could be as much as 30 mins between hitting send and the message going through.
This competes with existing stuff from existing satellite providers.
It’s really really cool, and doesn’t need to be full on smartphone satellite internet to fulfill that coolness!
Video was live-streamed, and still available here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qzli-Ww26Qs
SpaceX will need to get FCC/ITU approval for the G2 satellites. T-Mobile is seeking agreements with international carriers. I think those are probably required for the proposed system to be viable. Spectrum management bureaucracies in other countries, and opposition from competitors will slow things down. It will require a lot of money to get worldwide operating agreements in place, and some of the money will be bribes to the right people.
While this particular idea seems theoretically possible, as far as I know there haven't really been proper tests of it yet. So I could imagine it theoretically working, but being really bad (which may honestly be enough).
There's probably a reason Apple seems to be doing hardware adjustments for their satellite communication.
As for SpaceX, their reputation for getting things done is rock solid right now. If they manage to get starship going, that will be a major leap in launching capabilities. But even just getting the star link network operational, or delivering people to the space station have been enormous accomplishments already.
The only thing that's remarkable about this announcement is how unremarkable it is relative to Elon Musk's other accomplishments. It's a radio on a satellite that connects to a phone. Doesn't sound like rocket science. I'm sure the antennas etc. are amazing but that is essentially commodity technology that he's simply launching to orbit. Doing that cheap enough that stuff like this makes sense to even consider doing is the true accomplishment.
Expected by whom? People who didn't understand the problem presumably.
I think this is very interesting and a smart move for Starlink to improve profitability options in the long term.
That's because it's an app that connects to an Iridium phone via BT.
I can't find anything suggesting a bundling or partnership between garmin inreach (iridium) and T-mobile. inReach has a separate subscription.
I know the meme is that Musk's track record is to delay, but Starlink has been regularly underestimated and has kept pace pretty successfully. Much more than industry insiders expected.
I just got back from 4 days camping at a remote mountain lake with zero phone coverage, and it’s one of the most incredible ways to fully recharge and step away from the day to day treadmill of the modern world. When we loose the possibility to completely disconnect, I at least, will feel a loss of the true wilderness.
I’m not debating the usefulness of this or saying it shouldn’t happen. Having cell service everywhere will undoubtedly save lives, but it’s not without a price in loosing true wildernesses
Disconnecting is a choice you make, not a place you go.
Your phone has a power button. Use it.
You have not lost access to nature, and stop inventing a totally BS self aggrandizing narrative out of nowhere. Nature is fine. Humans are fine. We have not fallen from Eden. You can turn the phone off and I promise reality still works the same as far as strolling through the forest.
1) Camera: iPhones are about the best lightweight camera I’m willing to purchase 2) Navigation: Offline maps with details like slope angle are critical when traveling in the backcountry in winter. Yes I use paper maps too, but some things are much easier digital. 3) I don’t want to leave it in the car to get stolen.
And about airplane mode. Yes “disconnecting is a choice”, but if the internet is just the flip of a button away, I’ve found I’m not able to keep that button off.
“Sorry I was on a plane then”. “You texted me right as I was checking into hotel- got distracted while replying and forgot to send”. “Couldn’t answer the phone - was at a restaurant and answering the phone is rude”.
Didn’t take long before the lies became true and I would forget to reply when I see the message.
You have the power to make it your reality. If the issue is replying to people, give yourself small permissions to not be punctual. If someone dies, you’ll still know immediately… but that work memo may have arrived why you were on a plane ;). If your issue is that you can’t stop scrolling through twitter or HN then i don’t know. Take more exciting vacations? Rarely when I travel would I rather be scrolling endlessly (except maybe while in line places).
Leave your SIM card home
So we should all be denied a new potentially life-saving technology, because of your own self control issues?
Also, take the SIM out (assuming you don't use an ESIM), give it to your spouse or put it at the bottom of your backpack as others suggested, or leave it at home/in your car. Emergency calls will still work.
That's a human problem with a human - not technical - solution. You need to find a way to resist temptation. I promise you'll be better for it in more areas than you realize.
I hear you on offline maps though. Back in the day I paid the Tom Tom tax when going to Europe because $100 for offline maps was ultimately better than trying to figure out a roaming plan or local sim.
Others on this thread are discussing the safety aspects, and I don’t disagree that there’s some value there–I like to go out solo in the backcountry, and lead trips with groups of inexperienced people, so I own a satellite phone for that purpose. That said, only a few people have the number for it, everyone else knows that when I’m out there, I’m offline. Even if others had the number, it only sends texts, and very slowly, so it’s not a true connection to the real world, just a lifeline.
I used to feel the same way about getting on a plane. Flaky as airplane wifi can be, it’s no longer the disconnect it once was.
The real bummer is for the astrophotographers and observers who can’t do anything now without massive streaks of light flying everywhere.
It's the amateurs who are screwed.
> loosing true wildernesses
I’m seriously wondering how people living in the wilderness will feel about this point?
For example, Iridium only got GMDSS/SOLAS certified in 2020 – before that, Inmarsat was the only approved maritime (two-way) satellite safety provider for several decades.
https://twitter.com/unusual_whales/status/156296104641942732...
If space based cellular service is viable with good adoption. History says operators will want at least two providers because having only one vendor is risky.
https://techcrunch.com/2021/09/29/lynk-demos-global-satellit...
This will definitely be a common thing from multiple providers in a few years though.
Adding things like mesh networks, you could drop a small server rack and generator at any where in the world and create a robust cell network to cover disaster zones.
If they QoS common messaging apps and SMS, it'll be a massive win for a lot of people.
I thought competitors would never catch up, because tower buildout is so difficult. This has the potential to leapfrog over that. To me a reliable 2/3G experience everywhere would be superior to higher speeds in suburbs (if that's Verizon's benefit).
Also I miss the Tmobile travel experience, you just land and it works for free in many countries. I'd happily switch back.
I wish T-mobile made this work both ways.
T-mobile USA customers get to chill on the network in any country, but if you’re a T-mobile NL or Germany or whatever customer, you don’t get free roaming anywhere outside of Europe.
https://mobile.twitter.com/unusual_whales/status/15629673112...
"SpaceX announced a big partnership with T-Mobile, $TMUS.
But $TMUS gets 0 options activity.
Before the 12:24 pre-news yesterday, someone swept 112k into $TMUS $150 calls for 6/16/2023 at 11:50am!
The 30k volume sustained next day, a 1000% increase.
Unusual."
Even though I am on another cell carrier, the competition has pushed them to increase their level of service and lower prices.
There's an article here:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/spacex-and-t-mobile-to-connect-...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Radio...
It makes some sense to me, just as antenna folks jokingly call humans bags of water trees are ... bags of water with infinity tiny appendages that are constantly in motion in the slightest breeze.
If not, I assume there will be a ~1 year delay while the whole lot goes through FCC approvals and every competing company puts in complaints and lawsuits about how it's unfair...
What am I missing here?
[0] https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-premium-connectivity-starlin...
They probably don’t make a car sized one yet which is a problem since every new car ships with a 4g chip these days that can’t be easily switched off.
Thought you could be untrackable off grid? Think again.
Think you can be in an RF free zone, anywhere on planet? Nope.
There is no "off-grid" when your grid is literally LAT+LONG
100% data access sounds awesome until you realize that its no longer "surveillance state" and its "surveillance planet"
If you want to be untrackable and off grid why are you bringing your cell phone with you?
can anyone disclaim this? What are the anechoics of an airplane mode phone?
If you want to live in an RF free zone, well that will be tricky. Avoid lightning storms and the sun.
You are tracked on your phone because it is connected to the Internet somehow, so it can send your location. But with only a GPS receiver (my Garmin running watch for instance), you are completely invisible.
I noticed that Starlink does obey the RF-free area in West Virginia.
No capable satellites have been launched yet. The license necessary hasn't been granted (and you can be sure a lot of other companies will object to every detail).
I pay $200/month for my family to use T-Mobile. Data barely works in my backyard--and I'm one city over from their headquarters. I've called them and I've Tweeted. They energetically tell me they're taking action and... nothing happens.
*EDIT* excluding the space exploration division of the company. I had a brain fart for a moment and forgot about its huge successes.
I was thinking more on the satellite internet portion which this would be concentrated on with T-Mobile most likely.
How about you just give me service in middle USA. I pre-ordered in 2021, you’re currently saying I have to wait until 2023. What gives? You’re launching over oceans, Europe, South America, why not Missouri or Indiana or Kentucky?
The current network in Missouri and Indiana and Kentucky is saturated [1]. This will get better as they launch the next shell of satellites, and as they upgrade the satellites to v2 (more/better antennae, laser interlink). There can only be so many subscribers per "cell" on the map.