[HN Gopher] Globalstar SEC filing, Apple to use 85% of its satel...
___________________________________________________________________
Globalstar SEC filing, Apple to use 85% of its satellite network
capacity
Author : samwillis
Score : 203 points
Date : 2022-09-07 19:04 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (sec.report)
(TXT) w3m dump (sec.report)
| manv1 wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalstar
|
| 9,600 bit/s packet switched Internet access (Direct Internet)
| 9,600 bit/s circuit switched data calls (Direct Dial-Up)
|
| That's probably under ideal conditions.
| SSLy wrote:
| APPL pays for new HW to replace their infra
| greesil wrote:
| Globalstar also has spectrum and the capability to have ancillary
| terrestrial ground systems. Apple could just buy them now and
| roll out its own cell network.
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| I'm surprised this feature is provided by Globalstar. That
| network is, as the name says, global so why limit the feature to
| the US and Canada?
| wdb wrote:
| Wondering how long it will take for it to work outside the Us
| ceeplusplus wrote:
| > Partner has agreed to make certain payments to the Company for
| (i) 95% of the approved capital expenditures Globalstar makes in
| connection with the new satellites described
|
| The real secret that will be studied in business school for
| decades to come is Apple's supplier model.
| hackernewds wrote:
| Having trouble understanding this. Why is it special that the
| supply model be studied?
| yardie wrote:
| While I wish it was Iridium I guess it sort of makes sense. Out
| of all the GMDSS satellite provider Globalstar had the weakest
| offshore coverage. It appears they focus on the probably more
| popular land based coverage rather than true global open water
| coverage. Iridium probably has more expensive product for true
| global coverage.
| walrus01 wrote:
| Globalstar having "weak" offshore and truly global coverage is
| because the present globalstar architecture is a bent pipe, a
| satellite needs to be simultaneously in view of a globalstar-
| run earth station and the end user terminal (handheld phone,
| data modem module with antenna, etc).
|
| Globalstar in the serious two way satellite business has been a
| joke for 15+ years, everyone who needs something serious
| that'll work anywhere on the planet has implemented solutions
| with Iridium, or something else geostationary based for low
| data rate (inmarsat isatphone, if not needed for very high
| latitude services). Or of course the wide array of different
| types of Inmarsat medium speed much more costly data terminals
| for briefcase-size folding (BGAN terminals, etc), ground
| vehicles, ships and aviation.
|
| One of the Inmarsat 3rd party RF/modem partners is now making a
| data terminal for the medium sized UAV market which is about
| 3.5 pounds of stuff total including the antenna and good for
| 200-300 kbps of data, albeit at a typically high inmarsat $ per
| MB cost.
|
| Or with small ku/ka-band self aiming vsat terminals in radome
| (commonly seen on ships), which get costly, which are quickly
| having their market eaten by starlink's much higher speeds and
| lower costs.
|
| The value of globalstar at this point is probably in its
| spectrum licenses and legal entity's ability to operate, which
| given sufficiently deep pockets in capital resources, can be
| replaced with much newer and better tech in the L/S-band
| satellite-to-phone RF segment. I would bet good money that the
| people who are bankrolling this believe that they now have
| reliable access to two things:
|
| a) relatively low $/kilogram cost for launches to LEO on some
| spacex competitor
|
| b) low cost per unit mass production of satellites in an
| assembly line fashion, much as starlink satellites are
| currently churned out in large quantities.
|
| Obviously they now know that what Motorola designed in _1997_
| for satellite-to-satellite data links in the same orbital plane
| for Iridium was the right way to go, I 'd be shocked if a
| replacement Globalstar network did not implement a more modern
| version of the same. Same general idea as spacex's beta
| satellite-to-satellite laser links.
|
| In the defense contractor/military/DoD world I have literally
| never seen a Globalstar terminal in use for anything anybody
| cares about. The only globalstar phones I've seen were in the
| hands of the staff of enthusiastic-but-utterly-telecom-clueless
| international aid NGOs, which not surprisingly completely
| failed to work in the location where they were trying to use
| them. They ended up packing them back into their boxes, putting
| them in a closet and buying Iridium handhelds.
|
| Here's a CURRENT globalstar coverage map:
|
| https://www.globalstar.com/Globalstar/media/Globalstar/Image...
|
| The part in the filing that says this:
|
| > Partner has agreed to make certain payments to the Company
| for (i) 95% of the approved capital expenditures Globalstar
| makes in connection with the new satellites described
|
| I translate this as meaning that they intend to forklift
| upgrade the entire network to something that they think can
| reasonably compete with Iridium (and now SpaceX/Starlink) in
| addition to other regional players like Thuraya, and also of
| course Inmarsat.
| kylehotchkiss wrote:
| Apple figured out how to effectively buy a satellite network
| without inheriting their pile of debt! What happens to the
| apple funded satellites if Globalstar goes under, is there
| some special clause that moves them directly to Apple?
|
| If Apple really does acquire, I hope they ditch the bent pipe
| architecture, work on sat-to-sat connection, and most
| importantly for us, allow 2-way messaging on phones from sat,
| enough to send photos and stuff.
| hackernewds wrote:
| Globalstar is a terrible asset and has limbered along for
| 15 years. The fact that they would give up almost all their
| capacity without even calling for an acquisition speaks to
| their desperation, perhaps even Apple's
| walrus01 wrote:
| I am actually quite surprised that it hasn't gone fully
| belly up some time in the past 10-12 years as their
| product has been eclipsed by much more robust offerings
| from competitors. How they've limped along with
| additional funding I truly don't know.
| kylehotchkiss wrote:
| > Global customer segments include oil and gas,
| government, mining, forestry, commercial fishing,
| utilities, military, transportation, heavy construction,
| emergency preparedness, and business continuity as well
| as individual recreational users.
|
| From wikipedia.
|
| Their customers seem to be pretty phone-call heavy
| industries, they aren't competitive on the data front,
| but aren't they cheaper than Iridium for phone calls?
| Melatonic wrote:
| Those radio band licenses though are the real value here
| walrus01 wrote:
| If one looks at the past 10 years of revenue and company
| size as a whole of Globalstar, it's absolutely minuscule as
| a corporate entity, apple could buy them on a casual whim.
| jsmith45 wrote:
| No. The terms seem designed to have the fallback option be
| for Apple to purchase the company outright, or possibly to
| purchase at least a controlling interest.
|
| They have rules requiring the current Executive Chairman to
| retain majority control for 5 years. They have a right of
| first offer with him if he wants to sell stock.
|
| With the company they have the right to submit a
| counteroffer to any sale of assets required to provide the
| services, or proposed sales of the company itself.
|
| All of this makes me feel that they want to have this
| company as an independent supplier, but have buying it up
| as their backup plan.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| Globalstar was a joke, not because of its architecture, but
| because its satellites got irradiated and degraded to the
| point they couldn't handle a phone-call even in their on-
| shore/near-shore use case.
|
| Nobody is going to invest in satellite phones or credits for
| a provider that couldn't do space right.
|
| An interesting alternative to sat comms is HF-DL if you don't
| care for security. Cool to see all the Russia seized and
| reregistered jetliner equipment pinging and hearing HF-DL
| stations around the world on ACARS. Slow though, 300-1200bps.
| mardifoufs wrote:
| How did they survive with such a degraded service, who is
| still using them when there are alternatives? Were they
| competitive back when they launched, but just couldn't fund
| maintenance? Iridium also had severe financial problems but
| their own constellation and services are still pretty
| reliable (all things considered), so I'm curious!
| walrus01 wrote:
| They survived primarily on machine to machine telemetry
| data services.
| bombcar wrote:
| Yep, these don't need instantaneous transfer so things
| can buffer it, and they're probably already installed ...
| walrus01 wrote:
| Various ham radio data modes for 1200 bps or approximately
| that speed can be implemented with big ass dipole and yagi
| uda antennas for directional data links, with standard
| crypto libraries between Linux systems operating as serial
| bridge, it's just very very slow. And it's a gargantuan
| pile of equipment and huge antenna compared to something
| like iridium.
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| It turns out that long-range sat-to-sat connections are
| actually really hard to do. SpaceX hasn't figured them out
| yet, and neither has any other LEO provider. The people who
| have figured them out are at MEO and higher, where you can
| have fewer satellites and they can be a lot more expensive,
| and they don't have any tricks: they just throw money and
| power at the problem.
| walrus01 wrote:
| They were figured out in ka band rf for iridium 24+ years
| ago, just at not very high data rates. For quite some
| period of time the entire iridium network worldwide talked
| to terrestrial networks in only two locations, Hawaii and
| Arizona.
|
| I'm not sure what you mean by meo operators figuring them
| out because the only current noteworthy meo operator is o3b
| and their satellites are bent pipe architecture.
|
| Oneweb satellites, which is presently an incomplete
| network, also do not implement satellite to satellite data
| links.
| pvarangot wrote:
| Bird to bird in MEO in this type of constellations also
| benefits from lower relative speed/doppler shift between
| parties involved in the network.
| [deleted]
| leetrout wrote:
| Interesting they will do this but for smaller companies they will
| not go into contract if they are more than X% of ARR.
| walrus01 wrote:
| globalstar as a corporate entity is in such a weak and
| precarious financial position (due to its near obsolete
| satellite tech and existing network), with no money to fund the
| many hundreds of millions needed for a new build+launch
| campaign, that any partnership of this type is a life saver.
|
| without this deal it would be inevitable for the company to get
| acquired and broken up for just the value of its operating and
| spectrum licenses.
| pmorici wrote:
| Apple also appears to be taking an ownership stake in the
| company so that probably aligns the incentives and reduces the
| chance of them cutting and running.
| samwillis wrote:
| If I'm reading this filing right, Apple have committed to using
| 85% of Globalstars satellite network capacity for the new
| emergency messaging feature. It's seems astonishing to me that
| they would be using this much bandwidth for that emergency
| feature, and (at least initially) only on a small portion of
| iPhones.
|
| My only thinking is that they may be planning to make the
| satellite network available to none emergency messaging too, and
| that's what's covered in this filing.
| [deleted]
| schappim wrote:
| It isn't just used for the emergency feature, it is also used
| for the "Find My" network. I suspect more traffic will come
| from "Find My" than from the emergency feature.
| c7DJTLrn wrote:
| Source? That seems like a big omission from their keynote
| earlier today.
| melvinram wrote:
| It wasn't omitted. It was covered in the keynote. It's also
| on their website: Let friends know how
| remote you go. If you're on an adventure
| without cell service, you can now use Find My to
| share your location via satellite so friends and
| family know where you are.
| ezfe wrote:
| They did mention it during the keynote, but it's not
| automatic. It appears you have to open Find My and click to
| share your location over satellite each time. Might be
| wrong though, they didn't go into detail.
| valine wrote:
| I was under the impression that the iPhone needs to be
| very precisely pointed at a satellite for this to work. I
| doubt it can be done passively when the phone is in your
| pocket.
| xenospn wrote:
| If the phone detects you're away from the network, they
| could prompt you to update your location every once in a
| while.
| chrisshroba wrote:
| I have a Garmin InReach and it can send location
| periodically. While it is more effective to have it out
| and pointed at a satellite, it still works in my pocket,
| but may just take a little longer to send the messages.
| For a feature like Find My, many people won't mind if the
| location being sent is a little stale, but with emergency
| SOS, you really want your message to go out ASAP, so it
| makes sense that you need to point at a satellite for
| SOS, but not for Find My tracking.
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| The InReach Mini has a helix antenna specifically built
| for maximum gain towards the sats though. The iPhone
| doesn't. Apple has even built in a pointing feature for
| it.
|
| You can't even realistically point the InReach Mini at a
| satellite because it doesn't tell you where they are. At
| any time there's only a couple of iridium sats in view
| and they move quite fast across the sky.
|
| But the device has an antenna with the right amount of
| upwards gain and the right polarisation to deal with
| that. For an iphone it's a lot harder to incorporate
| that.
| quitit wrote:
| You are correct - the keynote mentioned that location sharing
| is also available over satellite.
| gigatexal wrote:
| There's 1B iPhone users. If 10% upgrade to a 14 pro and over
| the course of a few years that will ramp
| closetohome wrote:
| Apparently it works with Find My as well. I wouldn't be
| surprised if they started rolling out premium features that
| take more bandwidth once everybody's free two years expires.
| Melatonic wrote:
| Yea this must be the main feature. And is pretty huge. The
| emergency thing is icing on the cake.
|
| Unfortunately GlobalStar is probably one of the worst
| satellite constellations out there (that I know of at least)
| for actual communication (SPOT devices used or still use
| GlobalStar and are famously crap compared to Garmin inReach
| on Iridium). Of course it could be improved and they do have
| the bandwith licenses which is important.
| bombcar wrote:
| This is it right here! The "emergency" part is a feel-good on
| top of the real service, which is location updates every X
| time even when off in no cell service land.
| manderley wrote:
| "every X time" meaning as often as you're willing to point
| your phone at a satellite and wait a few minutes for your
| location to transmit?
| dougmwne wrote:
| Not sure how much else they could do with it. You need to wave
| your phone around at the sky to send a few bytes of data. It
| must just be a really low capacity network.
| matt-attack wrote:
| Apple has apparently used a very very high gain (i.e. highly
| directional) antenna. That's how they got around having that
| big external antenna found on competitive hand-helds.
|
| I quite like the idea of aiming it by hand using software as
| the guide.
| oceanplexian wrote:
| Maybe Globalstar needs a big antenna, but Iridium doesn't.
| I have a Garmin InReach with a 1 inch antenna and it works
| fine without any antenna pointing antics.
| jsjohnst wrote:
| > I have a Garmin InReach with a 1 inch antenna and it
| works fine
|
| Your definition of the word "fine" is apparently rather
| generous. Be in an actual emergency situation and the
| InReach is down right frustrating as hell, but "better
| than nothing". I don't have optimism for Apple's offering
| either for the record.
| turtlebits wrote:
| I'd rather have no exposed antenna, no subscription fees
| and no separate device.
|
| For emergencies, having to point at the sky isn't a big
| deal.
| dougmwne wrote:
| But it IS a big deal!
|
| There's been a lot of research into emergency UX.
| Basically, it needs to be dead simple or people die. In
| an emergency, people are usually panicked, injured or in
| shock. The tool needs to do its thing simply and
| effortlessly to cut through the panic and confusion of a
| real emergency. I have an avalanche transponder that is
| one big button because when you friend just got buried
| under 20 tons of snow and rocks, you have the leftover
| brain for one button.
|
| From the demo, I think Apple is very aware of this which
| is why they give you a series of canned prompts. They've
| probably already used up a significant cognitive load by
| having you point the phone for signal that having you
| type as well was considered dangerous.
| sbierwagen wrote:
| Those large external antennas _are_ high gain. Gain is a
| function of antenna area: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape
| rture_(antenna)#Effective_a...
|
| Apple's antenna can only be smaller if it's lower gain. I
| would bet they're making that tradeoff because they don't
| need as much bandwidth. (Emergency pings could be measured
| in dozens of bytes, let alone kilobytes or megabytes.)
| squeaky-clean wrote:
| The Aperture and Gain section of that article says that
| gain refers to the directivity of an antenna
|
| > antennas with large effective apertures are considered
| high-gain antennas (or beam antennas), which have
| relatively small angular beam widths.
| DesiLurker wrote:
| I wonder if there could be a bluetooth (or connected)
| high gain antenna attachment for the new iphone they
| could sell as accessory.
| vageli wrote:
| > Apple has apparently used a very very high gain (i.e.
| highly directional) antenna. That's how they got around
| having that big external antenna found on competitive hand-
| helds.
|
| > I quite like the idea of aiming it by hand using software
| as the guide.
|
| In the event of an emergency, fumbling with my phone to
| find service sounds like a nightmare.
| midasuni wrote:
| If you're in the middle of nowhere and have an emergency
| where seconds count, you're dead anyway. This is the
| difference between rescue in 2 hours and 2 days (or even
| 2 weeks). Spending 5 minutes finding the transmitter
| isn't a problem if you're stuck with a broken leg. If
| you're struggling to control critical bleeding or are
| doing CPR and are on your own (thus you can't spend the 5
| minutes finding a signal) then you're screwed anyway.
| JohnFen wrote:
| In my state, emergency services point out that if you use
| an emergency locator such as a Garmin, you should expect
| that it may be a couple of days before rescue comes
| anyway. It depends on exactly where you are, of course.
| reaperducer wrote:
| But it will probably reduce the number of casual
| pranksters.
|
| Also, difficult-to-use is better than zero connectivity,
| which is the current situation.
| kylehotchkiss wrote:
| The tens of thousands billed for a frivolous rescue
| request probably will stop the casual pranksters too,
| getting a helicopter out to wherever you're stuck isn't a
| free service. If you're really out in remote places
| often, you probably know this well enough to get rescue
| insurance.
| JohnFen wrote:
| In my state, the bill will be in the five or six figures
| -- but if you were legitimately in real danger, they will
| usually opt not to charge you. If you called them by
| mistake or as a prank, you'll pay.
| ar_turnbull wrote:
| Actually it depends. In Canada, many rescue services are
| free (North Shore Vancouver is a well known one here) as
| well as in the National Parks (the cost is essentially
| insurance paid for by the park pass fee) and many
| provincial parks.
|
| There is an argument that pay for rescue causes people to
| hesitate to call and that can lead to worse outcomes
| and/or more dangerous rescue scenarios.
| TillE wrote:
| I don't know what the current state of the art is, but it
| sounds considerably easier to use than old satellite
| phones. Plus you don't have to lug around a satellite
| phone.
| detaro wrote:
| It sounds worse than current dedicated emergency beacons
| (which afaik usually are both satellite uplink and lower-
| frequency beacon), and I'd expect many/most people using
| them today will continue to carry them. But many people
| don't, and even if you do it is another fallback.
| spacedcowboy wrote:
| The best camera is the one you have with you, and no-
| one[*] carries around an SLR camera these days.
|
| Similarly, the best emergency-alert system is the one you
| have with you. Apple is playing the long game, getting
| their feet wet in a new area, and providing some value.
| They will iterate, it's what they do.
|
| [1] For some definition of "no-one". Obviously some
| people do carry around SLR's but it's a tiny minority.
| detaro wrote:
| Isn't that pretty much what I said?
| oceanplexian wrote:
| I carry an InReach mini in my airplane when flying over
| wilderness areas. Unfortunately I don't think I could
| trust the iPhone. With the Garmin you can press one
| button and it'll send out an emergency beacon without
| having to aim it.
| googlryas wrote:
| Where are you flying out of curiosity? Flying over
| sparsely populated areas of rockies in Colorado, I very
| frequently have cell service. Having said that, nothing
| wrong with being prepared, I'm just curious about your
| situation. I might start doing that too. I always figured
| if I actually went down, landing would be the hard part,
| not staying alive once I landed.
| ar_turnbull wrote:
| To be fair I barely trust my InReach either. Overcast
| days, canyons, and any kind of tree cover consistently
| result in delayed or failed messages. And even if they
| report as "sent" on the device sometimes the recipient
| doesn't get them.
|
| And for a dedicated device, the tracking feature is
| laughably bad with worse accuracy than my friend's watch.
|
| Better than nothing in case of emergency but the
| reliability leaves a lot to be desired.
| detaro wrote:
| Are the messaging and emergency functions the same with
| those? For emergency beacons there is also a ~400Mhz
| frequency that is monitored independently (vs satellite
| communication at higher frequencies)
| dewey wrote:
| > In the event of an emergency, fumbling with my phone to
| find service sounds like a nightmare.
|
| It doesn't have to be perfect, compared to the current
| alternative of 1) Having nothing to fumble around or 2)
| Be one of the few people with a full on expensive
| satellite phone I think it's a valuable addition.
|
| Similar to how Chase Jarvis said "the best camera is the
| one you always have with you", this is also the case for
| emergency equipment.
| midasuni wrote:
| The other option is 3) a satelite distress beacon, but
| most people don't have them
| heartbreak wrote:
| Imagine a repeat of Hurricane Harvey, but this time people can
| request rescues via their iPhone's satellite capability. That
| could generate a relatively high volume of traffic.
| blantonl wrote:
| I think you underestimate how many iPhones are sold per year,
| and how many phones Apple forecasts to sell for the 14 model
| which is satellite enabled. We're talking tens of millions
|
| Couple that with phones that will roam into satellite coverage
| in rural areas... there will be extensive bandwidth
| requirements from this newly deployed fleet. Especially in the
| summer...
| mort96 wrote:
| They described the bandwidth as tens of seconds to minutes
| for sending single, short, compressed messages, with your
| phone aimed right at a satellite for the duration. This isn't
| the kind of network which you "roam" with.
| wmf wrote:
| _phones that will roam into satellite coverage in rural
| areas_
|
| That's not what Apple announced. Satellite service is only
| for emergencies and is cumbersome to use.
| bdonlan wrote:
| They mentioned a feature where your location could be sent
| via satellite in "find my" even in a non-emergency.
| xattt wrote:
| It looks it still takes some effort to send out a message
| with aiming and everything.
| cavisne wrote:
| The findmy feature was in the press release. The aiming
| is probably only important for the sos case (sending the
| message immediately). Findmy can probably just update the
| location in the background whenever it gets a signal
| tialaramex wrote:
| Yes, findmy messages are store-and-forward. So the phone
| notices, "Huh, I saw something, when I was here, at this
| time, but I have no WiFi or cell signal" so it goes in a
| pile, and then a while later it has satellite, but still
| no WiFi or cell signal, so it sends out the pile.
|
| I'm surprised it's worth doing this, I'd have expected
| that most findmy situations it's enough to get the pile
| of data hours or days later when somebody has Internet
| access again. Like, suppose I drop my airpods out of a
| pocket on some mountain trail on Saturday morning, a
| subsequent walker's iPhone sees them, but has no WiFi of
| course, however on Monday they're in the office, their
| iPhone reports it saw my airpods, X here at T time, and
| that's enough that I should be able (if I want) to go
| back and find them.
|
| The place you might spend longer periods with only
| satellite is the open ocean, but basically if you lose
| shit in the ocean it's fucking gone.
| vineyardmike wrote:
| Find My isn't just Find My Stuff. It's also Find My
| Friends and Find My Family Member.
|
| The use case isn't AirPods lost in the tundra it's your
| husband or wife lost in the tundra.
| [deleted]
| aabhay wrote:
| For now! It would make sense for Apple to eventually
| own/manage a satellite fleet for global communication in
| the near future. The current carriers must be shitting
| their pants about this.
| kylehotchkiss wrote:
| They're funding a large amount of GlobalStar's future
| constellation, which seems like a pathway to ownership
| (if Globalstar goes under or apple can acquire without
| the debt burden)
| ZetaZero wrote:
| Apple also funds much of TSMC's growth, without any
| pathway to ownership. Apple is likely just buying top
| priority.
| rjzzleep wrote:
| Let's be real here, TSMC's growth is there with or
| without Apple.
| sangnoir wrote:
| Apple prefers to keep away from the downsides of actual
| ownership while having the upsides of being an only
| customer
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Does anyone prefer to keep the downsides? The only thing
| stopping people is not having the cash to be able to do
| the same.
| jlmorton wrote:
| I'm not exactly sure what you're imagining, but there are
| fundamental physics problems in the way of just launching
| a bunch of satellites and enabling global communications.
|
| Apple has partnered with Globalstar to use geostationary
| satellites to send incredibly small amounts of data
| measured in bytes, not kilobytes. These satellites have
| only limited bandwidth, and it's very expensive. And with
| the antenna size and power available in a phone today,
| it's never going to be more than kilobytes.
|
| SpaceX Starlink/TMobile announced a much higher-bandwidth
| option, but it's incredibly fleeting, lasting just a few
| seconds.
|
| Starlink satellites are in very low Earth orbit, moving
| at 8km/second. You can't just point an antenna at it and
| have it work. The antenna needs to track the satellite.
| And it needs to have a constant line of sight free of
| obstructions. Starlink currently builds a very cheap
| phased-array antenna, but it's still ~$1,000 to
| manufacture, it's a couple cubic feet in volume, and it
| uses >100 watts.
|
| Starlink V2 will bring very large antennas to Starlink
| satellites which will enable direct 5G connectivity, but
| that connectivity will last for a few seconds, with
| perhaps thirty minutes between connections.
|
| I'm not saying it's impossible, but no one knows how to
| build a satellite system currently that will cause any
| carriers to shit their pants.
| kanbara wrote:
| not geosync, LEO.
| oceanplexian wrote:
| The way technology is headed there is a 110% chance that
| the phased array tech gets miniaturized and put into a
| phone. And once the constellation is filled in, you'll be
| able to find any tiny slice of sky and talk to a starlink
| sat that's flying through it. Indoors is still a problem
| but who knows, things are always evolving.
| simonh wrote:
| You can't take say Moore's Law for chip tech and slap it
| on to radio tech. They're fundamentally different
| physical processes. There are limits to radio
| transmission and reception bandwidth and range due to the
| basic physics that you can't end run. The inverse square
| law is a harsh master, for any given level of technology
| a transmitter 100x closer is going to have a 10,000x
| advantage however you slice it.
|
| What they might be able to do is expand this to something
| like limited texting, or maybe down the line even non-
| realtime voice messaging.
| jorvi wrote:
| We are still able to have two-way communication with both
| Voyagers.
|
| Google's Lyra codec can already get down to 3Kb/s and be
| reasonably audible. It's not a stretch to imagine within
| a few years we'll be able to push that to below 1Kb/s.
|
| Taking those two things together, I think it's fairly
| reasonable to assume at least text and voice are within
| reach.
| madengr wrote:
| Globalstar simplex only takes about 200 mW over 2 seconds
| to deliver a 72 byte message, into an antenna about 0 dBi
| gain. See the STX3 transmitter module.
| gtvwill wrote:
| That doesn't feel very efficient. 72 bytes is nothing.
| pcdoodle wrote:
| 72 bytes is more than your reply here.
| mlyle wrote:
| > Apple has partnered with Globalstar to use
| geostationary satellites
|
| I haven't read the announcement, but Globalstar's
| constellation is in LEO.
| tshaddox wrote:
| Indeed. Until a few years ago I was also under the
| impression that the satellite phone constellations were
| geostationary or at least geosynchronous. I remember
| growing up in the 90s hearing about satellite phones and
| how they had a very noticeable delay, which I assumed
| meant they were _way up there_. But perhaps that was just
| an older generation of constellations, because Globalstar
| and Iridium (by far the most popular networks in use by
| consumer-grade devices) are definitely LEO.
| walrus01 wrote:
| inmarsat does sell a handheld satellite phone product
| (google "inmarsat isatphone") which uses narrow band data
| channels and handhelds to talk to geostationary
| satellites. Its coverage is not quite as solid or
| reliable as iridium, because you can be easily obstructed
| by a mountain on your south side if you're at latitude
| 45N or something, and doesn't extend beyond about 70
| degrees north, but it's also priced cheaper than iridium
| for the hardware and the monthly service.
|
| what _most_ people think of as a satellite phone is
| indeed LEO since iridium has the lion 's share of the
| market.
| gtvwill wrote:
| Yeah but their satellites are basically oversized
| analogue relays. So bandwidth is bugger all with little
| capacity to increase it. So Leo or not it's like having
| CDMA speeds as your cap. Pretty much useless for anything
| other than a GPS location ping for emergency use.
| walrus01 wrote:
| > Apple has partnered with Globalstar to use
| geostationary satellites
|
| globalstar's existing network and licenses have nothing
| to do with geostationary _at all_.
|
| please don't comment on things like this if you have
| fundamental misunderstandings about the nature of
| different types of mutually incompatible satellite
| network technology.
| wmf wrote:
| _Starlink V2 will bring very large antennas to Starlink
| satellites which will enable direct 5G connectivity, but
| that connectivity will last for a few seconds, with
| perhaps thirty minutes between connections._
|
| It sounded like temporary connectivity was only
| initially; once they have a full shell of V2 satellites I
| would expect constant connectivity.
| shaklee3 wrote:
| Starlink is not going to be faster than this necessarily.
| Starlink is also low bandwidth, but has to be compatible
| with _all_ phones. So they are not able to design
| hardware in the phone with a better antenna for this
| purpose as Apple can do.
| deltree7 wrote:
| They aren't.
|
| https://www.t-mobile.com/news/un-carrier/t-mobile-takes-
| cove...
|
| I'd also bet on Starlink to scale better than Globalstar
| (after they also own the fucking rockets). Add better
| features and innovate
| [deleted]
| krrrh wrote:
| The ones that are going to be hurting right away are Garmin
| with their InReach line and Zoleo. This covers the most
| important thing that backcountry types pay monthly fees and
| carry an extra device for, which are emergencies, but Apple
| didn't mention anything about two way texts which is a
| secondary but important use. Backcountry hunters will still
| pay money for now to be able to text home or send a message
| to the floatplane pilot but that's not going to last for
| long. Overall what they showed in terms of positioning the
| phone to get a good satellite connection looks about as
| reliable and cumbersome as using an InReach, which is fine.
|
| Today was a real shot at two of Garmin's profit centres
| with the Apple Watch Pro also targeting their GPS sports
| watches.
| tacoman wrote:
| I switched from Globalstar to Zoleo (Iridium) because
| Globalstar wasn't reliable enough for use cases like
| messaging the float plane pilot. I'd often have to wait
| for certain times of the day to send messages or make
| calls. This was at about 54 deg lat, so not in the
| fringes at all.
|
| It may have been my device (older Qualcomm branded
| phone), but my experience seems consistent with what
| others report.
|
| On the contrary, I've been very happy with the Zoleo
| device and service. It's been 100% reliable in all
| conditions even in the middle of the bush.
| golan wrote:
| I own a Garmin InReach that I regularly take with me on
| hiking expeditions (mostly Scotland, Iceland and South
| Africa) and it's super handy on remote areas with no
| coverage. The ability to send an SOS is the main feature,
| but the two-way messaging system is just amazing for
| peace of mind, for me and my family. However, the main
| thing about the InReach is its ruggedness and battery
| life, which I consider essential. I always carry an
| iPhone with me that I use when and if I get reception,
| but I need to carry a battery pack for it and it's always
| in the back of my mind that an iPhone is a relatively
| fragile device and it's one misstep away from
| cracking/breaking/etc, hence the inReach.
|
| Moving forward, having both will be great, but I think
| having to rely only on an iPhone would make me a bit
| nervous, so I'm not sure how much of a threat this is for
| the inReach devices (at least for now).
| tshaddox wrote:
| I think this drastically underestimates or at least
| undersells the impact of convenience, or in this case the
| maximum possible level of convenience which is _already
| having the feature even if you don 't know it_. Similar
| arguments could have and indeed were made for every other
| small electronic device the smartphone has replaced. It's
| not that the advantages you listed don't exist, it's just
| that they won't hold a candle to the explosion of
| smartphones with satellite messaging built in by default.
| I feel like even just 1 year (and 200 million satellite-
| enabled iPhones) from today pointing out these advantages
| is going to look like people pointing out that land lines
| have better audio quality and lower latency than cell
| phones.
|
| I always carry my InReach with periodic location sharing
| enabled when I'm on backpacking trips. I also almost
| always carry it during international travel and road
| trips, but not usually with periodic location sharing. If
| iPhones start offering plans with periodic location
| sharing, I'm fairly confident that I'd stop carrying the
| InReach unless I was on a particularly remote trip that
| was outside of my comfort zone (which isn't something I
| really do anyway).
| cameldrv wrote:
| I'm pretty sure there won't be a two way feature here.
| They're using the same network as SPOT and the feature
| set looks very similar. With the classic SPOT, you can
| send one of three preset messages along with your
| coordinates, or send an emergency message. SPOT also lets
| you track, which is the same message format but the
| device sends it automatically at regular intervals.
|
| Communication is one-way only and there is no way to
| verify delivery.
|
| I agree that this will cut into InReach sales, because it
| provides about 70% of the capability and it's built into
| your phone. That said, the two way full text messaging
| and confirmation of delivery are huge advantages,
| especially if you actually plan to use it as opposed to
| it being a "just in case" communication device.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| poulsbohemian wrote:
| You do have to wonder at what point Apple decides they don't
| need Verizon, T-Mobile et. al. Maybe it's still a long ways
| off, but if you've gone through the effort of building
| relationships, hardware, software, etc to weave together a
| satellite network, why not just keep going down that path?
| xattt wrote:
| My guess for Apple's long game is is to turn the Find My
| network into a distributed network for comms beyond location
| data.
|
| One of the incentives to participate may be free or reduced-
| cost satellite data.
| martinald wrote:
| You're vastly underestimating the bandwidth required for
| cellular service. A starlink sat "cell" can do ~20gbit/sec
| (though I actually think real world performance will be
| massively lower). This covers hundreds of kilometres.
|
| A single cell tower with 5G/4G is not far off doing that, per
| sector. And these cell towers can cover as little as 500m or
| less in dense urban areas. The problem is there are very real
| physics you come up against with this. We are really tapping
| out efficiency gains these days so the only option is more,
| higher frequency spectrum and much denser cell networks.
| jsjohnst wrote:
| > A single cell tower with 5G/4G is not far off doing that,
| per sector.
|
| Assuming you mean LTE when you say 4G, the per sector
| bandwidth is customarily an order of magnitude less 20gbps.
| Even in the case of 5G, with sub-6Ghz, you rarely will see
| above 15gbps.
| wmf wrote:
| Or the capacity of the network is _really_ low.
| wongarsu wrote:
| According to Wikipedia they have 52 first-generation
| satellites from the late 90s, and 24 second-generation
| satellites from around 2010. And if we go by Iridium's
| lifetime I wouldn't expect the first generation to still be
| operational.
|
| Compared to Starlink's 2400 currently operational satellites
| that does seem low. Even compared to Iridium's 75 from the
| late 2010s, Globalstar's 24 seems small.
| thrdbndndn wrote:
| >I wouldn't expect the first generation to still be
| operational
|
| From Wikipedia:
|
| >In 2007, Globalstar launched eight additional first-
| generation spare satellites into space to help compensate
| for the premature failure of their in-orbit satellites.
| Between 2010 and 2013, Globalstar launched 24 second-
| generation satellites in an effort to restore their system
| to full service.
|
| So you're totally right.
| mirekrusin wrote:
| They say 85% so it must be 17 out of 20, no?
| oneplane wrote:
| It's the kind of 'low bandwidth' you'd see with analog
| telephone modems. A single JSON request-response over TLS
| would take many seconds.
| walrus01 wrote:
| Current generation globalstar is about the same speed as
| first gen iridium, which is around the speed of a 2400
| bps dialup modem from the late 1980s.
|
| With the current satellites, yes, if they think they have
| enough capital (at least many hundreds of millions) to
| launch a new clean sheet of paper design LEO network
| using the existing globalstar L/S-band spectrum licenses,
| they could implement something better.
|
| The value of globalstar is not in the existing satellites
| and earth stations, which are pretty much trash at this
| point for any modern use except very low data rate M2M
| data in certain geographically restricted areas. The
| value is in the existing LEO network operational
| licenses.
| oneplane wrote:
| Yep, similar value is found on other technically inept
| solutions that are mostly kept around to keep the license
| to operate active (since some of those require active use
| to retain them).
| kylehotchkiss wrote:
| The mentioned in the announcement developing a very
| efficient data codec for text compression, I'd presume
| something Binary and not over TLS, just raw data packets
| probably with some encryption
| oneplane wrote:
| I'm sure the Apple use case is different from a web api,
| but it was more for illustrative purposes. I imagine most
| developers know how to wrap data in JSON and how to do a
| HTTP call over TLS. When using that as a point of
| reference, having such a transmission take a long time
| might show how little bandwidth some M2M networks have
| (or need).
|
| I wouldn't be surprised if the current Globalstar network
| is so limited it wouldn't even do voice.
| kylehotchkiss wrote:
| They support voice (https://www.globalstar.com/en-
| us/products/voice-and-data), it's my understanding that
| it's analog and not digital though, like a really
| narrowband landline phone call
| alecfreudenberg wrote:
| [deleted]
| wmf wrote:
| The timing of the Starlink/T-Mobile pre-announcement makes sense
| now.
| darknavi wrote:
| And a lot more attractive. An addition subscription for a hard
| to use SOS vs 3G data speeds for "free" for many T-Mobile
| customers.
|
| I will also say one is vaporware at this point and one is
| coming out next week.
| alphabettsy wrote:
| iPhone 14 users will enjoy both though right?
| valine wrote:
| Tmobile Starlink is text only. It definitely does not support
| 3G data speeds.
| modeless wrote:
| SpaceX's offering is not 3G data speeds per user. It's 3G
| data speed shared between all users in a "cell" which is 150
| square miles. Which requires drastically limiting what users
| can use it for to avoid overwhelming the satellites.
| Initially they will only allow text messages (not just SMS
| though, select messaging apps will work). Maybe voice calls
| in the future.
|
| But yeah, SpaceX's offering is going to be way better if it
| works as advertised. Doesn't require buying a new phone.
| Doesn't require holding your phone pointing in a particular
| direction for minutes at a time. Can be used for any purpose,
| not just emergencies. Potentially works anywhere on the
| Earth's surface including the oceans and the poles, with the
| only restrictions being legal/regulatory.
| mandeepj wrote:
| I believe Apple is going to - either acquire Globalstar or a
| similar satellite carrier (Lynk?) in the future. It's safe to buy
| stocks of the former.
| boringg wrote:
| Probably get some call options on Globalstar on an easy bounce.
| mikece wrote:
| Or hedge their bets by buying a right of first refusal option
| from Globalstar should anyone else try to acquire them while
| leaving Apple free to look for other options and partners.
| jws wrote:
| The feature is sold as a two year free subscription to the
| service, not a feature of the device. That suggests to me
| Apple isn't committed to this forever. They want do be able
| to abandon the technology and human staffed relay
| infrastructure if this is eclipsed by satellite 5G or some
| other option and not get sued in 195 countries for breaking a
| device feature after the sale.
| mandeepj wrote:
| > That suggests to me Apple isn't committed to this
| forever.
|
| Apple TV+ is also offered as 1 year free service when you
| buy a new phone, then you can also say the same about it,
| but - in fact - needless to say, Apple is committed to it.
| grork wrote:
| I mean, there is this clause in the 8k:
|
| "On September 7, 2022, Partner and Thermo entered into a lock-
| up and right of first offer agreement that generally (i)
| requires Thermo to offer any shares of Globalstar common stock
| to Partner before transferring them to any other Person other
| than affiliates of Thermo and (ii) prohibits Thermo from
| transferring shares of Globalstar common stock if such transfer
| would cause Thermo to hold less than 51.00% of the outstanding
| common stock of the Company for a period of 5 years from the
| Service Launch (as defined below). This agreement does not
| prohibit the Company from entering into a change of control
| transaction at any time."
| vzaliva wrote:
| On September 7, 2022, Apple Inc. ("Partner") announced new
| satellite-enabled services for certain of its products.
|
| Where's the announcement?
| rzz3 wrote:
| At the keynote this morning.
| alberth wrote:
| Box out competition.
|
| The title is misleading. The filing doesn't say Apple will "use"
| 85%.
|
| The actual filing says
|
| "Allocate 85% of its current and future network capacity to
| support the Services (see further discussion of capacity below)"
|
| This could simply be that Apple is buying up the bulk of the
| capacity to box out competitors from offering same functionality.
|
| Just like what they do with TSMC.
| wmf wrote:
| I'm pretty sure Apple uses the TSMC capacity they pay for. To
| do otherwise would be financial mismanagement.
| minus7 wrote:
| [deleted]
| smm11 wrote:
| Apple needs emergency satellite access the way it routes everyone
| to the wrong place.
| ezfe wrote:
| 2012 was 10 years ago lol
| post-it wrote:
| I've come to prefer Apple Maps. I like that it tells me "skip
| the next light" or "at the next light/stop sign, turn" rather
| than just the street name.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-09-07 23:00 UTC)