[shkkmo]

I'm not talking about hiking paths. National Forests publish MVUM maps that tell you where you are allowed to take a vehicle and drive/camp. These forest roads can be in rough shape, but many of them are easily possible with competent driving and a bit of clearance. Large swathes of these areas have no cell coverage at all.

Then add in all the amazing places you can camp in northern BC, the Yukon Territory and Alaska and the list of coverage-less camping destimations grows even longer, though many of those areas are outside the latitudes where Starlink works right now.

There are also quite a few established , non-dispersed campgrounds in the weat that I've been to that had no cell service. The other Crater Lake (the one in northern California) is one example I can remember off the top of my head.

[dntrkv]

I think you're missing the context of this discussion. Of course there are many places without coverage, but the idea that you will be in these places for extended periods of time, working and taking calls, is nowhere close to reality for even the most adventurous (and that's not because you can't get cell coverage).

But yes, if you're talking about Alaska/Canada, that's a whole other story. I am mainly referring to the US, especially the Western part of the US.

[shkkmo]

> I think you're missing the context of this discussion.

I live in my vehicle full time and work remotely while driving around the West Coast and prefer unpopulated areas. I understand the context completely. You are simply wrong and unwilling to admit it.

> the idea that you will be in these places for extended periods of time, working and taking calls, is nowhere close to reality for even the most adventurous

I can say from personal experience that you are wrong here. I would not even class myself as the "most adventurous" and my rig doesn't have 4wd.

There are absolutely places that I have chosen not to stay because I couldn't get reliable service to make work calls. I have also stayed places with really dodgy cell service and had to do work calls over the phone rather than via slack.

So yes, there are absolutely many places where I and many other Boondockers want to go and stay that have no cell coverage. Boondockers that need to be reachable around the clock in those areas will need to have enough solar and batteries to leave their Starlink array running overnight. Personally, I am fine with dropping off the grid overnight, though I suspect that I would occasionally fall asleep without remembering to turn off the internet and then spend days getting my batteries back to full.

My limited solar capacity currently is why I am still hesitating on buying Starlink. While I have a 4kwh battery, I only have 200w of solar and running a Starlink for me would require some more careful power management unless I also significantly upgrade my solar capacity.

> Alaska/Canada, that's a whole other story. I am mainly referring to the US, especially the Western part of the US.

Alaska is part of the western US, but not relevant to the point I am making since it is (mostly) outside the current starlink supported latitudes.

[dntrkv]

> There are absolutely places that I have chosen not to stay because I couldn't get reliable service to make work calls. I have also stayed places with really dodgy cell service and had to do work calls over the phone rather than via slack.

That's not what we are talking about.

We are talking about running Starlink 24/7 vs just during working hours. I'm saying that you can get away with just running it during work hours. You don't need 24/7 cell access when you're boondocking. That's the discussion here. Not whether you can always get cell service at all times when you need it. You can just plan around when you will be working. Sometimes you camp in a place with cell service, great. Other times you don't, no big deal, use other solutions (Starlink, satellite phones, etc).

Yes, if you're living out of your car in remote places and need to be reachable 24/7 you are a unique case and should plan accordingly. But for the vast majority of people working on the road, that's just not the case.

[shkkmo]

> That's not what we are talking about.

> the idea that you will be in these places for extended periods of time, working and taking calls, is nowhere close to reality for even the most adventurous

Go back and re-read the thread. You gave the availability of cell coverage everywhere you can drive as an explicit reason why those who need to be reachable don't need to run Starlink 24/7. Then, when I pointed out that was factually inaccurate, you shifted to saying that those places exist, but nobody would want to stay there for extended periods. That I was also able to contradict through personal experience. I've only addressed topics you directly brought up yourself.

> Yes, if you're living out of your car in remote places and need to be reachable 24/7 you are a unique case and should plan accordingly. But for the vast majority of people working on the road, that's just not the case.

This I agree mostly agree with (except the hyperbolic "unique case"). Pager duty isn't that uncommon for software developers so it is not an unrealistic use-case and is worth discussing on a platform like HN and doesn't deserve to be dismissed out of hand.

I think you have a tendency to make hyperbolic claims, (e.g. "nowhere close to reality for even the most adventurous") when you would have been better served by just relating your extensive experience with how easy it is to find good places to boondock that do have enough cell service to not require starlink for 24/7 contactability.

Edit: I would also have been more effective if I had left out the first sentence of my original reply and instead provided examples of the areas I was talking about in the initial comment rather than in a follow up.