[lxgr]

Compared to what? Even remotely comparable solutions drawing less power either cost something like $5-10 per megabyte (Inmarsat L-band, i.e. BGAN, Iridium Certus) or require even more power (Inmarsat Ka-band) and still cost something like 50 cent per megabyte! Monthly plans start at several hundred dollars, and terminals start in the low 4 to medium 5 digit ranges.

If you can live without Internet when backpacking, enjoy the outdoors! If you need it for whatever reason, this just cut the cost per megabyte by about 95% and the cost for the terminal by 99%. You'll probably also not hate LEO latencies compared to GEO.

[giraffe_lady]

I don't think any of those are remotely common for recreational backpack hikers. Garmin inreach maybe, because it covers the two essentials this group actually wants of "check in with family" and "call for help." It would really surprise me if backpackers switch to this en masse, or if having it enabled anyone to start backpacking who currently can't because of this need being unmet.

It'll probably get used on boats, where people actually do kinda want to watch netflix at night and don't have to personally carry every gram every day. The current options are very expensive and power hungry.

And probably a bunch of other outwardly similar but culturally distinct groups that could use it. Remote wilderness hunters, ice fishers, who work out of a seasonal camp but otherwise are pretty cut off.

[hammock]

Great use case examples. The marketing bit is "fits in a backpack" but really it's "fits in a base camp duffel/dry bag." People with a boat, sled, overlanding vehicle etc this is great

[lxgr]

Not every backpack is used for backpacking! I use mine largely for the not-so-exciting trek to the office :)

[hammock]

The point was the use case is better for people who are not traveling by foot

[lxgr]

Definitely! But Starlink doesn't market it towards those people. Their page simply says "fits a backpack".

In fact, they almost don't do any marketing at all, and they probably don't need to, given how far ahead their service is at this point.

[devit]

It will be very niche because most people who spend time in nature seem to be either:

- Car campers, vanlifers or people living in a place permanently, which can just use the heavy Starlink version or go where there is LTE coverage

- Thru-hikers who hike every waking hour and want to be as light as possible and for which this system isn't even remotely light enough

- Casual weekend hikers for which it's going to be too expensive and also unnecessary since they'll have Internet access on Monday again.

It's only really a consideration for those who regularly go on multiweek trips or live long-term in the wilderness and move camp on a weekly/monthly frequency (rather than daily or never), and these people seem to be relatively rare.

[devit]

Compared to being in LTE coverage and only needing a smartphone with 2-3W power draw (around 10% of the Starlink Mini).

[clarkmcc]

That’s like comparing apples to oranges though. This was never meant to be used in situations where you have a smartphone and LTE service.

[lxgr]

What makes you think you need satellite communications when there's (working) LTE? Obviously that's not the use case, just like you don't need fixed Starlink when there's (working) gigabit fiber available.

[devit]

I mean ideally (for Internet access purposes) one would have worldwide LTE coverage via cell towers and just use smartphones; the Starlink system is an alternative to that, so it makes sense to compare it.

From an individual perspective, if you want Internet access and don't have to be in a specific place, the current alternative to Starlink is to simply limit your wilderness living to places with or near areas of cell phone coverage (which potentially results in tradeoffs, of course).

[grecy]

> I mean ideally (for Internet access purposes) one would have worldwide LTE coverage via cell towers

As someone that has explored a lot of Australia, Alaska, Yukon, Africa and South America, I'm having trouble parsing your statement.

I've driven more than 1,000 miles for 10 days with absolutely nothing. No town. No people. No cars. Nothing.

I've canoed for 15 days well over 3,000 miles from the nearest town, road, building or electricity.

The idea you could cover the globe in LTE cell towers is unfathomable.

[lxgr]

Absolutely. I think living in a densely populated area, it can be hard to get a perspective for how big and largely empty the world actually is – and that's just land (and coastal seas, as far as LTE/5G reaches).

The remaining 70% are ocean, and people sometimes go there too! Some densely traveled oceans actually do have LTE coverage, e.g. parts of the north sea, since it has existing infrastructure in the form of wind parks that make adding a base station fairly easy, but that's the absolute exception, globally.

A single direct-to-cell satellite can cover a circular area measured in hundreds or thousands of kilometers. Due to the Earth's curvature, that's simply not feasible using terrestrial base stations.

[hammock]

Compared to Garmin inReach Mini.. 3.5 ounces, 35 hours battery life and less than half the price all-in.

Don't get me wrong, this is cool and emerging tech, and I support it (I pray it doesn't ruin the wilderness). Just saying there IS a comparison

[lxgr]

The InReach Mini is an amazing satellite messenger, but does not in any way provide Internet access.

[sambazi]

this is iridium though. i suppose there is an internet overlay, but it probably isn't pretty (or fast)

[lxgr]

InReach and similar devices use Iridium SBD, which is more like text messaging than an actual internet connection.

Iridium does offer voice and data services too, but terminals for that are significantly larger and draw more power, and the price per megabyte might bring tears to your eyes for recreational use. (Iridium Certus gets you 88 kbps at around $5/MB, and devices start at around $1500.)