Ask HN: Could internet-only phone work?

8 points by markjonsona989 2 years ago | 10 comments

I've been thinking about this for a long time and when Starlink announced Direct to Cell feature the other day it made me think it might be actually possible to create a satellite receiver small enough to fit into a smartphone, remove 3G antenna and have a truly private internet-only (https) phone. You know, StarPhone.

Could that work if it meant making phone numbers and ISPs obsolete (considering we use phone numbers for authentication in a lot of our public and private infrastructure)?

eimrine 2 years ago |

Why do you think it is going to be more private than 3G? SpaceX can observe your connections, Starlink is hard to pay with cash, it still needs a precise info about your location.

markjonsona989 2 years ago | |

I don't have an answer. I feel stupid for it. I thought I had all the answers but I didn't think this through. I thought getting rid of cell tower triangulation you can achieve privacy but you'd still need to connect to a satellite with a unique network identifier.

mcdonje 2 years ago | | |

I appreciate your honesty and self awareness.

tiernano 2 years ago | |

ok, so spacex knows where you are, who you are, etc, but not what you are doing. traffic is fully encrypted, so they dont know if its a phone call, text message or web page your hitting... add in Tor or something like that and things are a little more private... yes, the knowing where you are and who you are is iffy, but at least the end data is encrypted...

eimrine 2 years ago | | |

I still do not get an idea about why Starlink has more privacy than 3G.

i-use-nixos-btw 2 years ago |

This is the way landline phones are going in the UK (edit: I’m referring to the “phone over the internet” aspect, not the space aspect). I don’t see why the same doesn’t apply to mobile phones.

However the notion that it makes phone numbers and ISPs obsolete is naive in my opinion, as is the notion that it would improve privacy. Quite the opposite. Aside from death and taxes, certainties include that businesses adapt to changing markets, and that privacy is always at threat.

cookiengineer 2 years ago |

As others pointed out I also think that satellite connections are the wrong tech here.

How about a wifi meshing phone that is made for reaching wifis much farther away in distance?

Maybe partner with wigle to have available wifis in your local area?

If you have a wifi card that is 3x2 or 4x2, you can also use one antenna for peering purposes. One antenna has to be constantly scanning while moving though, so I guess that needs a lot of power...but maybe it's still feasible!?

Network infrastructure wise wifi has a lot of benefits, if you also offer something like a raspberry pi image I'm sure people would love to help build up the meshnet. Maybe you can also hook up on Apple's network similar to how their AppleTags work.

solardev 2 years ago | |

Mesh networks are a thing, but 5 GHz and 2.4 GHz aren't great carrying signals long distances or over the horizon. They're only really practical in densely populated areas, which tend to have wifi and cell already. Useful in mass protests and stadiums, maybe, but not so much out in the country...

WiMax can help a bit, but those have powerful stationary transmitters.

Fundamentally I don't think it's so much the particularly transmission scheme used that matters here, but just the amount of power it takes to send data over distance when it's not relayed by a stationary base station.

solardev 2 years ago |

You can already do many cell services over IP with LTE and 5G.

I don't think phones can power a satellite link for very long. Starlink uses something like 50W if I remember correctly? That would kill a phone in mere minutes. Receiving, like GPS, is easier than transmitting to the satellites.