Hacker News Reader

Comment by hunter2_ | Hacker News Reader

I reckon "cell" is a misnomer in this context. While "cell phone" would've been the only reasonable vernacular in the US a decade ago, the phrase "mobile device" is extremely popular now, and "handset" or "mobile" for brevity would also be pretty good. Satellite-to-mobile, satellite-to-handset, but not satellite-to-cell. Wait, satphone is already a word... use it!

View on HN

Well the phones are normal cell phones. They talk to ground based cell towers, and the SpaceX satellites are just operating as satellite based cells. A “satellite phone” is a term that historically has been used to describe a device which has been specifically designed to talk to satellites, which is not the case here. The SpaceX service aims to talk to unmodified normal cell phones that were never designed for satellite service.

The phones are not talking to cell towers, they are communicating directly with Starlink satellites. The whole point of the service is to provide emergency coverage in areas not served by cell.

This isn't thinking back to the original meaning of the term cell. While the satellites are not cell towers, they do each serve a specific coverage cell (although that cell moves around over time).

Basically all modern satellites use spot beams, making the "cell" metaphor even more applicable.

The initial announcement made it sound like this would be a drop-in replacement for cell tower coverage. T-Mobile contributing already-licensed spectrum, existing phones are supported, and they plan to eventually support voice and video: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/25/spacex-and-t-mobile-team-up-...

I understand this, but the phones themselves are normal cell phones, designed to talk to stationary cells, which in this use case happen to be talking to satellites. So I think the use of the term "cell phone" is fine.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com