back to article SpaceX, T-Mobile US phone service will interfere with ours, claims rival

Satellite constellation operator Omnispace has written to the FCC's newly minted Space Bureau about its concerns that SpaceX and T-Mobile US's planned hybrid space-terrestrial phone service will "constantly" interfere with its own system. SpaceX, as we reported at the time, is hoping to bring together its Starlink low Earth …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Elementary my dear Musk

    Isn't Musk the chief engineer of SpaceX? It goes on to claim that SpaceX made an "elementary error." Sick burn indeed!

    1. _Elvi_

      Re: Elementary my dear Musk-Toid

      .. He's not an Engineer; he might point at something and say " Can we do that; its soo raaad"

      ..He's not an Applied Science Radio Frequency spectrum propagation expert; he might run up with a scrap of paper with a cartoon dinosaur he drew at lunch, and say" Looksies ... . Space Radio Dino's.. lets build a million.."

      I hate to say it; but now he's over on Texas; mucking about with the local drinking water supply and fouling up the coast..

      "Big" people tend to gravitate to-do "Bad" things (Brexit, War in Ukraine, Trump-pocalypse) ECT

    2. DS999 Silver badge

      Re: Elementary my dear Musk

      He just takes credit for Gwynne Shotwell's accomplishments, he has no real role at SpaceX beyond funding (which no doubt is important until it starts making a profit) and PR.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Elementary my dear Musk

        More anti-PR, the way he's going about it..

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It's SpaceX

    A Company with Melon Suk involvement.

    They are lying.

    See full self driving cars, Hyperloop, Tunnels with self driving something or other, fully reusable rockets....(Falcon 9)

    Nuclear bomb resistant glass that can be twatted with a fucking ball... Cars that can drive themselves across the United States when told to do so by an app. When did "paedo guy" say all the stuff was to suppose to happen?

    Landing rockets on Mars, next year, or was it earlier? Lie after lie.

  3. b0llchit Silver badge

    The spacial cross firm's response will be something like: The solution to all potential problems will be resolved by us having more satellites in LEO. We are sure that an increase of 83716 satellites from our part will ensure the reduction of any interference to absolute zero. There is no possibility on earth, nor space, that any signal of ours will be met with interference.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Also, rumours that we're aiming for a monopoly so we can cut off any free speech we don't like are totally without merit.

      Trust us.

  4. hardboiledphil

    Non-geostationary. Such a mouthful.

    Geo-fluid, geo-active perhaps?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward



  5. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

    Frequency allocation

    So why does the US not allocate earth to orbit frequencies in line with the ITU guidance that everyone else uses? Is the US "special" in this case? Does it matter, and would it mean this issue would not have arose in the first place if they did?

    1. MachDiamond Silver badge

      Re: Frequency allocation

      "So why does the US not allocate earth to orbit frequencies in line with the ITU guidance that everyone else uses?"

      Ajit Pai(d)

      1. NX7U

        Re: Frequency allocation

        Not true (re: Ajit Pai).

        When the FCC auctioned off the PCS band (1850-1910/1930-1990 MHz) in 1995/6 they did not specify which segment was downlink and which was uplink. I remember sitting around with colleagues scratching our heads...which was which? As I recall, the DoD weighed in and preferred the (higher-power) downlink be on the upper segment because of the spectral proximity of many federal systems (which became even more of an issue when "AWS-3" was auctioned in 2013-ish, and that was with the established uplink/lower segment...can't imagine the AWS-3 auction happening with the lower segment being downlink). And so it was. Even then this was inconsistent with the ITU

        When the PCS band was expanded upwards (so-called G- and H- blocks), lower remained uplink and upper remained downlink because putting a downlink segment right up against an uplink segment is a recipe for disaster.

        As regards the ITU, 1980-2010 MHz has been co-primary MOBILE-SATELLITE (earth to space) the whole time. But also co-primary are FIXED and MOBILE services. Technically there's nothing in the ITU allocations that prohibits mobile downlinks in 1980-2010 MHz...but it indeed inconsistent with mobile-satellite use.

  6. Orv Silver badge

    Are the Gen2 satellites the ones that can only be deployed by Starship?

    1. TheMaskedMan Silver badge

      "Are the Gen2 satellites the ones that can only be deployed by Starship?"

      For the full size things, yes, I believe so. But they're currently using smaller V2 mini satellites in smaller numbers on falcon 9.

  7. Kevin McMurtrie Silver badge

    What units?

    PCS Block G? 1910-1914/1990-1995 MHz? The Sprint cellular acquisition? Existing Band 25? These press releases are impossible to correlate. The last time T-Mobile got a new band, people were talking about it in NTSC television channel numbers too.

    We need a standardized Register unit for radio bands.

  8. Mr. V. Meldrew

    You forget.....

    .... the nice computer shop owner, a Mr. Musk, gave some of his surplus stock to our friends in Ukraine to help ward of some evil bastard from Russia.

    Give Mr. Musk some credit.

    Toodle Pip.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like