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 …
.. 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
