Ahh telcos getting their panties in a bunch. Now that's entertainment. There used to be much more competition in the telco space. I wouldn't be surprised if the FCC "accommodates" ATT / Verizon with some sort of restrictions for Starlink. The Federal's Governments attempts to control the means of production are easier with fewer Corporate proxies. Just my opinion.
Shots fired as AT&T and Verizon ask FCC to block Starlink's direct-to-cell plans
Starlink's rivals in the satellite phone service race are asking the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to reject its request for a waiver relating to out-of-band emission limits on signals, claiming this would cause interference with terrestrial cell networks. The SpaceX subsidiary has plans to deliver a "direct-to-cell …
COMMENTS
-
Friday 16th August 2024 16:47 GMT trindflo
Is Starlink disrupting or is AT&T trying to close the market?
My bet is that Starlink is trying to disrupt the industry. If AT&T can do it without flooding the airwaves, I think that Starlink should be told to behave themselves. Radio astronomy is already taking a huge hit without an airborne distributed denial of service from Musk and company.
-
-
Saturday 17th August 2024 15:51 GMT doublelayer
Re: Is Starlink disrupting or is AT&T trying to close the market?
The Chinese won't be interfering with US signals because, unless they get an FCC license, they have to turn off their radios when over the US. If they don't, then the FCC will prohibit people from buying their services. So no, the Chinese will not be ignoring FCC rules over the US. Over the open ocean, probably. Over China itself, maybe but they've got mobile phone companies too and they sometimes fight.
-
Sunday 18th August 2024 09:48 GMT Jellied Eel
Re: Is Starlink disrupting or is AT&T trying to close the market?
The Chinese won't be interfering with US signals because, unless they get an FCC license, they have to turn off their radios when over the US. If they don't, then the FCC will prohibit people from buying their services. So no, the Chinese will not be ignoring FCC rules over the US.
You're assuming China will play nicely with others. The US already prohibits people from buying Chinese communications services, ie banning Huawei. Problem with playing the protectionist/sanctions game is once you've made that move, what are you going to do next? Sanction it and ban it again? Either everyone plays by the same rules, or people stop playing by those rules. US could then complain to the UN/ITU, who may then issue a notice that China could politely ignore.
-
Sunday 18th August 2024 17:15 GMT doublelayer
Re: Is Starlink disrupting or is AT&T trying to close the market?
If some Chinese company did try to sell their services in the US without the licenses, that's a crime. The US could have all the money that company holds in the US confiscated to pay the fines. So yes, if the company concerned did it by having people pay them through cash in the mail and hid the equipment coming in, it might work. If they try to operate like a normal business where you can just go to their website and buy it out in the open, it's not going to work. At that point, the company concerned isn't going to be making very much money for their trouble. Meanwhile, sticking to the license means they could actually sell in the market, normally, with all the typical legal protections, so they're a lot more likely to do that or ignore the US altogether. There are some regulations that are just not worth the effort to break.
-
-
-
-
-
Friday 16th August 2024 16:58 GMT Anonymous Coward
Stupid Question Time !!!
Why can the FCC not allow Starlink the waiver on the basis that it is *only* valid if the interference can be *proven* not to impact AT&T et al. ?
i.e. you can have and *Keep* the waiver *IF* you can prove it has no impact on your competitors once you are operating.
If Starlink are prepared to risk the investment on *not* interfering with AT&T then 'Fair enough'.
As soon as they *do* interfere 'all bets are off' !!!
Of course the call on the 'interference' will be by an agreed 'qualified 3rd party' with no 'skin in the game' !!!
:)
-
-
Friday 16th August 2024 18:15 GMT Brian 3
Re: Stupid Question Time !!!
I'm pretty sure the waiver is only valid if the restrictions are followed ANYWAYS, this is another, "don't let them do it b/c maybe it won't work and might affect us" as if the waiver is a license to do whatever the hell without consequences. Also, a negative can't be strictly proven like you suggest but I can imagine at least some testing has already occurred. The proof is in the pudding anyways, I should think AT&T et al would have to prove the harmful interference / excessive emissions in practice. As well as proving the SOURCE of the emissions is from the spacex SCS
-
Saturday 17th August 2024 05:39 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Stupid Question Time !!!
The waiver is a license to create a fait acompli.
Once they are launched, it will be just too hard to change them, and you can't prove there is interference, and if you stop our starlink business we will be unable to launch national security payloads etc etc.
There is zero chance of such a permit being revoke-able once launched.
-
-
Friday 16th August 2024 19:27 GMT doublelayer
Re: Stupid Question Time !!!
Because, if they were allowed to do it and it did cause problems, the other carriers would probably have to prove that it was specifically the Starlink satellites doing it rather than anything else against a bunch of lawyers from Spacex trying to hobble them. In the meantime, Starlink keeps doing it. Then, if they succeed in proving this interference and the FCC suspends their license, Spacex sues the FCC for doing something wrong, whatever their lawyers can make up, and demands an injunction because they've paid for a bunch of hardware on thousands of satellites which they can't get back because their equipment can't manage -120 but only -110.6, and some judge will grant them the right to keep using it while that case is decided, which will take years. In the meantime, Starlink keeps doing it.
There is a reason why there are experimental licenses, which allow for something like that, and production licenses, which usually have to be granted before you put your equipment into operation. Otherwise, every company would do whatever they wanted until such time as someone figures out the harms it causes. In at least a few areas, radio spectrum being one of them, this is limited to prevent chaos. The FCC had some reason for thinking that -120 was a good limit, and the other carriers appear to think that raising it will cause problems. By all means have some knowledgeable people review that, but saying "I guess you can do whatever you want" whenever someone asks for changes is not a recipe for success.
-
Friday 16th August 2024 22:02 GMT DS999
Re: Stupid Question Time !!!
The FCC can't allow stuff like that on a "trial basis", there would have to be some defined method everyone agreed upon to measure the interference. Otherwise its just "he said" / "she said". If it generates too much interference Starlink would have to fix it. But they claim their modeling shows it is fine and everyone should just believe them, and obviously measuring after the fact isn't something they want because there is no way for them to fight that.
There's nothing preventing Starlink from keeping out of band interference within FCC limits. They can either improve their bandpass filtering or decrease their signal power. Better filtering is more expensive and increases weight (at some point you can't use digital filtering and have to use traditional RF filters) and power reduction would reduce data rates. It is easier for them to degrade everyone else's signals in adjacent bands.
Another alternative would be for Sprint to voluntarily reduce the size of the band they are using for this. If they used half of it, for instance, there would be more sideband to take that interference hit. It still reduces the data rate but Starlink would be able to use higher power limits and reduce "one bar" signal type problems.
While in a battle between all these companies most of us which they could all lose, it would be bad for everyone in AT&T and Verizon lose, because it would set a precedent that satellite uses of RF bands are seen as more important by the FCC than terrestrial uses. It would have an impact far beyond the cellular market.
-
Sunday 18th August 2024 10:08 GMT Jellied Eel
Re: Stupid Question Time !!!
The FCC can't allow stuff like that on a "trial basis", there would have to be some defined method everyone agreed upon to measure the interference.
There are also safety-of-life issues that would prevent (or should prevent) just turning it on and seeing what happens. So someone out hiking, tries to make a 911 call saying they've fallen but they can't get up, but can't because of interference.
If it generates too much interference Starlink would have to fix it. But they claim their modeling shows it is fine and everyone should just believe them, and obviously measuring after the fact isn't something they want because there is no way for them to fight that.
But it's how it should be done. FCC can mediate a test plan. So theorycrafting says maybe it'll cause interference, modelling may say same thing. Then on account of the US being big, it has around 12,000km^2 used as the Nevada Test Range that already does a lot of RF testing, it being kinda quiet and mostly out of the way. But should be possible to construct experiment(s) that can show if there'll be interference, or not without risking actual users.
Another alternative would be for Sprint to voluntarily reduce the size of the band they are using for this.
I doubt T-Mobile/Sprint would be willing to do this given the ever increasing demands for data. But as they're proposing the service, they're responsible for ensuring it doesn't interfere with others.
-
Sunday 18th August 2024 16:02 GMT Alan Brown
Re: Stupid Question Time !!!
"So someone out hiking, tries to make a 911 call saying they've fallen but they can't get up, but can't because of interference."
More likely they can't because they're well beyond the range of terrestrial coverage and a nobbled Starlink can't talk to them
Lest you think this is a theoretical scenario, it's one of the primary reasons why Starlink-to-mobile coverage was allowed in New Zealand. Previously the only available option was a companion climbing to the top of a suitable large hill and hoping to ping a tower within range (and before that, possibly hiking 2-3 days out of the mountains to find a landline if they weren't carrying mountain radios and/or epirbs - both of which have severe limitations in rugged terrain)
The areas where interference _might_ be an issue between Starlink and terrestrial cells are the (extremely) spotty fringe where coverage is already hit and miss. Bear in mind that 112/911 calls from mobiles will attach to ANY available network regardless of valid sim or contract
-
Monday 19th August 2024 10:25 GMT Jellied Eel
Re: Stupid Question Time !!!
Lest you think this is a theoretical scenario, it's one of the primary reasons why Starlink-to-mobile coverage was allowed in New Zealand. Previously the only available option was a companion climbing to the top of a suitable large hill and hoping to ping a tower within range (and before that, possibly hiking 2-3 days out of the mountains to find a landline if they weren't carrying mountain radios and/or epirbs - both of which have severe limitations in rugged terrain)
Yep, it's why I used that as an example. I used to climb and cave, and have some friends who're mountain rescue volunteers. It's one of those areas where technology can be both a blessing and a curse. I have my mobile, so I must be safe and can record my misadventures for likes and subscribes. Until something goes wrong. Then mobiles might be usable to give a last known ping, or possibly multiple pings used to give a rough direction of travel and potential search area. Which is also a co-ordination thing, ie requesting that data. Most rescuers are usually volunteers, but also have LEAs involved who can get the data. Also some SAR helicopters have a Stingray-like device to try and detect & triangulate phones or EPIRBs
Which are kind of edge cases, but it's also whether T-Mobile/Starlink would interfere with the AST SpaceMobile deal. Which may also be the usual telco shenanigans and using this complaint for competition fun. I still think the best solution would be if FCC mandated a ground-based test to prove or disprove interference.
-
-
-
-
Saturday 17th August 2024 16:35 GMT martinusher
Re: Stupid Question Time !!!
The noisemkers are relying on the notion that the vast majority of people still think radios select signals by frequency. Obviously a lot of radios still do -- all those legacy AM and FM sets that we grew up with -- but the spectrum just isn't divvied up that way any more.
Once again, I blame everything on the poor quality of science education these days. We churn out lawyers by the truckload but anything scientific-- especially anything that involves math -- is a bit iffy in the US beyond 8th grade.
-
-
-
-
-
Friday 16th August 2024 20:17 GMT cornetman
> If the person in the street naturally understands the intended meaning then the grammar/syntax/spelling/... of the sentence/word is good, however much it may infuriate the pedants and traditionalists.
To a point. This is where we get thinks like "red herrings" from where people have a cultural understanding. I don't mind those things. I do have an objection when people use the logical opposite though. If language use gets *too* detached from logic, it starts to lose cohesion. It is not obvious to me where this kind of expression comes from though.
Something similar, which annoys me wife, is when people say "9 to the dozen" to imply something that is way over the top. Originally, it was "19 to the dozen" which is obviously a number that is larger than a dozen. 9 is less though, so makes absolutely no sense, and is obviously an error that has propagated around certain groups.
-
-
-
Friday 16th August 2024 19:32 GMT doublelayer
I have a debt of £20 and no assets. That means my net balance is -£20. Oh no, somehow my debt has gone to £180, or nine times as much. That means my net worth is nine times less than it was.
When you have negative numbers, you can have X times less. If you have positive numbers, chances are you can make negative numbers from them that mean something. You can also understand the intrinsic link between multiplication and division, and thus that y=(1/9)x also means x=9y, and saying "one ninth as stringent" is more likely to confuse people.
-
Friday 16th August 2024 20:22 GMT cornetman
> one ninth as stringent
Who is this likely to confuse? It makes perfect sense! People use fractions to express dividing down all the time.
Which is more clear?
"It took me half the time." or "It took me twice as less time"
"A quarter of the people agreed" or "The number of people that agreed was four times less".
The second of each example is wordy and complete nonsense.
-
Friday 16th August 2024 21:17 GMT doublelayer
The second example is faulty because it expresses a quantity, not a comparison. A quarter of the people agreed says that, out of x people, x/4 of them agreed. If x/4 of them agreed with statement A, and x/16 agreed with statement B, then stating that "a quarter agreed with statement B" doesn't convey the information. "A quarter of those who agreed with statement A agreed with statement B" probably misstates the groups involved by suggesting that it was a strict subset. Saying that "four times fewer people agreed with statement B compared to statement A" conveys the information. That isn't to say that it is the only or the best way of conveying it, but if it is understood, it meets the first requirement.
-
-
-
Saturday 17th August 2024 03:19 GMT IvyKing
A more accurate way of putting it is that the change SpaeX proposes allows 9 times more power than what was permitted by the FCC regulations. That could well be enough to interfere with marginal cell phone coverage.
I'm surprised that no one has brought up the Light Squared fiasco, where L.S. was trying to repurpose frequencies set aside for space communication for terrestrial cell phone coverage. The amount of BS being spewed by the Light Squared folks was impressive.
-
Sunday 18th August 2024 16:18 GMT Alan Brown
The difference was that Lightsquared's tests clearly showed there was interference and being to satellite services is hard to remediate
The signal levels involved are right out on the extreme fringes of mobile coverage where sat-to-mobile is a better choice in most cases anyway
The real issue is that the mobile providers face being forced to build out a better terrestrial network, which is what they face if confronted by terrestrial+sat providers eating their lunch
-
-
-
Saturday 17th August 2024 04:47 GMT Henry Wertz 1
No trial basis needed
No trial basis needed, AT&T and Verizom presented calculations indicating an 18% reduction in throughput on the PCS C band that at the out of band emission levels Starlink proposes. If Starlink or T-Mo owned it nationwide there"d be no issue but they don't. They probably do own PCS C in some areas but it's lt's licensed to other cell cos in others.
-
Saturday 17th August 2024 22:23 GMT DS999
Re: No trial basis needed
I think the particular band in question is owned by T Mobile through the entire US.
The "out of band" interference refers to broadcast power outside that dedicated band, stepping on the bands allocated to others (in this case AT&T and Verizon) Filters aren't perfect, you can make them "better" but there is always some signal power broadcast outside of the desired band. That's why there are always guard bands around such frequencies, either explicitly or implicitly.
For example US TV channels are "6 MHz" wide and assigned 6 MHz apart, but the actual broadcast signal per spec is something smaller (4.2 MHz IIRC) with the rest intended as a guard band, since that 4.2 MHz wide signal might have (just as an example, numbers made up) 15 db of interference within 0.6 MHz, 10 db within 0.9 Mhz, 5 db within 1.2 MHz with the goal that whatever interference there is hitting a neighboring channel's main (4.2 MHz) signal is small enough that it won't impact the SNR of receivers inside that neighbor's FCC protected broadcast area.
-
Sunday 18th August 2024 00:50 GMT IvyKing
Re: No trial basis needed
Ahem...
In the US, the "guard bands" for broadcast stations is to have at least on unused channel between channels used by local stations. In SoCal, the LA VHF TV channels are 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11 and 13, with 8 and 10 being assigned to San Diego stations and 6 and 12 assigned to Tijuana stations. Note that there is a 4 MHz gap between US TV channels 4 and 5.Your main point about filters not being perfect is spot on.
I suspect that the filtering needed to meet the FCC limits would require a major redesign of the transmitter and possibly antennas. With a steerable phased array antenna, this could involve putting a filter on each element.
-
-
-
Saturday 17th August 2024 17:24 GMT Robert 22
The services are still allocated portions of RF bandwidth even if they may also use time and code division multiple access techniques for sharing bandwidth.
Given that low cost radio receivers tend to have spurious signal problems with out of band interference, it is not true to say that modern technology has made the problem of finite bandwidth go away..
-
Saturday 17th August 2024 22:28 GMT DS999
Doesn't matter whether "low cost" or not, out of band interference is noise to the signal you want to receive, so the more such interference the worse your SNR. Modern digital receivers are very good at picking out the signal at some fairly low SNR levels, but once the SNR drops below zero (either because the interference has become worse because someone started broadcasting on adjacent bands from space with inadequate filtering in place, or the desired signal is weaker due your distance from the broadcast source) you're SOL.
-