SpaceX is going after Dish Network. I doubt SpaceX is lying about the issues involved.
SpaceX warns 5G plan would deny Starlink to most Americans
SpaceX warns 5G plan would deny Starlink to most Americans
spacenews.com
You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
SpaceX is going after Dish Network. I doubt SpaceX is lying about the issues involved.
???Anyway, the actual issue SX has here is that the contemplated 5G network would effectively provide an alternate service to customers, and thus reduce the take on Starlink subscriptions. The 'harmful interference' angle is just a clever way to bring the issue forward. (SX can't really complain about Verizon's 5G home network, for instance, because its a different Hz). And Charlie is generally a tough nut, so it probably feels good for SX to complain at the FCC about him.
According to SpaceX’s study, harmful interference from a high-power mobile service in the 12 GHz band would extend more than 13 miles from the macro base station in unobstructed conditions.
Again ???It would also be interesting to see what the SX team could come up with if they actually tried to solve the problem of terrestrial 12gig interference instead of just having the lawyers complain that it will break the network. They sure figured out nefarious interference in the Ukraine pretty fast...
Starlink has a user per area limit, but for that number of users in that area it may be better than the alternative. 5G interference woukd also mean blackout zones for mobile, non-fixed, users.There's also a bit of nuance in the numbers too. Starlink is really only the right service for a small percentage of the country's population (generally low density regions) and for the most part the Dish 5G network is going to cover everyone but that small percentage of the country (the high density regions). So on the Venn diagram of practical subscriber base, there's not a lot of overlap there anyway.
Well, I get your point about the "commissioner" of said report having a vested interest... but to compare SpaceX to either the Tobacco companies or Big Oil seems a little out of line, given what we now know about both of those industries. SpaceX hasn't demonstrated anything like that behavior.... especially given both of those industries in your analogies literally knowingly put people's lives at risk and obfuscated such.Probably not lying. But, like the Tobacco industry commissioning a report on cancer or the petroleum industry commissioning a report on climate change, one can't simply take Dish or SpaceX at face value on this one.
Well, you surmise that's the actual issue, but unless you have some insider knowledge, I think your asserting such is suspect. And as @mongo points out, there's some technical validity to the issues raised.Anyway, the actual issue SX has here is that the contemplated 5G network would effectively provide an alternate service to customers, and thus reduce the take on Starlink subscriptions. The 'harmful interference' angle is just a clever way to bring the issue forward. (SX can't really complain about Verizon's 5G home network, for instance, because its a different Hz). And Charlie is generally a tough nut, so it probably feels good for SX to complain at the FCC about him.
How is a high power transmitter at your frequency in your beam (or side lobes) not an actual issue?
I think your asserting such is suspect.
Starlink has a user per area limit, but for that number of users in that area it may be better than the alternative.
Signal vs noise. Sure, you may be able to work around it, but something is going to suffer (like data rate).
Allow me to be rigorously clear:I think your interpretation of my point is missing rigor.
Puerto Rico is probably impacted by the lack of laser links. Local ground stations need to use preexisting links to the continent.Tom's Guide on Starlink speeds worldwide with some cool nuggets:
"In Mexico, Starlink had the fastest satellite internet in North America during the first quarter of this year with a median download speed of 105.91 Mbps followed by Starlink in Canada and the U.S. However, in Puerto Rico, HughesNet took the top spot with download speeds of 20.54 Mbps."
How fast is Elon Musk’s Starlink — the results are in
Starlink is faster than ever but is it enough for rural internet users?www.tomsguide.com
FCC approves Starlink on moving objects
I can stream it in my box
I can stream it on my yacht
I can stream it on the train
I can stream it on a plane (pending FAA cert)
I can stream it here and there
I can stream it anywhere
(At least until Dish steps on the frequency band)
SpaceX receives FCC approval to provide Starlink service on planes, boats, and other vehicles in motion
FCC approves Starlink on moving objects
I can stream it in my box
I can stream it on my yacht
I can stream it on the train
I can stream it on a plane (pending FAA cert)
I can stream it here and there
I can stream it anywhere
(At least until Dish steps on the frequency band)
SpaceX receives FCC approval to provide Starlink service on planes, boats, and other vehicles in motion
Oh, did you find the filing?Well, not yet. Moving applications need a new dish. The new terminals are to operate only in the 12.2-12.7GHz hand, whereas the current terminals are in a wide range.
The new terminals will also have "inertial measurement unit sensors" to correct and "detect mispointing, and cease transmission well within the 100 microsecond threshold to comply with requirements."
And I also think that Starlink will have to make new mounts for each specific moving application.
I suspect Starlink will take their time bringing out purpose built dishys for RVs in motion and small boats. I suspect they will instead focus on large commercial applications first like airplanes and ships.
Just imagine what your favorite TMC Moderator could do if his internet service had better equipment than being conducted over 19th c telegraph lines strung atop caribou antlers…
Oh, did you find the filing?
I tried as objectively as possible to read and comprehend both Dish’s and SpaceX’s positions….it is confusing.
Upload cat pics?
Environment isn't conducive to RFC 1149 either.ou don’t know what THIS is, in one of our cabins June 12th & 13th:
Thanks!IB Grants SpaceX and Kepler Earth Station In Motion Authorizations
Granting SpaceX and Kepler Earth Station In Motion Authorizationswww.fcc.gov
Actually those statements of mine above were copied from reddit. I don't vouch for their accuracy, now that's I've glanced through the FCC filing.
Reddit was off base:We deny the Petitions to Deny or Defer in Part filed by RS Access, LLC (RS Access) in the two SpaceX and the Kepler proceedings, the Petitions to Deny or Hold in Abeyance filed by ViaSat, Inc. (Viasat) in both SpaceX license proceedings, the DISH Network Corporation (DISH) Petition to Deny Waiver Request filed in opposition to SpaceX’s enterprise application, and the DISH Petition to Deny in Part filed against the Kepler application.
Full spectrum is allowed (required if 12.2 - 12.7 is used)In response, SpaceX argues that Viasat submits an interference analysis based on the erroneous assumption that SpaceX ESIMs will not operate as designed.63 SpaceX contends that its advanced phased arrays use software to track its NGSO satellite and platform motion, and that they observe main beam parameters, minimum elevation, and GSO protection requirements.64 SpaceX asserts that its antennas comply with Commission rules and do not “necessitate additional requirements on ESIM communications with NGSO FSS space stations.”65 SpaceX notes that its ESIM terminals incorporate industry-standard technologies such as micro-electro-mechanical system (MEMS) inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensors and GPS receivers as well as advanced phased array antennas with efficient sidelobes to maintain correct point, detect mispointing, and cease transmission well within the 100-microsecond threshold to comply with requirements set forth in the Commission’s rules.66
Third, these authorizations are issued on the applicants’ representation that the statements contained in the application are true and that the undertakings described will be carried out in good faith including, but not limited to, the applicants’ representation that their NGSO systems have been engineered to achieve a high degree of flexibility to facilitate spectrum sharing with other authorized satellite and terrestrial systems.77 In line with these representations, we require, to the extent that any end-user terminals is capable of operating, e.g., receiving, in 12.2-12.7 GHz must also be capable of such operation in 10.7-12.2 GHz.78 We do not require ESIMs capable of operating only in the 10.7-12.2 GHz band to be capable of operating in the 12 GHz band.79
Assuming Dish's service extends as far as their interference.Yea there’s some overlap with aspirational Starlink users there too, but those users will certainly have, at a minimum, an equivalent-to-Starlink option so it’s really a non-issue at that point.
That’s good to know….unless, of course, SpaceX’s viability becomes tenuous or worse because of the purported occlusion of its services in its more populated locations.They most certainly are confusing. Unfortunately your case, while eloquently conveyed, is not fully baked.
There is 0% chance dish network will deploy 12gig mmWave service along the Denali highway (and probably anywhere in AK) and so there is zero possible conflict with your not-yet-available Starlink service.
The big upside to high frequency mobile from Dish’s perspective is the ability to flow much more traffic…at the expense of some pretty serious downsides, like range and occlusion susceptibility. Thus, the Dish use case is exclusively high population density areas where existing mobile networks are overloaded. Yea there’s some overlap with aspirational Starlink users there too, but those users will certainly have, at a minimum, an equivalent-to-Starlink option so it’s really a non-issue at that point.