SpaceX Internet Satellite Network: Starlink

[Cosmacelf]

Reddit was off base:

Yep, that's what I grokked from my light skim. Didn't want to put in the mental energy to 100% conclude that though, hence my disclaimer

You'd think I would have learned by now that some rando's reading of a technical and legal document would be suspect!

 

[mongo]

Yep, that's what I grokked from my light skim. Didn't want to put in the mental energy to 100% conclude that though, hence my disclaimer

You'd think I would have learned by now that some rando's reading of a technical and legal document would be suspect!

Yeah, who listens to random person on the internet ...
Wait...


(At least I quote sources?)

 

[AudubonB]

No one’s yet offered a guess about that post #1937 mystery visitor

 

[DrGriz]

No one’s yet offered a guess about that post #1937 mystery visitor

Fisher!

 

[mongo]

No one’s yet offered a guess about that post #1937 mystery visitor

Given the thread and four eyes, I'm gonna go with post-space Jellicle. (Though lynx or bobcat would be more regional if one ignores the coloring)

 

[scaesare]

The FCC, on the whole, appears to be delivering good decisions for SpaceX.

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

 

[AudubonB]

Fisher!

We haven’t fishers in Alaska, but good guess. It is the fisher’s smaller cousin, the cat-sized pine marten. I photographed this little sneak when I was quarantined in the cabin for ten days.

A red-backed vole? Sure. A short-tailed or least weasel? Where vole goes, these leggèd snakes can follow. But how the blazes can a marten get into one of MY cabins? Bizarre. Thank goodness it was I in the cabin and not a guest.

Anyway, I’ve some fair video footage of him bouncing around, too.

 

[DrGriz]

We haven’t fishers in Alaska, but good guess. It is the fisher’s smaller cousin, the cat-sized pine marten. I photographed this little sneak when I was quarantined in the cabin for ten days.

A red-backed vole? Sure. A short-tailed or least weasel? Where vole goes, these leggèd snakes can follow. But how the blazes can a marten get into one of MY cabins? Bizarre. Thank goodness it was I in the cabin and not a guest.

Anyway, I’ve some fair video footage of him bouncing around, too.

I was going to post one of my pine marten pictures (none indoors). But I can't find it. I have never seen one that dark color: ours are always tan. Have had them yell at me from up in a tree for 15-20 minutes.

Your house may have been ventilated.

 

[DrGriz]

Ahh, here's one.

 

[AudubonB]

Tan is the only color phase I’ve seen here, too, before this guy. This black ghost IS the true sable, the most expensive of all terrestrial fur bearers.

 

[DrGriz]

Tan is the only color phase I’ve seen here, too, before this guy. This black ghost IS the true sable, the most expensive of all terrestrial fur bearers.

Pine martens are very territorial. You'll probably have to move out.

 

[AudubonB]

I’ve a photo so identical to the one you posted it’s scary. Just prior to its move to marten heaven, and just after I learned who’d decapitated 11 of my laying hens the prior night.
Hey! What an interesting thread this has become!

 

[bxr140]

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.

For Starlink viability to be compromised as a result of 12gig terrestrial networks, the affected user base will necessarily have access to those 12gig networks.

While bad for starlink’s bottom line (and, I suppose, the small percentage of users who would prefer to use Starlink), it’s good for the vast majority of people since the vast majority of people don’t actually care where their internet comes from.

It’s also worth noting that Starlink has down to 10.7 in this particular band, whereas Dish (and others) wish to convert only 12.2-12.7 over to terrestrial.
NFW does losing Starlink 25% of their lowest frequency band in only isolated high density areas get anywhere close to affecting 3/4 of their service, so it’s clear there’s more to this story.

 

[azjohn]

If Dish was allowed to share the 12 gig bandwidth would this effect just customers closer to the city or would all be effected?

 

[Cosmacelf]

If Dish was allowed to share the 12 gig bandwidth would this effect just customers closer to the city or would all be effected?

It would affect all customer close-ish to the 12 GHz 5G network area. I think it’s a bad idea. Geosynchronous satellites also use that spectrum, like DirecTV and there’s lots of those customers everywhere. Frankly I’m surprised Dish is even thinking about it since their satellite network would also be impacted.

 

[bxr140]

If Dish was allowed to share the 12 gig bandwidth would this effect just customers closer to the city or would all be effected?

At the risk of beating the horse here, it affects less than “just [Starlink] customers close to the city”. It only affects Starlink customers that are very close to a terrestrial antenna broadcasting at 12ghz. Because those frequencies are so finneky in the first place (for example, and while not exactly the same given the power levels, consider that Starlink can’t even see through foliage occlusion at that frequency) there’s very little value in deploying that kind of service in areas that aren’t super dense. So to circle back, it’s not just ‘the city’ or even densely populated areas—its areas where infrastructure can’t support the capacity.

Tangent, less than hyper-dense areas will see buildout of C-band, much of which of course was recently converted from space to terrestrial and auctioned off to (mostly) big entities. Those frequencies will likely be used for home service rather than mobile in most cases, giving users another alternative to traditional copper, as well as plugging holes like suburban edges, ‘dense rural’, and ‘urban desert’ environments. In other words, a direct Starlink competitor.

Anyway, it makes total sense for Charlie to cannabalize his dish satellite tv service as that market is at best stagnant thanks to streaming and cord cutting. And of course as starlink and other rural data services become more ubiquitous they will continue to erode demand for something like satellite TV. So…converting the frequency asset to a much more lucrative business case is clearly a great idea from Dish’s perspective.

Related, here’s a good facts-forward article from Ars that doesn’t have Berger’s overt SX bias in it.

 

[mongo]

It’s also worth noting that Starlink has down to 10.7 in this particular band, whereas Dish (and others) wish to convert only 12.2-12.7 over to terrestrial.
NFW does losing Starlink 25% of their lowest frequency band in only isolated high density areas get anywhere close to affecting 3/4 of their service, so it’s clear there’s more to this story.

Starlink does not use the lowest channel due to regulations protecting radio astronomy. So Dish would be blocking 2/7 of the active channels.

 

[bxr140]

Starlink does not use the lowest channel due to regulations protecting radio astronomy. So Dish would be blocking 2/7 of the active channels.

Sure...and its probably also fair to figure Starlink might want a bigger guard band if the terrestrial power levels are permitted to far exceed that of the space PFDs (I honestly don't know, but would be surprised if there's a huge difference)...so we can conservatively limit Starlink's useable bandwidth even more as a result of this hypothetical.

Still, we're back at the unanswered question: How does losing ~half [vs the previously suggested 25%] of Starlnk's lowest downlink frequency band, only in what will inevitably be isolated, very high density regions explicitly not suited to Starlink, manifest as material impact to their service?

 

[mongo]

Sure...and its probably also fair to figure Starlink might want a bigger guard band if the terrestrial power levels are permitted to far exceed that of the space PFDs (I honestly don't know, but would be surprised if there's a huge difference)...so we can conservatively limit Starlink's useable bandwidth even more as a result of this hypothetical.

Still, we're back at the unanswered question: How does losing ~half [vs the previously suggested 25%] of Starlnk's lowest downlink frequency band, only in what will inevitably be isolated, very high density regions explicitly not suited to Starlink, manifest as material impact to their service?

Half is being generous .
The point of SpaceX's rebuttal was that those two channels (12.2-12.45, 12.45-12.7) would be greatly impacted by Dish. It was a response to Dish's submittal claiming minimal interference (partly due to averaging the interference across the full 10.7-12.7 range) if Dish were allowed to use that spectrum.
Basically, they are calling out Dish's presentation to give FCC data for consideration. The other channels are not in play as regards this decision.

https://api.starlink.com/public-files/12GHzInterferenceStudy_062022.pdf

 

[bxr140]

The point of SpaceX's rebuttal was that those two channels (12.2-12.45, 12.45-12.7) would be greatly impacted by Dish.

Yeah--and for sure nothing SpaceX has submitted actually goes beyond that. On the flip side, only a fool would contest that ElonCo's is unaware of their a) lock on and b) ability to steer The Court Of Public Opinion, as evidence by the fact that a significant amount of people have been convinced that Dish@12 is going to effectively nuke Starlink service, as a direct result of what SpaceX has written in their official responses. We saw that misinformation-based perspective upthread with a letter to a congressperson; we're seeing it explode now with similar love letters to the FCC.

For folks looking to actually get the other side of the story, there's some useful information buried in this website. It goes without saying that the website content itself is just overtly biased fluff (so don't spend too much time there) but digging into the filings and studies will prove enlightening for someone really trying to understand both sides. Its worth noting that a number of the external entities supporting those official docs are well known and trusted--they won't just patsy their name on something in exchange for $$$.