FCC Authorizes SpaceX To Provide Starlink Internet Service To Vehicles In Motion

The Federal Communications Commission authorized SpaceX to provide Starlink satellite internet to vehicles in motion, a key step for Elon Musk's company to further expand the service. CNBC reports: "Authorizing a new class of [customer] terminals for SpaceX's satellite system will expand the range of broadband capabilities to meet the growing user demands that now require connectivity while on the move, whether driving an RV across the country, moving a freighter from Europe to a U.S. port, or while on a domestic or international flight," FCC international bureau chief Tom Sullivan wrote in the authorization posted Thursday.

The FCC's authorization also includes connecting to ships and vehicles like semitrucks and RVs, with SpaceX having last year requested to expand from servicing stationary customers. SpaceX had already deployed a version of its service called "Starlink for RVs," with an additional "portability" fee. But portability is not the same as mobility, which the FCC's decision now allows. The FCC imposed conditions on in-motion Starlink service. SpaceX is required to "accept any interference received from both current and future services authorized," and further investment in Starlink will "assume the risk that operations may be subject to additional conditions or requirements" from the FCC. The report notes that the ruling "did not resolve a broader SpaceX regulatory dispute with Dish Network and RS Access, an entity backed by billionaire Michael Dell, over the use of 12-gigahertz band -- a range of frequency used for broadband communications." SpaceX is pushing for the regulator to make a ruling, saying the mobile service "would cause harmful interference to SpaceX's Starlink terminals in the 12.2-12.7 GHz band more than 77% of the time."

Something something government overreach.

[Tha_Zanthrax]

What is the reasoning behind requiring authorization specifically for offering Starlink for mobile installations?

Re:Something something government overreach.

[robbak]

With a fixed device, you know where it is and where it is pointing. You can trust its gimbals to get it pointing in the direction it should go, and to keep it there. If there is any interference, you can send someone out there, point a detector at it and make sure of it.

On a mobile device, it is going to be pointing in all sorts of directions, randomly. If there is interference, it will go away before you can investigate it, leaving you chasing all over the place trying to find the device that is causing problems. So they need to do a more thorough examination of the devices, and have more experience in how they work, before it is approved.

Demo Video

[storkus]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

Ham radio guy here: this is the best video I could come up with on short notice. The **VERY** IMPORTANT thing here is that a VSAT terminal like StarLink is also TRANSMITTING and therefore must be very damn sure it's not sending signal where it shouldn't go.

This also includes things like side-lobes which further gets into the whole sat vs terrestrial thing also referenced (because a terrestrial signal will ALWAYS overpower something from space, just like with GNSS).

Re:

[robbak]

I'm always impressed that satellite terminals can keep their dish pointed at a distant geostationary satellite mechanically, while the surface they are fixed to goes through those sort of gyrations. Somewhat more impressive than starlink's phased array steering to relatively nearby low earth orbit satellites.

Re:

[bjwest]

I think you have your signals crossed. Satellite antenna pointed at a geostationary satellite don't need to adjust for movement, because the satellite is not moving much at all. Starlink's focusing method to keep signal with multiple moving satellites is quite impressive.

Re:

[John.Banister]

I think he's talking about the ones on boats that have to compensate for the motion of the boat in order to keep pointing at the fixed spot in the sky. Do a search for: marine three axis vsat antenna, and you'll see what he means. That said, the way Starlink terminals compensate for motion without moving parts is an impressive piece of engineering.

Re:

[bjwest]

That makes more sense now that I reread it. I misread the part where he was talking about the antenna surface gyrating, thinking about the satellite slightly gyrating in its orbit. I still believe shipboard satellite systems are easier to keep on track than what Starlink does, however.

Re:

[Ambvai]

There are already Starlink installations in operation at sea (officially in testing), though a full size monster cruise ship is a slightly different beast than a small catamaran.

https://www.royalcaribbeanblog... [royalcaribbeanblog.com]

Re:Something something government overreach.

[AmiMoJo]

Starlink limits the available bandwidth to mobile stations, partly to try to reduce interference and partly because they don't want roaming stations to over-subscribe an area with a lot of stationary ones.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Government overreach? You know that the Communications Act entitles the FCC to regulate these exact sort of things.

Now go sit down, child.

People waiting years for Starlink

[bsdetector101]

Not sure why open ups to mobile connections, but people waiting years for Starlink.

These days, people are waiting for capacity...

[robbak]

...in the area where they are. In many, highly populated areas, there are more people wanting to use it than there is satellite capacity to service them.

People taking mobile units into those areas are warned that their speeds will be low, because they will be a lower priority than those that have signed up in those areas.

This will improve as more satellites are launched, but it is always going to be an issue in metropolitan and more closely settled regional areas. But these areas generally have other option

Re:People waiting years for Starlink

[algaeman]

Because airlines will pay much higher subscriber fees that random folks in Alaska.

It begins

[nospam007]

And soon it will be extended to moving persons with phones.

And then the phone providers will get heart-attacks.

Re:It begins

[bjwest]

I don't see this happening soon, if at all. It takes quite a bit of power to reach a satellite in orbit, and it will be quite some time before we're there, battery wise, for cell phone use. Also, I'm not sure it's such a good idea to have that much power beaming omnidirectionally that close to your brain.

Re:

[nospam007]

". It takes quite a bit of power to reach a satellite in orbit, and it will be quite some time before we're there, battery wise, for cell phone use."

Nobody phones anymore.
For text messages and tweets it would be no problem.

Camping

[Dan East]

As I sit here in my camper reading slashdot off the crappy campsite Wi-Fi, I consider how nice it will be to take my own ISP with me wherever I go.

What the hell does that mean?

[RogueWarrior65]

SpaceX is required to "accept any interference received from both current and future services authorized"? What kind of interference are we talking about here? Spectrum conflicts? EMI? Or are we talking about allowing the government to bork people's access to it just like the Russians want to do to Ukraine?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[John.Banister]

I think the relevant paragraphs from the FCC document [fcc.gov] are paragraphs 22 through 24.

22. Potential Impact of Operations on 12 GHz Rulemaking and Other 12 GHz Use Issues. RS Access and DISH argue that granting the Kepler and SpaceX applications would effectively constrain the Commission’s decision-making in the ongoing 12 GHz rulemaking proceeding to decide whether to allow more intensive use of the 12 GHz band by terrestrial licenses without interference to established services.72 Petitioners contend th

Re:

[RogueWarrior65]

Perfect. Especially paragraph 24. Thanks.

Re:

[Kremmy]

Wording like that is in all sorts of consumer electronics documentation, certification basically requires you to say that cosmic rays will cause issues and there's nothing they can do about it. Just on a larger scale since they're putting up a giant network of transceivers in orbit that talk to stations on the ground.

Starlink for RVs -- and anyone else willing to pay

[zarmanto]

Of note: the "Starlink for RVs" service has a significantly lower bar of prerequisites, as compared to residential Starlink. More importantly, if you are currently on the waiting list for residential Starlink, you can also sign up for the RV service without losing your place on the waiting list, and just connect it right up to a router in your house. (Source: I know two people who live in the boonies where there are absolutely no residential wired internet and/or TV options, and they have both done exactly this; their newly delivered hardware appears to work pretty decently, all things considered.)

Re:

[bn-7bc]

Iirc all the current ( and probably furure ) srarlink satellites are pointed towards earth and are in leo/meo so unless that "space flight" is decidedly low orbit there will be no signals for the terminals to lock on to, Oh you where making a joke at rhe madras favourite objects of hat lately * thise terrible millennials "