FCC Gets 90K+ Comments From Starlink Users Protesting Dish Mobile Service (arstechnica.com) 47
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The Federal Communications Commission has received more than 90,000 comments from Starlink users urging the agency to side with SpaceX in a spectrum battle against Dish Network. The comments were all submitted since last week when SpaceX asked Starlink customers to weigh in on an FCC proceeding that seeks public input on the "feasibility of allowing mobile services in the 12.2-12.7 GHz band while protecting incumbents from harmful interference." Dish wants to use the 12 GHz band for mobile service and says that sharing the spectrum wouldn't significantly degrade satellite broadband. SpaceX says the plan would cause "harmful interference [to Starlink users] more than 77 percent of the time and total outage of service 74 percent of the time, rendering Starlink unusable for most Americans." The satellite downlink band used by Starlink extends from 10.7 GHz to 12.7 GHz. SpaceX says it uses most of that but not the 10.7-10.95 GHz portion because it's adjacent to radio astronomy systems.
The Starlink email was sent to users on June 28. There were a little more than 200 comments in the 18-month-old proceeding's docket at that time, mostly from satellite or telecom companies and lobbyist or advocacy groups. Since then, the comments appear to come almost entirely from people submitting SpaceX's pre-written message, in some cases unaltered and in others with the commenter's opinions or personal experiences using Starlink added in. Many Starlink users told the FCC they live in rural parts of the US and have no other viable broadband options. It's possible a single person can file multiple comments under different names, but it's clear that the SpaceX plea resulted in an outpouring of support from people who use Starlink.
The pace of commenting hasn't slowed down in recent days. PCMag reported on Tuesday that the "SpaceX petition protesting Dish Network has resulted in 70,000 Starlink users bombarding the FCC with messages urging the US regulator to protect the satellite Internet system." There are now more than 95,700 comments in the docket. The official comment period on the 12 GHz question came and went last year, but the agency hasn't ruled on the proceeding yet. Starlink users can send comments to the FCC via this webpage set up by SpaceX.
The Starlink email was sent to users on June 28. There were a little more than 200 comments in the 18-month-old proceeding's docket at that time, mostly from satellite or telecom companies and lobbyist or advocacy groups. Since then, the comments appear to come almost entirely from people submitting SpaceX's pre-written message, in some cases unaltered and in others with the commenter's opinions or personal experiences using Starlink added in. Many Starlink users told the FCC they live in rural parts of the US and have no other viable broadband options. It's possible a single person can file multiple comments under different names, but it's clear that the SpaceX plea resulted in an outpouring of support from people who use Starlink.
The pace of commenting hasn't slowed down in recent days. PCMag reported on Tuesday that the "SpaceX petition protesting Dish Network has resulted in 70,000 Starlink users bombarding the FCC with messages urging the US regulator to protect the satellite Internet system." There are now more than 95,700 comments in the docket. The official comment period on the 12 GHz question came and went last year, but the agency hasn't ruled on the proceeding yet. Starlink users can send comments to the FCC via this webpage set up by SpaceX.
How oddly responsible of them (Score:1)
The satellite downlink band used by Starlink extends from 10.7 GHz to 12.7 GHz. SpaceX says it uses most of that but not the 10.7-10.95 GHz portion because it's adjacent to radio astronomy systems.
They shouldn't have been allocated that in the first place.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:How oddly responsible of them (Score:4, Informative)
Well you apparently can't even read your own "evidence".
Here's the big clue-by-four:
"We also note that radio astronomy as a service frequently makes use of observations (passive) in bands not allocated to the radio astronomy service. This practice is a result of scientifically valuable signals being subject to the Doppler Effect and shifted in frequency outside radio astronomy-allocated bands".
That's on the astronomy peoples shoulders. If they know the bands are going to be shifted, that should have been taken into account and they should be broadcasting on a band in space that will shift the signals to their own bands.
So yeah, For once Musk / Tesla / Starlink ARE being the good guys. By the ruling you linked they actually don't have to bother leaving that chunk of spectrum alone, but are anyways. The ruling also heavily implies that Starlink can use those bands in areas that aren't near any of the astronomy sites as well, but they just leave it completely clear, likely because it's cheaper and easier to just carve out a chunk to not use, than decide when / where they can use it and keep switching.
Re: (Score:2)
We also note that radio astronomy as a service frequently makes use of observations (passive) in bands not allocated to the radio astronomy service. This practice is a result of scientifically valuable signals being subject to the Doppler Effect and shifted in frequency outside radio astronomy-allocated bands. Although not a condition to this authorization, SpaceX should be aware of these facts and contact the National Science Foundation Spectrum Management Unit (esm@nsf.gov) to assist with coordination and information on radio astronomy sites.
Observations and passive are the key words here. The "astronomy people" are not broadcasting anything. They are just trying to observe natural radio signals from space.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I'm sure that the radio astronomy people will get right on fixing their "transmitters" any day now. /s in case it wasn't obvious.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Historic allocations are a poor way to manage spectrum now though. Requirements and usages change over time.
There is no reason why they can's share it. Starlink isn't suitable for use in densely populated areas like cities and large towns. Can't have too many subscribers in one area. Why deny them 5G broadband?
Sounds like Starlink wants to be the broadband monopoly it was supposed to break up.
Why compete when there's sabotage? (Score:3)
The legacy sat providers are completely up a creek due to starlink; there is absolutely no way they can compete on a technical level. of course they'd resort to underhanded tactics in order to survive
think of a buggy maker lobbying the government to block petroleum refining.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, traditional satcom still has a place, it's just not on the end user. There are a lot of things where a low power, low data rate solution makes a heck of a lot of sense (think credit card clearing, positive train control, and so forth). That's actually the bread and butter for companies like Hughes and Dish, the end-user internet is just gravy to them.
So to put in perspective, I spec'd a system to provide 10,000 terminals to CSX for monitoring remote rail sites/switches/sections/etc... all said, the cos
Re: (Score:1)
It surely takes MORE energy to communicate with a geostationary satellite than it is one in low earth orbit, especially if those geostationary sats are using 20+ year old technology.
Re: Why compete when there's sabotage? (Score:2)
Itâ(TM)s been 10 years, but I think we fit the whole terminal in around 25W. Due to the data rates we were doing, only needed a 2w transmitter (about 12W electrical) then the receiver and modem made up the other 13W. The antenna was a cheap stamped 1.2m antenna. The hub station did have a 9m antenna, but the link budgets all checked out.
StarLink, on the other hand, is about 60-100w.
Re: (Score:2)
I appreciate your perspective and real-world experience. I haven't worked with CSX, but I know a bit of what they've been doing. Still, 10k terminals at $10/mo is only $100k per month, and $1.2 M a year. Not a big business. Not enough to float a satellite constellation.
Re: (Score:2)
We would only have been buying half a transponder of bandwidth in the project I was working on. Figure 32 transponders per bird. Add to this broadcast distribution, and all the other networks of this style, and it can still pencil out.
Re: (Score:2)
I spent two years on Viasuck, then 2 1/2 years on cellular internet, and now Starlink. If I ran a business, one of the LAST services I'd trust to confirm credit cards is traditional satellite internet like Viasuck. Approximately 1/2 second latency for any transaction and if there's a serious storm, there's no service. I wouldn't count on it for anything that I need to go through within the next hour. And, having dealt with their CSRs on the phone, and seeing what kind of people they depend on to do installs
Re: (Score:2)
Is Dish competing with Starlink? My understanding is that they offer TV programming via satellite, but this particular issue is because they want to offer 5G cellular connectivity from terrestrial stations.
I suppose their TV business is under threat from streaming, which Starlink enables. How about 5G though, are they serving the areas where Starlink is viable?
Re: (Score:2)
Dish spent $1.4M buying the Boost Mobile MVNO that exclusively resold access to Sprint's network. They told the FCC that they had a plan to build out their own network, but its become clear that was either not true, or the task of building an entire wireless network within 2 years was too hard.
https://www.fiercewireless.com... [fiercewireless.com]
I predict... (Score:1)
... that approximately zero of those 90k+ commenters are technically qualified to have an opinion about what will interfere with what.
Neither am I, and I do not know who's right or where in the intermediate no man's land the actual truth may lie.
But that's why I don't submit comments to serious regulatory processes just because Elon tells me to.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
SLASHDOT comments are irrelevant.
So why are you reading them?
Re:I predict... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Our comments weren't fake.
We are rural starlink users and there is literally NO other viable option for us.
We've tried Dish, HughesNet, Verizon tethering, and years ago, dialup over copper landline.
None of it has the bandwidth or reliability to watch a youtube video or participate in a teams meeting. Don't even think about streaming services.
Re: (Score:2)
There is always a choice, it could be to move. In my fathers place there was only well water which we built. No cell reception into the 2000s. No hope of internet. We are not entitled to everything. We make choic
Re: (Score:2)
We are not entitled to everything. We make choices.
In this case Dish wants the way the spectrum is used to be changed to something that will benefit only them, and you're choosing to cheerlead for that.
so what? (Score:2)
https://fortune.com/2018/12/05... [fortune.com]
Re: (Score:2)
> admitted all fake comments that were anti -NN so the FCC could revoke it?
?PARSE?
Re: so what? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Boohoo Starlink (Score:2)
We'll shit all over ground-based observatories, but don't you care cause *us* any interference.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet they're providing internet to many who couldn't get it or get a reliable connection through other sources. There are things I can do with a business I've wanted to start for several years that I couldn't do until Starlink came out of beta and I could get it. Considering that employment and income goes up in areas when good internet becomes available and that they're helping groups as well as individuals be a part of something many people have taken for granted for over 20 years now, ignoring their i
The allocation is fine as is ... (Score:3, Insightful)
That bandwidth was not sold as mobile, Dish wants to have the bandwidth changed. If it was for mobile when auctioned off, then them other mobile companies would maybe have bid on it. Perhaps Dish would not have owned it then,
As always though, lawyers have a job, and I can see donations to congress critters on this issue happening too.
Re: (Score:2)
https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
It was sold for stationary ground stations. Starlink is using it for mobile stations on vehicles and on boats. They managed to get retroactive permission for vehicular use, but it wasn't there originally.
5G base stations can be used with stationary terminals for broadband. If Dish only wants to sell the service for use with routers at a fixed address then it would not be considered a mobile service. If they do want mobile, they can ask for it just like Starlink did.
Wait, what? (Score:2)
Here's the thing, it may or may not cause harmful interference. If it does, though, in the worst case, SpaceX could just not use the upper part of the band. Their reliability shouldn't be impacted at all, much less cause a 74+% failure rate, unless SpaceX did absolutely nothing at all to compensate for the interference.... [rolls eyes]
This probably shouldn't be allowed, and definitely shouldn't be allowed unless they can demonstrate that their activity will not cause harmful interference. That much is
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That would be a really cogent, albeit petty and spiteful, response if this spectrum were actually allocated to Starlink. It is not. It is allocated to ALL direct-broadcast satellites, including Dish.
What part of my response conflicts with that? AFAIK, it is SpaceX that is objecting, not other Ku-band satellite companies, because SpaceX is pretty much the only company that is trying to use the band for something that could be severely impacted. Other Ku-band satellites are in geostationary orbits and use directional dishes, so I would expect DBS to have good rejection of terrestrial signals unless you're unlucky enough to live at a location with a cell tower along the line of sight between you and the
Antenna (Score:2)
Does the DIsh mobile service come with a free 2 meter parabolic "Dish" antenna or do their customers have to buy their own?
90,000? (Score:2)
Starlink has only 400,000 users worldwide, so how likely is it that almost 1/4 of them have chosen by their own accord to post a comment to the FCC (which is a US-only agency)? Especially considering that it's getting mixed reviews in various corners of the Internet, like r/Starlink.
Is the FCC hearing from fans of Starlink or Fans of Elon (FoE)?
Re: (Score:2)
At the moment, all of Ohio, Virginia, Tennessee, Michigan, Illinois, most of Pennsylvania, all of Missouri, most of North Carolina are all showing a "waitlist" status on starlink.com. As of a few weeks ago, it was saying "sometime in 2023" but now they've taken any timeframe off of their website. Those states are mostly rural, so it's not a density issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps rural states would be where density is a problem? Because people in densely populated areas don't use Starlink: it's in rural areas that folks need Starlink, because they can't get anything else. And right now the "mixed reviews" you were talking about almost all about speeds dropping as they add more folks in the general area, caused by the fact that they don't have many satellites up yet. I'm just spitballing here, but it seems like maybe rural areas are getting over-saturated by users, because t