3 ms·
It’s amazing to me that we allow a regulatory body the power to decide, before a system is even built, whether it qualifies as a “such-and-such performance” sys
by tobmlt 6y ago
It’s amazing to me that we allow a regulatory body the power to decide, before a system is even built, whether it qualifies as a “such-and-such performance” system. Why not just wait and see before potentially excluding LEO providers from certain spectrum auctions? Why? Hmmm... the idea of regulatory capture by incumbents provides one potential answer.
Then again what’s the risk? If the new folks meet the bar, you can always change the rules.
- trynumber9 6y agoThey are rejecting them from the low-latency category, which includes most of the funds, until LEO providers prove they are in fact low latency. If they manage to prove their network's merits then they will be eligible for future auctions. Seems fair to me. > If SpaceX and similar companies are rejected from the low-latency category, they will be at a disadvantage in a reverse auction that will distribute $16 billion—$1.6 billion yearly, over ten years—from the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF). The auction, scheduled to begin on October 29, will give ISPs funding to deploy broadband in census blocks where no provider offers home-Internet speeds of at least 25Mbps downstream and 3Mbps upstream. >The FCC will prioritize low-latency networks when awarding funding, so SpaceX and other LEO providers could come up short against terrestrial networks. Even DSL providers would have an advantage over LEO networks in funding battles if the satellite companies are placed in the FCC's high-latency category.