5 ms·

Not exactly sure about the RF details here (probably very few people are), but, as a theoretical exercise, should we really allow the first mover to just grab w

by tpmx 6y ago

Not exactly sure about the RF details here (probably very few people are), but, as a theoretical exercise, should we really allow the first mover to just grab what's available? Why?

dzhiurgis 6y ago
Why would we want to have 3-5 competitors for same thing tho? That would just make 10x more expensive for everyone. Same with cellular networks. There's some theoretical sharing, but in practice we're covering same area 3x times at 3x slower total bandwidth... Some governments are starting to realise this is huge ripoff and start their own networks with MVNO's, similar how copper/fibre telco's and power companies are have been sorted for decades. Unsure why space should be different. Sat tech is reasonably simple, it's just launch cost where competition is at. Same way the only competitior between cell network operators is tower installation (third party) and support (abhorrent).
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- tpmx 6y ago
  Yes, let's all revert to a planned economy with a single government-owned provider. That always worked out so well in the past.
  - dzhiurgis 6y ago
    Fair distribution of limited resources works perfectly in countries with best quality of life. Land, space and radio spectrum is a limited resource. Starlink wouldn't even exist if USA would regulated telco's same as power companies.
nickik 6y ago
Nobody is preventing anything. Starlink went threw all the process to get regulated and now wants to slightly lower in the range they can operate in. It does not inherently prevent anybody else from operating. In every orbit their are many different sats and sat providers operating. Amazon claims are entirely based on their inability to run their theoretical system when SpaceX is there. If their system is that fragile, then maybe they shouldn't be allowed to launch it in the first place. SpaceX could have equally claimed the planned Amazon system was interfering with them, but they didn't.
wmf 6y ago
When new satellite services emerged previously, the FCC had a policy of requiring two competitors (DirecTV vs. Dish and XM vs. Sirius). It would be nice to continue that with Starlink vs. Kuiper but as a layman the wranglings are too obscure for me to follow. Both companies are accusing each other of the exact same things and apparently nobody in the press is qualified to have an opinion so they just teach the controversy.
maxharris 6y ago
> grab what's available This isn't a fair characterization. In order to have knowledge of something, you need more than theory: you need to validate your idea with observed experience. The first person to actually achieve something, demonstrated by an existence proof, can in most cases be said to have gone through both steps. The second part of this is that individual rights guarantees that innovators are free to achieve ("the sky's the limit" is out of date"). Innovators do this for their own benefit, as they should. As a side effect, the rest of us also benefit enormously! There are a lot of people in rural areas stuck with incredibly poor internet service, via HughesNet or DSL, and Starlink is a massive boon to us. It's amazing to pull 150 Mbps on the side of a mountain or on the open ocean... Why is it just that Bezos take a backseat here? Without the pioneering achievements from SpaceX, Bezos wouldn't have the certainty that such a network is even possible. Over the past two decades, many, many ventures have gone bankrupt trying to achieve what SpaceX has done. SpaceX has earned its success, and Bezos shouldn't be allowed to run to the government to kneecap his competitor.
- tpmx 6y ago
  > Why is it just that Bezos take a backseat here? Without the pioneering achievements from SpaceX, Bezos wouldn't have the certainty that such a network is even possible. Over the past two decades, many, many ventures have gone bankrupt trying to achieve what SpaceX has done. That's all irrelevant to the consumer, 20 years down the line. What I see: Two tycoons battling it out. It doesn't really matter that one of them is a (very clear) follower in this field; competition is crucial in the long term. > SpaceX has earned its success That's not how this works. The frequency spectrum is a common good. The FCC exists for a reason.
yokem55 6y ago
Because everyone else who has tried has gone bankrupt or has to limit the service in utterly crappy ways? Starlink is only economically and technically viable because SpaceX can build and launch high numbers of satellites cheaply enough to bootstrap a sustainable and desirable product. Limiting the scalability of Starlink to make room for a competitor would in the long run make both suck. Now, sclerotic and poor performing monopolies also suck, but for now at least, Starlink is the rapidly improving disruptor.
- FireBeyond 6y ago
  So what, we allow Starlink to artificially hobble any potential competitors now? That sounds good for us.
  - nickik 6y ago
    That's not that they are doing. That is what Amazon claims they are doing with no prove. SpaceX is slightly changing it system (non of its hardware). Amazon reserving an a huge orbit and without real data claiming anybody else that want to operate there is only trying to prevent their system. That is unreasonable. Amazon is trying to artificial hobble Starlink, not the other way around. If Amazon really designed it system in a way where Starlink hinders it, then why would Amazon be allowed to operate such a system? Such a system would mean nobody else can operate in such an orbit. Based on similar claims SpaceX could have attempted to prevent Amazon system but they didn't because they knew it wouldn't, and did want to make false claims about it.
    - FireBeyond 6y ago
      > Amazon reserving an a huge orbit and without real data claiming anybody else that want to operate there is only trying to prevent their system. That is unreasonable. Spacelink reserved a similar huge orbit and said they didn't want the orbit that Amazon wants. Now they changed their mind. > SpaceX is slightly changing it system (non of its hardware). Sorry. Not changed their mind, changed their system. Precisely into the system they said they didn't want and Amazon subsequently chose.

by tpmx 6y ago

Not exactly sure about the RF details here (probably very few people are), but, as a theoretical exercise, should we really allow the first mover to just grab what's available? Why?

dzhiurgis 6y ago

Why would we want to have 3-5 competitors for same thing tho? That would just make 10x more expensive for everyone. Same with cellular networks. There's some theoretical sharing, but in practice we're covering same area 3x times at 3x slower total bandwidth... Some governments are starting to realise this is huge ripoff and start their own networks with MVNO's, similar how copper/fibre telco's and power companies are have been sorted for decades. Unsure why space should be different. Sat tech is reasonably simple, it's just launch cost where competition is at. Same way the only competitior between cell network operators is tower installation (third party) and support (abhorrent).

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
tpmx 6y ago
Yes, let's all revert to a planned economy with a single government-owned provider. That always worked out so well in the past.
- dzhiurgis 6y ago
  Fair distribution of limited resources works perfectly in countries with best quality of life. Land, space and radio spectrum is a limited resource. Starlink wouldn't even exist if USA would regulated telco's same as power companies.

nickik 6y ago

Nobody is preventing anything. Starlink went threw all the process to get regulated and now wants to slightly lower in the range they can operate in. It does not inherently prevent anybody else from operating. In every orbit their are many different sats and sat providers operating. Amazon claims are entirely based on their inability to run their theoretical system when SpaceX is there. If their system is that fragile, then maybe they shouldn't be allowed to launch it in the first place. SpaceX could have equally claimed the planned Amazon system was interfering with them, but they didn't.

wmf 6y ago

When new satellite services emerged previously, the FCC had a policy of requiring two competitors (DirecTV vs. Dish and XM vs. Sirius). It would be nice to continue that with Starlink vs. Kuiper but as a layman the wranglings are too obscure for me to follow. Both companies are accusing each other of the exact same things and apparently nobody in the press is qualified to have an opinion so they just teach the controversy.

maxharris 6y ago

> grab what's available This isn't a fair characterization. In order to have knowledge of something, you need more than theory: you need to validate your idea with observed experience. The first person to actually achieve something, demonstrated by an existence proof, can in most cases be said to have gone through both steps. The second part of this is that individual rights guarantees that innovators are free to achieve ("the sky's the limit" is out of date"). Innovators do this for their own benefit, as they should. As a side effect, the rest of us also benefit enormously! There are a lot of people in rural areas stuck with incredibly poor internet service, via HughesNet or DSL, and Starlink is a massive boon to us. It's amazing to pull 150 Mbps on the side of a mountain or on the open ocean... Why is it just that Bezos take a backseat here? Without the pioneering achievements from SpaceX, Bezos wouldn't have the certainty that such a network is even possible. Over the past two decades, many, many ventures have gone bankrupt trying to achieve what SpaceX has done. SpaceX has earned its success, and Bezos shouldn't be allowed to run to the government to kneecap his competitor.

tpmx 6y ago
> Why is it just that Bezos take a backseat here? Without the pioneering achievements from SpaceX, Bezos wouldn't have the certainty that such a network is even possible. Over the past two decades, many, many ventures have gone bankrupt trying to achieve what SpaceX has done. That's all irrelevant to the consumer, 20 years down the line. What I see: Two tycoons battling it out. It doesn't really matter that one of them is a (very clear) follower in this field; competition is crucial in the long term. > SpaceX has earned its success That's not how this works. The frequency spectrum is a common good. The FCC exists for a reason.

yokem55 6y ago

Because everyone else who has tried has gone bankrupt or has to limit the service in utterly crappy ways? Starlink is only economically and technically viable because SpaceX can build and launch high numbers of satellites cheaply enough to bootstrap a sustainable and desirable product. Limiting the scalability of Starlink to make room for a competitor would in the long run make both suck. Now, sclerotic and poor performing monopolies also suck, but for now at least, Starlink is the rapidly improving disruptor.

FireBeyond 6y ago
So what, we allow Starlink to artificially hobble any potential competitors now? That sounds good for us.
- nickik 6y ago
  That's not that they are doing. That is what Amazon claims they are doing with no prove. SpaceX is slightly changing it system (non of its hardware). Amazon reserving an a huge orbit and without real data claiming anybody else that want to operate there is only trying to prevent their system. That is unreasonable. Amazon is trying to artificial hobble Starlink, not the other way around. If Amazon really designed it system in a way where Starlink hinders it, then why would Amazon be allowed to operate such a system? Such a system would mean nobody else can operate in such an orbit. Based on similar claims SpaceX could have attempted to prevent Amazon system but they didn't because they knew it wouldn't, and did want to make false claims about it.
  - FireBeyond 6y ago
    > Amazon reserving an a huge orbit and without real data claiming anybody else that want to operate there is only trying to prevent their system. That is unreasonable. Spacelink reserved a similar huge orbit and said they didn't want the orbit that Amazon wants. Now they changed their mind. > SpaceX is slightly changing it system (non of its hardware). Sorry. Not changed their mind, changed their system. Precisely into the system they said they didn't want and Amazon subsequently chose.