7 ms·

“Viasat is worried that its slower Internet service delivered from geostationary satellites will lose customers once Starlink is out of beta and more widely ava

“Viasat is worried that its slower Internet service delivered from geostationary satellites will lose customers once Starlink is out of beta and more widely available.” I am not a lawyer, but if I’m reading this correctly, the only claim here is that the FCC and SpaceX did not follow proper procedure, but the catalyst is fear of competition. My opinion is that if a company needs government help to thwart competition, then competition is absolutely needed. Edit: Formatting is having some issues it seems.

phendrenad2 5y ago
Doesn't that sound more like "fear of UNFAIR competition"?
- wumpus 5y ago
  Is it a surprise that existing vendors claim that a newcomer with superior technology is competing unfairly?
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    If they're actually not following required governmental procedures*, then it seems like they may well be competing unfairly. * - This is something that it seems the courts are well positioned to rule upon and about which I have no opinion.
  - freeopinion 5y ago
    I think a Mexican restaurant that has to comply with a raft full of regulations about grill temperature, cooler temperature, counter time, disinfectants, labor practices, business licensing and taxes, etc. can rightfully complain about a taco truck that shows up with no license, no inspections, no license plate, and underage employees serving beer. Of course, sometimes the incumbents spend many years constructing regulation after regulation to build a moat. Then somebody comes along with the funding to defy all those regulations. And the incumbent complains that the newcomer is ruining the moat. Sometimes it takes a good deal of wisdom and discernment to decide which rules are moats and which are legit. Then it takes character to tear down what should be torn down and defend what should be defended.
jws 5y ago
Not a lawyer, but… generally in the US you need “standing” to file a suit. That is, you have to show that somehow you have a material interest in the issue to be decided. I couldn’t force a suit saying the FCC was required to do an environmental study, and they didn’t study the light reflected from SpaceX satellites so the approval for the satellites is invalid. I just don’t have any standing there. The US legal system being what it is “It is hurting my business, I am losing dollars.” is pretty good at providing “standing”.
- xyzzyz 5y ago
  That’s the theory. In practice, if judges want you to succeed, they’ll accept that you have standing even on very flimsy argument.
  - nradov 5y ago
    Sure sometimes trial court judges make politically influenced rulings but those are usually eventually overturned on appeal.
    - skinnymuch 5y ago
      For cases like this where the defendant is powerful, right? Since otherwise if the defendant is a random small org or person, they wouldn’t have the means to fight the case much in the first place. Or no?
    - edoceo 5y ago
      Where eventually and on appeal means $$$$$$
- qqtt 5y ago
  Exactly right. Put another way, Viasat is saying "I will lose money because my service is worse, and I will be in a disadvantaged position because we followed the rules and the FCC allowed SpaceX not to. If there was no material impact to Viasat's business, they wouldn't even be able to file the lawsuit. The courts will decide if SpaceX/FCC acted unfairly towards Viasat by allowing SpaceX to operate under a different set of rules - again, causing Viasat's product to be worse and having a material impact to Viasat's business.
vmception 5y ago
Maybe Viasat’s shareholders are gangsters and the executives need to show that they tried
- nradov 5y ago
  VSAT is primarily owned by large hedge funds and mutual funds, just like most other publicly traded companies. https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/VSAT/holders?p=VSAT https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/VSAT/holders?p=VSAT
  - blooalien 5y ago
    So, yep. "Gangsters" confirmed.
kumarvvr 5y ago
Looks like they are arguing - hwe followed every procedure leading to a poorer quality service, but they are breaking rules and will out compete us. However, I wonder how the intersection of regulatory frameworks with rapid tech progress intersect here. I know that until Elon came around, satellite internet was a costly special use affair. So, perhaps the rules ought to be changed but govt moves slower than pvt companies, so they missed the chance. Also, large scale satellite deployments for broadband internet on a global scale is extremely fresh territory.
- shaklee3 5y ago
  Elon changed nothing about price. He's selling a heavily subsidized terminal that will eventually need to be recouped.
fossuser 5y ago
I hope starlink bankrupts these companies. It really bothers me when companies that have failed to adapt throw their weight around by trying to leverage legislation to kill competition. Cable telecoms, car dealerships, turbo tax, etc.
- l33t2328 5y ago
  > companies that have failed to adapt Because they followed the rules while Elon’s companies ignore them? Because that’s what this lawsuit is about.
  - VortexDream 5y ago
    They didn't ignore the rules. The FCC reviewed Starlink's plans and agreed to modifications of the rules based on the assessment that Starlink met the requirements in a way that didn't require an in-depth environmental review.
  - fossuser 5y ago
    That’s not what this lawsuit is about. Frankly that’s a bullshit excuse viasat is making and thankfully the court system knows that and the judge is throwing it out. With 5+ years of notice of the changing landscape and seeing starlink/spacex progress the geosat companies did nothing. They’re not even really alleging it’s because they followed rules and spacex didn’t - they’re more complaining that the environmental review for spacex from the FCC wasn’t “enough” (which the FCC disagrees with). It’s not like viasat tried to do LEO and was blocked because of rules. It’s basically the satellite company equivalent of NIMBY building suits about shadows on a park. The true motives are elsewhere. This is just a company that sees the writing on the wall using their legal team to try to find ways to stop their competitor rather than actually competing on the merits of their product. The faster they go bankrupt, the better it’ll be for actual players in the space building real tech.
decebalus1 5y ago
> My opinion is that if a company needs government help to thwart competition, then competition is absolutely needed. This is not as simple as that. The current waiver on environmental studies for satellite launches was put in place in an era (the 80s) where individual satellites were not considered a threat. Now we're launching 'constellations'. It does really smell like some Oracle-level lawsuit driven anti-competitive behavior from viasat. However, as always, the truth is somewhere down the middle.

phendrenad2 5y ago

Doesn't that sound more like "fear of UNFAIR competition"?

wumpus 5y ago
Is it a surprise that existing vendors claim that a newcomer with superior technology is competing unfairly?
- sokoloff 5y ago
  If they're actually not following required governmental procedures*, then it seems like they may well be competing unfairly. * - This is something that it seems the courts are well positioned to rule upon and about which I have no opinion.
- freeopinion 5y ago
  I think a Mexican restaurant that has to comply with a raft full of regulations about grill temperature, cooler temperature, counter time, disinfectants, labor practices, business licensing and taxes, etc. can rightfully complain about a taco truck that shows up with no license, no inspections, no license plate, and underage employees serving beer. Of course, sometimes the incumbents spend many years constructing regulation after regulation to build a moat. Then somebody comes along with the funding to defy all those regulations. And the incumbent complains that the newcomer is ruining the moat. Sometimes it takes a good deal of wisdom and discernment to decide which rules are moats and which are legit. Then it takes character to tear down what should be torn down and defend what should be defended.

jws 5y ago

Not a lawyer, but… generally in the US you need “standing” to file a suit. That is, you have to show that somehow you have a material interest in the issue to be decided. I couldn’t force a suit saying the FCC was required to do an environmental study, and they didn’t study the light reflected from SpaceX satellites so the approval for the satellites is invalid. I just don’t have any standing there. The US legal system being what it is “It is hurting my business, I am losing dollars.” is pretty good at providing “standing”.

xyzzyz 5y ago
That’s the theory. In practice, if judges want you to succeed, they’ll accept that you have standing even on very flimsy argument.
- nradov 5y ago
  Sure sometimes trial court judges make politically influenced rulings but those are usually eventually overturned on appeal.
  - skinnymuch 5y ago
    For cases like this where the defendant is powerful, right? Since otherwise if the defendant is a random small org or person, they wouldn’t have the means to fight the case much in the first place. Or no?
  - edoceo 5y ago
    Where eventually and on appeal means $$$$$$
qqtt 5y ago
Exactly right. Put another way, Viasat is saying "I will lose money because my service is worse, and I will be in a disadvantaged position because we followed the rules and the FCC allowed SpaceX not to. If there was no material impact to Viasat's business, they wouldn't even be able to file the lawsuit. The courts will decide if SpaceX/FCC acted unfairly towards Viasat by allowing SpaceX to operate under a different set of rules - again, causing Viasat's product to be worse and having a material impact to Viasat's business.

vmception 5y ago

Maybe Viasat’s shareholders are gangsters and the executives need to show that they tried

nradov 5y ago
VSAT is primarily owned by large hedge funds and mutual funds, just like most other publicly traded companies. https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/VSAT/holders?p=VSAT https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/VSAT/holders?p=VSAT
- blooalien 5y ago
  So, yep. "Gangsters" confirmed.

kumarvvr 5y ago

Looks like they are arguing - hwe followed every procedure leading to a poorer quality service, but they are breaking rules and will out compete us. However, I wonder how the intersection of regulatory frameworks with rapid tech progress intersect here. I know that until Elon came around, satellite internet was a costly special use affair. So, perhaps the rules ought to be changed but govt moves slower than pvt companies, so they missed the chance. Also, large scale satellite deployments for broadband internet on a global scale is extremely fresh territory.

shaklee3 5y ago
Elon changed nothing about price. He's selling a heavily subsidized terminal that will eventually need to be recouped.

fossuser 5y ago

I hope starlink bankrupts these companies. It really bothers me when companies that have failed to adapt throw their weight around by trying to leverage legislation to kill competition. Cable telecoms, car dealerships, turbo tax, etc.

l33t2328 5y ago
> companies that have failed to adapt Because they followed the rules while Elon’s companies ignore them? Because that’s what this lawsuit is about.
- VortexDream 5y ago
  They didn't ignore the rules. The FCC reviewed Starlink's plans and agreed to modifications of the rules based on the assessment that Starlink met the requirements in a way that didn't require an in-depth environmental review.
- fossuser 5y ago
  That’s not what this lawsuit is about. Frankly that’s a bullshit excuse viasat is making and thankfully the court system knows that and the judge is throwing it out. With 5+ years of notice of the changing landscape and seeing starlink/spacex progress the geosat companies did nothing. They’re not even really alleging it’s because they followed rules and spacex didn’t - they’re more complaining that the environmental review for spacex from the FCC wasn’t “enough” (which the FCC disagrees with). It’s not like viasat tried to do LEO and was blocked because of rules. It’s basically the satellite company equivalent of NIMBY building suits about shadows on a park. The true motives are elsewhere. This is just a company that sees the writing on the wall using their legal team to try to find ways to stop their competitor rather than actually competing on the merits of their product. The faster they go bankrupt, the better it’ll be for actual players in the space building real tech.

decebalus1 5y ago

> My opinion is that if a company needs government help to thwart competition, then competition is absolutely needed. This is not as simple as that. The current waiver on environmental studies for satellite launches was put in place in an era (the 80s) where individual satellites were not considered a threat. Now we're launching 'constellations'. It does really smell like some Oracle-level lawsuit driven anti-competitive behavior from viasat. However, as always, the truth is somewhere down the middle.