5 ms·

I was surprised to see this, because I thought a previous FCC regulatory decision limited Starlink terminals to being operational only when stationary. Some Go

I was surprised to see this, because I thought a previous FCC regulatory decision limited Starlink terminals to being operational only when stationary. Some Googling revealed that the FCC reversed this in June of 2022. https://www.theverge.com/2022/6/30/23190463/spacex-starlink-satellite-internet-fcc-in-motion-authorized https://www.theverge.com/2022/6/30/23190463/spacex-starlink-...

bpodgursky 4y ago
I think SpaceX simply had never previously asked the FCC to authorize it. Not really a reversal of any particular opinionated stance.
newZWhoDis 4y ago
- googlryas 4y ago
  It sounds like you're upset that you're not considered an accredited investor - but even if you were, it's not like SpaceX would just give you some shares if you gave them $10M.
  - newZWhoDis 4y ago
    - arcticbull 4y ago
      What makes you think Elon would take your money? Do you plan to email him? Why take a large number of small dollar checks from people who (as a group) don't know the first thing about private company investment when you can take a $100M check from one of a few funds and individuals who do? What specifically do you bring to the table that your $10K investment will make up for the administrative costs of having you on the cap table? The reality is that companies who can raise capital from top-tier investors will do that and not bother with what to them is chump-change - but the companies that can't raise capital from top-tier investors will definitely take your money and then proceed to lose it all. [edit] The system we have right now is a pretty reasonable balance IMO and the bar has been going lower and lower over time as the $1M/$200K/yr limits aren't indexed to inflation.
      - newZWhoDis 4y ago
        I have reply capabilities again. See my edit. It is documented fact that SpaceX takes private investment. It is also documented fact that the occupation regime has faux safety mechanisms designed to enrich their own at the expense of others.
    - bpodgursky 4y ago
      There are other (partly regulatory, partly logistical) reasons that companies don't like having extremely large cap sheets. At this scale if it's easy to raise $2B from 2-3 institutional investors you probably don't want to take money from 50,000 small investors.
      - newZWhoDis 4y ago
        arcticbull 4y ago
        We did actually try this, and it was a contributing factor to the Great Depression. Because (a) you don't know Elon (b) you provide no value to them (c) at this stage they're not taking $10K checks from private investors because it would cost more to keep it on the cap table than it would benefit them and ... Theres massive adverse selection bias. Good companies get significantly more value from raising a few small checks than they do from a ton of tiny ones from people without experience doing so or specific skills/connections. So the ones that can, will, and the bad companies that can't will come for the small time chumps. This played out in the early 1900s, and no, nothing's really changed. Besides if Elon really wanted your $10K they could have raised via Reg CF (JOBS act 2012). However, they're actively choosing not to. And I keep using $10K as the number because honestly if you're writing a $100K check you're probably an accredited investor.
        newZWhoDis 4y ago
        I can reply again The government that exists solely because I work and pay taxes has no ethical basis for telling me how I can invest my money. To suggest otherwise is to let the mask slip and admit they are not working in my (or your) interest. The part you’re missing is if elon rejected my $100k 3+ years ago then OK, fine. That would suck for me, but that’s his choice etc. I can bitch to him. Instead I have a maternal nanny state that employs exclusively 70IQ morons telling me what I can and can’t do with the money they don’t steal from me. There is no Jack Bauer running the show, it’s your kindergarten teacher with NSA powers. Explain to me, in detail, why I would continue to work for a system like that? Why would I not try to leave such a system as soon as I am able?
- nrdvana 4y ago
  From what I read, Musk doesn't want your money for SpaceX/Starlink precisely because he doesn't want the funds of the company to be chained to a public perception war that distracts him from running the company, like happened with Tesla during the doubtful years when half of the market was betting against him. Why take public funding when you can reap all the revenue directly?
  - newZWhoDis 4y ago
    Being “public” has issue yes. That doesn’t mean we need maternalistic governmental policy to “”protect”” people.
busymom0 4y ago
What was the reasoning for FCC's original decision? Why would they try to stop it?
- margalabargala 4y ago
  The original decision was this: SpaceX: "Hey FCC, can we get permitted for stationary satellite dishes?" FCC: "Yes." The new decision: SpaceX: "Hey FCC, can we also get permitted for moving dishes?" FCC: "Yes." The FCC didn't try to stop anything, they just weren't asked about moving dishes the first time.
  - godelski 4y ago
    I'm still curious about the legal situation here. Why is it banned by default? I mean other wireless communications are totally fine to use while in motion (HAM, cell service, wifi, CB, GPS, Satellite telephones, etc). Why does the FCC explicitly have to approve this kind of thing? I imagine it is more than bureaucracy?
    - lgats 4y ago
      I don’t think it’s banned by default, but the rules surrounding mobile and fixed differ slightly. Perhaps getting limited regulatory approval for a fixed network would face less regulatory hoops and thus be approved faster.
    - HWR_14 4y ago
      > Why is it banned by default? AFAIK all FCC rules on frequency allocation (which is what SpaceX needed) are usually geo-locked. It's a lot easier to commit to fixed transmitters early on with the idea that any specific problems can be dealt with than getting permission to move them around at will. Also, during this time the FCC has been redoing the rules on the bands they use to try to allow companies this kind of use. So in 2021 they asked for ideas, and SpaceX suggested mobile uplinks as a permissible use. Then, hearings and feedback from a lot of companies occurred.
    - margalabargala 4y ago

bpodgursky 4y ago

I think SpaceX simply had never previously asked the FCC to authorize it. Not really a reversal of any particular opinionated stance.

newZWhoDis 4y ago

googlryas 4y ago
It sounds like you're upset that you're not considered an accredited investor - but even if you were, it's not like SpaceX would just give you some shares if you gave them $10M.
- newZWhoDis 4y ago
  - arcticbull 4y ago
    What makes you think Elon would take your money? Do you plan to email him? Why take a large number of small dollar checks from people who (as a group) don't know the first thing about private company investment when you can take a $100M check from one of a few funds and individuals who do? What specifically do you bring to the table that your $10K investment will make up for the administrative costs of having you on the cap table? The reality is that companies who can raise capital from top-tier investors will do that and not bother with what to them is chump-change - but the companies that can't raise capital from top-tier investors will definitely take your money and then proceed to lose it all. [edit] The system we have right now is a pretty reasonable balance IMO and the bar has been going lower and lower over time as the $1M/$200K/yr limits aren't indexed to inflation.
    - newZWhoDis 4y ago
      I have reply capabilities again. See my edit. It is documented fact that SpaceX takes private investment. It is also documented fact that the occupation regime has faux safety mechanisms designed to enrich their own at the expense of others.
  - bpodgursky 4y ago
    There are other (partly regulatory, partly logistical) reasons that companies don't like having extremely large cap sheets. At this scale if it's easy to raise $2B from 2-3 institutional investors you probably don't want to take money from 50,000 small investors.
    - newZWhoDis 4y ago
      - arcticbull 4y ago
        We did actually try this, and it was a contributing factor to the Great Depression. Because (a) you don't know Elon (b) you provide no value to them (c) at this stage they're not taking $10K checks from private investors because it would cost more to keep it on the cap table than it would benefit them and ... Theres massive adverse selection bias. Good companies get significantly more value from raising a few small checks than they do from a ton of tiny ones from people without experience doing so or specific skills/connections. So the ones that can, will, and the bad companies that can't will come for the small time chumps. This played out in the early 1900s, and no, nothing's really changed. Besides if Elon really wanted your $10K they could have raised via Reg CF (JOBS act 2012). However, they're actively choosing not to. And I keep using $10K as the number because honestly if you're writing a $100K check you're probably an accredited investor.
        newZWhoDis 4y ago
        I can reply again The government that exists solely because I work and pay taxes has no ethical basis for telling me how I can invest my money. To suggest otherwise is to let the mask slip and admit they are not working in my (or your) interest. The part you’re missing is if elon rejected my $100k 3+ years ago then OK, fine. That would suck for me, but that’s his choice etc. I can bitch to him. Instead I have a maternal nanny state that employs exclusively 70IQ morons telling me what I can and can’t do with the money they don’t steal from me. There is no Jack Bauer running the show, it’s your kindergarten teacher with NSA powers. Explain to me, in detail, why I would continue to work for a system like that? Why would I not try to leave such a system as soon as I am able?
nrdvana 4y ago
From what I read, Musk doesn't want your money for SpaceX/Starlink precisely because he doesn't want the funds of the company to be chained to a public perception war that distracts him from running the company, like happened with Tesla during the doubtful years when half of the market was betting against him. Why take public funding when you can reap all the revenue directly?
- newZWhoDis 4y ago
  Being “public” has issue yes. That doesn’t mean we need maternalistic governmental policy to “”protect”” people.

busymom0 4y ago

What was the reasoning for FCC's original decision? Why would they try to stop it?

margalabargala 4y ago
The original decision was this: SpaceX: "Hey FCC, can we get permitted for stationary satellite dishes?" FCC: "Yes." The new decision: SpaceX: "Hey FCC, can we also get permitted for moving dishes?" FCC: "Yes." The FCC didn't try to stop anything, they just weren't asked about moving dishes the first time.
- godelski 4y ago
  I'm still curious about the legal situation here. Why is it banned by default? I mean other wireless communications are totally fine to use while in motion (HAM, cell service, wifi, CB, GPS, Satellite telephones, etc). Why does the FCC explicitly have to approve this kind of thing? I imagine it is more than bureaucracy?
  - lgats 4y ago
    I don’t think it’s banned by default, but the rules surrounding mobile and fixed differ slightly. Perhaps getting limited regulatory approval for a fixed network would face less regulatory hoops and thus be approved faster.
  - HWR_14 4y ago
    > Why is it banned by default? AFAIK all FCC rules on frequency allocation (which is what SpaceX needed) are usually geo-locked. It's a lot easier to commit to fixed transmitters early on with the idea that any specific problems can be dealt with than getting permission to move them around at will. Also, during this time the FCC has been redoing the rules on the bands they use to try to allow companies this kind of use. So in 2021 they asked for ideas, and SpaceX suggested mobile uplinks as a permissible use. Then, hearings and feedback from a lot of companies occurred.
  - margalabargala 4y ago