5 ms·

CLECs in space~! Because, as the FCC is likely to realize, once SpaceX (a US company) is acting as a common carrier for other service provider networks, they w

CLECs in space~! Because, as the FCC is likely to realize, once SpaceX (a US company) is acting as a common carrier for other service provider networks, they will end up being required to carry at reasonable cost and without deprioritization anyone who wishes to do business upon their network with customers, under equitable terms to (in this case) T-Mobile and others — just like the old copper-line DSL networks of the nineties. Space is a limited resource and SpaceX’s exclusive network will ensure a regulatory climate that Elon will loathe, and I expect be compelled under telecom law to accept and obey. I can’t wait to see it. Happily, anyone could write the FCC and ask what their plans are regarding CLECs and SpaceX today — or, for example, ask questions like “Which US governing body regulates the SpaceX common carrier network?”. https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/filing-informal-complaint https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/filing-informal-complai... is ready and waiting :)

lxgr 3y ago
That's an interesting point of view – is the same true for MVNOs today? That seems like a similar situation.
- vel0city 3y ago
  Yes, it's essentially these regulations that make MVNOs possible.
hcurtiss 3y ago
To the degree this magical technology is available today (or soon) because of the profit motive, I sincerely hope you’re wrong. I want the promise of fabulous reward to drive what was science fiction only a couple decades ago.
- altairprime 3y ago
  They’re already doing six carriers — the more money the merrier for SpaceX when all the rest sign up too!
  - hcurtiss 3y ago
    To the degree that’s true, there is no need for the regulatory intervention you desire.
- slikrick 3y ago
  God no, space is literally limited, one capital holder shouldn't be able to just run in their first, fuck everyone else over, and they say "nuh uh". If you're operating in any country you play by those countries rules, and in the US that is the agencies like the FTC. It's ridiculous that you think anyone deserves to own the space around our planet
  - hcurtiss 3y ago
    You could not be more misinformed about the space constraints.
zie 3y ago
This might be what causes him to sell out and make it someone else's problem. Just Starlink, not SpaceX obviously.
mcpackieh 3y ago
> Space is a limited resource Technically true, but even with the full planned ~40k Starlink constellation we'd be nowhere close to the limit.
- lxgr 3y ago
  There's definitely a limit: Frequencies and orbital separation/steradians of aperture. If you're putting a satellite right next to one of Starlink's, using the same frequency, how'd you communicate with it without the two interfering with each other?
  - corbezzoli 3y ago
    > without the two interfering I’m no radio expert but I think this was solved when they managed to handle a hundred thousand connected cellphones in a single stadium.
    - lxgr 3y ago
      That works by reducing the transmit power significantly and having many low-power cells all over the stadium. In other words, it depends on some base stations being significantly farther away from a given device than others. That’s not the case for satellites.
      - natch 3y ago
        Sounds like it would be a good idea for Starlink to have multiple satellites then.
        lxgr 3y ago
        Unfortunately they’re all pretty similar distances away from you, so that doesn’t help here. Having more than one satellite above the horizon really only works when both antennas are (highly) directional. Cell phones aren’t.
akira2501 3y ago
> ensure a regulatory climate that Elon will loathe Why is that a data point and why are you convinced it will be true? I get that people somehow feel "betrayed" by the man, but this presenting this type of analysis taints the rest of your outlook. Anyways.. he has the monopoly, he can set whatever price he wants. Common carrier doesn't mean you have to give it away at some imputed "commodity" price. I'm sure he'll find a way to make it work.
mlindner 3y ago
I find your strange glee about this rather off-putting. It’s like you’re actively interested in harming this really valuable new type of service in any way possible. Given that, I find it hard to take at face value anything you’re saying and that it’s much more likely that you’re trying to mislead people. Also space is even less of a “limited resource” than completely unpopulated areas of the Earth is or the entire ocean’s surface is. It’s three dimensional rather than two dimensional. Any single orbital altitude has more surface area than the entire earth.
- Cogito 3y ago
  Not quite your main point (which I agree with) but comparing surface area of orbits to the surface of the earth doesn't really help understand the carrying capacity of orbits. There are so many constraints on objects in orbit, the degrees of freedom so limited, that carrying capacity is much smaller than you might suspect (though probably larger than our earth-bound intuition). Just for starters, each item in orbit traces out a path (an orbit!) that can not intersect with the path of any other object, without carefully considering phasing to make sure there are no collisions. We keep items separated by kms (hopefully!) because there is too much variation and uncertainty in orbits. You can use different altitude shells to fit more items in, but they take longer to orbit and increase latency, so you have to be able to deal with that. Based on degrees of freedom, orbits are far closer to 2 dimensional than 3 dimensional.
  - mlindner 3y ago
    I was aware of all the points you made here before writing your post but hopefully I can help allay your concerns. The Starlink constellation has already been described as being passively de-conflicted, meaning that, as designed, no Starlink satellite had to maneuver around any other Starlink satellite. The positional accuracy of the Starlink satellites is known by SpaceX to the precision of meters rather than kilometers. I’d need to dig it up the source again but Starlink satellites pass within kilometers of each other daily. Starlink already has over 1000 satellites at several of its altitudes. While yes it’s true they have to avoid space debris with a wide berth I don’t really include that in the argument as that is a true statement no matter how many or how few satellites are in any given orbit. It’s more a matter of poor control and poor altitude maintenance of other satellites. That’s a matter of regulation rather than a matter of an actually limited resource. For example Starlink currently uses 10km or 7km gaps between its shells but they vary in altitude significantly less than that and could be closer if allowed to be.
mr_toad 3y ago
SpaceX already has to deal with FAA, ITAR DoD, NASA, FCC - I imagine they’re pretty familiar with bureaucracy.

lxgr 3y ago

That's an interesting point of view – is the same true for MVNOs today? That seems like a similar situation.

vel0city 3y ago
Yes, it's essentially these regulations that make MVNOs possible.

hcurtiss 3y ago

To the degree this magical technology is available today (or soon) because of the profit motive, I sincerely hope you’re wrong. I want the promise of fabulous reward to drive what was science fiction only a couple decades ago.

altairprime 3y ago
They’re already doing six carriers — the more money the merrier for SpaceX when all the rest sign up too!
- hcurtiss 3y ago
  To the degree that’s true, there is no need for the regulatory intervention you desire.
slikrick 3y ago
God no, space is literally limited, one capital holder shouldn't be able to just run in their first, fuck everyone else over, and they say "nuh uh". If you're operating in any country you play by those countries rules, and in the US that is the agencies like the FTC. It's ridiculous that you think anyone deserves to own the space around our planet
- hcurtiss 3y ago
  You could not be more misinformed about the space constraints.

zie 3y ago

This might be what causes him to sell out and make it someone else's problem. Just Starlink, not SpaceX obviously.

mcpackieh 3y ago

> Space is a limited resource Technically true, but even with the full planned ~40k Starlink constellation we'd be nowhere close to the limit.

lxgr 3y ago
There's definitely a limit: Frequencies and orbital separation/steradians of aperture. If you're putting a satellite right next to one of Starlink's, using the same frequency, how'd you communicate with it without the two interfering with each other?
- corbezzoli 3y ago
  > without the two interfering I’m no radio expert but I think this was solved when they managed to handle a hundred thousand connected cellphones in a single stadium.
  - lxgr 3y ago
    That works by reducing the transmit power significantly and having many low-power cells all over the stadium. In other words, it depends on some base stations being significantly farther away from a given device than others. That’s not the case for satellites.
    - natch 3y ago
      Sounds like it would be a good idea for Starlink to have multiple satellites then.
      - lxgr 3y ago
        Unfortunately they’re all pretty similar distances away from you, so that doesn’t help here. Having more than one satellite above the horizon really only works when both antennas are (highly) directional. Cell phones aren’t.

akira2501 3y ago

> ensure a regulatory climate that Elon will loathe Why is that a data point and why are you convinced it will be true? I get that people somehow feel "betrayed" by the man, but this presenting this type of analysis taints the rest of your outlook. Anyways.. he has the monopoly, he can set whatever price he wants. Common carrier doesn't mean you have to give it away at some imputed "commodity" price. I'm sure he'll find a way to make it work.

mlindner 3y ago

I find your strange glee about this rather off-putting. It’s like you’re actively interested in harming this really valuable new type of service in any way possible. Given that, I find it hard to take at face value anything you’re saying and that it’s much more likely that you’re trying to mislead people. Also space is even less of a “limited resource” than completely unpopulated areas of the Earth is or the entire ocean’s surface is. It’s three dimensional rather than two dimensional. Any single orbital altitude has more surface area than the entire earth.

Cogito 3y ago
Not quite your main point (which I agree with) but comparing surface area of orbits to the surface of the earth doesn't really help understand the carrying capacity of orbits. There are so many constraints on objects in orbit, the degrees of freedom so limited, that carrying capacity is much smaller than you might suspect (though probably larger than our earth-bound intuition). Just for starters, each item in orbit traces out a path (an orbit!) that can not intersect with the path of any other object, without carefully considering phasing to make sure there are no collisions. We keep items separated by kms (hopefully!) because there is too much variation and uncertainty in orbits. You can use different altitude shells to fit more items in, but they take longer to orbit and increase latency, so you have to be able to deal with that. Based on degrees of freedom, orbits are far closer to 2 dimensional than 3 dimensional.
- mlindner 3y ago
  I was aware of all the points you made here before writing your post but hopefully I can help allay your concerns. The Starlink constellation has already been described as being passively de-conflicted, meaning that, as designed, no Starlink satellite had to maneuver around any other Starlink satellite. The positional accuracy of the Starlink satellites is known by SpaceX to the precision of meters rather than kilometers. I’d need to dig it up the source again but Starlink satellites pass within kilometers of each other daily. Starlink already has over 1000 satellites at several of its altitudes. While yes it’s true they have to avoid space debris with a wide berth I don’t really include that in the argument as that is a true statement no matter how many or how few satellites are in any given orbit. It’s more a matter of poor control and poor altitude maintenance of other satellites. That’s a matter of regulation rather than a matter of an actually limited resource. For example Starlink currently uses 10km or 7km gaps between its shells but they vary in altitude significantly less than that and could be closer if allowed to be.

mr_toad 3y ago

SpaceX already has to deal with FAA, ITAR DoD, NASA, FCC - I imagine they’re pretty familiar with bureaucracy.