3 ms·
I was curious why direct-to-cell hasn't been enabled everywhere, and it looks like it's because AT&T claims it would cause them an 18% decrease in network throu
by ggreer 2y ago
I was curious why direct-to-cell hasn't been enabled everywhere, and it looks like it's because AT&T claims it would cause them an 18% decrease in network throughput/capacity. AT&T petitioned the FCC to block direct-to-cell rollout because of this.[1] SpaceX responded that AT&T's estimates of interference are incorrect, and that AT&T fails to account for many factors. Also, SpaceX argues that the public good of having cell phone access in remote areas outweighs the slight reduction of network capacity in areas with existing coverage.[2]
My guess is that the truth is somewhere in the middle. All else equal, adding more cell towers to an area will increase interference and decrease performance for existing networks, but I doubt it will be as bad as AT&T claims. Also T-Mobile made a deal with SpaceX to be the sole network with direct-to-cell for the first year after rollout. It seems more likely than not that AT&T is trying to hurt their competition using the FCC. If a different cell network had gotten an exclusive contract, I'm sure it would be T-Mobile petitioning the FCC to block direct-to-cell rollout.
No branch of the US government keeps statistics on how many people get lost in the wilderness and die each year, but it's definitely in the hundreds and possibly over 1,000.[3] Considering how often a working cell phone could save them, I think it's worth enabling direct-to-cell everywhere.
1. https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1081242986780/1 https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1081242986780/1
2. https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1021391547062/1 https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1021391547062/1
3. https://nypost.com/2020/07/04/why-hundreds-of-people-vanish-into-the-american-wilderness/ https://nypost.com/2020/07/04/why-hundreds-of-people-vanish-...
- dotnet00 2y agoIt also hasn't been enabled everywhere yet because the associated constellation is not complete yet. Current service is probably going to be intermittent. Basically, it's just better than nothing when in an emergency like this.
- throwaway48476 2y agoIt's an excuse to establish 'facts on the ground' that the technology is useful which makes it harder to rollback via bureaucracy if it cuts into telco profits.
- wmf 2y agoToo bad that didn't work for RDOF.
- gosub100 2y agoThis would be trivial to test via deployment to merchant mariners in vast swathes of empty, international waters.
- yieldcrv 2y agoahahaha no no its more complicated than that SpaceX lobbied for radio regulatory changes to hamper competitors, the competitors (AST Spacemobile) overcame that and has their own satellite system that comply with the agreed upon regulations, Verizon and AT&T are customers in the US, then SpaceX wanted its now non-regulatory compliant satellite cluster to do the same thing but the FCC just points to SpaceX’s own contribution to the standards as reason not to change it - which seem like good reasons, power level, interference, the usual This emergency authorization is a raison d’etre to justify what SpaceX is now trying to do I’m glad the infrastructure is there for the affected area, the politics behind it are amusing and should be scrutinized
- mlindner 2y agoThere's a lot of posts like this who are fans of AST Spacemobile because they own stock. SpaceX did not lobby for any radio regulatory changes to hamper competitors. Additionally Verizon and AT&T are themselves AST Spacemobile investors. If you're going to write this type of post you should clarify whether you have stock ownership in the company as many people have HUGE conflicts of interest on this given ASTS's rapid rise and meme stock status. For other readers I suggest looking at their subreddit to see the type of delusional post that is common. https://old.reddit.com/r/ASTSpaceMobile/ https://old.reddit.com/r/ASTSpaceMobile/
- Salgat 2y agoStarlink is partnering with T-Mobile for this, so they're definitely going to be careful to only send signals to areas that are actually lacking in towers anyways. And this is great incentive for carriers to cooperate to make roaming cheap and preferable over satellite.
- shaklee3 2y agoThat's not how satellites work. The beam is far larger than a cell tower, so they're absolutely going to be transmitting where there are towers.
- Salgat 2y agoThe cell antennas are omnidirectional but the satellites are phased array. They aren't going to be that narrow, but they can avoid, for example, a city that already has extensive coverage. Remember, these are meant for out in remote areas or in areas of cell outtages, not for downtown in a major city.
- shaklee3 2y agoThey are, but that doesn't mean people have to use them that way. They will get use all over and not just in rural areas