6 ms·

When an individual transmits on a band they shouldn't the FCC issues a fine. When a company transmits on a band they shouldn't the FCC gives them the band. ht

• axus 1y ago
  Wise of them to launch FM1 on an Indian rocket, then.
  • pdabbadabba 1y ago
    If they want to serve the U.S. market, which they do, they still have to deal with the FCC and comply with U.S. regulations, regardless of the launching country.
    • axus 1y ago
      The wisdom was not launching a satellite on their competitor's rocket.
• perihelions 1y ago
  > "When a company transmits on a band they shouldn't" The source article is quite clear there's no regulatory violations here. > "Although this IEMR abides by ITU-R guidelines, these intensities are large compared to the strongest astronomical radio sources in the sky and will therefore have the potential to disrupt astronomical observations at SKA-Low frequencies;" > "The detected IEMR and UEMR are outside of the frequency bands protected for radio astronomy, but are at frequencies of great interest for key experiments for the SKA-Low facility, and at frequencies where RQZ protections at the SKA-Low site are in place;"
  • rickdeckard 1y ago
    The source states that the UEMR SpaceX causes in this spectrum is currently not regulated but interferes with astronomical observations. The claim stands whether a regulation will be put in place which will require SpaceX to fix or switch off their (thousands) of satellites polluting the spectrum or the band will simply be handed to SpaceX. "This UEMR is not currently regulated by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), the organization responsible for managing and allocating the radio spectrum for various uses"
    • deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    • lazide 1y ago
      Within the system the FCC is (putatively) operating under, they cannot fine someone for something they have no regulatory jurisdiction over. Congress could fix that pretty quickly if they wanted to, of course. How is the whole Musk/Trump love affair going today?
    • deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    • zamadatix 1y ago
      Well, sure, but "regulatory bodies update spectrum regulations for the common good" is a lot less charged a claim. It was the other specifics (breaking current regulation, treatment based on whether you are an individual or a company) that were contentious, not the resulting assignment itself, and at least half of that was clearly false.
    • trothamel 1y ago
      Lots of things interfere with astronomical observations - if someone builds a house, it'll interfere with their neighbors observing a star close to the horizon. Especially since the observations appear to be outside the protected spectrum, the answer is "that's probably okay". There's balancing that needs to be done - does the safety benefit of a world in which nobody can be out of contact of emergency services, and the economic benefit of having reasonably high speed internet available everywhere, outweigh the loss of radio astronomy potential. I think it probably does.
• mlindner 1y ago
  That's about AST Spacemobile, not SpaceX.
  • willis936 1y ago
    Which is exactly why I shared it. There is a clear pattern of corporate interference on public bands and a pattern of FCC enforcement being applied to individual interferers.
• lenerdenator 1y ago
  They obviously haven't encountered an angry retired man with a ham radio license, transceiver, and nothing but time on his hands. They'd be begging for the FCC after that.
• eulers_secret 1y ago
  The FCC doesn't enforce very strongly, mudduck and others like him have been killing CB channel 6 (and sometimes 19) for like 2 decades and nothing has been done nor will be done.