6 ms·

The source states that the UEMR SpaceX causes in this spectrum is currently not regulated but interferes with astronomical observations. The claim stands wheth

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.
- TimorousBestie 1y ago
  > 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. If this balancing argument is merely based on short-term economics, then of course the corporation always wins. Every commons becomes a tragedy in that world.
  - rickdeckard 1y ago
    Exactly, thank you! There is also a huge safety benefit in killing all wild animals, and companies are even happy to build taxable businesses for that if allowed. This needs to be evaluated and balanced against the economic benefit of having wild animals roam the planet free of charge... /s
  - zamadatix 1y ago
    There are existing regulated bands for astronomy, which already shows the regulatory bodies don't just consider short term gains. The person you quoted weighs it against outweighing the loss of radio astronomy potential, saying much of the same. Who is this note about needing to compete with short term economic gains responding to?
- perihelions 1y ago
  The long-term balancing is whether humanity can take over Earth's orbit and build out advanced technology there, or not. I think in the long run, radio astronomy is the one that will have to bend. If your receiver is so sensitive it's intolerant of stray EMI from a circuit board in outer space, there's no reasonable way to adapt to that—it's unreasonable to ask an entire planet to turn into a radio-quiet zone over its entire orbital shell. Intentional broadcasts are one thing—that's what spectrum licensing regulations are for. Minor EMI is a bridge too far. Further context: the signal strengths they're talking about are equivalents of isotropic emitters in the *milliwatt* power range, detectable down to the microwatts—detectable at ranges of thousands of kilometers, https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2023/10/aa47654-23/aa47654-23.html https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2023/10/aa47654-... ("Detection of intended and unintended emissions from Starlink satellites in the SKA-Low frequency range, at the SKA-Low site, with an SKA-Low station analogue") > "The flashes reach a maximum intensity of approximately 10^6 Jy beam^−1 at ranges of ∼500 km (EIRP ∼ 30 mW) and a minimum intensity of approximately 2000 Jy beam^−1 at ranges of ∼2000 km (EIRP ∼ 1 mW)" Further context: part of the EMI isn't a fixable circuit design issue—it's (I understand) EMI from normal operation of ion thrusters, > "The authors have been in communication with SpaceX (who owns, builds, and operates the Starlink constellation), who explains that this radiation is likely due to the satellites’ propulsion or avionics system and is likely over 50–200 MHz (SpaceX 2023, priv. comm.) The propulsion system is actively engaged during the time this train is detected. This radiation is therefore in the class of UEMR."

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.

TimorousBestie 1y ago
> 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. If this balancing argument is merely based on short-term economics, then of course the corporation always wins. Every commons becomes a tragedy in that world.
- rickdeckard 1y ago
  Exactly, thank you! There is also a huge safety benefit in killing all wild animals, and companies are even happy to build taxable businesses for that if allowed. This needs to be evaluated and balanced against the economic benefit of having wild animals roam the planet free of charge... /s
- zamadatix 1y ago
  There are existing regulated bands for astronomy, which already shows the regulatory bodies don't just consider short term gains. The person you quoted weighs it against outweighing the loss of radio astronomy potential, saying much of the same. Who is this note about needing to compete with short term economic gains responding to?
perihelions 1y ago
The long-term balancing is whether humanity can take over Earth's orbit and build out advanced technology there, or not. I think in the long run, radio astronomy is the one that will have to bend. If your receiver is so sensitive it's intolerant of stray EMI from a circuit board in outer space, there's no reasonable way to adapt to that—it's unreasonable to ask an entire planet to turn into a radio-quiet zone over its entire orbital shell. Intentional broadcasts are one thing—that's what spectrum licensing regulations are for. Minor EMI is a bridge too far. Further context: the signal strengths they're talking about are equivalents of isotropic emitters in the *milliwatt* power range, detectable down to the microwatts—detectable at ranges of thousands of kilometers, https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2023/10/aa47654-23/aa47654-23.html https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2023/10/aa47654-... ("Detection of intended and unintended emissions from Starlink satellites in the SKA-Low frequency range, at the SKA-Low site, with an SKA-Low station analogue") > "The flashes reach a maximum intensity of approximately 10^6 Jy beam^−1 at ranges of ∼500 km (EIRP ∼ 30 mW) and a minimum intensity of approximately 2000 Jy beam^−1 at ranges of ∼2000 km (EIRP ∼ 1 mW)" Further context: part of the EMI isn't a fixable circuit design issue—it's (I understand) EMI from normal operation of ion thrusters, > "The authors have been in communication with SpaceX (who owns, builds, and operates the Starlink constellation), who explains that this radiation is likely due to the satellites’ propulsion or avionics system and is likely over 50–200 MHz (SpaceX 2023, priv. comm.) The propulsion system is actively engaged during the time this train is detected. This radiation is therefore in the class of UEMR."