Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
posted by chromas on Thursday June 11 2020, @06:56AM   Printer-friendly
from the I-ping-in-your-general-direction dept.

Ajit Pai caves to SpaceX but is still skeptical of Musk’s latency claims:

The Federal Communications Commission has reversed course on whether to let SpaceX and other satellite providers apply for rural-broadband funding as low-latency providers. But Chairman Ajit Pai said companies like SpaceX will have to prove they can offer low latencies, as the FCC does not plan to "fund untested technologies."

Pai's original proposal classified SpaceX and all other satellite operators as high-latency providers for purposes of the funding distribution, saying the companies haven't proven they can deliver latencies below the FCC standard of 100ms. Pai's plan to shut satellite companies out of the low-latency category would have put them at a disadvantage in a reverse auction that will distribute $16 billion from the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF).

But SpaceX is launching low-Earth-orbit (LEO) satellites in altitudes ranging from 540km to 570km, a fraction of the 35,000km used with geostationary satellites, providing much lower latency than traditional satellite service. SpaceX told the FCC that its Starlink service will easily clear the 100ms cutoff, and FCC Commissioner Michael O'Rielly urged Pai to let LEO companies apply in the low-latency tier.

The FCC voted to approve the updated auction rules yesterday. The final order isn't public yet, but it's clear from statements by Pai and other commissioners that SpaceX and other LEO companies will be allowed to apply in the low-latency tier. The satellite companies won't gain automatic entry into the low-latency tier, but they will be given a chance to prove that they can deliver latencies below 100ms.

[...] SpaceX met with commission staff over the last few days of May, telling them that its broadband system "easily clears the commission's 100ms threshold for low-latency services, even including its 'processing time' during unrealistic worst-case scenarios." We contacted SpaceX today about the low-latency change and will update this story if we get a response.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday June 11 2020, @06:56PM (7 children)

    by fustakrakich (6150) on Thursday June 11 2020, @06:56PM (#1006513) Journal

    Check who has the "off" switch. Or make sure there isn't one

    --
    La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
  • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday June 11 2020, @07:43PM (6 children)

    by Immerman (3985) on Thursday June 11 2020, @07:43PM (#1006551)

    There's always an off switch. Usually it's in the hands of both your ISP, and your government. One of the advantages to Starlink will likely be that (outside the US) your government would likely have very little leverage over your ISP.

    • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday June 11 2020, @07:52PM (4 children)

      by fustakrakich (6150) on Thursday June 11 2020, @07:52PM (#1006557) Journal

      One of the advantages to Starlink will likely be that (outside the US) your government would likely have very little leverage over your ISP.

      That's supposed to be better? The ISPs aren't in opposition to the government, they are a tool of the government, a vital tool to protect you from things you shouldn't see or hear.

      --
      La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
      • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday June 12 2020, @01:42PM (3 children)

        by Immerman (3985) on Friday June 12 2020, @01:42PM (#1006852)

        Well, since it's physically impossible to remove the off switch from the hands of the people providing the service, we're stuck with them. But do you really think Starlink will give a $#%! about what some two-bit dictator wants in some country nobody has heard of? They have no leverage over Starlink, unlike every terrestrial ISP serving that country.

        When we get into larger markets such as China... that will be interesting. Starlink would by default completely bypass the Great Firewall, so their choices will likely be either voluntarily re-routing all China-based traffic through government nodes, or letting China try to stop them - presumably by banning their subjects from doing business with Starlink and trying to make it stick. Maybe drone patrols looking for people using illegal Starlink tranceivers? I doubt they'd be detectable from the ground. And I suppose anti-satellite weapons might not be completely off the table, though the international political ramifications might be more than they're willing to face.

        • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday June 12 2020, @04:22PM (1 child)

          by fustakrakich (6150) on Friday June 12 2020, @04:22PM (#1006930) Journal

          I think signal jamming will play a bigger role in blockage. We need a more neurotic network, with lots of alternative paths

          --
          La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
          • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday June 12 2020, @08:44PM

            by Immerman (3985) on Friday June 12 2020, @08:44PM (#1007069)

            Well, every terrestrial path will be easily subverted by the government. And if you're jamming satellites so they can't hear ground stations, it's not going to matter how many satellites operated by how many companies there are. Either they play ball, or they get jammed. But that's likely to be an ongoing international incident since you'll also be jamming the signal for all nearby nations. And it's not like you can easily jam the ground antennas - they're all focussed almost directly upwards and will mostly ignore any ground-based jammer.

        • (Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday June 13 2020, @06:35PM

          by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Saturday June 13 2020, @06:35PM (#1007511) Journal

          https://www.businessinsider.com/spacex-internet-satellite-constellation-china-threat-2016-11 [businessinsider.com]

          "Obviously, any given country can say it's illegal to have a ground link. [...] And from our standpoint we could conceivably continue to broadcast," Musk said during the event. "I mean, I'm hopeful that we can structure agreements with various countries to allow communication with their citizens, but it is on a country-by-country basis."

          So what if SpaceX continued to broadcast uncensored internet over China, despite not being given permission?

          "If they get upset with us, they can blow our satellites up, which wouldn't be good," Musk said. "China can do that. So probably we shouldn't broadcast there."

          SpaceX may simply disable Starlink sats while they are above China.

          China has the right to manage the radio spectrum in its territory. Retaliation doesn't need to involve blowing up sats. They could just kick Tesla out of the country.

          Smuggling in user terminals won't help if SpaceX doesn't broadcast over China. I'm not familiar with the details of the centralized ground links (are they optional?) but that could also be a major stumbling block.

          --
          [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 11 2020, @09:00PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 11 2020, @09:00PM (#1006593)

      And then who will protect me from the US government? The abuses my own government inflicts are all at the insistence of the USA.