SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday June 12 2020, @01:24PM (2 children)
>Terrestrial infrastructure can be cheap compared to satellite
It can be, but much depends on the specific situation, and the cost of launch. If you're in a region where a cell tower will only cover a few dozen to a few hundred people, either due to rough terrain or extremely low population density, the economics of land-based infrastructure become a lot less attractive. Most of the world has less than 20 people per km2: http://www.luminocity3d.org/WorldPopDen, [luminocity3d.org] and in much of those areas people are lucky to earn a few dollars per day - it makes the economics of providing internet access... unappealing. Unless of course they can piggyback on the same infrastructure that's serving more wealthy and populous areas.
>Unfortunately there are people who regard property ownership as fluid concept
What, not everybody supports an artificial concept specifically invented to allow a handful of people to lay claim to a majority of the wealth? (a.k.a. strong property rights) Baffling!
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday June 12 2020, @04:57PM (1 child)
Unless of course they can piggyback on the same infrastructure that's serving more wealthy and populous areas.
Well, that's the rub, isn't it? Access to that infrastructure has to be wide open, unfettered. We can't let political sanctions and such get in the way of that. Gonna tell Iran, or anybody else they can't hook up? A system like this, in the hands of any single entity, is too vulnerable to attack from too many angles
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday June 12 2020, @08:36PM
Why would we tell Iran they can't hook up? Every government in the world is online, even North Korea, where the government are the *only* ones online.
I see the ability of the government to control the access of their subjects to be a much bigger threat - and that is done *everywhere*.
Having only one such system is indeed a vulnerability - with Starlink being US based, it will probably be subjected to US censorship and surveillance, which is something every potential user around the world should consider. But they're just the first, they already have a couple wanna-be competitors. And if you're not in the US (and not in a militant or other political group of interest to the US), then that surveillance is probably far less of a worry for you than the surveillance your own government is likely doing via your domestic ISPs.