FCC SpaceX decision upheld on lower altitude Starlink sats:
Judges in the US have upheld the FCC's decision to allow SpaceX Starlink satellites to fly at a lower altitude.
SpaceX was last year given permission to launch more than 2,000 of its broadband-beaming satellites at 540 to 570 km above Earth instead of its usual 1,100 to 1,300 km range. It was hoped that flying the hardware lower would boost internet service to Alaska and other remote areas, and help prevent the build up of space junk and other objects in a relatively narrow band of low Earth orbit.
But competing satellite providers, such as Viasat, Amazon, and Dish, weren't happy. In an attempt to overturn the FCC's decision, Viasat, an environmental org calling itself The Balance Group, and Dish sued the communications regulator, arguing officials failed to consider, among other things, the potential environmental effects. Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) federal agencies are required to assess the environmental impact of their decisions, such as constructing buildings or military bases.
Viasat claimed Starlink satellites would increase the risk of collision in orbit, and it would have to spend more time and resources to avoid "competitive injury" with SpaceX.
Court of Appeals judges in the District of Columbia considered this challenge, and last week upheld the FCC's approval for SpaceX to launch its satellites into lower altitudes. For one thing, the panel noted that Viasat's complaints were way too speculative and theoretical to be taken seriously. For instance, the satellite operator was concerned about the damage SpaceX's Starlink birds could cause to its own sats, yet it's unlikely Viasat's satellites would be involved in a Starlink crash.
"Viasat operates only a single satellite that flies close to SpaceX's constellation, and it does not seriously contend that the probability of a direct collision is high enough," the judgment [PDF] reads. "This theory of injury is much too speculative. To ground standing on the risk of future harm, a party must show both substantially increases it."
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Thursday September 01 2022, @03:36PM (2 children)
Has anyone signed up and used their service yet?
We caught sight of the latest launch out West last week when they reflected the light of the sunset; I hadn't realized they were that far along with building their network, and was curious how early adopters were finding it.
There have been tantalizing rumors of Tesla coming out with a smartphone (dubbed "Model Pi") that would work with the Starlink network. I would jump at that in a hot second, but can't find any substantiation for the rumors.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Informative) by remote_worker on Thursday September 01 2022, @06:58PM
I have it working here (rural Canada, in the mountains). Much, much better than geosync. I haven't used it for any large data transfers, but all the small stuff (e.g web, email, ssh) is reliable and fast. I haven't used it for long enough to know how it handles bad weather or snow yet. Ask me again in 6 months :).
(Score: 3, Informative) by legont on Friday September 02 2022, @12:22AM
A friend of mine in Colorado has a mobile version. On a trip to a total zero cell phone reception area he reported 97 down, 6 up, 100 latency.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by OrugTor on Thursday September 01 2022, @04:14PM (2 children)
The grounds for suit were so bogus that even the court saw through them. Why were Starlink's competitors suing? Merely because they are competitors and sought to make trouble? Did the lawyers convince them they had a real chance of winning?
(Score: 2) by Nobuddy on Friday September 02 2022, @04:39PM
Yes, it was purely because they are competitors. All these companies use a single shared service, pretending to be competitors to keep the monopoly banhammer at bay. they rely heavily on rural users who have no other option. It is like if a company made a line of widgets, and sold them only through 'select' distributors they own while claiming that the distributors compete with each other.
Their service is sub-par in every way, and they know it. A real outside competitor means they can no longer glide along on a monopoly.
(Score: 2) by TheReaperD on Friday September 02 2022, @05:51PM
Starlink's 'competition' is anything but. They've not offered upgrades in service for years and are little better than the day they were launched. They've enjoyed a near-monopoly of their high-priced, low-bandwidth service. Now, Starlink is coming in with a much better service at a cheaper price and their easy money is about to disappear and they're doing anything they can to stop ot, or failing that, slow it down so they can drink their gravy for a few months more before it ends.
Ad eundum quo nemo ante iit
(Score: 2) by KritonK on Friday September 02 2022, @11:09AM (1 child)
The FCC is a US-based organization. What gives them the authority to specify what happens in Earth orbit?
Even if we are talking about satellites in geostationary orbit, which would essentially be hovering above the US, the objections were about possible collisions in orbit and not about the use of communications frequencies, so shouldn't some organization that deals with things in orbit, such as NASA, be the one giving the verdict, instead of the FCC?
(Score: 2) by Nobuddy on Friday September 02 2022, @04:42PM
If they operate in US airspace, they are beholden to FCC regulation. They are also US based.
There are a lot of countries Starlink is going to have to comply with eventually. But so far they are placing only the geostationary ones. Eventually there will be ones in non stationary orbits. Those are going to be fun to get approval for, because every country they pass over has to agree- and countries like China and Russia that want filter control over internet will never allow it without being given root level filtering over the whole mess.