Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FCC Authorizes SpaceX to Provide Broadband Satellite Services

fcc.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 331 posts

Re: FCC Authorizes SpaceX to Provide Broadband Satellite Services

#221

Post by walrus01 »

cossray wrote: post #214
walrus01 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without evangelicals and dreamers major new ISP infrastructure wouldn't get built. But it has to run into practical realities of what a network will look at all the way down the OSI model stack. People want gigabit FTTH to every home in the USA but the construction costs could be $5,000 per house on average.

I followed this closely and thank you for pointing out the cost implications per house connection. While that's a significant amount in the USA,it's far monstrous in the developing countries/rural areas;which from this forum are touted as the major targets of the SpaceX system. Do you see a way of reducing this cost that can practically serve a rural town in, for example, Africa? (I'm from East Africa and trying to m…

If you have a town/city of population 2,500 to 20,000 that has very poor internet connectivity in general at present, this will probably be most useful in its larger version to bring one relatively high capacity DIA/IP link (like 150 Mbps downstream x 50 Mbps upstream) to a single central location, as an ISP POP in the town, and then local distribution throughout a US county-sized area by point-to-point and point-to-multipoint terrestrial microwave in the 2.4, 3.5, 3.65, 5.2 and 5.8 GHz bands. Possibly with some use of low-cost equipment in the traditional licensed (6, 11, 18, 23) GHz bands, unlicensed 24 GHz band PTP, 60 and 80 GHz, etc.

Re: FCC Authorizes SpaceX to Provide Broadband Satellite Services

#222

Post by cornholio »

We have ourselves an international trade war concerning satelite spectrum. FCC rejects the idea of "first-come-first-served" and supports mechanism that allow equal spectrum sharing among applicants in the same licensing round. But it can only do so overhead USA. SpaceX competitors, like OneWeb, contend that SpaceX should be forced to subject to ITU Coordination, that currently assigns use of the spectrum based on ITU filling date priority.

This argument will certainly be applied in other countries with less concerned regulators, so we will have a complex patchwork of rules from one country to the next and the satellites will have to switch bands repeatedly in a single orbit. The ability to block a competitor from operating in certain territories has massive commercial and geopolitical implications:

=========

ITU Coordination. In its Petition to Deny, Telesat observes that international coordination will be required between the SpaceX system and its own NGSO FSS system. Telesat argues that, at minimum, any grant to SpaceX should be conditioned upon compliance with this international obligation. In response, SpaceX argues in support of the Commission’s avoidance of in-line interference regime, which, it asserts, yields more efficient spectrum sharing results than a regime based solely upon ITU priority. We recently declined to adopt Telesat’s proposal to tie coordination obligations and licensing conditions directly to ITU filing dates by awarding priority according to those dates, and accordingly deny Telesat’s petition in so far as it reiterates Telesat’s ITU filing date priority proposal. We include a condition requiring SpaceX, like all other NGSO FSS operators, to comply with the spectrum sharing requirements specified in section 25.261 of the Commission’s rules with respect to any other NGSO system licensed or granted U.S. market access pursuant to the processing rounds in which SpaceX participated. We recently adopted changes to section 25.261 that replaced the avoidance of in-line interference methodology for triggering spectrum division (absent coordination) with a default spectrum splitting sharing mechanism that is triggered when the change in system noise temperature caused by interference, or ΔT/T, exceeds a threshold of 6 percent. However, we note that outside the United States (i.e., when communications to or from the U.S. territory are not involved) the coexistence between SpaceX’s operations and operations of a system that received a grant for access to the U.S. market are governed only by the ITU Radio Regulations as well as the regulations of the country where the earth station is located and are not subject to section 25.261.

Re: FCC Authorizes SpaceX to Provide Broadband Satellite Services

#223

Post by walrus01 »

estreeper wrote: post #218
walrus01 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Satellite can be amazing tech. But it's still not going to be the best viable option for high bandwidth connections in medium to large sized cities. As companies like centurylink build GPON and 10GPON based FTTH networks (example: Capitol, Hill, Seattle) it's quite possible to do 900 x 900 Mbps symmetric, though slightly oversubscribed, residential connections. DOCSIS3.1 over old copper coax cable, with enough RF cha…

Great points, but... > This is by no means going to hurt Comcast. Well, it could , couldn't it? Satellite internet does have the potential to make regional pseudo-monopolies go away, which means Comcast now has price competition. Even if speeds end up being much lower, it will still be plenty fast for lots of people, and the price will be the determining factor. At the very least, I think this will force Comcast to l…

Maybe in very far suburban areas verging on rural. I have seen a number of edge cases where a cable MSO (multi-system operator, basically triple play TV/Internet/Phone) such as Comcast, Shaw or Charter will demand a one time payment of $2,000 to $5,000 to extend service to a house that is on the edge of their current service area.

Those sorts of customers at present usually end up going with a local WISP instead (terrestrial based point-to-multipoint microwave wireless, which can be quite good if implemented right), or something like the consumer grade VSAT systems from hughesnet/viasat. Or maybe a slow but usable very-long-loop-length ADSL2+ connection at only 3.5 Mbps from the ILEC.

But as for places that are solidly in the comcast network, no. Increasing use of feeding small CMTS from 1/10GbE via fiber, and the very high data rate capacity of DOCSIS3.1 as coaxial cable plant segments are broken up into smaller chunks, means that it's feasible for comcast to offer 300 to 900 Mbps service at fairly low costs to large numbers of people in suburban areas. Satellite won't be able to compete with this. And Comcast will be able to come and overbuild their coax with singlemode fiber incrementally to sell either active-ethernet based FTTH or GPON FTTH.

Re: FCC Authorizes SpaceX to Provide Broadband Satellite Services

#224

Post by walrus01 »

gnarbarian wrote: post #178
bpd1069 wrote: post #4

This is monumental - I claim every major advance in communication technology immediately precedes a major progress for society. This will make the 'Internet' truly global and ubiquitous. So excited for the developing world.

not just the developing world. there are large swaths of the US without decent broadband either. Also large areas with no internet whatsoever beyond satellite. (and I mean really shitty really expensive satellite) ubiquitous internet will make remote weather stations, drones and a multitude of other things far more cost effective or possible. (especially here in Alaska)

ACS and GCI have recently spent a great deal of (partly subsidized) money to build high capacity point to point microwave to reach a number of fly-in type communities:

https://www.adn.com/business-economy/2017/03/19/with-federal...

https://www.adn.com/features/business-economy/2017/03/18/for...

The goal for these is to build network bridges to alaskan terrestrial fiber, getting to Fairbanks and/or Anchorage, from where connections are possible into Alaska's subsea fiber cables to WA state and the Seattle area.

Implemented properly this can be significantly faster than satellite, bringing a 1 to 2 Gbps full duplex connection to each town with licensed microwave bands. From the perspective of ACS and GCI and similar operators, it can pay for itself pretty quickly because they can stop paying monthly-recurring geostationary satellite transponder kHz leases.

Re: FCC Authorizes SpaceX to Provide Broadband Satellite Services

#225

Post by rhcom2 »

52-6F-62 wrote: post #73
unepipe wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It will not affect it in any way. They have released their plans for Starlink and there will be a "blackout" zone over China, so China doesn't shoot down their satellites. In 2007, China shot down FY-1C as a test of a kinetic kill vehicle (leaving tons of high speed space debris). Unless they receive approval from China to broadcast, they won't over China. Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/spacex-internet-satell…

> shot down FY-1C as a test of a kinetic kill vehicle (leaving tons of high speed space debris) Do you have more info on this? Or anyone? That's so crass. It's plain indefensible. I really want to know more. edit: Thanks for the links.

Also America's tests:

(2008) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Burnt_Frost

(1985) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solwind

Re: FCC Authorizes SpaceX to Provide Broadband Satellite Services

#226

Post by lev99 »

MertsA wrote: post #205
lev99 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you have your distances wrong. Geosynchronous orbit is 36,000km not miles. LEO is a range between 300km - 2000km. I suspect the satellites will be on the higher range to reduce atmospheric drag. The IIS has a 400km (250 miles) orbit and it's orbit decays at 2km/month without correction maneuvers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_orbit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station https:…

That's the crazy part, he didn't have his distances wrong. Part of the constellation is planned for an orbit of 340 km which is ~211 miles so close enough. The satellites are only intended to have an operational lifespan of 5 to 7 years. That's not a typo, that also means that given the massive size of the constellation that SpaceX will need to average one launch a month for StarLink with 105 satellites on it. If one…

His Leo distance was correct, but his geo distance is in the wrong unit of measurement.

Re: FCC Authorizes SpaceX to Provide Broadband Satellite Services

#227

Post by TeMPOraL »

drcross wrote: post #55
nradov wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not much effect. The Chinese government will prohibit import and possession of the ground terminals. Smugglers will bring in a few but not enough to really bypass the Great Firewall for many people.

>bring in a few Bring in a few from where? Where do you think these devices will be manufactured anyway? ;)

Exactly.

Also, even if they were manufactured in the US, China is literally the best country to reverse-engineer electronics and produce knockoffs ;).

That said, AFAIK those satellites aren't meant to be dumb routers/repeaters - so China might just politically/economically pressure US to tell SpaceX to pretty-please don't service connections to/from China.

Re: FCC Authorizes SpaceX to Provide Broadband Satellite Services

#228

Post by lev99 »

positr0n wrote: post #203
lev99 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Shooting down satellites is very expensive It's less expensive than launching satellites, and the Chinese goverment has enough money to do it if they want.

> It's less expensive than launching satellites I doubt it, since a single Falcon Heavy launch would carry dozens of Starlink satellites but the existing anti-satellite technology can only hit one at a time. Keep in mind they have said the final constellation will be 12,000 satellites! edit: and BFR could theoretically carry 300 when it is operational. https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/25525/how-many-spa...

I'm not sure that it is cheaper, but I am sure there is a cheaper way to shoot something down than to keep it up. Idon't know if the tech and economics are correct, but the physics says it should be.

Moving something to the same altitude as Leo requires much less energy than moving something to Leo. Rockets don't fire straight up because the need their momentum to be at an angle. In addition, the payload of a communication satellite is more expensive than the payload required to throw it either disable the satellite or put it into a declining orbit.

Maybe Elon's rockets are just so cheap he can make it up in margin, but we are really talking about we aren't talking about marginal amount of difficulty difference, but an entire order of magnitude.

Re: FCC Authorizes SpaceX to Provide Broadband Satellite Services

#229

Post by TeMPOraL »

Retric wrote: post #177
walrus01 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is twofold from a China perspective: a) the rooftop CPE needs to be reasonably large and have high gain to be used effectively, and needs clear unobstructed line of sight to as much of the sky and horizon as possible. and b) It needs to transmit, it will transmit in very known frequency ranges, and the chinese authorities have plenty of budget to buy portable spectrum analyzers, horn antennas and to reach…

A) A thin tarp or pant etc could obscure the shape without blocking radio waves. B) These things need to transmit up, so you can reasonably block most signals in other directions. Aircraft would work, but again not cheap. The real issue is more on the human side and network monitoring. Lots of encrypted network traffic to a ransom location would be suspect. PS: For once tinfoil might actually be useful vs government…

> Aircraft would work, but again not cheap.

s/Aircraft/Drone/. Now it's cheap.

Re: FCC Authorizes SpaceX to Provide Broadband Satellite Services

#230

Post by lev99 »

shaklee3 wrote: post #206
lev99 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LOE will always provide faster latency than Geosynchronous orbit. I suspect that total bandwidth will go to the person with the most satellites, and LEO has much cheaper launches than GeoSync. Geosynchronous orbit is more than 15 times farther away. That is why the communication will be quicker, and why the launches are cheaper.

I specifically said high bandwidth since the latency is obviously better with leo. I don't know what you are implying by much cheaper launches. They need many, many more launches to hit the same capacity/coverage as a geo satellite. One launch may be cheaper, but SpaceX will need dozens.

I kind of assume bandwidth is a function of satellite count. So a network with 1000 satellites will be faster than a network with 3.

User per satellite would also he important.

Post reply on HN