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

Amazon asked FCC to reject Starlink plan because it can’t compete, SpaceX says

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 275 posts

Re: Amazon asked FCC to reject Starlink plan because it can’t compete, SpaceX says

#71

Post by olivierduval »

bperson wrote: post #54
jjoonathan wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally hate the idea of holding back rural connectivity, mapping, and the general advancement of space-based science and industry in order to preserve the sacrosanct emptiness of certain orbits. Why should your desire for empty orbits outweigh other peoples' desire to put those orbits to productive use?

Their nimbyism is silly. Nothing is going to hold back this next period. The entire planet will be connected soon and that's when the internet moves out of alpha and into beta. Complaining about a few thousand satellites will seem quant in ten years :P

"The entire planet will be connected soon"... but WHY ???? To allow Facebook (and SV) dream of selling ads all around the world ???

Does the world need it ? Does the world even ask for it ?

Sure, I like internet... but only WHERE and WHEN I want to, not anytime and everywhere !

Re: Amazon asked FCC to reject Starlink plan because it can’t compete, SpaceX says

#72

Post by bpodgursky »

lostlogin wrote: post #70
kjksf wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You fail to make a distinction between following a process and abusing a process. Amazon is clearly abusing the process. It's clear to everyone and their mothers that Amazon is abusing the process. Find me one comment that says "yeah, Amazon is totally right about that and SpaceX should not get the permits they are asking for". Abusing a process warrants a bit different response than "oh well, the rules can be abused…

Another way of looking at this - if you can defend against the most motivated detractor, it seems unlikely there are holes in your plan.

Except by current Blue Origin precedent, the next step is to sue the FCC as soon as the FCC rules against them. Litigators with deep pockets can absolutely abuse the system.

Re: Amazon asked FCC to reject Starlink plan because it can’t compete, SpaceX says

#73

Post by amelius »

kjksf wrote: post #53
gpt5 wrote: post #4

This seems on par with the process - SpaceX submits a proposal that is open for public scrutiny, and Amazon, which has the incentives to do so, submits feedback on that proposal. Whether the feedback/concerns from Amazon are warranted, that’s up to the FCC to decide. If they decide incorrectly, that’s when I’d start to bring the torches.

You fail to make a distinction between following a process and abusing a process. Amazon is clearly abusing the process. It's clear to everyone and their mothers that Amazon is abusing the process. Find me one comment that says "yeah, Amazon is totally right about that and SpaceX should not get the permits they are asking for". Abusing a process warrants a bit different response than "oh well, the rules can be abused…

Yeah, seeking the limits of the law. When a human does it, we typically call them an asshole. However, when a company does it, it's totally fine.

Re: Amazon asked FCC to reject Starlink plan because it can’t compete, SpaceX says

#74

Post by olivierduval »

hnaccy wrote: post #18
ROARosen wrote: post #15

Without getting too spaced-out with the the Bezos-Musk dynamics, I personally hate the idea of having private companies getting on the SpaceX bandwagon and clogging up outer space with thousands of satellites.

Why? My impression was that the low orbits used by Starlink and similar are the best place for this since it will all naturally deorbit on short timescales. It's just space who cares if we clog it up some with more useful things.

Because you think that being able to read twitter between two ads is "more useful" than watching a pure night sky ????

Maybe you should think about what is really "useful" for you... and what other people find "useful"

Re: Amazon asked FCC to reject Starlink plan because it can’t compete, SpaceX says

#75

Post by nine_k »

ajford wrote: post #35
bpodgursky wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a bit of a stretch to say they haven't decided; one depends on Starship being approved for launch (and working) in the right timeframe, and the other just uses Falcon 9s. I don't think regulators should force companies to be conservative in unrelated technical development when it doesn't have any material impact on others.

But it does have material impact on others. The Starlink constellations in this proposal are large, and any future development by others will have to account for the orbits of these potential constellations. That's 30k new objects to plan for, and with two configurations at play, that means accounting for essentially 60k objects in motion, effectively doubling the work someone would have to do to plan their deploymen…

It's like, well, land — if somebody builds on it, nobody else would be able to. They'd need to build nearby, or elsewhere.

It's not like Starlink is,going to exhaust all viable orbits.

Re: Amazon asked FCC to reject Starlink plan because it can’t compete, SpaceX says

#76

Post by colordrops »

verdverm wrote: post #69
colordrops wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And there's nothing in space that supports life or the ecosystem.

Depends, could our increased use of satellite based sensing be used to support and improve the terrestrial situation? Is the tradeoff worth it? It is certain that your life today would not be the same without GPS, so in a sense it does support it.

I mean there's nothing in space that we will damage (unlike the ocean) by using it. I'm all for utilizing space.

Re: Amazon asked FCC to reject Starlink plan because it can’t compete, SpaceX says

#77

Post by smallerfish »

MauranKilom wrote: post #59
smallerfish wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they're on LEO, what's the big deal? Starlink's satellites have a lifetime of around 10 years before they get pulled back into the atmosphere by gravity.

> before they get pulled back into the atmosphere by gravity. Irrelevant to the point, but: It's more that they get pulled further down into atmosphere by... atmosphere. With just gravity alone, they'd stay perfectly in orbit.

Fair point, thanks. :)

Re: Amazon asked FCC to reject Starlink plan because it can’t compete, SpaceX says

#78

Post by AnssiH »

kjksf wrote: post #53
gpt5 wrote: post #4

This seems on par with the process - SpaceX submits a proposal that is open for public scrutiny, and Amazon, which has the incentives to do so, submits feedback on that proposal. Whether the feedback/concerns from Amazon are warranted, that’s up to the FCC to decide. If they decide incorrectly, that’s when I’d start to bring the torches.

You fail to make a distinction between following a process and abusing a process. Amazon is clearly abusing the process. It's clear to everyone and their mothers that Amazon is abusing the process. Find me one comment that says "yeah, Amazon is totally right about that and SpaceX should not get the permits they are asking for". Abusing a process warrants a bit different response than "oh well, the rules can be abused…

> It's clear to everyone and their mothers that Amazon is abusing the process.

Not to me. SpaceX certainly claims so, but they are hardly impartial and I'm not familiar enough with FCC regs to make that judgement myself.

Re: Amazon asked FCC to reject Starlink plan because it can’t compete, SpaceX says

#79

Post by polote »

mataug wrote: post #49

Amazon always claims to focus on its customers, and ignore its competitors, this is supposed to be an important facet of the "Its always Day 1" philosophy. These actions, along with Amazon's complaints about Jedi contract seem to imply that amazon has now entered day 2. PS: I understand that the circumstances around the Jedi contract are different. I'm just trying to make a point that Amazon is now focussing more on…

You can't focus on your competitors when you don't have competitors.

Has Amazon, the website, any competitors? They have an unique proposition, like Apple

Re: Amazon asked FCC to reject Starlink plan because it can’t compete, SpaceX says

#80

Post by CamperBob2 »

Rebelgecko wrote: post #36
CamperBob2 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The SpaceX lawsuit against Kistler was nothing like the Blue Origin efforts to kneecap SpaceX. They were fighting for survival in a biased competitive environment against a lazy, unproductive, but politically-connected rival. See https://qz.com/emails/space-business/2049413/ . Blue Origin is just rolling rocks downhill on the enemy camp, hoping to get lucky. Because hey, it's easier than putting payloads into orbit,…

I have the opposite takeaway actually. Contract protests are pretty common, although they don't always make it to the Court of Federal Claims. OTOH, filing a lawsuit saying that the government should shut down another launch provider even when you're not competing for the same contracts (yet) seems like more of a kneecapping effort. Like I said, SpaceX and ULA both filed lawsuits before they ever made it to orbit so…

One obvious difference is that Blue Origin has less at stake, because they can't fail. Musk famously put his last $40M on the line in 2008 to keep the company afloat, while Bezos is basically Citizen Kane.

"You're right, I did lose a million dollars last year. I expect to lose a million dollars this year. I expect to lose a million dollars next year. You know, Mr. Thatcher, at the rate of a million dollars a year, I'll have to close this place in... 60 years."

Post reply on HN