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

Post by kumarvvr » Thu, Sep 02, 2021, 4:16 AM UTC

hellbannedguy wrote: post #177

z3ncyberpunk wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll take the eccentric billionaire actually tackling real issues and making actual headway. People here are too narrow minded and have quarter to quarter short term memory disorder, seeming to forget that Musk and Tesla are the sole reason we have had the progress and momentum towards actually greener technologies, not simply greenwashed corporate nonsense that was churned out year after year without any was actual…

Bezos making the world greener? His big trucks deliver a few packages daily to one, or two, households. Those electric fleet commercials seem like PR BS. If I ever do see an electric truck barreling up my street; I bet they will be heavily subsidized by our tax money in the form of credit. What is he doing that's green? That cowboy hat was pure ego, and vanity. Two bald men on a carnival ride might not be good for hi…

Post by verdverm » Thu, Sep 02, 2021, 4:19 AM UTC

bogomipz wrote: post #111

AnssiH wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I think the OP may have be referring to the fact that Amazon also recently both filed lawsuit against the DOD for awarding the JEDI project to Microsoft[1] and Blue Origin filed a protest against the G.A.O. for awarding the lunar landing contract to SpaceX[2]. I think when take all 3 of these in the aggregate, it starts to look a bit like bad faith on the part of Bezos and Amazon. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/joe…

Post by shaklee3 » Thu, Sep 02, 2021, 4:53 AM UTC

admax88qqq wrote: post #133

hutzlibu wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"forget that Musk and Tesla are the sole reason we have had the progress and momentum towards actually greener technologies" There are many things, that come to my mind with this statement, but I will just say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Because yes, he did gave momentum to the conservative car makers to get them to move their asses. But cars are only responsible for a tiny fraction of CO2 -…

> But cars are only responsible for a tiny fraction of CO2 Road vehicles account for 5% of global CO2 emissions. That's not a tiny fraction IMO. It's not huge, but road transportation alone (not counting shipping) account for 5X as much CO2 aviation. https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions-from-transport

Post by shaklee3 » Thu, Sep 02, 2021, 4:55 AM UTC

YooLi wrote: post #157

koboll wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is the actual ex parte filing: https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Amazo... It is quite short and basically alleges SpaceX failed to fulfill various requirements when filing its amendment. Mainly, it alleges SpaceX submitted two different configuration options and the Commission's rules require them to settle on a single configuration option to submit. Are those legitimate allegations? I have…

Why does Amazon feel it’s their job to check compliance to the FCCs rules?

Post by avs733 » Thu, Sep 02, 2021, 5:31 AM UTC

amelius wrote: post #73

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…

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.