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

201–210 of 275 posts

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

#201

Post by l33t2328 »

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…

Okay I’ll bite. Amazon is totally right about that and SpaceX should not get the permits they are asking for.

They have received unfair advantages from the government, and to levy those advantages to get more advantages is improper.

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

#202

Post by DisjointedHunt »

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…

The bigger point here is that this isn't even "using" the process. Amazon is free to submit comments when the proposal is open to public comment. They have chosen to interject themselves into the internal responsibility of a Government Agency by attempting to influence a favorable decision by submitting an unsolicited opinion on internal agency process, trying to force officials to do their jobs in the specific way that Amazon wants them to.

This is the part that is wrong. The responsibility of the agency is to review these applications, not to babysit and pander to the whims and fancies of Amazon because they feel they're important enough to be listened to as part of internal agency deliberations.

Amazon is free to submit their own proposals and COMPETE with Spacex. What they're doing here is an attempt to STIFLE COMPETITION by levying additional undue burden on the government agency involved in the process of reviewing their competitors submissions with the hope that this additional burden slows down the process significantly.

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

#203

Post by DisjointedHunt »

AnssiH wrote: post #78
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…

> 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.

You don't need to be familiar with FCC regs, its a matter of common sense.

Say you buy a house somewhere and submit an application to the city to modify the kitchen or something. Your neighbor objects even though it is none of their business what your dealings with the city council on official matters related to your property are.

Clearly , you are "hardly impartial", now?

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

#205

Post by amarant »

lanevorockz wrote: post #188
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…

We got used to companies abusing processes and not being punished. Just look at how all Big Tech companies systematically break laws and happily pays the fines for these crimes.

But if they pay the fine, haven't they been punished?

Whether punishment was sufficient is a different question.

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

#206

Post by inglor_cz »

tenpies wrote: post #186
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…

> Amazon is clearly abusing the process. It's not clear to me. I'm actually quite worried about SpaceX's increasing presence in space put simply because Musk has shown very little care for risk - especially if it's to someone other than him (e.g. testing "self-driving" on public roads, showing exceedingly lack of QA and attention to detail in most products, and generally bringing the "move fast and break things" mant…

SpaceX as a company definitely cares for risk. I think you are falling for Musk's media braggadoccio, but if you look at safety record of real world SpaceX operations, it is excellent.

They had no human fatalities ever, which is remarkable for a 19 year old aerospace company (obviously there weren't many launches with people, but accidents happen on surface, too; this is heavy industry after all). And they haven't lost even a dead payload in what, last 100 launches? And if you happen to watch the launches from time to time, you will know why: they do not hesitate to scrub if they do not like something.

This is the opposite of the mentality that brought us the Challenger and Columbia disasters and I am happy that someone can actually square this level of prudency with rapid technical development.

As for Kessler syndrome, orbital decay is very strong at Starlink heights. Even if the entire fleet were abandoned, the orbits would be clear within 3-5 years. Nothing stays long at this height without active help of engines. The thin wisps of atmosphere still present will slow it down and drag it back to burn.

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

#207

Post by n8ta »

tenpies wrote: post #186
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…

> Amazon is clearly abusing the process. It's not clear to me. I'm actually quite worried about SpaceX's increasing presence in space put simply because Musk has shown very little care for risk - especially if it's to someone other than him (e.g. testing "self-driving" on public roads, showing exceedingly lack of QA and attention to detail in most products, and generally bringing the "move fast and break things" mant…

Near half of satellites are SpaceX satellites mate. Ofc they are half of close encounters. This isn't a good argument.

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

#208

Post by gonesilent »

inglor_cz wrote: post #206
tenpies wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Amazon is clearly abusing the process. It's not clear to me. I'm actually quite worried about SpaceX's increasing presence in space put simply because Musk has shown very little care for risk - especially if it's to someone other than him (e.g. testing "self-driving" on public roads, showing exceedingly lack of QA and attention to detail in most products, and generally bringing the "move fast and break things" mant…

SpaceX as a company definitely cares for risk. I think you are falling for Musk's media braggadoccio, but if you look at safety record of real world SpaceX operations, it is excellent. They had no human fatalities ever, which is remarkable for a 19 year old aerospace company (obviously there weren't many launches with people, but accidents happen on surface, too; this is heavy industry after all). And they haven't lo…

Both Tesla and SpaceX have lost employees in small aircraft accidents. While not industrial in nature the push to rush and be places at times should be counted.

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

#209

Post by whoknowswhat11 »

AnssiH wrote: post #78
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…

> 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.

Wow - HN folks just go for this garbage?

Lots of good quotes from the pushback

" In fact, Amazon has not had a single meeting with the Commission this year about how it intends to resolve the Commission’s interference or safety concerns, but it has had 15 meetings in that same span just about SpaceX. While Amazon has waited 15 months to explain how its system works, it has lodged objections to SpaceX on average about every 16 days this year."

So you have one company actually launching and serving customers, and another who has done nothing, not even updating FCC on its plans in 15 months! And then every 16 days is lodging objections?

Let me understand this clearly - is it the FCC jobs to protect Amazon from being slow, or to advance consumer access to internet and communications? Because we should be pushing HARD for the folks actually delivering.

Post reply on HN