Amazon, Space X Throw Hissy Fits As They Bicker Over Government Contracts, Subsidies

from the nobody-wins dept

We've noted a few times that the Space X, Starlink satellite broadband service isn't going to be quite as disruptive to telecom as many people might think.

For one, capacity constraints mean that the company will only be able to serve somewhere between 500,000 and 800,000 subscribers in the first few years. That's a drop in the bucket when you consider 42 million Americans don't have broadband, and 83 million live under a monopoly (usually Comcast). Once Musk fanboys flock to limited subscriber slots to outfit their boats and RVs, there likely may not be many left for those that genuinely need access. And at $100 per month (plus a $500 equipment cost) the service doesn't really help with the primary reason for low broadband adoption: high costs.

Starlink, like a lot of what Musk does, is really about other things. One, to help drive up company value via press excitement (like that recent dancing robot vaporware). Two, to help subsidize Space X's other space ventures (Starlink recently courted controversy for nabbing nearly $900 million in FCC funds to serve a few parking lots and traffic medians). Other companies have the same idea as they try to hoover up government subsidies and nab lucrative contracts, which is why we've been seeing a significant boost in hissy fits between companies like Space X, Amazon, and ViaSat.

ViaSat has been trying to derail Space X by (accurately if not self-servingly) pointing out the company's low-orbit satellites may pose environmental and light pollution threats. Amazon has also been ramping up its verbal assault on Space X and Starlink, claiming the company's plan to launch updated low-orbit satellites violates FCC rules. In filings this week with the FCC, Amazon lamented the fact that when it comes to Starlink and Space X, rules often just don't apply:

"Whether it is launching satellites with unlicensed antennas, launching rockets without approval, building an unapproved launch tower, or re-opening a factory in violation of a shelter-in-place order, the conduct of SpaceX and other Musk-led companies makes their view plain: rules are for other people, and those who insist upon or even simply request compliance are deserving of derision and ad hominem attacks.

While Amazon, like ViaSat, is absolutely engaged in self-serving behavior here (it doesn't want competition, wants government subsidies and contracts for itself, isn't much of a fan of regulatory authority, etc.), that doesn't mean it's not true. The Trump administration for example twisted itself into pretzels to throw hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies at Starlink for broadband coverage promises that made no coherent sense. But when it comes to the light pollution both Starlink and soon Amazon are creating (something researchers say can't be fully mitigated), U.S. regulators are just completely asleep at the wheel.

Amazon's specific complaints in their latest filings focus on claims that Space X is violating FCC rules governing inconsistent and incomplete applications, and has redesigned several antenna arrays "clandestinely." The company then whined to the FCC that when you point out the company's tendency to play fast and loose with government rules, Space X acts like a brat:

"Try to hold a Musk-led company to flight rules? You’re “fundamentally broken.” Try to hold a Musk-led company to health and safety rules? You’re “unelected & ignorant." Try to hold a Musk-led company to U.S. securities laws? You’ll be called many names, some too crude to repeat. In the words of the Wall Street Journal, Elon Musk wages a “War on Regulators,” the public servants charged with uniformly applying the same rules to all. As the Journal reported, “Federal agencies say [Musk is] breaking the rules and endangering people . . . . Rather than engaging in a give-and-take with government authorities, Mr. Musk’s default response includes making public, sometimes crude, remarks via Twitter disparaging them."

Of course Amazon's sudden concern about regulatory authority is highly performative as a company that routinely enjoys tap dancing around regulatory obligations and rules when it suits it (like say its union busting). But again, that doesn't mean it's wrong that Space X is also terrible in this particular arena. Because Space X doesn't deem it necessary to have a functioning PR department, the best you get in response to Amazon's allegations is often just... more Musk tweeting:

Starlink is currently in beta and will likely launch next year. Amazon's comparable low-orbit satellite broadband service isn't expected to go live until 2023. While both services will provide users with an additional option for broadband access, limited capacity and physics means it will be some time before either has the impact their billionaire owners promised, assuming both projects can remain financially viable that long (the low-orbit satellite market is a historical highway of failures). Honestly, at least in terms of broadband access, it remains utterly uncertain if any of this endless drama is going to actually be worth it.

Filed Under: competition, elon musk, fcc, jeff bezos, low earth orbit, satellite broadband, spectrum, starlink
Companies: amazon, spacex, starlink, viasat

ViaSat Asks FCC To Investigate Space X For Space Pollution

from the competitive-elbowing dept

So we've already noted how Space X's Starlink low-orbit satellite broadband service isn't going to revolutionize the broadband industry. The service lacks the capacity to service dense urban or suburban areas, meaning it won't pose much of a threat to traditional cable and fiber providers. With a $100 monthly price tag and $500 hardware fee, it's not exactly a miracle cure for the millions of low-income Americans struggling to afford a broadband connection, either.

That said: if you're currently one of the 42 million Americans who lacks access to any broadband at all, the service, capping out at 100 Mbps, is going to be damn-near miraculous. It's also going to be a significant upgrade for those currently stuck on last-generation expensive, capped, and sluggish traditional satellite lines.

Enter ViaSat, which clearly isn't keen on having its captive business market disrupted. The company this week urged the FCC to conduct an environmental review of SpaceX’s low-orbit Starlink constellation, arguing that the fledgling system poses environmental hazards in space and on Earth. Since the 80s, satellite systems have had a baked in exemption from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), excluding their businesses from environmental review. But the 12,000 lower orbit satellites Space X intends to launch should change that equation, ViaSat argues:

"given the sheer quantity of satellites at issue here, as well as the unprecedented nature of SpaceX’s treatment of them as effectively expendable, the potential environmental harms associated with SpaceX’s proposed modification are significant,” the company stated.

“Relying on the Commission’s decades-old categorical exemption to avoid even inquiring into the environmental consequences of SpaceX’s modification proposal would not only violate NEPA, but also would needlessly jeopardize the environmental, aesthetic, health, safety, and economic interests that it seeks to protect, and harm the public interest,” Viasat continued.

ViaSat's motivations here are in part anti-competitive to be sure, but that doesn't mean there's not a problem. A massive rise in lower orbit, cheaper satellites means a lot more junk and orbital debris floating around, putting other space craft at risk. ViaSat also argues this unprecedented rise in spacecraft also means more satellites burning up in orbit, which in turn can create environmental hazards like the production of ozone-destroying chemicals from launch vehicles to chemicals released when satellites burn up in re-entry:

"The petition cites research by The Aerospace Corporation on atmospheric impacts of launches and reentries. At the Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union earlier this month, the organization presented research that concluded that the rise of satellite megaconstellations could increase the mass of satellites reentering the atmosphere from about 100 metric tons a year to as much as 3,200 metric tons."

Again, ViaSat's likely playing some competitive games here while also citing serious issues. Issues the FCC hasn't really paid much attention to as it greenlights not only the launch of Starlink, but Amazon's massive low-orbit satellite ambitions. This is all before you get to issues of massive light pollution caused by these systems, a problem Musk claimed wouldn't happen (right before it did), and something scientists recently argued can't be easily fixed, if it can be fixed at all.

The inquiry was enough to get Elon Musk to comment on Twitter, calling ViaSat's inquiry "sneaky":

It should be noted that Charlie Ergen is CEO of Dish Network, not ViaSat. And while Musk is probably right that ViaSat is largely interested in preventing disruption of its largely-captive market, at the same time we've noted how regulators aren't really taking many of these problems particularly seriously as they stand around in slack-jawed awe at the somewhat innovative potential of emerging low-orbit satellite tech.

Filed Under: competition, elon musk, fcc, low earth orbit, satellite broadband, space pollution, starlink
Companies: space x, viasat

Regulators Are Ignoring How Low Orbit Satellite Broadband Is Trashing The Night Sky

from the blinded-by-science dept

As previously noted, Space X, Amazon, and others are pushing harder than ever into the low-orbit satellite broadband game. The industry, pockmarked by a long road of failures, involves firing thousands of smaller, cheaper, lower orbit satellite constellations into space to help supplement existing broadband services. The lower orbit means that LO satellite service will offer lower-latency broadband than traditional satellite offerings, which for 15 years or so have been widely maligned as expensive, slow, "laggy," with annoying monthly caps.

And while these services should absolutely help bring some additional options to rural Americans, nautical ventures, and those out of range of traditional service, folks shouldn't get their hopes up in terms of broader disruption of the uncompetitive U.S. telecom market. The physics involved in satellite transmission means there will always be limited capacity and odd throttling and network management restrictions, meaning it won't really make much headway in highly monopolized major metro areas. In short, the tech is absolutely a positive advancement, but it's not going to be the game changer many think.

And there's another growing problem with low orbit satellite technology. As we launch thousands of these micro-satellite constellations into space, the LO satellites are annoying professional and amateur astronomers, who say they're interfering with space observation and important scientific data collection (especially at wide-field observatories). During the recent monitoring of the NEOWISE comet, for example, photographer Daniel Lopez showed what Starlink "photobombing" looks like in practice for those trying to track these sort of events in the night sky:

Not great. And it's going to get notably worse. Amazon's Project Kuiper constellation, for example, will eventually consist of 3,236 satellites, more than the 2,600 satellites currently in orbit. Space X's Starlink project, in contrast, could ultimately consist of as many as 12,000 satellites all told. In some instances this is an even worse problem for slightly higher altitude LO satellites. And keep in mind this is just the testing phase... we haven't even gotten close to broader commercial deployment yet.

While Space X says it's taking steps to minimize the glare and "photo bombing" capabilities of these satellites (such as anti-reflective coating on the most problematic parts of the satellites), regulators at the FCC and elsewhere appear to be asleep at the wheel in terms of the broader impact on science and astronomy:

"We don’t yet have any kind of industrywide guidelines,” said Michele Bannister, a planetary astronomer at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand. “We don’t have an industry body that’s producing good corporate citizenship on the part of all of these enthusiastic companies that want to launch, and we don’t have any regulatory setup in place that’s providing clear guidelines back to the industry.”

She added, “To me, honestly, it feels like putting a bunch of planes up and then not having air traffic control."

No guidelines. Not just patchy or undeveloped guidelines. But none.

It won't get mentioned by the Times, but part of the problem are regulators who base their decisions on ideology and not data. In telecom, folks on the "deregulate everything and free market magic springs forth from the sidewalk" side of the policy aisle have long tried to paint emerging broadband alternatives as near-mystical panaceas to justify deregulation. As in, "we don't need regulation of telecom monopolies or consumer protection because this new technology X will create competition and fix everything." It never works because the U.S. telecom industry is painfully monopolized and broken, yet that never seems to matter.

This performative policy happened most notably years back with broadband over powerline (BPL), which former FCC boss turned cable's top lobbyist Mike Powell hyped as the "great broadband hope." Powell routinely hyped the tech to justify his massive deregulation of telecom in the aughts, but willfully ignored the fact the technology was an interference prone mess causing massive problems for radio transmissions nearby. BPL failed, and you only need to look at U.S. broadband prices, rankings, or Comcast's customer support to see how this worked out for everybody.

Low orbit satellite is far more useful and solid than BPL ever was, but I'm expecting to see it used in much the same way by the Pai FCC. As in: Pai's crew will quickly rubber stamp Amazon and Space X's ambition, hopeful that the added competition will help them retroactively justify their complete demolition of U.S. telecom consumer protections at the telecom lobby's behest. As in, we didn't need pesky oversight of monopolies because free market competition saved the day. But by Musk's own admission Starlink won't truly disrupt U.S. telecom because it can't serve dense urban or suburban markets, meaning companies like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast won't be meaningfully disrupted, and reality and aspirational policy once again won't line up.

When your top priorities are the maximizing of corporate revenues or the retroactive justification of bad policy based exclusively on ideology, the end result usually tends to lack... nuance. And in this case, this regulatory myopia could in many ways have unintended harm that goes well beyond the telecom sector and into the night sky itself.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, fcc, leo, low earth orbit, night sky, pollution, satellite broadband, satellites

Space X's Starlink Won't Be The Broadband Disruption Play Many People Think

from the don't-get-your-hopes-up dept

After initially obtaining an FCC license for up to 1 million Starlink satellite broadband customers in the United States, Space X last week quadrupled that estimate, and is now hopeful that 5 million Americans will sign up for service. To be clear: Space X's service won't be taking on traditional broadband providers in major metro areas. Instead, the company will be using thousands of low orbit satellites (with lower latency than traditional satellite broadband) to deliver marginally decent service to under-served rural Americans, assuming it winds up being profitable longer term.

In a country where an estimated 42 million can't get any broadband at all (during a raging pandemic, no less), any little improvement helps. By and large, most major outlets have framed Starlink as a massive disruption of the broadband industry:

"Starlink is the company’s ambitious plan to build an interconnected network of about 12,000 small satellites, to beam high-speed internet anywhere in the world. To date, SpaceX has launched more than 500 Starlink satellites. In addition to getting the satellites in orbit, SpaceX will need to build a vast system of ground stations and affordable user terminals if it is going to connect consumers directly to its network."

But those thinking that Starlink is going to truly disrupt the broadband industry at large probably shouldn't be holding their breath. Even the industry-cozy FCC has expressed skepticism about Musk's latency claims. And Musk himself has made it clear the service won't be a big threat to incumbent broadband providers because there just won't be enough capacity available to offer the service in major metro areas. No limit of marketing hype will be able to defeat the law of physics:

"The challenge for anything that is space-based is that the size of the cell is gigantic... it's not good for high-density situations," Musk said. "We'll have some small number of customers in LA. But we can't do a lot of customers in LA because the bandwidth per cell is simply not high enough."

Again, that's not to say Starlink won't be a positive advancement for rural broadband users, but it's mostly a play aimed at a niche market American companies have, time and time again, deemed to costly to serve after some initial flirtation. In time, Space X may as well. Given there have been so many failed attempts to disrupt the heavily monopolized residential US telecom sector (especially in low orbit satellite), it makes sense to wait for a fully commercial launch -- and to see what pricing and weird usage restrictions are applied -- before getting too excited about Starlink's potential for meaningful innovation.

It's also worth noting that existing telecom monopolists just love using emerging technologies as justification for regulatory apathy (read: we don't need oversight because the sector is just so darn competitive). As we saw with failed broadband over powerline (BPL) technology or wireless tech like WiMax, that usually involves radically over-hyping emerging competitors as mystical panaceas in a bid to suggest that reasonable adult oversight of the sector is no longer needed. That's certainly the tactic being used for 5G (another technology that won't be as disruptive as claimed for a laundry list of reasons), and I'd wager that Space X and Amazon's low orbit satellite experiments will soon be abused in the policy arena by AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon in much the same way -- even if the actual impact on incumbent businesses will likely be negligible.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, elon musk, leo, low earth orbit, satellites, starlink
Companies: spacex, starlink

FCC Skeptical About Space X Satellite Broadband Claims

from the disrupt-the-undisruptable dept

Ajit Pai's FCC majority is almost never skeptical about the claims made by giant broadband providers. Yet the FCC is expressing doubt that Elon Musk's looming, well-hyped satellite broadband service Starlink will deliver on its promises.

One of the downsides of traditional satellite service isn't just high prices, slow speeds, and usage caps -- it's latency. Traditional broadband delivers somewhere in the range of 20-30ms, whereas the physics of traditional satellite broadband means service usually delivers a 200ms response time; lag that's usually very noticeable. Space X's Starlink satellite service operates using far more satellites in far lower orbits, meaning latency should be dramatically improved. But Ajit Pai's FCC has been expressing doubts that the service will be able to deliver the low latency it's promising the public.

Despite the fact that Starlink could be very helpful in rural markets (its primary target), the FCC originally blocked the company from getting any rural broadband subsidies whatsoever. But last week in an order, the FCC reversed course (pdf), stating that Starlink could receive these funds. But the FCC was quick to express skepticism that Starlink can deliver broad commercial service with latency under 100ms, as it has been claiming:

"Service providers that intend to use low-Earth orbit satellites claim that the latency of their technology is "dictated by the laws of physics" due to the altitude of the satellite's orbit. We remain skeptical that the altitude of a satellite's orbit is the sole determinant of a satellite applicant's ability to meet the Commission's low-latency performance requirements. As commenters have explained, the latency experienced by customers of a specific technology is not merely a matter of the physics of one link in the transmission. Propagation delay in a satellite network does not alone account for latency in other parts of the network such as processing, routing, and transporting traffic to its destination. Short-form applicants seeking to bid as a low-latency provider using low-Earth orbit satellite networks will face a substantial challenge demonstrating to Commission staff that their networks can deliver real-world performance to consumers below the Commission's 100ms low-latency threshold."

One the one hand, I think Pai's skepticism is likely warranted. The satellite broadband sector, including low-Earth orbit satellite, has seen no limit of hype and failure over the last decade. Maybe Musk is the one who finally gets this play right, and maybe he isn't. But the broadband industry has been filled with so much empty hype over the years you really shouldn't buy into the hype of satellite broadband as a serious, major competitor until you see a broad, commercial launch. And even then, much like 5G, we need to see what speeds, pricing, and usage caps look like before declaring it some kind of competitive panacea.

On the other hand, this FCC's history is chock full of examples where it expresses absolutely no skepticism whatsoever at the absurd claims made by companies like AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and Charter (Spectrum), which all have a vested interest in broadband competitors never seeing the light of day. This is also an FCC boss who has never once expressed the slightest concern about the billions in taxpayer dollars we've thrown at Frontier, AT&T, and Verizon for fiber networks that were never delivered. Seriously, check out the fraudulent nonsense by ISPs like Frontier is West Virginia, then realize the FCC has never made a peep.

Which is to say I think the FCC is making these claims in good faith, but the agency engaged in enough bad faith shenanigans the last three years, it's hard to say for sure. When you pander ideologically to industry like this FCC has done (repealing net neutrality, fighting privacy rules, fighting states' rights to enforce consumer protection), you start to lose the benefit of the doubt. Having watched this industry for 20 years, I certainly wouldn't be shocked to see regulatory barriers suddenly spring up in Starlink's path that have been lobbied for by the likes of AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast.

Either way, the potential exists for Starlink (and other companies, like Amazon), to finally disrupt one of the least liked industries in America. Assuming the technology works well. And assuming regulators don't foul it up. And assuming the company doesn't get bored with the high costs and hard work required to do battle with legacy broadband providers... you know, like Google did.

Filed Under: ajit pai, broadband, competition, fcc, low earth orbit, satellite, starlink
Companies: space x

DailyDirt: DIY Space Satellites

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

It's getting easier and easier to send stuff into low earth orbit, and more folks seem to be interested in doing it. So not surprisingly, there is a growing number of projects that offer to perform amateur experiments on small satellites. For students, the opportunity to send up experiments into space has been around for at least a couple years (via the Student Spaceflight Experiment Program), but now almost anyone can participate in a space experiment. Here are just a few examples.

• SkyCube is a satellite project on Kickstarter with $1 sponsoring 10 seconds of the mission. For just $6, you can broadcast six 120-character messages from space! [url]
• Whatever you can fit inside a ping pong ball can be sent up to the edge of space (100,000 feet) -- and anyone can make a PongSat. Presumably, though, they won't let you fill your ping pong ball with a combustible propellant and an altimeter trigger.... [url]
• The ArduSat Mission has completed its Kickstarter campaign and put up a list of experiment ideas that could be run on its Arduino-based satellite. Some of the suggestions for experiments/apps aren't too exciting, but there's also a prize of $1,500 for the most innovative experiment or app for the ArduSat -- so someone is bound to come up with a few more ideas. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post.

Filed Under: arduino, ardusat, diy, low earth orbit, pongsat, satellites, skycube, space
Companies: kickstarter

DailyDirt: Who's Going To Clean Up All The Space Junk?

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Putting satellites and spacecraft into low earth orbit is getting easier and less expensive all the time, but that also means we're possibly creating even more orbiting space junk around our planet -- without any way to remove this garbage. Man-made space debris is already a problem, and as we shoot more stuff up into space, it could become an even bigger problem. There are at least a few folks who are concerned about space pollution, but there aren't that many workable solutions (yet).

• DARPA is working on a project called Phoenix which aims to create new satellites that can cannibalize older satellites in orbit for parts. DARPA wants to demonstrate robotic satellites that can salvage reusable parts such as antennas from obsolete satellites in geosynchronous orbit, but there are quite a few technological and logistical hurdles to overcome. [url]
• China's space program has achieved several significant milestones, but its anti-satellite capabilities could turn low earth orbit into an unusable space junkyard. In 2007, China shot down one of its own weather satellites and created a cloud of space debris. [url]
• One proposal to reduce space debris in low earth orbit involves deploying tons of micron-scale tungsten dust in space -- which would collide with other debris and slow down the space junk so that it burns up in the upper atmosphere. About 100 tons of cosmic dust from micrometeorites gets captured by Earth's gravity on a daily basis, but it's too spread out to have a significant effect on man-made space junk. Unfortunately, deploying 40 tons of man-made tungsten dust, at about $1000 per pound, is a fairly expensive mission... [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post.

Filed Under: china, low earth orbit, micrometeorites, phoenix, satellites, space, space junk, tungsten
Companies: darpa

DailyDirt: Cheaper Satellites Are Blasting Off

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket has recently demonstrated its capabilities by successfully docking with the International Space Station. It's the first example of a private company achieving this feat, and it's paving the way for more private space ventures. Cheaper space missions are becoming more commonplace, and here are just a few more experimental projects that are aiming to change the space race by creating a multitude of mini space missions.

• Nanoracks reportedly has the first commercial cargo flown in a SpaceX Dragon capsule. One of the commercial experiments includes components of Ardbeg whisky to determine how whisky ages in zero gravity. Maybe there are faster ways to produce aged whisky... in space? [url]
• Interplanetary CubeSats could dramatically lower the costs of space exploration in our solar system. Low Earth orbit CubeSats have already made affordable satellite experiments possible for universities as well as government space agencies, so floating a few of these satellites out beyond Earth's reach could open up even more possibilities. [url]
• The CleanSpace One project is planning to launch satellites that can clear out space debris in the Earth's orbit. Around 16,000 objects (>10 cm in diameter) are currently cluttering up space right above the Earth, and finding a good way to clean up this space pollution could make other space missions less risky. [url]
• To discover more links on space exploration, check out what's floating around in StumbleUpon universe. [url]  

By the way, StumbleUpon can also recommend some good Techdirt articles, too.

Filed Under: cleanspace one, cubesats, low earth orbit, rockets, satellites, space exploration, space junk, whisky
Companies: ardbeg, nanoracks, spacex

DailyDirt: Commercial Space

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Now that the Space Shuttle has been retired, NASA temporarily has no vehicle of its own to send astronauts into space. The plan is to encourage commercial entities to be more interested in manned spaceflight, and there are a handful of companies that are taking a shot at putting people on rocketships. Here are just a few interesting links on the future of commercial space missions.

• NASA is handing off low-Earth orbit to commercial enterprises and taking a look at longer-range missions for itself. The space race has essentially turned into America's Next Top Space Model... or American Space Idol... [url]
• Paul Allen and Burt Rutan have developed an enormous mothership that will launch rockets from the stratosphere. Stratolaunch Systems hasn't built it yet, but they plan to launch the first rocket in 2016. [url]
• So far, SpaceX is the only commercial company to successfully return a spacecraft from orbit. This capability is only shared by five nations and the European Space Agency. [url]
• To discover more links on space exploration, check out what's floating around in StumbleUpon universe. [url]  

By the way, StumbleUpon can also recommend some good Techdirt articles, too.

Filed Under: burt rutan, low earth orbit, manned missions, mothership, paul allen, space shuttle, spacecraft
Companies: nasa, spacex, stratolaunch systems