Starlink : disputed FCC applications

[FutureSpaceTourist]

We don’t want the main FCC thread to become cluttered with disputes between different companies. Especially because of the heated discussion that can result.

So splitting off the whole Amazon & SpaceX arguments over Starlink. The main thread remains for posting new / revised applications and the results of the approval process.

Here’s Amazon’s latest salvo:

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1435621987431428096

Amazon fires back in the dispute over the Starlink Gen2 amendment request to the FCC:

"The conduct of SpaceX and other Musk-led companies makes their view plain: rules are for other people."

Highlights mine:

[abaddon]

The conduct of SpaceX and other Musk-led companies makes their view plain: rules are for other people.

Coming from Amazon, that's quite a line.

[thirtyone]

Wow, how rare is it for formal government filings to get this nasty between companies?

I'm sure everyone's going to want to comment about all the verbiage around the actual crux of the filing, but I'm wondering about the core legal argument (maybe someone can comment):

Is SpaceX really proposing two different constellations in one application? Is that legal for this situation?

The rest from both sides is really just flowery language that probably doesn't help regulators do their jobs. Really PR for reporters and people like us reading through FCC filings!

[RedLineTrain]

Wow, how rare is it for formal government filings to get this nasty between companies?

Common at the FCC.

[c4fusion]

I am popping some popcorn for this show!

On a more serious note, does this mud slinging actually do anything to affect the ruling besides affecting public perception?

It feels this just gives SpaceX a chance to claim the higher moral ground especially since no one seems to like Amazon (I mean people seem to like Walmart more these days).

[saliva_sweet]

Is SpaceX really proposing two different constellations in one application? Is that legal for this situation?

Here is the rule Amazon cites to claim it's not

§25.112   Dismissal and return of applications.
(a) An application will be unacceptable for filing and will be returned to the applicant with a brief statement identifying the omissions or discrepancies if:

(1) The application is defective with respect to completeness of answers to questions, informational showings, internal inconsistencies, execution, or other matters of a formal character;

[djfudge]

This seems like a football team surrounding the referee to complain about something the opposition has done. It rarely has any influence. I'm sure the FCC are quite capable of deciding whether Spacex has broken FCC rules without any help from outside.

[Confusador]

Is SpaceX really proposing two different constellations in one application? Is that legal for this situation?

This is the argument SpaceX makes in its application:

Although this application proposes alternative amendments to the pending application, this concept   is   familiar   to   those   who   submit   satellite   network   filings   to   the   International   Telecommunication  Union  (“ITU”)  to  initiate  the  international  process  for  deploying  NGSO  constellations.  Specifically, in recognition that constellation designs mature through development, the ITU  allows  mutually  exclusive  configurations  at  the  filing  stage.10    Each  of  these  mutually exclusive   configurations   is   independently evaluated   to   determine   whether   it meets   the requirements  for  a  favorable  finding.    As  the  satellite  system  is  deployed,  however,  only  one configuration may be notified and brought into use.  If a pending modification has been made but has not yet received favorable findings by the time the notification deadline arrives, a single backup mutually  exclusive  configuration  can  be  specified  and  used  in  the  event  that  the  primary  configuration is not found to be suitable.
Thus, while the request for Commission consideration of two alternative configurations is not common, it is consistent with the international approach to NGSO regulation.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

I suggest a reading of the FCC ruling/approval for Kuiper in 2020. It is instructive.

Amazon wants the FCC to tighten down on SpaceX. But if they accomplish that they will only cause the FCC to tighten down on the long list of contingency items that Kuiper must get FCC approval for before they are allowed to launch even 1 sat. Its a long list. The most significant one is the Debris and collision risk plan and design reentry debris risks assessments that as far as I know Amazon has not yet submitted to the FCC. Amazon only has until 2026 to get half of all of their sats launched. >1,500 of them. But before they can launch even 1 there is several dozen items they must submit and receive approval for. Several are with the ITU but most the FCC. Currently at the speed they are going they may miss the 2026 date.

SpaceX next generation system is much like Iridium's next gen system as in it offers operational improvements on the same bands under use by the 1st gen system as well as some additional bands not currently used by the 1st Gen system. The items matching and operating within the limitations already approved by the FCC except for the quantity of satellites and with a increased detailed and lowering risk level for orbital debris and reentry debris will likely glide through regardless of whatever Amazon says. Because it is a satellite hardware upgrade not a change of the frequency usage and not a new NGSO as an addition to the existing but a replacement for the existing that will operate seamlessly with the existing until the existing is de-orbited. Practically the only ? here is the quantity of sats as a new.

It is definitely a popcorn devouring side show between the two.

[snotis]

New SpaceX response today:

https://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=13326224

[FutureSpaceTourist]

New SpaceX response today:

https://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=13326224

Attached for convenience

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1436304619890749441

The back-and-forth over Starlink Gen2 continues, with SpaceX's concise response yesterday:

"Another week, another objection from Amazon against a competitor, yet still no sign of progress on Amazon’s own long-rumored satellite system."

[su27k]

lol

https://twitter.com/mdaneman/status/1573044060008456193

.@SpaceX wants to use the 2 GHz band. @dish, which licenses the band, is having none of that, it tells the @FCC. @Comm_Daily

[Robotbeat]

lol

https://twitter.com/mdaneman/status/1573044060008456193

.@SpaceX wants to use the 2 GHz band. @dish, which licenses the band, is having none of that, it tells the @FCC. @Comm_Daily

Because the attached image is being murdered by Twitter’s preview, here’s my phone’s character recognition of it:
“Any such evaluation need only be brief. This is a lawless, pirate application. The
Commission should dismiss it without accepting it for filing.”

Accusing SpaceX of being space pirates kind of makes them sound cooler than they are LOL.