[HN Gopher] Judges reject Viasat's plea to stop SpaceX Starlink ...
___________________________________________________________________
Judges reject Viasat's plea to stop SpaceX Starlink satellite
launches
Author : LinuxBender
Score : 92 points
Date : 2021-07-23 15:11 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (arstechnica.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (arstechnica.com)
| panzagl wrote:
| Do Viasat's launches go through the same type of environmental
| impact study they're saying SpaceX should go through? I couldn't
| tell from the article whether the FCC let SpaceX skip a step
| (legitimately or not), or whether Viasat is arguing for a new
| regulation to be applied to SpaceX that doesn't currently exist.
| evanb wrote:
| Satellites in geosync are very VERY far away; much farther than
| Starlink's LEOs. So the risk of crashing into the atmosphere is
| much reduced; the risk of altering the appearance of the night
| sky is similarly reduced by the distance.
| gpm wrote:
| > the risk of crashing into the atmosphere is much reduced
|
| This isn't really a risk, it's a feature. "Crashing" into the
| atmosphere means you slow down from orbital velocity and re-
| enter instead of polluting the orbital environment. It's much
| worse if you stay in orbit, occupying valuable space, and
| risking collisions that will create debris clouds occupying
| much more valuable space (and potentially resulting in chain
| reactions).
|
| SpaceX has long since designed it's satellites to fully burn
| up as they re-enter the atmosphere to remove the risk that
| they'll hit someone on the ground, but even for satellites
| where that hasn't happened, it's generally preferred that
| they re-enter the atmosphere than hang out dead in valuable
| orbits.
| wumpus wrote:
| It's a risk, and the FCC requires that you plan on not
| killing people on the ground if your satellites are going
| to re-enter.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| And the FAA required that you plan on not killing people
| on the ground when your plane lands.
|
| He said it's not a risk in the sence that it's not
| something you avoid, it's something you use regularly. He
| did not mean "you can just YOLO it"
| gpm wrote:
| Crashing into the _ground_ is a risk, crashing into the
| atmosphere not so much.
| bpodgursky wrote:
| The Starlink satellites are tiny; they burn up in the
| upper atmosphere and never reach the ground.
| kitsunesoba wrote:
| On the other hand, geosynchronous satellites won't ever clean
| themselves up and if control is lost on one, it'll continue
| to be a problem for thousands of years or until a retrieval
| craft is sent up. There's not even really much of an
| opportunity to safely de-orbit if failure is anticipated
| because they're so far out.
|
| With Starlink, in the worst case scenario dead satellites
| will be in orbit for 2-3 years, and if signs of giving out
| start showing up SpaceX can quickly and safely steer it to
| burn up, with a cheap (and likely updated) replacement being
| sent up within a month.
| nradov wrote:
| If a geostationary satellite is still operational when it
| reaches end of life then the operators are supposed to use
| the remaining fuel to move it to a safe graveyard orbit. Of
| course that doesn't always work.
| wumpus wrote:
| No satellite has ever had to do an environmental impact study
| -- the FCC/FAA has a blanket waiver for everyone.
|
| The FCC does regulate debris and re-entry hazards.
| Constellations like SpaceX's have much more strict rules than
| GEO satellites like Viasat's.
| monocasa wrote:
| I think their point is that thousands of satellites in LEO is
| different than a half dozen in geo synchronous orbit. You can
| see starlink satellites from the ground as they orbit, and
| there's much greater chance of collisions with how their orbits
| work.
|
| I think Viasat is mainly hoping to stall SpaceX as they see
| their business crumbling around them rapidly, but there's some
| fair questions.
| panzagl wrote:
| I did some digging, and apparently all launches have been
| exempt, including Viasats
|
| https://www.lightreading.com/opticalip/viasat-presses-fcc-
| to...
|
| So they are looking for new regulation, based on some rather
| spurious claims.
| smoldesu wrote:
| I used to use satellite internet like Viasat (Hughesnet), and
| there's a good goddamn reason I'm using Starlink now. At first I
| was convinced that our slow speeds and high latency were just a
| limitation of the technology, and the folks at Hughesnet were
| trying their hardest: boy was I wrong. They started introducing
| insanely low data caps (25gb/month), and charging us $15/gb
| overage.
|
| I hope they go out of business. Their services were clearly
| exploitative, and this is a lame excuse to try and stamp out
| competition.
| underseacables wrote:
| "Viasat is worried that its slower Internet service delivered
| from geostationary satellites will lose customers once Starlink
| is out of beta and more widely available."
|
| I am not a lawyer, but if I'm reading this correctly, the only
| claim here is that the FCC and SpaceX did not follow proper
| procedure, but the catalyst is fear of competition.
|
| My opinion is that if a company needs government help to thwart
| competition, then competition is absolutely needed.
|
| Edit: Formatting is having some issues it seems.
| fossuser wrote:
| I hope starlink bankrupts these companies.
|
| It really bothers me when companies that have failed to adapt
| throw their weight around by trying to leverage legislation to
| kill competition.
|
| Cable telecoms, car dealerships, turbo tax, etc.
| jws wrote:
| Not a lawyer, but... generally in the US you need "standing" to
| file a suit. That is, you have to show that somehow you have a
| material interest in the issue to be decided.
|
| I couldn't force a suit saying the FCC was required to do an
| environmental study, and they didn't study the light reflected
| from SpaceX satellites so the approval for the satellites is
| invalid. I just don't have any standing there. The US legal
| system being what it is "It is hurting my business, I am losing
| dollars." is pretty good at providing "standing".
| xyzzyz wrote:
| That's the theory. In practice, if judges want you to
| succeed, they'll accept that you have standing even on very
| flimsy argument.
| nradov wrote:
| Sure sometimes trial court judges make politically
| influenced rulings but those are usually eventually
| overturned on appeal.
| skinnymuch wrote:
| For cases like this where the defendant is powerful,
| right? Since otherwise if the defendant is a random small
| org or person, they wouldn't have the means to fight the
| case much in the first place. Or no?
| edoceo wrote:
| Where _eventually_ and _on appeal_ means $$$$$$
| qqtt wrote:
| Exactly right. Put another way, Viasat is saying "I will lose
| money because my service is worse, and I will be in a
| disadvantaged position _because_ _we_ _followed_ _the_
| _rules_ _and_ _the_ _FCC_ _allowed_ _SpaceX_ _not_ _to_.
|
| If there was no material impact to Viasat's business, they
| wouldn't even be able to file the lawsuit.
|
| The courts will decide if SpaceX/FCC acted unfairly towards
| Viasat by allowing SpaceX to operate under a different set of
| rules - again, causing Viasat's product to be worse and
| having a material impact to Viasat's business.
| leephillips wrote:
| Does the harm have to be financial? Can I sue because
| Starlink interferes with my pursuit of observational
| astronomy?
| rolleiflex wrote:
| Not a lawyer, but my understanding is that the answer is
| yes, in theory. In practice, the primary people that
| could legitimately make that argument would be the
| observatories of universities or the like, people with
| substantial and well-documented prior interest in the
| act. In fact this concern was raised before. I don't
| think any went as far as suing, though.
| skinnymuch wrote:
| Would a Peter Thiel like situation only work if it was
| done the same way - billionaire funds some one at a
| university? A billionaire themselves wouldn't have
| grounds for a case for saying their astronomical
| observations are being messed with. This is assuming they
| do have some what of an astronomy hobby.
| leephillips wrote:
| That makes sense. I know there is a lot of resentment in
| the astronomy community over Starlink, but suing is a big
| financial risk.
| aeternum wrote:
| It's kinda sad to see the astronomy community consider a
| slight inconvenience to their hobby to be more important
| than worldwide internet access.
|
| We lost a jumbo jet to the ocean and were unable to find
| it because we did not have worldwide coverage. How many
| millions of people are without internet access in rural
| areas? Don't many consider internet access to be close to
| a basic human right?
|
| I was considering getting into astronomy myself but do
| not want to be part of a community like that. It's
| probably a vocal minority but it's still disappointing.
| leephillips wrote:
| Yeah, good call. You should probably stay away.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| How could thousands of satellites launched every year be
| a solution to bringing internet to the whole world? Do
| you have any idea how expensive Starlink will be? Whole
| villages won't be able to afford a single base station at
| current prices, and they are losing money today.
| aeternum wrote:
| Launches will only get cheaper over time. The base
| station is also likely to decrease in price over time due
| to economies of scale.
|
| Starlink is one of the very few satellite providers that
| can provide enough bandwidth (due to the large
| constellation) that an entire village could share a
| single base station.
| nanidin wrote:
| I'm a westerner, but lived in a village in Indonesia for
| 6 weeks. I agree the cost of a base station + monthly
| fees would be exorbitant for most living in the village
| as currently priced for the US market. Interesting note
| though, they had satellite dishes with pirate decoders to
| watch satellite TV, which gave them access to things like
| American movies. This is in a place where a cup of coffee
| was $0.10 and a pack of cigarettes was something like $1.
| The family I lived with had four kids, the father climbed
| trees to collect juice to ferment into tuak, which they
| sold at a roadside stop for something like $0.05/bottle.
| They also had a small farm. They were able to afford
| running non-potable water, electricity, TV + satellite
| dish + decoder, and cheap cell phones with data
| connections. I'm sure Starlink would be priced in a way
| that was affordable in the local economy should it get
| there, and that people that have no other internet
| options will take it up and join the modern world. I
| think that will be a net win for society.
|
| Not a direct reply, but Starlink will also enable some
| interesting scenarios around open internet access in
| places where it doesn't exist today - like the Middle
| East during the Arab Spring, or in China, or in North
| Korea.
| [deleted]
| defaultname wrote:
| >they wouldn't even be able to file the lawsuit
|
| Pedantic, but anyone can file a lawsuit about almost
| anything, regardless of proof or standing or lack thereof.
| The barrier to doing so is negligible. It would get
| dismissed at the earliest consideration, but the point is
| that the filing of a lawsuit means _incredibly_ little.
| kumarvvr wrote:
| Looks like they are arguing - hwe followed every procedure
| leading to a poorer quality service, but they are breaking
| rules and will out compete us.
|
| However, I wonder how the intersection of regulatory frameworks
| with rapid tech progress intersect here.
|
| I know that until Elon came around, satellite internet was a
| costly special use affair. So, perhaps the rules ought to be
| changed but govt moves slower than pvt companies, so they
| missed the chance.
|
| Also, large scale satellite deployments for broadband internet
| on a global scale is extremely fresh territory.
| vmception wrote:
| Maybe Viasat's shareholders are gangsters and the executives
| need to show that they tried
| nradov wrote:
| VSAT is primarily owned by large hedge funds and mutual
| funds, just like most other publicly traded companies.
|
| https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/VSAT/holders?p=VSAT
| blooalien wrote:
| So, yep. "Gangsters" confirmed.
| phendrenad2 wrote:
| Doesn't that sound more like "fear of UNFAIR competition"?
| wumpus wrote:
| Is it a surprise that existing vendors claim that a newcomer
| with superior technology is competing unfairly?
| sokoloff wrote:
| If they're actually not following required governmental
| procedures*, then it seems like they may well be competing
| unfairly.
|
| * - This is something that it seems the courts are well
| positioned to rule upon and about which I have no opinion.
| freeopinion wrote:
| I think a Mexican restaurant that has to comply with a raft
| full of regulations about grill temperature, cooler
| temperature, counter time, disinfectants, labor practices,
| business licensing and taxes, etc. can rightfully complain
| about a taco truck that shows up with no license, no
| inspections, no license plate, and underage employees
| serving beer.
|
| Of course, sometimes the incumbents spend many years
| constructing regulation after regulation to build a moat.
| Then somebody comes along with the funding to defy all
| those regulations. And the incumbent complains that the
| newcomer is ruining the moat.
|
| Sometimes it takes a good deal of wisdom and discernment to
| decide which rules are moats and which are legit. Then it
| takes character to tear down what should be torn down and
| defend what should be defended.
| decebalus1 wrote:
| > My opinion is that if a company needs government help to
| thwart competition, then competition is absolutely needed.
|
| This is not as simple as that. The current waiver on
| environmental studies for satellite launches was put in place
| in an era (the 80s) where individual satellites were not
| considered a threat. Now we're launching 'constellations'.
|
| It does really smell like some Oracle-level lawsuit driven
| anti-competitive behavior from viasat. However, as always, the
| truth is somewhere down the middle.
| kiba wrote:
| SpaceX announced their plans years ago, all the way back to
| 2015.[1]
|
| Satellite companies have _six years_ to plan and respond.
|
| ViaSat have no excuses if they're worried about their competitor.
| It's amazing about the depth of complacency that the space
| industry in general sunk to.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink
| milankragujevic wrote:
| This is classic ISP behavior. Doesn't matter if the medium is a
| radio link from satellites in space or a coaxial cable or
| optical fiber cable on the ground - ISPs gonna do what ISPs
| gonna do - try in any way to block competition.
| foobarian wrote:
| Without SpaceX, you're in a world where each LEO launch costs
| $500M and the tech is not good enough for handovers so you
| make that even worse by going to GEO. Even without being an
| ISP it is a monumental challenge to overcome.
| api wrote:
| ULA sat around and produced studies for years arguing that
| reusable rockets were either impossible or wouldn't actually
| save any money. The latter claim is absurd at first glance, but
| they argued and pushed it even past the time when Falcon cores
| were being reused.
|
| Space launch and ISPs are both industries that are accustomed
| to fat cost-plus contracts, subsidies with no accountability,
| and market protection from government. They've lived that way
| for decades, resulting in companies that I'm sure are optimized
| top to bottom for suckling at the government teat.
| kumarvvr wrote:
| I think the issue is Viasat think they are being shortchanged
| by the FCC to help Elon.
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| ViaSat knows it can just build its own re-usable rockets to be
| able to price match SpaceX right?
|
| There's no law against that.
| schnebbau wrote:
| It's bullshit when companies do this.
|
| > Viasat is worried that its slower Internet service delivered
| from geostationary satellites will lose customers once Starlink
| is out of beta and more widely available.
|
| So Viasat has two options: improve their offering to remain
| competitive, or throw a tantrum and start a lawsuit. Yep, of
| course it's gonna be option two.
| CapmCrackaWaka wrote:
| To be fair, this lawsuit is actually competition at work.
| Viasat is complaining about the allowed _altitude_ of the
| SpaceX satellites, they didn't literally say to the judge "We
| don't want any competition, please reject their license".
|
| Their complaint, while obviously futile and pretty pathetic
| given the alternatives, actually had a positive outcome. From
| the article:
|
| > The FCC did require SpaceX to explain how it will prevent
| orbital debris, collisions in space, and casualties upon
| satellite reentry. The FCC also imposed conditions on the
| license.
|
| This is more of a situation of 'hey, why do _these_ guys get
| special treatment??'
| gpm wrote:
| I haven't checked, but I assume that the FCC required that
| prior to the complaint... just because the FCC usually
| requires that...
| pengaru wrote:
| The paperwork was lost under Ajit Pai's coffee mug.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| > Viasat is complaining about the allowed _altitude_ of the
| SpaceX satellites,
|
| Which is as good as complaining about nothing. There's no
| real reason to complain about a slight lowering in altitude.
| agentultra wrote:
| Isn't all of this orbital junk kind of dangerous for space
| missions and interferes with astronomical instruments here on
| earth?
| trident5000 wrote:
| I would keep asking that question even though they probably
| know what they're doing with that issue.
| [deleted]
| supperburg wrote:
| I think there's a big difference between the satellites making
| little dark spots in the sky and making faint bright spots.
| Maybe not. Either way I don't think it's a problem. If they can
| cancel out the turbulence of the atmosphere, they can cancel
| out whatever signal the satellites introduce. But that's
| optical. I wonder if having all that metal up there would
| interfere with radio astronomy?
| LatteLazy wrote:
| Not really. Image how many cars there on earths surface. But
| the earth is far from covered in cars. The surface area of even
| just geostationary orbit is much bigger, and there are a lot
| fewer satellites.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| Not in SpaceX's case. The satellites are in low enough orbit to
| deorbit themselves naturally if they fail, although they do so
| faster if using onboard thrusters at end of life. Any debris
| caused by failure is also likely to deorbit quickly. Not true
| for higher orbits, like 800km or above.
|
| As far as being visible to sensitive telescopes, that is true,
| but also not surprising. Telescopes are designed to detect
| really faint things, so even though Starlink is now almost
| always darker than the visible limit once fully deployed in
| operational orbit, it can still show up in sensitive
| astronomical surveys.
| cududa wrote:
| The routes are published, I don't see the big deal of
| removing a few frames from the composite shot when one fly's
| over.
|
| "It's hard" does not seem like a valid excuse to deny
| internet to the underserved. Plus, I looked through the
| manual for the most widely used telescope compositor and it
| supports tracking published satellite trajectories and
| automatically dropping the frames when a satellites overhead.
| It seemed a bit tedious to set up, but the GUI of most of the
| thing looked positively 1997
| jimmaswell wrote:
| It's not like we haven't had airplanes in the sky for a
| while too. Curious people never complain about those
| getting in the way of their pretty pictures.
| oscardssmith wrote:
| a lot of that is probably because planes usually fly
| during the day, and most of the over night ones are
| flying over oceans.
| sqs wrote:
| Maybe they fly more during the day, but there are tons of
| red-eye flights over land, plus cargo flights, etc. Check
| out https://www.flightradar24.com/ in the middle of the
| night.
| SAI_Peregrinus wrote:
| Most of the complaints are from astronomers, who aren't
| taking composite shots, they're taking actual long
| exposures. Then the repeated passes add up in the exposure.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-07-23 23:02 UTC)