Carriers allege Starlink/T-Mobile will interfere with existing mobile networks.
  • MagicShel@programming.devEnglish
    342·
    3 months ago

    Wow. I hate everyone here. I can’t even say I hope the lawyers take everyone for lots of money because if someone is a lawyer for one of these companies, I hate them, too.

    How about they just meet on the field of battle and sort it out that way?

    • derangerEnglish
      32·
      3 months ago

      These complaints sound legitimate.

      AT&T said SpaceX’s requested “ninefold increase” to the allowable power flux-density limits for out-of-band emissions “would cause unacceptable harmful interference to incumbent terrestrial mobile operations. Specifically, AT&T’s technical analysis shows that SpaceX’s proposal would cause an 18% average reduction in network downlink throughput in an operational and representative AT&T PCS C Block market deployment.”

      Assuming a handset antenna gain of -3 dBi, SpaceX’s proposal still results in an interference to noise (I/N) ratio of -3 dB—well above the ITU [International Telecommunication Union] threshold SpaceX claims would protect terrestrial devices. SpaceX’s proposed margin therefore fails to adequately protect terrestrial user equipment from potential interference from SCS satellite systems, including user equipment that may not fall within the flagship performance parameters, and should be rejected.”

      • CoffeeJunkie@lemmy.worldEnglish
        111·
        3 months ago

        Of course the complaints sound legitimate. And idk I am inclined to side with them, if they’re honest & the complaints are based on fact.

        With their commercial launch fast approaching, the parties also expressed an expectation that competitors would continue to make misleading claims and draconian demands to further delay Commission action and limit service to American consumers. Indeed, each time that SpaceX has demonstrated that it would not cause harmful interference to other operators—often based on those parties’ own claimed assumptions—those competitors have moved the goalposts or have claimed their analysis should not have been trusted in the first place. These operators’ shapeshifting arguments and demands should be seen for what they are: last-minute attempts to block a more advanced supplemental coverage partnership and siphon sensitive information to aid their own competing efforts. The Commission must not allow competitive gamesmanship to stand in the way of lifesaving service for American consumers.

        I have seen a lot of this in my life, too. AT&T is a shitty company. Verizon is very good generally speaking, but overpriced. Some of you might not be old enough to remember, but SMS texting started out being sent over a never used emergency reserve 5% partition of cell towers. They were charging us all $10+/mo for something that cost them virtually nothing. All that to say, I don’t fucking trust AT&T, Verizon, or TMobile. ¯\(°_o)/¯ Do you??? Any of them will do anything to make a buck, and as SpaceX says, any one of them will say anything to sandbag their competition (while trying to copy ideas & build their own version). These cell phone companies are the worst of all; they’ve been allowed to lie, cheat, and steal for decades. Their claims don’t have to be true, they just have to “sound legitimate”.

        I’m thinking…this is all about a signal. A signal that can be turned on & off, a signal that doesn’t physically harm any equipment but might hamper their ability to send & receive their own signal. Both sides are making radically different claims, maybe there’s a little truth to both, but one has to be significantly closer to right than the other.

        In theory, blind tests could be performed without informing AT&T/Verizon. Or hell even the FCC, but it is unwise to piss off the US Gov’t Alphabet Gang. If there is this terrible interference, alright. We should be able to notice that, and quickly. Shut it down, turn the signals off. If it’s done and SpaceX, TMobile are correct & there is no discernible interference, this is where things could get really delicious. You just let it go for 6 months or a year. 🙂 Then you announce a testing date, they kick & scream per usual, it goes through… and then if they start saying “oH My GOd, ouR NetWErkz R goING CRazY becAUSe of this signal, that started on this date.” Yeah, and everything was fine before? 🤔 Oh man, we were great & everything was great, no problems before this date. Well guess what, you dumb bitch??? We’ve been using this signal for 6+ months before the test date. That means you’re lying.

        Anyway. I know it’ll probably never happen, even if it should. I’ve watched these people lie to us, spend money & effort tearing down their competition or fighting common fucking sense. Like Apple refusing to switch iPhones to USB-C, when they themselves were using USB-C on their Macbooks & iPads for years at that point. I don’t think it is an exaggeration when I say these people are hampering progress, innovation, and getting in the way of us enjoying a better world. They hamstring mankind, they hold back the greatness & potential of society. It’s high time we identify, label these people as such & treat them accordingly.

        Turn the damn satellite signals on. Do some testing. See. What. Happens.

        • paraphrand@lemmy.worldEnglish
          91·
          3 months ago

          I really don’t think the lightning connector compares to cell phone company bullshit.

          The lightning connector was around for ~10 years and came out two years before USB-C was finalized.

          People bitch about switching cables. Making people switch to usb c two years after they just switched to lightning woulda been bullshit. A ~10 year life for lighting and the cables/accessories for your phones is reasonable.

          And like you pointed out, their adoption of USB-C did not take ~10 years across their complete product line.

          This is nothing like the bullshit cell companies and ISPs have pulled. People just like to bitch about it.

          • ForgotAboutDre@lemmy.worldEnglish
            4·
            3 months ago

            Apple made a promise to keep the lighting connector for 10years because people were really pissed about the change to lighting. The big iPod connector was used on lots of speakers, before Bluetooth displaced that use case. Changing that connector caused more expensive devices than chargers to become obsolete.

          • CoffeeJunkie@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            3 months ago

            Very even-handed. I agree, but it’s in the same vein. It’s similar enough. I like to bolster my arguments with such facts & events, and I’ll inevitably find some person who will say, “I never knew that…”

            We need knowledge baked into our collective consciousness, and we need to know how to find solutions. The problem once again comes down to people, and lying. Nothing is new under the sun. How do we discern the truth?

      • MagicShel@programming.devEnglish
        61·
        3 months ago

        I didn’t mean to imply the suit isn’t legitimate. I’m sure out of all of them Starlink is the worst because Elon is such a fucking moron. I’m just not going to cheer the winner either way. I’m glad all the bad guys are fighting and I hope they have a bad quarter over it.

        • Boddhisatva@lemmy.worldEnglish
          7·
          3 months ago

          I am not an expert, but I am assuming that the interference would slow down mobile data, lower sound quality on mobile phone calls, and probably more dropped calls. Much as I hate AT&T, I am on their side for this one. An “an 18% average reduction in network downlink throughput” sounds significant to me.

        • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.comEnglish
          71·
          3 months ago

          This isn’t defending a telecom. Starlink would be encroaching on other bands. This would hurt Ham radio operators too. Starlink would be universally shitting on everyone else. This is Starlink’s problem if it’s true.

        • TimeSquirrel@kbin.melroy.org
          2·
          3 months ago

          Stop being dramatic. Nobody is “stopping” Starlink service. They just can’t step on anyone else’s toes in the RF spectrum, like has been the case since the FCC was founded a century ago. Everybody has their lane, and Elon wants more.

            • TimeSquirrel@kbin.melroy.org
              1·
              3 months ago

              The same way everyone else had to do it. Figure out how to pack more data into the same space. People came up with innovations like phase division multiplexing, time division multiplexing, and the like, as well as using much higher frequencies, into the very high microwave region. Elon can figure it out too. A good engineer knows how to work with what they have.