Dish Feuds With SpaceX Over Starlink Dishes Being Used on Moving Boats, Cars

[FabioC]

There are several articles, arguably using content provided by Starlink-related sources, describing use cases in which the station is clearly moving (e.g., on a boat on an ocean passage). Also (and I am sure Dish will argue this point), if Starlink wanted to build a station that only works when stationary, it could have done so quite easily (and also, although I have not looked inside a Starlink terminal, it is very likely they have included features to support high bandwidth while moving, their excellent performance while moving does not happen "by chance", there must be solid tech behind it...).
It is a fact that the product is presented as the next-gen satellite connectivity (at last, affordable and high bandwidth) and people on the move in remote areas (whether in the ocean or on land) are a good target for the technology.
All those claims seem to be true, and I, as many others, truly hope that Starlink will deliver on its promises, because we have all be waiting for this advance for a long time. However, that does not change the fact that right now Dish has a strong claim. I do not think Dish has sufficient grounds to obscure Starlink service, but they may be able to make them pay some fine or usage fee until they get the mobile licenses.
I do agree that, from a use case perspective, it makes no sense to limit transmission to stationary terminals only. Unfortunately, from a regulatory perspective, what makes sense or doesn't from a use case perspective has no bearing on the licenses that may be necessary to provide that service. It could not be otherwise, it would be complete chaos without strict regulation in the licensed bands, to the detriment of any service in those bands.
Hopefully, they will be able to get this straightened out, for the benefit of all the people who need connectivity in remote areas, regardless if moving or stationary (there is no guarantee, although licenses are governed by economic interests and Starlink has certainly the means to get through).

[Jdege]

AIUI the second layer of satellite-linking satellites didn't exist, yet, so all communication is ground<=>satellite<=>ground.

That makes for a system that is vulnerable to congestion isn a way that a system where the satellite network can choose a ground station would not be.

And I think a lot of Starlink's current practices, including both their restricting mobile stations and establishing geo-fenced limits, are intended to avoid congestion without building out infrastructure that won't be necessary when the second set of satellites are in place.

[FabioC]

Originally Posted by Jdege

Which I would think would undercut any such lawsuit.

It is clear that Dish's claim is a desperate move dictated by the fact they had been caught unprepared by the advancement represented by Starlink's technology, and they are bound to lose their business to a superior product.

However, it is a move that may, at least temporarily, have some success in somewhat delaying Starlink from capturing the entire market. The airwave licensing maze is hard to navigate and may take some time even for Starlink to fend off the opposition. Starlink has certainly the muscles to get through, but Dish is not such a small player either... We'll have to see how fast the situation will resolve.

[Eder]

I'm pretty sure Starlink will get any concession required as their low altitude disposable satellite array has strong military defensive applications. This system is just in its infancy and Dish should go die a deserved horrible death.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Eder

I'm pretty sure Starlink will get any concession required as their low altitude disposable satellite array has strong military defensive applications. This system is just in its infancy and Dish should go die a deserved horrible death.

Yes but they require multi country permissions and the “ defence” perspectives differ

Some countries will attempt( and do ) to ban or limit satellite providers to protect existing terrestrial systems

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by FabioC

... In this case, Starlink is in violation because it does not have a license (at this time) for mobile use in that band, and thus it is not supposed to "encourage" prohibited usage of its equipment (which it is doing), and it is instead supposed to clearly state the allowed uses and the consequences to users in case of prohibited usage (which it is not doing) ...
... In this case, Starlink has not fully complied with getting all the necessary license. The (true) fact that some license may take a long time to get does not excuse them from following the rules.

Excellent summary, Fabio.

In a Tuesday letter [1], updating their earlier complaint [1b], to the FCC, Dish Network argues SpaceX breaks the commission’s rules, by allegedly tacitly encouraging Starlink customers to use their dishes on moving vehicles.
Dish is asking the FCC to require SpaceX to publicly clarify that using Starlink in a moving vehicle is illegal. The letter also calls on the commission to crack down on the violations.

SpaceX is pushing back. On Wednesday, the company sent its own letter [2] to the FCC, which notes that SpaceX’s customer agreement for Starlink clearly states “IN-MOTION USE PROHIBITED,” and that doing so will void the warranty.
SpaceX also says Dish takes Musk’s tweets out of context. SpaceX has an experimental license to test Starlink on planes, and this is what Musk’s tweet was referring to, the letter says.

The regulatory spat coincides with a separate Dish and SpaceX feud over securing 5G 12GHz spectrum to run their satellite services.

[1]Dish Esim* Follow-up (1): June 7, 2022
➥ https://www.scribd.com/document/5776...im-Follow-up-1

[1b] 5-31-22 DISH Letter: May 31, 2022
➥ https://www.scribd.com/document/5776...22-DISH-Letter

[2] SpaceX Response to DISH Re Mobile Platforms: June 8, 2022
➥ https://www.scribd.com/document/5776...atforms-6-8-22

Application for Fixed Satellite Service Other by SpaceX Services, Inc.: August 11, 2021
SpaceX Services seeks a blanket license for the operation of high performance earth stations in motion that will communicate with the Starlink non-geostationary orbit satellite system.
➥ https://fcc.report/IBFS/SES-LIC-INTR2021-03015
➥ https://fcc.report/IBFS/SES-LIC-INTR2021-00934/3877177

* ESIM = Earth Stations in Motion

[Rumrace]

The Space X delivery seems to be working out fine in Ukraine. We download GPS location. I have a very old potable GPS. Still works. Has a wait screen while it looks for Satellites. I understand Musks new product the satellite finds the user through a mesh.

Again the powers uneducated decision makers are hunting for fault as usual. He has some investment in the freedom of speech which has been sliding into something else.

[Little John]

I have fun, reading all this dedicated statements. But as often in real life,
things are not as easy as we think. First of all it is a play of money. And that means frequently good manners and knowledge is not asked. And your hero Musk is known in Germany for bad manners concerning rights of water use, as an example. No one is realy discussing the influence on space garbage , only the star link view is discussed. We are a part of the universe, but searching for signals from out there is always more a problem, because of hundreds of thousand radiotransmitters circling through space makes a quite sky a dream.
We doing technology for convinience and loosing a lot of things, that may be more important. Why internet everywhere and anytime? Enjoy sailing, water earth and wind......

[redneckrob]

Originally Posted by Little John

We doing technology for convinience and loosing a lot of things, that may be more important. Why internet everywhere and anytime? Enjoy sailing, water earth and wind......

We've been through this before. You may be fortunate to be in a position where you don't have obligations that require you to work and/or a profession you can engage in sailing. Many are not, and Starlink is a game changer that is the difference between allowing them to both cruise and fulfill their obligations or sit at home on land. If you are one of the fortunate ones, count your blessings silently, don't lord it over those less fortunate by essentially saying "let them eat cake".

[Jammer]

Originally Posted by FabioC

FCC is notoriously corrupted and led by economic interests that have nothing to do with the interests of innovation or the benefit of consumers. However, although imperfect, FCC is necessary to keep the wireless industry going. Rules are rules, and FCC is there to enforce them.

The present-day FCC engages in three kinds of enforcement actions.

1. Enforcement actions against unlicensed broadcast stations, operating on standard broadcast frequencies.
2. Enforcement actions to deal with repeated, ongoing interference with actual safety related (police, fire, marine channel 16) communications.
3. Deliberate, egregious, ongoing, disruptive interference with licensed users, by perpetrators who do not back down after being asked several times to play nice.

I wish I had a nickel for every 21 GHz satellite link that isn't licensed despite being in continuous, fixed, point-to-point service for the last 10 years.

I wish I had a nickel for every CB transmitter in violation of power limits.

I wish I had a nickel for every pirate broadcaster freebanding it somewhere within shouting distance of 11 meters.

I wish I had a nickel for every Chinese radio transmitter imported into this country in violation of type approval rules.

I wish I had a nickel for every itinerant B-band walkie-talkie operated without a license.

I could retire on any of those. The FCC doesn't have the manpower or the budget to follow up on routine workaday violations even when a case is brought to them in a gift-wrapped box all tied up with a bow on a silver platter. SpaceX may get a "stop encouraging them" slap on the wrist, so what, they'll post some lawyerese on their web site saying that everyone should Stop Doing That. In the absence of interference to other services the FCC won't care beyond what they have to do to keep up appearances.

[CaptTom]

Originally Posted by Jammer

...SpaceX may get a "stop encouraging them" slap on the wrist, so what, they'll post some lawyerese on their web site saying that everyone should Stop Doing That. In the absence of interference to other services the FCC won't care beyond what they have to do to keep up appearances.

I'm 100% with you up until this last bit. The difference here: Money. Lots of Money.

I imagine that this will be a high-stakes court case. Both sides will be fully lawyer-ed up, and the FCC will be a pawn in the middle. Unfortunately it will waste those limited FCC resources which could be better used in other places.

My opinion of Musk, or the merits of the case, don't matter at all. These guys are playing in a very different league. Just like when Apple patented having rounded corners on a cell phone, or thousands of other petty squabbles between big tech companies, it's hard to even know who to root for. I just hope we get cheap, reliable mobile connectivity out of it.

[Rumrace]

Musk is going to win the suit.
Every Tesla owner is totally cool with it. The cars already call head office on wifi.
He is going to tweet the FCC , zealot censor prudes , fatso fake news exposure, into tomato faces.
I have a little gizmo from Bang and Olufsen if you sign onto my wifi I can hi jack your play list any phone any pad any pc. You’re just another drive connected to the hub.
At best he’s guilty of malware something the governments have lots of explaining to do. This forum has more intrusive malware pop up adds. Darn data vampires

[SV Tom Crean]

Originally Posted by CaptTom

I'm 100% with you up until this last bit. The difference here: Money. Lots of Money.

I imagine that this will be a high-stakes court case. Both sides will be fully lawyer-ed up, and the FCC will be a pawn in the middle. Unfortunately it will waste those limited FCC resources which could be better used in other places.

My opinion of Musk, or the merits of the case, don't matter at all. These guys are playing in a very different league. Just like when Apple patented having rounded corners on a cell phone, or thousands of other petty squabbles between big tech companies, it's hard to even know who to root for. I just hope we get cheap, reliable mobile connectivity out of it.

SpaceX will get approval but not because of money or because of Musk. They have been in business for over 20 years and have complied with every license required along the way (launching cargo, crew , international payloads and DOD kit). They applied for and got a limited mobile license for testing and I’ve no doubt have also applied for a full mobile license and will receive it (if Dish/Iridium etc can get one then why not SpaceX?).

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by FabioC

it is very likely they have included features to support high bandwidth while moving, their excellent performance while moving does not happen "by chance", there must be solid tech behind it...).
.

Building a product that capable of future uses is not the same as encouraging it.

If musk says he wants to build a flying car, doesn't mean it's a good idea to drive your tesla off a cliff because you found a grayed out software menu regarding flight modes.

This reminds me of Ford's Patent fight over what is an automobile. Nothing new about the entrenched fighting the new. I'm no musk fan but this sure looks like they are trying to use legal technicalities to fend off competition:

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/th...20patent%20war.

[Rumrace]

My Tesla is near 5 years old.
Where Puerto Ricco got hit with a hurricane and politicians handed out Paper towel. Elon flew in crew and thousands of solar panels.
Russian column approaching Kiev defeated by IT geeks drones road side weapons two satellites and the first delivery of his box.
Disk jelly they don’t have active duty ribbons.
Musk gave Tesla patents to BMW and Toyota. Toyota has 3 new brilliant new electrics coming.
He’s inspired hundreds of brilliant women and men.
He’s an hero if a bit whacky guy to me