This is the US FTC. How are they able to boldly mandate what frequencies are used in space for orbiting satellites given their jurisdiction is scoped to the domestic USA? Would that not be the ITU's jurisdiction - FTC dont set communication rules for the entire galaxy.
I thought the Ku-band user access frequencies used by Starlink was 12GHz down and 14.5GHz up?
As those are the easy to license frequencies globally.
Not to mention, 17GHz is far away from 12GHz and 14.5GHz, so the antenna complexity also goes up.
And the teardowns of civilian Starlink terminals have not shown dual band antennas so far.
It's about downlinks, so, obviously, they're mandating it for within their area of jurisdiction, i.e. within the US. Plus, the notice itself says that this approval only brings the US more into alignment with international allocations.
Was this always in the works, or has recent 'competition' pushed them to speed up unlocking this bandwidth? (e.g. Apple's Emergency SOS, Starlink Direct to Cell, etc)
It's been in the works since 2007 to allow direct space-earth communication in that band, with the big push to allow much wider service coming in 2020.
The amount of spectrum the US military "owns" in the United States is absurd and needs to be adjusted - and at this point the excuses for why they can't vacate are making them look geriatric
Yet another reminder. What happens when you have organizations that aren't beholden to outside pressure
As a compromise, I am willing to add conditions something to the effect of some of the spectrum ceded by the military can be temporarily reclaimed for exclusive in case of a ground invasion on the continental United States. I mean I don't think a ground invasion on the continental United States is likely but if putting language like this makes the military feel better, I am ok with it.
> can be temporarily reclaimed for exclusive in case of a ground invasion on the continental United States
This is a silly line to draw. In an existential conflict, the military gets what it wants. Commandeering spectrum would be a basic part of war powers; we’ve done it before and would do it again for stakes much lower than an invasion of the homeland [1].
So the practical value of such a proposal is in messaging. Given the threshold wouldn’t have covered the attacks on Pearl Harbor, 9/11 or even a nuclear first strike, the only thing messaged is unreasonableness.
Put another way, were I a lobbyist for the military to the Congress, I would want someone to propose this language. Because it lets one brand, with a laugh, the entire effort as being as ridiculous as the caveat.
The US is thankfully positioned in the world where it's pretty geographically isolated compared to let's say for example EU countries. I agree, I don't think a large scale ground invasion could ever be a possibility as they would be detected and get rekt way before even reaching anywhere near the US.
Militaries increasingly use civilian technology instead of developing bespoke tools. For example the military could use some of their spectrum for proprietary wifi but it would be uneconomic.
Readit News
There's plenty of spectrum available. For purchase. Contact T-Mobile or Verizon.
I don’t think either spectrum will be feasible for direct to cell satellite communication in the short term, though.
As those are the easy to license frequencies globally. Not to mention, 17GHz is far away from 12GHz and 14.5GHz, so the antenna complexity also goes up. And the teardowns of civilian Starlink terminals have not shown dual band antennas so far.
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-22-63A1.pdf
It's been in the works since 2007 to allow direct space-earth communication in that band, with the big push to allow much wider service coming in 2020.
I like this narrower approach the FCC is taking
Yet another reminder. What happens when you have organizations that aren't beholden to outside pressure
https://www.ntia.gov/sites/default/files/publications/januar...
This is a silly line to draw. In an existential conflict, the military gets what it wants. Commandeering spectrum would be a basic part of war powers; we’ve done it before and would do it again for stakes much lower than an invasion of the homeland [1].
So the practical value of such a proposal is in messaging. Given the threshold wouldn’t have covered the attacks on Pearl Harbor, 9/11 or even a nuclear first strike, the only thing messaged is unreasonableness.
Put another way, were I a lobbyist for the military to the Congress, I would want someone to propose this language. Because it lets one brand, with a laugh, the entire effort as being as ridiculous as the caveat.
[1] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/us-confiscated-half-b...
Deleted Comment