FCC boss starts bringing up Musk's Starlink dominance, antitrust concerns
- Reference: 1726178415
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2024/09/12/starlink_satellite_dominance_fcc/
- Source link:
Speaking at the US Chamber of Commerce's annual Global Aerospace [1]Summit , FCC chair Jessica Rosenworcel expressed a desire to encourage competition in the burgeoning commercial space industry. She didn't name any names, but her message was clear.
"Every communications market that has competition is stronger - we see lower prices and more innovation, and honestly space should be no exception," Rosenworcel told FedScoop's Rebecca Heilweil in a one-on-one conversation at the summit.
[2]
"We do have one player that's got almost two-thirds of the satellites that are in space right now and has a very high portion of internet traffic," she added.
[3]
[4]
As of last week, "Starlink now constitutes roughly 2/3 of all active Earth satellites," Musk [5]said the day after that 7,000th Starlink unit hit orbit - so it's not exactly difficult to connect the dots.
"The way I see it is our economy doesn't benefit from monopolies so we've got to invite many more space actors in many more companies that can develop constellations and innovations in space," Rosenworcel continued in reference to whatever "one player" she was referring to.
[6]
To encourage that competition, she noted the FCC has kicked off a [7]transparency initiative that involves reaching out to companies interested in building their own satellite constellations, helping them understand the FCC's purview and what it takes to get approval.
Asked about the potential for more satellite constellations creating [8]more space garbage , Rosenworcel said one of the things the FCC has been telling new satellite operators is that they have to have a five-year deorbit plan.
"If you bring it up, you have to have a plan to bring it down," she said. "To get involved in the new space economy, you have to commit to that."
[9]Shots fired as AT&T and Verizon ask FCC to block Starlink's direct-to-cell plans
[10]Would you rather buy space broadband from a billionaire, or Communist China?
[11]Astronomers back call for review of bonkers rule that means satellite swarms fly without environment checks
[12]Trump taps Musk to lead 'government efficiency' task force
That all said, while Starlink is dominating the broadband satellite internet industry, at least in terms of sat numbers, in terms of anti-competitive behavior we're not really aware of SpaceX deliberately and maliciously keeping other launchers out of the game. They just can't seemingly keep up at the moment.
This orbit ain't big enough for the two of us
This isn't the first time Musk and the FCC have aired public grievances with each other. The billionaire has also been [13]railing against US government bureaucracy lately in general.
After getting preliminary approval from the FCC under the Trump administration for an $885 million investment in Starlink through the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF), Rosenworcel's FCC decided late last year to [14]reject Starlink's award .
[15]
Rosenworcel argued that Starlink failed to meet minimum speed requirements specified under the RDOF, while SpaceX argued the FCC tested Starlink's connectivity in improper areas. Musk derided the FCC decision, too.
"This was an extremely unethical and politically partisan decision by the FCC that is contrary to the interests of the American people," Musk [16]said late last year.
A further appeal on Starlink's behalf from a member of the public was also [17]rejected [PDF] by the FCC in late August.
We've asked the FCC if it's considered recommending an investigation into Starlink's control of about 60 percent of Earth's active satellites to the FTC or DoJ, but haven't heard back. SpaceX hasn't replied to a request for comment, either. ®
Get our [18]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.uschamber.com/space/innovation-and-growth-in-space-at-the-global-aerospace-summit
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2ZuO45Sonb2P5fVKwFPdlNgAAAc4&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZuO45Sonb2P5fVKwFPdlNgAAAc4&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33ZuO45Sonb2P5fVKwFPdlNgAAAc4&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1831829780150534355
[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZuO45Sonb2P5fVKwFPdlNgAAAc4&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[7] https://www.fcc.gov/space/transparency-initiative
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2024/06/28/iss_shelter_russian_satellite_breakup/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2024/08/16/att_verizon_starlink/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2024/08/08/china_qianfan_launch/
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2024/08/29/astronomers_space_pollution/
[12] https://www.theregister.com/2024/09/06/musk_government_efficiency_trump/
[13] https://www.theregister.com/2024/09/11/spacex_starship_red_tape/
[14] https://www.theregister.com/2023/12/14/fcc_starlink_spacex/
[15] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33ZuO45Sonb2P5fVKwFPdlNgAAAc4&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[16] https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1735703447628828749
[17] https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-24-883A1.pdf
[18] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
How about look into both?
Last year's news
SpaceX has already launched three batches of [1]Oneweb satellites. If Amazon ever builds enough Kuiper satellites three batches of them will launch on [2]Falcon .
Both companies may be getting a discount off $70M for buying in bulk but I doubt it comes close to SpaceX's internal cost of about $20M. Oneweb did not have the budget to invest in mass production for satellites so theirs are expensive to build as well as launch. Amazon's Kuiper has adopted Blue origin's motto: Gradatim mañana. They are going for economies of scale from mass production but the delays cost money. To get sufficient satellites in orbit in time to meet their spectrum license requirements Kuiper bought launches on Atlas V, Vulcan, Ariane 6 as well as New Glenn. (Falcon was added later so it would have all the integration work completed and ready to fly in case any of the last three were delayed.) The first three vehicles will always be expensive. Amazon might get a good deal on New Glenn. Until then they will be at a strong disadvantage on operational costs too.
I think Jeff will subsidise Kuiper for years to make it cost competitive with Starlink. Combining that with Musk's proven ability at Tesla to drive customers to the competition should be enough to establish Kuiper in the market eventually. China will back [3]Qianfan creating a third operator and it is possible Europe will add a fourth. More than three people cannot agree on anything of importance which should reduce the chance of a cartel. We will see how much extra people are willing to pay to whom for not funding Musk.
[1] https://spacenews.com/spacex-completes-final-dedicated-launch-for-oneweb/
[2] https://techcrunch.com/2023/12/01/amazon-signs-3-launch-deal-with-spacex-for-project-kuiper-satellite-internet-constellation/
[3] https://spacenews.com/chinese-megaconstellation-launch-creates-field-of-space-debris/
People really don't like it when unconventional things become successful, do they? Some upstart has the damned nerve to build a reusable rocket, ignoring the mockery of established players until it works, and then makes money out of. To add insult to injury, they then use it to build and launch a similarly unconventional and annoyingly successful broadband satellite service. How very dare they?
SpaceX has such a massive headstart because they got off their ass and built the infrastructure, from launch facilities to vehicles to satellites. Anyone with enough money could have done it, and indeed Blue Origin are trying, but up to now nobody has come close. Why? Because the would-be competitors were / are unwilling to take the risks involved. That doesn't amount to SpaceX stifling competition, it amounts to the competition being too timid to compete. Fortune favours the bold, the rest need government to hold their hand.
At first old space laughed at SpaceX for trying something they would not be able to do themselves. If the prime contractor on a government contract suffers a moment of insanity and reduces their costs all the subcontractors will increase theirs to soak up the budget. Vertically integrated manufacturing was an important part of SpaceX's success. Old space did not start hating SpaceX for being unconventional. The hate came from lower costs and high reliability enticing their commercial customers away. Space enthusiasts loved SpaceX for reducing the cost of access to space and cheered for unconventional booster re-use. That changed because Musk openly promoted RWNJ politics. Voting with wallet works for cars. Internet service varies by location. Some people have the option to pick the lesser evil and some do not have that option. Pretty much the only person on Earth able to choose launch provider is Jeff Bezos. Most people do not buy launches and those that do are limited by national security restrictions or fiduciary duty to select the most cost effective provider.
SpaceX hit a window of opportunity. They only had to compete with old space. For everyone else that window closed 4 to 8 years ago because they have to compete against SpaceX. Anyone not called Jeff also needs investment capital. Oneweb took a huge risk because they did not have the finance to do everything themselves but went ahead anyway - and went through bankruptcy. There is a whole batch of new launch providers taking far more risk than Musk ever did with SpaceX. Most are going to fail. The reasons will be different for each: entering a highly competitive market, lack of access to investment capital or not focusing the money the have on creating an outstanding product. Lack of courage is certainly not the issue.
Monopolies are bad for everyone but the owner of the monopoly. Breaking into a monopoly market is almost impossible without government hand holding. (It requires having about [1]as much money as God .) ULA had a monopoly on US launches. SpaceX only survived its start up phase because of government hand holding: $400M contract to develop and operate Cargo Dragon.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wealthiest_religious_organizations
Leave it to government
Who actually gives a damn. Amazon has claimed they were going to launch this same type of satellite network, where the hell are they? SpaceX actually has done it, now the government wants to bitch about it. SpaceX took out all the damned unnecessary licenses, jumped through whatever BS the government threw at them and delivered. Not their problem if no one else has come through on this. Those who can't do, whine and bitch about the accomplishments of others.
And yes, Starlink is my only option, had HughesNet before this, that was absolute garbage. Yes, I'd like a lower price than the $120/month, but this service is better than cable services I've had at other locations in the past.
Taxpayer Subsidies
RDOF was never intended to provide Internet access to foreign countries or fund an authoritarian lunatic’s politically weighted on/off switch.
None of Leon’s Ponzi schemes should be receiving taxpayer funded subsidies while building monopolies. Any company receiving taxpayer subsidies should have to make access to its infrastructure available at a fair market price to other companies.
This is about giving Amazon waivers on getting 50% & 100% of its satellite fleet into orbit - according to Wikipedia* "Under its granted FCC license, Amazon is required to launch and operate 50% of its satellites no later than July 30, 2026, and must launch and operate the remaining satellites no later than July 30, 2029".
There appears to be no chance of Amazon hitting at least the first target since they've launched exactly zero production satellites so far - just two test satellites. They need to have 1,618 satellites in orbit and functional by 30th July 2026 and that looks somewhere between extraordinarily unlikely and impossible, so they will need an FCC waiver. This "we need competition" line from the FCC is softening us up for Amazon getting a free pass.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuiper_Systems
Still some chance
The biggest problem is lack of satellites. If Amazon had any they would be launching on Atlas V right now. There are 8 Atlas's booked and ULA launched that number in 2013. Ariane 5 could do one per month. Assuming the same for Ariane 6 means it is just about possible to do those 17 launches in time. Even if all the required engines magically appeared right now I do not believe 38 Vulcans can launch before August 2026. 27 New Glenns in that time is also fantasy.
If Amazon launches most of the Atlases and Arianes plus a few Vulcans and a New Glenn and shows a stack of satellites ready to go with the contracts to launch them then I think they will have shown enough commitment to get a license extension. Some extra Falcon launches would be a cherry on top. Blue Origin lobbyists are good enough to get funding for Blue Moon so the license extension should be no trouble for them. They do not need to lobby against Starlink. Musk does a fine job of that single handed. They do need to manufacture satellites. A shred of evidence for that before then end of the year would be a great start.
Perhaps she should consider how cable monopolies are handled, instead.
SpaceX isn't about launching compeitors satelllites, or ISS cargo missions. I'm sure if OneWeb wanted to launch more quicly, Elon's SpaceX would be more than happy to take their money.