Live view of @FCC regulatory staff watching recent Starlink and T-mobile filings asking to be exempt from new rules they helped greate and want to see imposed on others.
🧶🐈⬛
1/n
🧶🐈⬛
1/n
https://twitter.com/spacanpanman/status/1824790814272127409
In 2020 T-mobile asked FCC not to allow ASTs system w/o filings to show that they do not cause harmful interference to terrestrial networks.
$TMUS also requested new rules that FCC started.
AST showed their system doesn’t cause interference. ASTS design criteria since 2018.
2/n
$TMUS also requested new rules that FCC started.
AST showed their system doesn’t cause interference. ASTS design criteria since 2018.
2/n
In 2022 T-Mobile and Space-X Starlink
recognixe that direct to cell will be a reality.
Essential for T-Mobile to stay competitive & much more profitable than Starlinks legacy VSAT architecture / fixed internet protocol service.
They join forces and declare d2c cooperation.
3/n
recognixe that direct to cell will be a reality.
Essential for T-Mobile to stay competitive & much more profitable than Starlinks legacy VSAT architecture / fixed internet protocol service.
They join forces and declare d2c cooperation.
3/n
- CatSE hold on, aren’t you being a bit harsh on Starlink d2c v2 minis?
Why?
- That’s a band-aid, Cat. 🩹
Right, so maybe a bit harsh.
But, they do look like that. HEO Robotics published an image of one of the SpaceX Starlink V2 Minis deployed.
- So where’s the array?
4/n
Why?
- That’s a band-aid, Cat. 🩹
Right, so maybe a bit harsh.
But, they do look like that. HEO Robotics published an image of one of the SpaceX Starlink V2 Minis deployed.
- So where’s the array?
4/n
To use the same analogy of band aids. Starlinks have a more conventional design.
It restricts the area of the phased array.
This smaller phased array area imposes severe technical limitations on what the v2 minis are capable of.
-Fewer antenna elements fit?
Yes.
5/n
It restricts the area of the phased array.
This smaller phased array area imposes severe technical limitations on what the v2 minis are capable of.
-Fewer antenna elements fit?
Yes.
5/n
- T-Mobile first protested the novel formfactor startup asking the FCC to make harsh rules to contain ASTs disruptive effect and later joined forces with the less technical advanced contender?
-Yes.
And now those same rules comes back to bite them?
-Yes AT&T and VZN files.
6/
-Yes.
And now those same rules comes back to bite them?
-Yes AT&T and VZN files.
6/
- Can we get back on the technical limitations?
Right. A smaller array allows for less directive beams creating wider cells and a wider area around the beam is affected by interference from that main beam.
-Lots to digest there.
That’s just the starter. I’ll elaborate.
7/
Right. A smaller array allows for less directive beams creating wider cells and a wider area around the beam is affected by interference from that main beam.
-Lots to digest there.
That’s just the starter. I’ll elaborate.
7/
To understand the main beam and importance of directivity we can use some radiation humans can relate to.
Visible light.
Here is a flashlight beam and a laser beam. The latter is more directive.
And so is the splash.
-Right. Now I get the starter. What’s for main dish?
8/
Visible light.
Here is a flashlight beam and a laser beam. The latter is more directive.
And so is the splash.
-Right. Now I get the starter. What’s for main dish?
8/
Let’s just dwell on the two implications of the higher directivity on Area Spectral Efficiency.
IF both systems have the same bandwidth available for a cell. Then the users of that cell gets to share the same bandwidth.
This means higher throughput per user in small cells.
9/
IF both systems have the same bandwidth available for a cell. Then the users of that cell gets to share the same bandwidth.
This means higher throughput per user in small cells.
9/
-Right. And the second effect?
You create more narrow cells by higher directivity. Like laser light is stronger than a flashlight not by bigger battery or more energy, but by means of more focus.
-High signal strength?
Yes. And that allows for higher order modulation.
10/
You create more narrow cells by higher directivity. Like laser light is stronger than a flashlight not by bigger battery or more energy, but by means of more focus.
-High signal strength?
Yes. And that allows for higher order modulation.
10/
-So, let me sum up the starter:
- Higher directivity means:
1) smaller zone affected by main beam splash / integerenge while you also
2) get more bandwidth per user at
3) higher signal strength and higher order of modulation.
Yes.
-Wow.
11/
- Higher directivity means:
1) smaller zone affected by main beam splash / integerenge while you also
2) get more bandwidth per user at
3) higher signal strength and higher order of modulation.
Yes.
-Wow.
11/
-Your previous slide said ”Signal to Noise” not signal strength.
Yes. It’s a bit like when you try to get heard in a noisy room. Other peoples signal becomes noise to you.
And you need to raise your voice to punch through.
- like at a party?
If so Starlink are noisy kids.
12/
Yes. It’s a bit like when you try to get heard in a noisy room. Other peoples signal becomes noise to you.
And you need to raise your voice to punch through.
- like at a party?
If so Starlink are noisy kids.
12/
- They want to raise the noise floor?
Correct. And this brings us over to the main thing.
Aggregate interference caused by sidelobes and main beams from a massive constellation like Starlink d2c on other satellite systems and on MNOs
-Sidelobes?
Yes. Big difference.
13/
Correct. And this brings us over to the main thing.
Aggregate interference caused by sidelobes and main beams from a massive constellation like Starlink d2c on other satellite systems and on MNOs
-Sidelobes?
Yes. Big difference.
13/
https://twitter.com/CatSE___ApeX___/status/1792673497740935182
The higher directivity also reduces sidelobes in relative terms.
-So this is not the splash from main beams?
No it’s ”splash” from unwanted ”side-beams”.
And AST lowers that in two ways. By higher directivity and that patent on previous link.
/14
-So this is not the splash from main beams?
No it’s ”splash” from unwanted ”side-beams”.
And AST lowers that in two ways. By higher directivity and that patent on previous link.
/14
https://x.com/catse___apex___/status/1797232239496855949?s=46&t=IAdas7XGtpsHUboQt8WQJA
Starlink doesn’t have these tweaks and they rather see the new rules for the allowed PFD level of their noise bent by means of waiver or broken by means of a petition to change the rules.
AT&T and Verizon sees how such action would degrade their terrestrial networks.
/15
AT&T and Verizon sees how such action would degrade their terrestrial networks.
/15
AT&T has PCS block. The block Starlink d2c has emissions in.
Makes them an affected party.
-So, T-Mobile isn’t just hurting their own subscribers?
No.
AT&T will fight them.
/16
Makes them an affected party.
-So, T-Mobile isn’t just hurting their own subscribers?
No.
AT&T will fight them.
/16
-Can’t FCC allow the 😎 cool Space-X company to spam terrestrial networkd more than AST, after all they make 🚀 macho rockets?
AST has ocercome a lot of risks, among them regulatory risks whereby they received a license.
Key to that: DO NO HARM.
AST has ocercome a lot of risks, among them regulatory risks whereby they received a license.
Key to that: DO NO HARM.
https://x.com/catse___apex___/status/1684974013519470613?s=46&t=IAdas7XGtpsHUboQt8WQJA
- Did you mean to say ”overcome” and
how do you know that Cat?
Yes. Try typing on a phone with paws.
Regulators ultimately strive to maximize the common good and minimize harm.
Existing incumbents delivering valuable services enjoy massive protection by regulators.
/18
how do you know that Cat?
Yes. Try typing on a phone with paws.
Regulators ultimately strive to maximize the common good and minimize harm.
Existing incumbents delivering valuable services enjoy massive protection by regulators.
/18
And the way regulatory staff operates is well described here.
There is this principle.
- Which one?
It’s called ”BAT”
-How do you know this?
I’ve chaired regulatory boards for more than a decade.
-You. A cat?
Sweden is an advanced society and I’m a Cat, with a BAT.
/19
There is this principle.
- Which one?
It’s called ”BAT”
-How do you know this?
I’ve chaired regulatory boards for more than a decade.
-You. A cat?
Sweden is an advanced society and I’m a Cat, with a BAT.
/19
-Tell me aboout BAT.
While not directly picking fight with Starlink, (AT&T, Verizon and Omnispace will do that just fine), AST did a filing which T-Mobile asked for vocally.
One re: interference.
In that they showed AST tech can use PCS block without harmful interference.
/20
While not directly picking fight with Starlink, (AT&T, Verizon and Omnispace will do that just fine), AST did a filing which T-Mobile asked for vocally.
One re: interference.
In that they showed AST tech can use PCS block without harmful interference.
/20
Tge way regulators work in a situation where they need to balance doing some good against doing some harm is to apply the BAT principle.
- They require an applicant to use the best available technology to minimize harmful interference?
Yes.
-And what is that BAT benchmark?
/21
- They require an applicant to use the best available technology to minimize harmful interference?
Yes.
-And what is that BAT benchmark?
/21
There are 5-6 interference filings from AST of interest.
In particular one in 2020 showing compliance with protecting terrestrial operations and one in 2024 showing that AST doesn’t cause harmful interference to satellites either.
-So AST has shown their tech is BAT?
Yes.
/22
In particular one in 2020 showing compliance with protecting terrestrial operations and one in 2024 showing that AST doesn’t cause harmful interference to satellites either.
-So AST has shown their tech is BAT?
Yes.
/22
- I still don’t quite see that a few Starlinks could do so much damage.
Let’s cycle back to this.
See how SIR is proportionally better with AST?
To compete Starlink wants to up the amp.
-Aha! Whereby they also increase the destructive interference from sidelobes!
Yes.
/23
Let’s cycle back to this.
See how SIR is proportionally better with AST?
To compete Starlink wants to up the amp.
-Aha! Whereby they also increase the destructive interference from sidelobes!
Yes.
/23
- So. Signal to interference ratio. SIR is key?
Yes.
Spectrum is defining scarce resource of our age. The information age. BAT applies.
And then there is this thing.
-Planet earth?
Yes. Few of those. Also a scarce resource. We need to be good stewards of it.
-Right.
/24
Yes.
Spectrum is defining scarce resource of our age. The information age. BAT applies.
And then there is this thing.
-Planet earth?
Yes. Few of those. Also a scarce resource. We need to be good stewards of it.
-Right.
/24
Here is planet earth with a few thousand Starlinks in Low Earth orbits. Schematically.
-Your point being they would be many?
Yes. You said a few. I think ”quite a bunch” would be more appropriate. Starlink wants a mega constellation.
- Interference aggregates?
Yes.
/25
-Your point being they would be many?
Yes. You said a few. I think ”quite a bunch” would be more appropriate. Starlink wants a mega constellation.
- Interference aggregates?
Yes.
/25
- I’m full. Dessert?
ESG replenishing Starlinks constellation as it has worse orbital dwell time,
Elon endorsing Trump while FCC has democratic majority,
Cyber security & Lawful interception in regenerative architecture,
6G OTFS & stealth coms ?
Or
Likely outcomes ?
/26
ESG replenishing Starlinks constellation as it has worse orbital dwell time,
Elon endorsing Trump while FCC has democratic majority,
Cyber security & Lawful interception in regenerative architecture,
6G OTFS & stealth coms ?
Or
Likely outcomes ?
/26
- Likely outcomes, with coffee. Thx.
The likely outcome is that FCC denies Space-X request to lower the protection. Whereas they might have reduced that some after trial data. They will not allow such massive interference.
It will lower Starlink d2c throughput.
-How much?
/27
The likely outcome is that FCC denies Space-X request to lower the protection. Whereas they might have reduced that some after trial data. They will not allow such massive interference.
It will lower Starlink d2c throughput.
-How much?
/27
By a lot. More than cut in half. Starlink will be good for text services.
But they are fast learners.
This means effort will shift to other bands and bigger satellites. They will seek to catch up to ASTS tech.
- And T-Mobile?
They will likely use Starlink for texts.
/28
But they are fast learners.
This means effort will shift to other bands and bigger satellites. They will seek to catch up to ASTS tech.
- And T-Mobile?
They will likely use Starlink for texts.
/28
- Starship is that needed for those bigger Starlink satellites?
It will help. V2s can improve some within a Falcon fairing, but not much.
-And AST?
They are minding their own relentless innovation called Block2 satellites and what is beyond that.
- What is beyond?
/29
It will help. V2s can improve some within a Falcon fairing, but not much.
-And AST?
They are minding their own relentless innovation called Block2 satellites and what is beyond that.
- What is beyond?
/29
AST placed their G agnostic Nokia AirScale single RAN gNodeBs terrestrially so that delay and doppler compensation can also be terrestrial.
It allows for multi sat MIMO and OTFS multi signal paths.
6G tech.
-So Starlink will try to catch moving target?
Yes. With a twist
/30
It allows for multi sat MIMO and OTFS multi signal paths.
6G tech.
-So Starlink will try to catch moving target?
Yes. With a twist
/30
https://twitter.com/CatSE___ApeX___/status/1822296804903301543
- I saw what you did there, Cat.
Band aids to symbolize Starlink V2?
-Yes. Not kind. And what is the twist?
Picture a race.
One contender starts early, in 2018, from first principles.
Plans everything chooses the path wisely. And starts down the choosen track.
-Gotcha.
/31
Band aids to symbolize Starlink V2?
-Yes. Not kind. And what is the twist?
Picture a race.
One contender starts early, in 2018, from first principles.
Plans everything chooses the path wisely. And starts down the choosen track.
-Gotcha.
/31
The other contender starts to notice 2-3 years later and starts to try and catch up down a track.
This track is chosen not from first principles but based on what this contender already has, it’s position and existing equipment.
-OK, late starter is Starlink right?
Yes.
/32
This track is chosen not from first principles but based on what this contender already has, it’s position and existing equipment.
-OK, late starter is Starlink right?
Yes.
/32
But the point is Starlink starts down the regenerative track. With onboard base stations eNodeB:s because it already has space based backhaul.
-AST did not do that?
No. They got to choose freely.
They chose transparent track.
Terrestrial gNodeB:s
/33
-AST did not do that?
No. They got to choose freely.
They chose transparent track.
Terrestrial gNodeB:s
/33
-So Starlink is behind in quality, if not in quantity and trying to catch up … in a different track. Is that the twist?
The twist is that the patch on solution of Starlink is racing down a dead end alley.
-Patch on, band aid. Got it. How dead end?
No way to do MIMO.
/34
The twist is that the patch on solution of Starlink is racing down a dead end alley.
-Patch on, band aid. Got it. How dead end?
No way to do MIMO.
/34
- So you’re saying that by the time Starlink catches up with bigger satellites. AST is doing ”MIMO”.
Yes. By then cellphones will connect to multiple AST satellites on multiple bands. For increased throughput.
-And then how will Starlink catch up?
By starting from scratch.
/35
Yes. By then cellphones will connect to multiple AST satellites on multiple bands. For increased throughput.
-And then how will Starlink catch up?
By starting from scratch.
/35
In 17 tweets a consultant with grudge claims this thread misses to discuss out of band emission interference.
Sharing Anpanmans tweet already in tweet no 1. I tend to disagree the specific case is mentioned.
Here is how AST solves OOBE.
From filing I pointed out in🧵
Elegant
Sharing Anpanmans tweet already in tweet no 1. I tend to disagree the specific case is mentioned.
Here is how AST solves OOBE.
From filing I pointed out in🧵
Elegant
Furthermore said consultant with grudge claim it is OOBE _inside the main beam_ that is the problem at hand.
And because of this I and others are ”clueless” that care about splash outside beamcells from wide beams and sidelobes.
Let’s use logic to test this argument.
And because of this I and others are ”clueless” that care about splash outside beamcells from wide beams and sidelobes.
Let’s use logic to test this argument.
In Space-x many filings. As this one quoted one word stands out.
It is the _aggregate_ PFD limit Starlink oppose.
Aggregate means the sum projected at a point from all satellites emissions.
In my thread I point out using this visualisation that Starlinks are many.
It is the _aggregate_ PFD limit Starlink oppose.
Aggregate means the sum projected at a point from all satellites emissions.
In my thread I point out using this visualisation that Starlinks are many.
Said consultant claims also this cat does not understand physics.
I agree that one of us lacks understanding.
You see the beam pointed at a cell in Starlink SISO architecture is from a single satellite. And this is not what Starlink oppose. They claim to be able to handle that.
I agree that one of us lacks understanding.
You see the beam pointed at a cell in Starlink SISO architecture is from a single satellite. And this is not what Starlink oppose. They claim to be able to handle that.
And so, the consultant with grudge argument falls flat. It isn’t the OOBE from a single beam inside that beam that is Starlinks problem.
It is the _aggregate_ splash from inside and outside beams and sidelobes of thousands v2 minis.
As was in depth described in my 🧵.
🐾
It is the _aggregate_ splash from inside and outside beams and sidelobes of thousands v2 minis.
As was in depth described in my 🧵.
🐾
This belongs here.
This belongs here.
https://twitter.com/spacanpanman/status/1825331220697485379
I have noticed a difference of opinions regarding the meaning of ”aggregate” in ”aggregate interference”.
🍿🐈⬛
🍿🐈⬛
FUDSPEECH entered the chat. 🍿
”AST hasn’t provided detail”.
🐈⬛*factchecks*
Abel Avellan said what distance & tp was.. nvm sat altitude is public data. 🤦🏻♂️
”How AST handles latency? LTE wasn’t built for latency!”
🐈⬛*factchecks*
ASTs patent to handle latency in LTE _and 5G_:
”AST hasn’t provided detail”.
🐈⬛*factchecks*
Abel Avellan said what distance & tp was.. nvm sat altitude is public data. 🤦🏻♂️
”How AST handles latency? LTE wasn’t built for latency!”
🐈⬛*factchecks*
ASTs patent to handle latency in LTE _and 5G_:
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
