SpaceX Is A Hypocrite With "Shopworn" Argument Says Amazon In Starlink Fight

Space Exploration Technologies Corp.'s (SpaceX) subsidiary Infinite Exploration Holdings, LLC. and retail behemothic Amazon's Kuiper subsidiary go along to submit strongly worded responses to each other at the Federal Communications Committee (FCC). Their spar took a strong turn yesterday afterward Amazon filed a blistering response to Starlink'due south respond to Amazon questioning Starlink's latest FCC filings. Starlink plans to launch roughly 30,000 new spacecraft as part of its 2d-generation (Gen2) satellites, and it has requested the FCC to let it modify the satellites' orbital parameters to spread out the spacecraft evenly for global coverage and to adapt SpaceX's Starship next-generation launch vehicle system currently under development in Boca Chica, Texas.

Elon Musk and SpaceX Are Higher up Accountability Implies Amazon In FCC Filing

In Amazon's latest response to Starlink, the company aims at SpaceX's chief Mr. Elon Musk. It claims that Mr. Musk and his companies only operate outside the rules set for others. It cites several incidents where both SpaceX and Tesla ignored regulators, to boost this notion and outlines that, "[I]f the FCC regulated hypocrisy, SpaceX would be keeping the Committee very decorated."

The instances Amazon cites include a SpaceX test launch in December last year, which went against the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) instructions, Mr. Musk'due south conclusion to open Tesla, Inc's Fremont production facility in May last twelvemonth and SpaceX'southward decision to build out its launch facilities in Boca, Chica Texas despite a pending FAA review.

Additionally, Amazon's Andrew Keisner also calls SpaceX, a hypocrite past using four-twelvemonth-erstwhile comments from Starlink submitted in 2017 in response to filings from Audacy, Viasat, WorldWu and Theia. According to Mr. Keisner, while Starlink dubs Amazon'due south opposition as "anti-competitive," it continues to demonstrate similar behavior not only against the satellite companies mentioned in a higher place but also against a consortium of multi-aqueduct video data distribution service (MVDDS) providers.

The get-go page of Amazon's latest reply to Starlink directly targets SpaceX master Elon Musk and his companies. Image: FCC IBFS File Number SATAMD2021081800105

This opposition claims that while Starlink wants others to adhere to the FCC's rules, it is unwilling to follow the rules itself, as shown past the contempo Gen2 modification request.

In particular, a tweet from Mr. Musk seems to have caught Amazon's attending. The company's remarks to the FCC vilify Starlink and SpaceX for mischaracterizing Amazon as "anticompetitive" for simply identifying a rule violation. These remarks characterize a tweet made by the SpaceX chief in late August every bit trying to influence regulators via social media.

In this tweet, Musk, while responding to Amazon'due south initial opposition to the Gen2 modification, had targetted former Amazon chief Mr. Jeff Bezos and stated that:

Turns out Besos retired in social club to pursue a full-fourth dimension job filing lawsuits confronting SpaceX …

ane:27 AM · Aug 27, 2021·Twitter for iPhone

An extract from Amazon's presentation that was submitted during its previous brawl with Starlink. To demonstrate how ta Starlink modification would affect it once Amazon's Kuiper satellite constellation is deployed, the visitor highlighted potential interference data for both active and all visible Starlink Satellites. This slide shows interference for all visible Starlink satellites. Paradigm: Kuiper Systems LLC Nov sixteen, 2020 Ex Parte FCC International Bureau File Number: SATMOD2020041700037

Amazon Should Focus On Its Kuiper Satellite Constellation Instead Of Delaying Starlink Says Goldman

Starlink and Amazon'southward back and forth at the Commission reached its peak earlier this twelvemonth before the regulatory body accepted the former'southward application to lower the altitudes of its satellites and change parameters for the ground stations.

Amazon had argued that the potential of interference with its Kuiper satellite cyberspace constellation, when deployed, increased significantly due to the change, and the company was joined by others, such as DISH Corporation, who had asked Starlink to modify its FCC license to ensure its satellites would non use more than one beam to geographically serve users.

The fight ended when the FCC accepted Starlink's modification request in April after SpaceX accepted Amazon'south demands to limit its satellites' altitude and DISH's demand to modify the Starlink license.

Mr. Keisner's response came as Starlink's David Goldman submitted a difficult-hitting reply to Amazon's initial opposition to Starlink'south multiple launch and orbital configurations. While currently, the cyberspace service'southward first-generation spacecraft are serving its users, Starlink had submitted plans for Gen2, or second-generation, satellites early last year.

Starlink modified these plans in August past submitting two configurations to the FCC. These changed the satellites' orbital parameters over the original Gen2 awarding submitted in May final year. They besides included dissever orbital configurations for launch with SpaceX's operational Falcon 9 rocket and its under-development Starship platform.

In response, Amazon had argued that the multiple submissions did not follow Commission precedent and would encourage speculative applications by other companies in the futurity. This would increase the burden of evaluating multiple configurations within an awarding on the FCC and other interested parties. It also outlined that Starlink'south modification request violated FCC rules past leaving every major orbital parameter unsettled.

Mr. Goldman had countered Amazon by stating that instead of focusing on its own satellite constellation, it was dedicated to hindering Starlink at every chance available. The executive, while commenting on the lack of interference data submitted by Amazon, called these efforts anticompetitive and stated that:

But while Amazon has filed nothing with the Commission to address these weather on its ain license for virtually 400 days, it took just 4 days to object to SpaceX's next-generation NGSO organization.2 In fact, Amazon has not had a single meeting with the Commission this year about how it intends to resolve the Commission's interference or safe concerns, just it has had xv meetings in that aforementioned span simply about SpaceX. While Amazon has waited fifteen months to explain how its organization works, information technology has lodged objections to SpaceX on boilerplate about every 16 days this year.

He alleged that Amazon's regulatory filings and objections were defended to preventing it from "further falling backside" competitors. Additionally, Mr. Goldman rejected Amazon'south argument that the Starlink modification would prove burdensome by stating that since the company has had enough of resources to evaluate previous Starlink applications, it should find no burden in evaluating the current one either.

Mr. Keisner countered both these arguments by outlining that his Starlink analogue has failed to provide any borderline that Amazon has missed and that while Amazon does have adequate resources to evaluate filings with multiple configurations, other parties such as scientists and satellite operators, will find it difficult to practice and so.

Building on this, the Amazon executive stated that instead of being anticompetitive, his company's comments against the Starlink changes were, in fact, protecting contest by "keeping the door open for prospective licensees, while SpaceX'southward position would close it" and Starlink's allegations of anti-competitiveness were "shopworn".

He painted Amazon's opposition as being "in service of regulatory parity and safeguarding the Commission's licensing process." According to him, this is because if multiple operators submit multiple constellation configurations in a single application, it tin can accept "years" for the FCC to analyze and rule on satellite operators' plans.

Catastrophe his answer with a heavy heart, Mr. Keisner stated that neither the Commission nor the satellite operators should work on the segment under a hostile environs created past SpaceX. He echoed these sentiments by outlining:

Neither should have to do this hard and honest piece of work while beingness assailed, vilified, and intimidated on social media and in every other regulatory and legal fora. None of this will alter until SpaceX and Musk realize that the rules are not only for others—they utilise to them too. If SpaceX and Musk go on to agree themselves above the rules, they should buckle upwardly: they will only draw farther protest from Amazon and others who want to see rules applied to everyone equally. Musk and SpaceX will likely continue to respond as they have here, and the cluttered and resource draining cycle volition continue.