|
We're not anti-Starlink - as we said, we find it extremely impressive and actually intend to use it at some of our own ground stations. For what it is designed to do (broadband to fixed terminals, where privacy and openness is not a concern) it is extraordinarily good. It isn't us calling Starlink fixed - FSS and MSS, and FSS with ESIM (Earth Station in Motion) are legally defined and separate categories with separate licenses and separate rules, and Starlink is FSS - those are the licenses they hold and those are the bands their hardware is designed for. FSS terminals ARE allowed to move (this is what an ESIM is and I imagine is the "large-ish vehicles" you're talking about). As for on aircraft, I believe that was an experimental license but also aeronautical satcom licensing is sometimes an substantially separate situation legally. We are not the ones calling Starlink Fixed Satellite Service - SpaceX and the FCC are. Literally any one of their FCC filings will include the phrase "fixed satellite service" or "FSS" somewhere, because that's what they are and that's the license they have. WRT ISLs, I repeat, ISLs and point-to-point connectivity are not the same thing at all. ISLs are where satellites communicate with eachother directly. Point-to-point connectivity has nothing to do with ISLs (though it can use them if the network has them) and is a matter of terminal-to-terminal links without use of a dedicated feeder link or official ground station. Starlink does not need ISLs to do point-to-point, and FemtoStar (which will not have ISLs at all) can do point-to-point just fine without them. We're fully aware Starlink is a beta, and to be fair to them, even in beta they're much closer to done than we are. We also know they totally COULD do MSS if they decided to get into that market. However, we also know that the core offering of Starlink is internet service via official ground stations, and that they haven't made any moves towards MSS so far - only FSS with ESIM licenses. There are many positive terms with which SpaceX could be described, but without a doubt "open" is not one of them, and that seems to hold true for Starlink no matter how high-tech it may be. I really struggle to see a situation where someone considering Starlink would consider FemtoStar a valid alternative, or where someone considering FemtoStar would consider Starlink a valid alternative. The terminal size, the network architecture, the privacy properties, the openness, the performance, the licensed service type, there's way too many major differences in design goals and priorities to make an apples-to-apples comparison. |