Policy

tech-company-cto-and-others-indicted-for-exporting-nvidia-chips-to-china

Tech company CTO and others indicted for exporting Nvidia chips to China

Citing export controls that took effect in 2022, the indictment said the US is trying to disrupt China’s plan to build exascale supercomputers for military and surveillance use. “These capabilities are being used by the PRC for its military modernization efforts and in connection with the PRC’s weapons design and testing, including for weapons of mass destruction, as well as in connection with the PRC’s development and deployment of advanced AI surveillance tools,” the indictment said.

The Justice Department said the conspirators used Janford Realtor, LLC, a Florida-based company that was not involved in real estate despite its name, “as a front to purchase and then illegally export controlled GPUs to the PRC.” Ho and Li owned and controlled Janford Realtor, while Raymond operated an Alabama-based electronics company that “supplied Nvidia GPUs to Ho and others for illegal export to the PRC,” the Justice Department said.

Kickbacks, money laundering

The conspirators paid each other “kickbacks” or commissions on the sale and export of the Nvidia chips, the indictment said. The money laundering charges involve a variety of transfers from two Chinese companies to Janford Realtor and the Alabama electronics company, the indictment said. The indictment lists nine wire transfers in amounts ranging from $237,248 to $1,150,000.

Raymond was reportedly released on bond, while the other three alleged conspirators are being detained. “This is an extremely serious offense. At the time these were being exported, these were Nvidia’s most advanced chips,” US prosecutor Noah Stern told a magistrate judge in Oakland yesterday, according to Wired.

Stein also said in court that “text messages obtained by authorities show Li boasting about how his father ‘had engaged in similar business on behalf of the Chinese Communist Party,’” Wired reported. Stern said that in the messages, Li “explained that his father had ways to import” the Nvidia chips despite US export controls.

Tech company CTO and others indicted for exporting Nvidia chips to China Read More »

keep-your-receipts:-tech-firms-told-to-prepare-for-possible-tariff-refunds

Keep your receipts: Tech firms told to prepare for possible tariff refunds


Tech firms dare to dream chip tariffs may go away amid rumors of delays.

For months, the Trump administration has warned that semiconductor tariffs are coming soon, leaving the tech industry on pins and needles after a chaotic year of unpredictable tariff regimes collectively cost firms billions.

The semiconductor tariffs are key to Donald Trump’s economic agenda, which is intended to force more manufacturing into the US by making it more expensive to import materials and products. He campaigned on axing the CHIPS Act—which provided subsidies to companies investing in manufacturing chips in the US—complaining that it was a “horrible, horrible thing” to “give hundreds of billions of dollars” away when the US could achieve the same objective by instead taxing companies and “use whatever is left over” of CHIPS funding to “reduce debt.” However, as 2025 winds down, the US president faces pressure on all sides to delay semiconductor tariffs, insiders told Reuters, and it appears that he is considering caving.

According to “two people with direct knowledge of the matter and a third person briefed on the conversations,” US officials have privately told industry and government stakeholders that semiconductor tariffs will likely be delayed.

A fourth insider suggested Trump was hesitant to impose tariffs that could rock the recent US-China trade truce, while Reuters noted that Trump may also be hesitant to announce new tariffs during the holiday shopping season that risk increasing prices of popular consumer tech products. Recently, Trump cut tariffs on grocery items in the face of mounting consumer backlash, so imposing new tariffs now—risking price hikes on laptops, game consoles, and smartphones—surely wouldn’t improve his record-low approval rating.

In April, Trump started threatening semiconductor tariffs as high as 100 percent, prompting a Commerce Department probe into the potential economic and national security impacts of imposing broad chip tariffs. Stakeholders were given 30 days to weigh in, and tech industry associations were quick to urge Trump to avoid imposing broad tariffs that they warned risked setting back US chip manufacturing, ruining US tech competitiveness, and hobbling innovation. The best policy would be no chip tariffs, some industry groups suggested.

Glimmer of hope chip tariffs may never come

Whether Trump would ever give up on imposing broad chip tariffs that he thinks will ensure that the US becomes a world-leading semiconductor hub is likely a tantalizing daydream for companies relieved by rumors that chip tariffs may be delayed. But it’s not completely improbable that he might let this one go.

During Trump’s first term, he threatened tariffs on foreign cars that did not come to pass until his second term. When it comes to the semiconductor tariffs, Trump may miss his chance to act if he’s concerned about losing votes in the midterm elections.

The Commerce Department’s investigation must conclude by December 27, after which Trump has 90 days to decide if he wants to move ahead with tariffs based on the findings.

He could, of course, do nothing or claim to disagree with the findings and seek an alternative path to impose tariffs, but there’s a chance that his own party may add to the pressure to delay them. Trump’s low approval rating is already hurting Republicans in polls, New York Magazine reported, and some are begging Trump to join them on the campaign trail next year to avoid a midterm slump, Politico reported.

For tech companies, the goal is to persuade Trump to either drop or narrowly tailor semiconductor tariffs—and hopefully eliminate the threat of tariffs on downstream products, which could force tech companies to pay double or triple taxes on imports. If they succeed, they could be heading into 2026 with more stable supply chains and even possibly with billions in tariff refunds in their pockets, if the Supreme Court deems Trump’s “emergency” “reciprocal tariffs” illegal.

Gary Shapiro, CEO of the Consumer Technology Association (CTA), attended oral arguments in the SCOTUS case, noting on LinkedIn that “business executives have had to contend with over 100 announcements of tariff changes since the beginning of 2025.”

“I hope to see the Supreme Court rule swiftly to provide businesses the certainty they need,” Shapiro said, arguing in a second post that tariffs “cause uncertainty for businesses, snarl supply chains, and drive inflation and higher costs for consumers.”

As tech companies wait to see how the court rules and how Trump responds to the conclusion of the Commerce Department’s probe, uncertainty remains. CTA’s vice president of international trade, Ed Brzytwa, told Ars that the CTA has advised tech firms to keep their receipts and document all tariff payments.

How chip tariffs could raise prices

Without specifying what was incorrect, a White House official disputed Reuters’ reporting that Trump may shift the timeline for announcing semiconductor tariffs, saying simply “that is not true.”

A Commerce Department official said there was “no change” to report, insisting that the “administration remains committed to reshoring manufacturing that’s critical to our national and economic security.”

But neither official shared any details on when tariffs might be finalized, Reuters reported. And the Commerce Department did not respond to Ars’ request for information on when the public could expect to review findings of its probe.

In comments submitted to the Commerce Department, the Semiconductor Industry Association warned that “for every dollar that a semiconductor chip increases in price, products with embedded semiconductors will have to raise their sales price by $3 to maintain their previous margins.” That makes it easy to see how semiconductor tariffs risk significantly raising prices on any product containing a chip, depending how high the tariff rate is, including products like refrigerators, cars, video game consoles, coffee makers, smartphones, and the list goes on.

It’s estimated that chip tariffs could cost the semiconductor industry more than $1 billion. However, the bigger threat to the semiconductor industry would be if the higher prices of US-made chip made it harder to compete with “companies who sell comparable chips at a lower price globally,” SIA reported. Additionally, “higher input costs from tariffs” could also “force domestic companies to divert funds away from R&D,” the group noted. US firms that Trump wants to promote could rapidly lose their edge in such a scenario.

Echoing SIA, the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) warned the Commerce Department that “broad tariffs would significantly increase input costs for a wide range of downstream industries, raising costs for consumers while decreasing revenues for domestic semiconductor producers, the very industry this investigation seeks to protect.”

To avoid harming key US industries, CCIA recommended that any semiconductor tariffs imposed “focus narrowly” on semiconductors and semiconductor manufacturing equipment “that are critical for national defense and sourced from countries of concern.” The group also suggested creating high and low-risk categories, so that “low-risk goods, such as the import of commercial-grade printed circuit boards used in consumer electronics from key partners” wouldn’t get hit with taxes that have little to do with protecting US national security.

“US long-term competitiveness in both the semiconductor industry and downstream sectors could be greatly impaired if policy interventions are not carefully calibrated,” CCIA forecasted, warning that everyone would feel the pain, from small businesses to leading AI firms.

Trump’s plan for tariff funds makes no sense, groups say

Trump has been claiming since April that chip tariffs are coming soon, and he continues to use them as leverage in recent deals struck with Korea and Switzerland. But so far, while some countries have managed to negotiate rates as low as 15 percent, the semiconductor industry and downstream sectors remain in the dark on what to expect if and when the day finally comes that broader tariffs are announced.

Avoiding so-called tariff stacking—where products are taxed, as well as materials used in the products—is SIA’s biggest ask. The group “strongly” requested that Trump maintain “as simple of a tariff regime for semiconductors as possible,” given “the far-reaching consequences” the US could face if chip tariffs become as complex and burdensome to tech firms as reciprocal tariffs.

SIA also wants Trump to consider offering more refunds, perhaps offering to pay back “duties, taxes, and fees paid on imported parts, components, and materials that are incorporated in an exported product.”

Such a policy “would ensure the United States remains at the forefront of global chip technology,” SIA claimed, by making sure that tariffs collected “remain available for investments in expanding US manufacturing capacity and advanced research and development, as opposed to handed over to the US Treasury.”

Rather than refunding firms, Trump has instead proposed sharing tariffs as dividends, perhaps sending $2,000 checks to low and middle-income families. However, CNN spoke with experts who said the math doesn’t add up, making the prospect that Trump could send stimulus checks seem unlikely. He has also suggested the funds—which were projected to raise $158.4 billion in total revenue in 2025, CNN reported—could be used to reduce national debt.

Trump’s disdain for the CHIPS Act, casting it as a handout to tech firms, makes it seem unlikely that he’ll be motivated to refund firms or offer new incentives. Some experts doubt that he’ll make it easy for firms to get refunds of tariffs if the Supreme Court drafted such an order, or if a SCOTUS loss triggered a class action lawsuit.

CTA’s Shapiro said on LinkedIn that he’s “not sure” which way the SCOTUS case will go, but he’s hoping the verdict will come before the year’s end. Like industry groups urging Trump to keep semiconductor tariffs simple, Shapiro said he hoped Trump would streamline the process for any refunds coming. In the meantime, CTA advises firms to keep all documents itemizing tariffs paid to ensure firms aren’t stiffed if Trump’s go-to tariff regimes are deemed illegal.

“If plaintiffs prevail in this case, I hope to see the government keep it simple and ensure that retailers and importers get their tariff payments refunded swiftly and with as few hoops to jump through as possible,” Shapiro said.

Photo of Ashley Belanger

Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience.

Keep your receipts: Tech firms told to prepare for possible tariff refunds Read More »

pornhub-is-urging-tech-giants-to-enact-device-based-age-verification

Pornhub is urging tech giants to enact device-based age verification


The company is pushing for an alternative way to keep minors from viewing porn.

In letters sent to Apple, Google, and Microsoft this week, Pornhub’s parent company urged the tech giants to support device-based age verification in their app stores and across their operating systems, WIRED has learned.

“Based on our real-world experience with existing age assurance laws, we strongly support the initiative to protect minors online,” reads the letter sent by Anthony Penhale, chief legal officer for Aylo, which owns Pornhub, Brazzers, Redtube, and YouPorn. “However, we have found site-based age assurance approaches to be fundamentally flawed and counterproductive.”

The letter adds that site-based age verification methods have “failed to achieve their primary objective: protecting minors from accessing age-inappropriate material online.” Aylo says device-based authentication is a better solution for this issue because once a viewer’s age is determined via phone or tablet, their age signal can be shared over its application programming interface (API) with adult sites.

The letters were sent following the continued adoption of age verification laws in the US and UK, which require users to upload an ID or other personal documentation to verify that they are not a minor before viewing sexually explicit content; often this requires using third-party services. Currently, 25 US states have passed some form of ID verification, each with different provisions.

Pornhub has experienced an enormous dip in traffic as a result of its decision to pull out of most states that have enacted these laws. The platform was one of the few sites to comply with the new law in Louisiana but doing so caused traffic to drop by 80 percent. Similarly, since implementation of the Online Safety Act, Pornhub has lost nearly 80 percent of its UK viewership.

The company argues that it’s a privacy risk to leave age verification up to third-party sites and that people will simply seek adult content on platforms that don’t comply with the laws.

“We have seen an exponential surge in searches for alternate adult sites without age restrictions or safety standards at all,” says Alex Kekesi, vice president of brand and community at Pornhub.

She says she hopes the tech companies and Aylo are able to find common ground on the matter, especially given the recent passage of the Digital Age Assurance Act (AB 1043) in California. “This is a law that’s interesting because it gets it almost exactly right,” she says. Signed into law in October, it requires app store operators to authenticate user ages before download.

According to Google spokesperson Karl Ryan, “Google is committed to protecting kids online, including by developing and deploying new age assurance tools like our Credential Manager API that can be used by websites. We don’t allow adult entertainment apps on Google Play and would emphasize that certain high-risk services like Aylo will always need to invest in specific tools to meet their own legal and responsibility obligations.”

Microsoft declined to comment, but pointed WIRED to a recent policy recommendation post that said “age assurance should be applied at the service level, target specific design features that pose heightened risks, and enable tailored experiences for children.”

Apple likewise declined to comment and instead pointed WIRED to its child online safety report and noted that web content filters are turned on by default for every user under 18. A software update from June specified that Apple requires kids who are under 13 to have a kid account, which also includes “app restrictions enabled from the beginning.” Apple currently has no way of requiring every single website to integrate an API.

According to Pornhub, age verification laws have led to ineffective enforcement. “The sheer volume of adult content platforms has proven to be too challenging for governments worldwide to regulate at the individual site or platform level,” says Kekesi. Aylo claims device-based age verification that happens once, on a phone or computer, will preserve user privacy while prioritizing safety.

Recent Studies by New York University and public policy nonprofit the Phoenix Center suggest that current age verification laws don’t work because people find ways to circumvent them, including by using VPNs and turning to sites that don’t regulate their content.

“Platform-based verification has been like Prohibition,” says Mike Stabile, director of public policy at the Free Speech Coalition. “We’re seeing consumer behavior reroute away from legal, compliant sites to foreign sites that don’t comply with any regulations or laws. Age verification laws have effectively rerouted a massive river of consumers to sites with pirated content, revenge porn, and child sex abuse material.” He claims that these laws “have been great for criminals, terrible for the legal adult industry.”

With age verification and the overall deanonymizing of the internet, these are issues that will now face nearly everyone, but especially those who are politically disfavored. Sex workers have been dealing with issues like censorship and surveillance online for a long time. One objective of Project 2025, MAGA’s playbook for President Trump’s second term, has been to “back door” a national ban on porn through state laws.

The current surge of child protection laws around the world is driving a significant change in how people engage with the internet, and is also impacting industries beyond porn, including gaming and social media. Starting December 10 in Australia, in accordance with the government’s social media ban, kids under 16 will be kicked off Facebook, Instagram, and Threads.

Ultimately, Stabile says that may be the point. In the US, “the advocates for these bills have largely fallen into two groups: faith-based organizations that don’t believe adult content should be legal, and age verification providers who stand to profit from a restricted internet.” The goal of faith-based organizations, he says, is to destabilize the adult industry and dissuade adults from using it, while the latter works to expand their market as much as possible, “even if that means getting in bed with right-wing censors.”

But the problem is that “even well-meaning legislators advancing these bills have little understanding of the internet,” Stabile adds. “It’s much easier to go after a political punching bag like Pornhub than it is Apple or Google. But if you’re not addressing the reality of the internet, if your legislation flies in the face of consumer behavior, you’re only going to end up creating systems that fail.”

Adult industry insiders I spoke to in August explained that the biggest misconception about the industry is that it is against self-regulation when that couldn’t be further from the truth. “Keeping minors off adult sites is a shared responsibility that requires a global solution,” Kekesi says. “Every phone, tablet, or computer should start as a kid-safe device. Only verified adults should unlock access to things like dating apps, gambling, or adult content.” In 2022, Pornhub created a chatbot that urges people searching for child sexual abuse content to seek counseling; the tool was introduced following a 2020 New York Times investigation that alleged the platform had monetized videos showing child abuse. Pornhub has since started releasing annual transparency reports and tightened its verification process of performers and for video uploads.

According to Politico, Google, Meta, OpenAI, Snap, and Pinterest all supported the California bill. Right now that law is limited to California, but Kekesi believes it can work as a template for other states.

“We obviously see that there’s kind of a path forward here,” she says.

This story originally appeared at WIRED.com

Photo of WIRED

Wired.com is your essential daily guide to what’s next, delivering the most original and complete take you’ll find anywhere on innovation’s impact on technology, science, business and culture.

Pornhub is urging tech giants to enact device-based age verification Read More »

trump-revives-unpopular-ted-cruz-plan-to-punish-states-that-impose-ai-laws

Trump revives unpopular Ted Cruz plan to punish states that impose AI laws

The FTC chairman would be required to issue a policy statement detailing “circumstances under which State laws that require alterations to the truthful outputs of AI models are preempted by the FTC Act’s prohibition on engaging in deceptive acts or practices affecting commerce.”

When Cruz proposed a moratorium restricting state AI regulation in mid-2025, Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) helped lead the fight against it. “Until Congress passes federally preemptive legislation like the Kids Online Safety Act and an online privacy framework, we can’t block states from making laws that protect their citizens,” Blackburn said at the time.

Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) also spoke out against the Cruz plan, saying it would preempt “good state consumer protection laws” related to robocalls, deepfakes, and autonomous vehicles.

Trump wants Congress to preempt state laws

Besides reviving the Cruz plan, Trump’s draft executive order seeks new legislation to preempt state laws. The order would direct Trump administration officials to “jointly prepare for my review a legislative recommendation establishing a uniform Federal regulatory framework for AI that preempts State AI laws that conflict with the policy set forth in this order.”

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) this week said a ban on state AI laws could be included in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Democrats are trying to keep the ban out of the bill.

“We have to allow states to take the lead because we’re not able to, so far in Washington, come up with appropriate legislation,” Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), the ranking member on the Armed Services Committee, told Semafor.

In a Truth Social post on Tuesday, Trump claimed that states are “trying to embed DEI ideology into AI models.” Trump wrote, “We MUST have one Federal Standard instead of a patchwork of 50 State Regulatory Regimes. If we don’t, then China will easily catch us in the AI race. Put it in the NDAA, or pass a separate Bill, and nobody will ever be able to compete with America.”

Trump revives unpopular Ted Cruz plan to punish states that impose AI laws Read More »

gop-overhaul-of-broadband-permit-laws:-cities-hate-it,-cable-companies-love-it

GOP overhaul of broadband permit laws: Cities hate it, cable companies love it

US Rep. Richard Hudson (R-N.C.), the subcommittee chairman, defended the bills at today’s hearing. “These reforms will add much-needed certainty, predictability, and accountability to the broadband permitting process and help expedite deployment,” he said.

Cable lobby group NCTA called the hearing “important progress” toward “the removal of regulatory impediments that slow deployment to unserved areas.” Another cable lobby group, America’s Communications Association, said the permitting reform bills “will strip away red tape and enable broadband, cable, and telecommunications providers to redirect resources to upgrading and expanding their networks and services, especially in rural areas.”

$42 billion program delays

Much of the debate centered on a $42 billion federal program that was created in a November 2021 law to subsidize broadband construction in areas without modern access. The Trump administration threw out a Biden-era plan for distributing the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program funds, forcing state governments to rewrite their plans and cut costs, delaying the projects’ start. Money still hasn’t been distributed, though the Trump administration today said it approved the rewritten plans of 18 states and territories.

Hudson alleged that BEAD suffered from “four years of delays caused by the Biden-Harris administration,” though the Biden administration had approximately three years to set up the program. Hudson said that “permitting reform is essential” to prevent the money from being “tied up in further unnecessary reviews and bureaucratic delays.”

The bills set varying deadlines for different types of network projects, ranging from 60 days to 150 days. One bill demands that permit fees for BEAD construction projects be based on the local government’s “actual and direct costs.” Another stipulates that certain environmental and historical preservation reviews aren’t required when removing equipment targeted by a 2019 law on foreign technology deemed to be a security risk.

Rep. Doris Matsui (D-Calif.), the subcommittee’s top Democrat, said during the hearing that she won’t support “proposals that force local governments to meet tight deadlines without any extra staff or funding.” She said that if the “shot clock” specified in the legislation “runs out, the project is automatically approved. That may sound like a way to speed things up but in reality, it cuts out community input, leads to mistakes and sets us up for more delays down the road. If we want faster reviews, we should give local communities more help, not take away their say.”

GOP overhaul of broadband permit laws: Cities hate it, cable companies love it Read More »

faced-with-naked-man,-doordasher-demands-police-action;-they-arrest-her-for-illegal-surveillance

Faced with naked man, DoorDasher demands police action; they arrest her for illegal surveillance

“The only justice I’m getting is exposing this man and having posted that video,” she added. “And it has gone viral. Now he can live with shame and embarrassment if people have seen it.”

“I’m the victim!” she said. “Is this making sense to any-fucking-body?”

Her numerous videos attracted huge followings—anywhere from 5 million to 30 million views each—and DoorDash eventually felt the need to respond.

“DoorDash never deactivates someone for reporting [sexual assault]—full stop,” said the company.

But, it added, “posting a video of a customer in their home, and disclosing their personal details publicly, is a clear violation of our policies. That is the sole reason that this Dasher’s account was deactivated, along with the customer’s, while we investigated. We’ve also ensured that the Dasher has full access to their earnings.”

Meanwhile, the police were doing something—but not something that Henderson wanted.

The cops determined that the nude man in question “was incapacitated and unconscious on his couch due to alcohol consumption.” Being drunk and naked inside your own home apparently does not qualify as sexual assault on a delivery driver, and the police department said in a press release yesterday that “the investigation by the Oswego Police Department determined that no sexual assault occurred.”

As part of their investigation, the cops found that Henderson had filmed the man and “subsequently posted the video to social media, where it drew significant attention.” This shifted their attention to Henderson’s decision to film and upload the video without the man’s consent.

The police eventually arrested Henderson, who is now charged with two felonies: “Unlawful Surveillance in the Second Degree” and “Dissemination of an Unlawful Surveillance Image in the First Degree.” She was released after being charged, and her case will be heard by the Oswego City Court.

Henderson has stopped releasing videos on TikTok about the situation.

Faced with naked man, DoorDasher demands police action; they arrest her for illegal surveillance Read More »

meta-wins-monopoly-trial,-convinces-judge-that-social-networking-is-dead

Meta wins monopoly trial, convinces judge that social networking is dead


People are “bored” by their friends’ content, judge ruled, siding with Meta.

Mark Zuckerberg arrives at court after The Federal Trade Commission alleged the acquisitions of Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014 gave Meta a social media monopoly. Credit: Bloomberg / Contributor | Bloomberg

After years of pushback from the Federal Trade Commission over Meta’s acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp, Meta has defeated the FTC’s monopoly claims.

In a Tuesday ruling, US District Judge James Boasberg said the FTC failed to show that Meta has a monopoly in a market dubbed “personal social networking.” In that narrowly defined market, the FTC unsuccessfully argued, Meta supposedly faces only two rivals, Snapchat and MeWe, which struggle to compete due to its alleged monopoly.

But the days of grouping apps into “separate markets of social networking and social media” are over, Boasberg wrote. He cited the Greek philosopher Heraclitus, who “posited that no man can ever step into the same river twice,” while telling the FTC they missed their chance to block Meta’s purchase.

Essentially, Boasberg agreed with Meta that social media—as it was known in Facebook’s early days—is dead. And that means that Meta now competes with a broader set of rival apps, which includes two hugely popular platforms: TikTok and YouTube.

“When the evidence implies that consumers are reallocating massive amounts of time from Meta’s apps to these rivals and that the amount of substitution has forced Meta to invest gobs of cash to keep up, the answer is clear: Meta is not a monopolist insulated from competition,” Boasberg wrote.

In fact, adding just TikTok alone to the market defeated the FTC’s claims, Boasberg wrote, leaving him to conclude that “Meta holds no monopoly in the relevant market.”

The FTC is not happy about the loss, which comes after Boasberg determined that one of the agency’s key expert witnesses, Scott Hemphill, could not have approached his testimony “with an open mind.” According to Boasberg, Hemphill was aligned with figures publicly calling for the breakup of Facebook, and that made “neutral evaluation of his opinions more difficult” in a case with little direct evidence of monopoly harms.

“We are deeply disappointed in this decision,” Joe Simonson, the FTC’s director of public affairs, told CNBC. “The deck was always stacked against us with Judge Boasberg, who is currently facing articles of impeachment. We are reviewing all our options.”

For Meta, the win ends years of FTC fights intended to break up the company’s family of apps: Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp.

“The Court’s decision today recognizes that Meta faces fierce competition,” Jennifer Newstead, Meta’s chief legal officer, said. “Our products are beneficial for people and businesses and exemplify American innovation and economic growth. We look forward to continuing to partner with the Administration and to invest in America.”

Reels’ popularity helped save Meta

Meta app users clicking on Reels helped Meta win.

Boasberg noted that “a majority of Americans’ time” on both Facebook and Instagram “is now spent watching videos,” with Reels becoming “the single most-used part of Facebook.” That puts Meta apps more on par with entertainment apps like TikTok and YouTube, the judge said.

While “connecting with friends remains an important part of both apps,” the judge cited Meta’s evidence showing that Meta had to pump more recommended content from strangers into users’ feeds to account for a trend where its users grew increasingly less inclined to post publicly.

“Both scrolling and sharing have transformed” since Facebook was founded, Boasberg wrote, citing six factors that he concluded invalidated the FTC’s market definition as markets exist today.

Initial factors that shifted markets were due to leaps in innovation. “First, smartphone usage exploded,” Boasberg explained, then “cell phone data got better,” which made it easier to watch videos without frustrating “freezing and buffering.” Soon after, content recommendation systems got better, with “advanced AI algorithms” helping users “find engaging videos about the things” they “care most about in the world.”

Other factors stemmed from social changes, the judge suggested, describing the fourth factor as a trend where Meta app users started feeling “increasingly bored by their friends’ posts.”

“Longtime users’ friend lists” start fresh, but over time, they “become an often-outdated archive of people they once knew: a casual friend from college, a long-ago friend from summer camp, some guy they met at a party once,” Boasberg wrote. “Posts from friends have therefore grown less interesting.”

Then came TikTok, the fifth factor, Boasberg said, which forced Meta to “evolve” Facebook and Instagram by adding Reels.

And finally, “those five changes both caused and were reinforced by a change in social norms, which evolved to discourage public posting,” Boasberg wrote. “People have increasingly become less interested in blasting out public posts that hundreds of others can see.”

As a result of these tech advancements and social trends, Boasberg said, “Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube have thus evolved to have nearly identical main features.” That reality undermined the FTC’s claims that users preferred Facebook and Instagram before Meta shifted its focus away from friends-and-family content.

“The Court simply does not find it credible that users would prefer the Facebook and Instagram apps that existed ten years ago to the versions that exist today,” Boasberg wrote.

Meta apps have not deteriorated, judge ruled

Boasberg repeatedly emphasized that the FTC failed to prove that Meta has a monopoly “now,” either actively or imminently causing harms.

The FTC tried to win by claiming that “Meta has degraded its apps’ quality by increasing their ad load, that falling user sentiment shows that the apps have deteriorated and that Meta has sabotaged its apps by underinvesting in friend sharing,” Boasberg noted.

But, Boasberg said, the FTC failed to show that Meta’s app quality has diminished—a trend that Cory Doctorow dubbed “enshittification,” which Meta apparently successfully argued is not real.

The judge was also swayed by Meta’s arguments that users like seeing ads. Meta showed evidence that it can only profitably increase its ad load when ad quality improves; otherwise, it risks losing engagement. Because “the rate at which users buy something or subscribe to a service based on Meta’s ads has steadily risen,” this suggested “that the ads have gotten more and more likely to connect users to products in which they have an interest,” Boasberg said.

Additionally, surveys of Meta app users that show declining user sentiment are not evidence that its apps are deteriorating in quality, Boasberg said, but are more about “brand reputation.”

“That is unsurprising: ask people how they feel about, say, Exxon Mobil, and their answers will tell you very little about how good its oil is,” Boasberg wrote. “The FTC’s claim that worsening sentiment shows a worsening product is unpersuasive.”

Finally, the FTC’s claim that Meta underinvested in friends-and-family content, to the detriment of its core app users, “makes no sense,” Boasberg wrote, given Meta’s data showing that user posting declined.

“While it is true that users see less content from their friends these days, that is largely due to the friends themselves: people simply post less,” Boasberg wrote. “Users are not seeing less friend content because Meta is hiding it from them, but instead because there is less friend content for Meta to show.”

It’s not even “clear that users want more friend posts,” the judge noted, agreeing with Meta that “instead, what users really seem to want is Reels.”

Further, if Meta were a monopolist, Boasberg seemed to suggest that the platform might be more invested in forcing friends-and-family content than Reels, since “Reels earns Meta less money” due to its smaller ad load.

“Courts presume that sophisticated corporations act rationally,” Boasberg wrote. “Here, the FTC has not offered even an ordinarily persuasive case that Meta is making the economically irrational choice to underinvest in its most lucrative offerings. It certainly has not made a particularly persuasive one.”

Among the critics unhappy with the ruling is Nidhi Hegde, executive director of the American Economic Liberties Project, who suggested that Boasberg’s ruling was “a colossally wrong decision” that “turns a willful blind eye to Meta’s enormous power over social media and the harms that flow from it.”

“Judge Boasberg has purposefully ignored the overwhelming evidence of how Meta became a monopoly—not by building a better product, but by buying its rivals to shut down any real competitors before they could grow,” Hegde said. “These deals let Meta fuse Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp into one machine that poisons our children and discourse, bullies publishers and advertisers, and destroys the possibility of healthy online connections with friends and family. By pretending that TikTok’s rise wipes away over a decade of illegal conduct, this court has effectively told every aspiring monopolist that our current justice system is on their side.”

On the other side, industry groups cheered the ruling. Matt Schruers, president of the Computer & Communications Industry Association, suggested that Boasberg concluded “what every Internet user knows—that Meta competes with a number of platforms and the company’s relevant market shares are therefore nowhere close to those required to establish monopoly power.”

Photo of Ashley Belanger

Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience.

Meta wins monopoly trial, convinces judge that social networking is dead Read More »

widespread-cloudflare-outage-blamed-on-mysterious-traffic-spike

Widespread Cloudflare outage blamed on mysterious traffic spike

About 20 percent of the web relies on Cloudflare to manage and protect traffic, a Cloudflare blog noted in July. Some intermediate fixes have been made, Cloudflare’s status page said. But as of this writing, many sites remain down. According to DownDetector, Amazon, Spotify, Zoom, Uber, and Azure also experienced outages.

“Given the importance of Cloudflare’s services, any outage is unacceptable,” Cloudflare’s spokesperson said. “We apologize to our customers and the Internet in general for letting you down today. We will learn from today’s incident and improve.”

Cloudflare will continue to update the status page as fixes come in, and a blog will be posted later today discussing the issue, the spokesperson told Ars.

It’s the latest massive outage site owners have coped with after an Amazon Web Services outage took out half the web last month. Both the AWS outage and the chaotic CrowdStrike outage last year were estimated to cost affected parties billions.

Critics have suggested that outages like these make it clear how fragile the Internet really is, especially when everyone relies on the same service providers. During the AWS outage, some sites considered diversifying service providers to avoid losing business during future outages.

The outage may have caused some investors to panic, as Cloudflare’s stock fell about 3 percent amid the widespread outage.

Ars will update this story when Cloudflare provides more information on the outage.

This story was updated on November 18 to add new information from Cloudflare.

Widespread Cloudflare outage blamed on mysterious traffic spike Read More »

us-may-owe-$1-trillion-in-refunds-if-scotus-cancels-trump-tariffs

US may owe $1 trillion in refunds if SCOTUS cancels Trump tariffs


Tech industry primed for big refunds if SCOTUS rules against Trump tariffs.

If Donald Trump loses his Supreme Court fight over tariffs, the US may be forced to return “tens of billions of dollars to companies that have paid import fees this year, plus interest,” The Atlantic reported. And the longer the verdict is delayed, the higher the refunds could go, possibly even hitting $1 trillion.

For tech companies both large and small, the stakes are particularly high. A Trump defeat would not just mean clawing back any duties paid on imports to the US that companies otherwise can use to invest in their competitiveness. But, more critically in the long term, it would also end tariff shocks that, as economics lecturer Matthew Allen emphasized in a report for The Conversation, risked harming “innovation itself” by destabilizing global partnerships and diverse supply chains in “tech-intensive, IP-led sectors like semiconductors and software.”

Currently, the Supreme Court is weighing two cases that argue that the US president does not have unilateral authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Defending his regime of so-called “reciprocal tariffs,” Trump argued these taxes were necessary to correct the “emergency” of enduring trade imbalances that he alleged have unfairly enriched other countries while bringing the US “to the brink of catastrophic decline.”

Not everyone thinks Trump will lose. But after oral arguments last week, prediction markets dropped Trump’s odds of winning from 50 to 25 percent, Forbes reported, due to Supreme Court justices appearing skeptical.

Dozens of economists agreed: Trump’s tariffs are “odd”

Justices may have been swayed by dozens of leading economists who weighed in. In one friend of the court brief, more than 40 economists, public policy researchers, and former government officials argued that Trump’s got it all wrong when he claims that “sustained trade deficits” have “fostered dependency on foreign rivals and gutted American manufacturing.”

Far from being “unusual and extraordinary,” they argued that trade deficits are “rather ordinary and commonplace.” And rather than being a sign of US weakness, the deficits instead indicate that the US has a “foreign investment surplus,” as other countries clearly consider the US “a superior investment.”

Look no further than the tech sector for a prominent example, they suggested, noting that “the United States has the dominant technology sector in the world and, as a result, has been running a persistent surplus in trade in services for decades.” Citing a quip from Nobel Prize winner Robert Solow—“I have a chronic deficit with my barber, who doesn’t buy a darned thing from me”—economists argued that trade deficits are never inherently problematic.

“It is odd to economists, to say the least, for the United States government to attempt to rebalance trade on a country-by-country basis,” economists wrote, as Trump seems to do with his trade deals imposing reciprocal tariffs as high as 145 percent.

SCOTUS urged to end “perfect storm of uncertainty”

Trump has been on a mission to use tariffs to force more manufacturing back into the US. He has claimed that the court undoing his trade deals would be an “economic disaster” and “would literally destroy the United States of America.” And the longer it takes for the verdict to come out, the more damage the verdict could do, his administration warned, as the US continues to collect tariffs and Trump continues to strike deals that hinge on reciprocal tariffs being in play.

However, in another friend-of-court brief, the Consumer Technology Association (CTA) and the Chamber of Commerce (CoC) argued that the outcome is worse for US businesses if the court defers to Trump.

“The current administration’s use of IEEPA to impose virtually unbounded tariffs is not only unprecedented but is causing irreparable harm” to each group’s members by “increasing their costs, undermining their ability to plan for the future, and in some cases, threatening their very existence,” their filing said.

“The tariffs are particularly damaging to American manufacturing,” they argued, complaining that “American manufacturers face higher prices for raw materials than their foreign competitors, destroying any comparative advantage the tariffs were allegedly meant to create.”

Further, businesses face decreased exports of their products, as well as retaliatory tariffs from any countries striking back at Trump—which “affect $223 billion of US exports and are expected to eliminate an additional 141,000 jobs,” CTA and CoC estimated.

Innovation “thrives on collaboration, trust and scale,” Allen, the economics lecturer, noted, joining critics warning that Trump risked hobbling not just US tech dominance by holding onto seemingly misguided protectionist beliefs but also the European Union’s and the United Kingdom’s.

Meanwhile, the CTA and CoC argued that Trump has other ways to impose tariffs that have been authorized by Congress and do not carry the same risks of destabilizing key US industries, such as the tech sector. Under Section 122, which many critics argued is the authority Trump should be using to impose the reciprocal tariffs, Trump would be limited to a 15 percent tariff for no more than 150 days, trade scholars noted in yet another brief SCOTUS reviewed.

“But the President’s claimed IEEPA authority contains no such limits” CTA and CoC noted. “At whim, he has increased, decreased, suspended, or reimposed tariffs, generating the perfect storm of uncertainty.”

US may end up owing $1 trillion in refunds

Economists urged SCOTUS to intervene and stop Trump’s attempt to seize authority to impose boundless reciprocal tariffs—arguing the economic impact “is predicted to be far greater than in two programs” SCOTUS previously struck, including the Biden administration’s $50 billion plan for student loan forgiveness.

In September, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent warned justices that “the amount to be refunded could be between $750 billion and $1 trillion if the court waits until next summer before issuing a ruling that says the tariffs have to be repaid,” CNBC reported.

During oral arguments, Justice Amy Coney Barrett fretted that undoing Trump’s tariffs could be “messy,” CNBC reported.

However, some business owners—who joined the We Pay Tariffs coalition weighing in on the SCOTUS case—told CNBC that they think it could be relatively straightforward, since customs forms contain line items detailing which tariffs were paid. Businesses could be paid in lump sums or even future credits, they suggested.

Rick Muskat, CEO of family-run shoe company DeerStags, told CNBC that his company paid more than $1 million in tariffs so far, but “it should be simple for importers to apply for refunds based on this tariff itemization.” If the IRS can issue repayments for tax overpayments, US Customs should have “no problem” either, he suggested—especially since the agency automatically refunded US importers with no issue during a 2018 conflict, CNBC reported.

If there aren’t automatic refunds, though, things could get sticky. Filing paperwork required to challenge various tariffs may become “time-consuming and difficult” for some businesses, particularly those dealing with large shipments where only some products may have been taxed.

There’s also the issue that some countries’ tariffs—like China’s—changed “multiple times,” Joyce Adetutu, a partner at the law firm Vinson & Elkins, told CNBC. “It is going to take quite a bit of time untangling all of that, and it will be an administrative burden,” Adetutu said.

Photo of Ashley Belanger

Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience.

US may owe $1 trillion in refunds if SCOTUS cancels Trump tariffs Read More »

“how-about-no”:-fcc-boss-brendan-carr-says-he-won’t-end-news-distortion-probes

“How about no”: FCC boss Brendan Carr says he won’t end news distortion probes

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr says he won’t scrap the agency’s controversial news distortion policy despite calls from a bipartisan group of former FCC chairs and commissioners.

“How about no,” Carr wrote in an X post in response to the petition from former FCC leaders. “On my watch, the FCC will continue to hold broadcasters accountable to their public interest obligations.”

The petition filed yesterday by former FCC chairs and commissioners asked the FCC to repeal its 1960s-era news distortion policy, which Carr has repeatedly invoked in threats to revoke broadcast licenses. In the recent Jimmy Kimmel controversy, Carr said that ABC affiliates could have licenses revoked for news distortion if they kept the comedian on the air.

The petition said the Kimmel incident and several other Carr threats illustrate “the extraordinary intrusions on editorial decision-making that Chairman Carr apparently understands the news distortion policy to permit.” The petition argued that the “policy’s purpose—to eliminate bias in the news—is not a legitimate government interest,” that it has chilled broadcasters’ speech, that it has been weaponized for partisan purposes, that it is overly vague, and is unnecessary given the separate rule against broadcast hoaxes.

“The news distortion policy is no longer justifiable under today’s First Amendment doctrine and no longer necessary in today’s media environment… The Commission should repeal the policy in full and recognize that it may not investigate or penalize broadcasters for ‘distorting,’ ‘slanting,’ or ‘staging’ the news, unless the broadcast at issue independently meets the high standard for broadcasting a dangerous hoax under 47 C.F.R. § 73.1217,” the petition said.

News distortion policy rarely enforced

The petition was filed by Mark Fowler, a Republican who chaired the FCC from 1981 to 1987; Dennis Patrick, a Republican who chaired the FCC from 1987 to 1989; Alfred Sikes, a Republican who chaired the FCC from 1989 to 1993; Tom Wheeler, a Democrat who chaired the FCC from 2013 to 2017; Andrew Barrett, a Republican who served as a commissioner from 1989 to 1996; Ervin Duggan, a Democrat who served as a commissioner from 1990 to 1994; and Rachelle Chong, a Republican who served as a commissioner from 1994 to 1997.

“How about no”: FCC boss Brendan Carr says he won’t end news distortion probes Read More »

google-claims-win-for-everyone-as-text-scammers-lost-their-cloud-server

Google claims win for everyone as text scammers lost their cloud server

The day after Google filed a lawsuit to end text scams primarily targeting Americans, the criminal network behind the phishing scams was “disrupted,” a Google spokesperson told Ars.

According to messages that the “ringleader” of the so-called “Lighthouse enterprise” posted on his Telegram channel, the phishing gang’s cloud server was “blocked due to malicious complaints.”

“We will restore it as soon as possible!” the leader posted on the channel—which Google’s lawsuit noted helps over 2,500 members coordinate phishing attacks that have resulted in losses of “over a billion dollars.”

Google has alleged that the Lighthouse enterprise is a “criminal group in China” that sells “phishing for dummies” kits that make it easier for scammers with little tech savvy to launch massive phishing campaigns. So far, “millions” of Americans have been harmed, Google alleged, as scammers disproportionately impersonate US institutions, like the Postal Service, as well as well-known brands like E-ZPass.

The company’s lawsuit seeks to dismantle the entire Lighthouse criminal enterprise, so the company was pleased to see Lighthouse communities go dark. In a statement, Halimah DeLaine Prado, Google’s general counsel, told Ars that “this shutdown of Lighthouse’s operations is a win for everyone.

Google claims win for everyone as text scammers lost their cloud server Read More »

us-spy-satellites-built-by-spacex-send-signals-in-the-“wrong-direction”

US spy satellites built by SpaceX send signals in the “wrong direction”


Spy satellites emit surprising signals

It seems US didn’t coordinate Starshield’s unusual spectrum use with other countries.

Image of a satellite in space and the Earth in the background.

Image of a Starshield satellite from SpaceX’s website. Credit: SpaceX

Image of a Starshield satellite from SpaceX’s website. Credit: SpaceX

About 170 Starshield satellites built by SpaceX for the US government’s National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) have been sending signals in the wrong direction, a satellite researcher found.

The SpaceX-built spy satellites are helping the NRO greatly expand its satellite surveillance capabilities, but the purpose of these signals is unknown. The signals are sent from space to Earth in a frequency band that’s allocated internationally for Earth-to-space and space-to-space transmissions.

There have been no public complaints of interference caused by the surprising Starshield emissions. But the researcher who found them says they highlight a troubling lack of transparency in how the US government manages the use of spectrum and a failure to coordinate spectrum usage with other countries.

Scott Tilley, an engineering technologist and amateur radio astronomer in British Columbia, discovered the signals in late September or early October while working on another project. He found them in various parts of the 2025–2110 MHz band, and from his location, he was able to confirm that 170 satellites were emitting the signals over Canada, the United States, and Mexico. Given the global nature of the Starshield constellation, the signals may be emitted over other countries as well.

“This particular band is allocated by the ITU [International Telecommunication Union], the United States, and Canada primarily as an uplink band to spacecraft on orbit—in other words, things in space, so satellite receivers will be listening on these frequencies,” Tilley told Ars. “If you’ve got a loud constellation of signals blasting away on the same frequencies, it has the potential to interfere with the reception of ground station signals being directed at satellites on orbit.”

In the US, users of the 2025–2110 MHz portion of the S-Band include NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), as well as nongovernmental users like TV news broadcasters that have vehicles equipped with satellites to broadcast from remote locations.

Experts told Ars that the NRO likely coordinated with the US National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to ensure that signals wouldn’t interfere with other spectrum users. A decision to allow the emissions wouldn’t necessarily be made public, they said. But conflicts with other governments are still possible, especially if the signals are found to interfere with users of the frequencies in other countries.

Surprising signals

A man standing outdoors in front of two large antennas.

Scott Tilley and his antennas.

Credit: Scott Tilley

Scott Tilley and his antennas. Credit: Scott Tilley

Tilley previously made headlines in 2018 when he located a satellite that NASA had lost contact with in 2005. For his new discovery, Tilley published data and a technical paper describing the “strong wideband S-band emissions,” and his work was featured by NPR on October 17.

Tilley’s technical paper said emissions were detected from 170 satellites out of the 193 known Starshield satellites. Emissions have since been detected from one more satellite, making it 171 out of 193, he told Ars. “The apparent downlink use of an uplink-allocated band, if confirmed by authorities, warrants prompt technical and regulatory review to assess interference risk and ensure compliance” with ITU regulations, Tilley’s paper said.

Tilley said he uses a mix of omnidirectional antennas and dish antennas at his home to receive signals, along with “software-defined radios and quite a bit of proprietary software I’ve written or open source software that I use for analysis work.” The signals did not stop when the paper was published. Tilley said the emissions are powerful enough to be received by “relatively small ground stations.”

Tilley’s paper said that Starshield satellites emit signals with a width of 9 MHz and signal-to-noise (SNR) ratios of 10 to 15 decibels. “A 10 dB SNR means the received signal power is ten times greater than the noise power in the same bandwidth,” while “20 dB means one hundred times,” Tilley told Ars.

Other Starshield signals that were 4 or 5 MHz wide “have been observed to change frequency from day to day with SNR exceeding 20dB,” his paper said. “Also observed from time to time are other weaker wide signals from 2025–2110 MHz what may be artifacts or actual intentional emissions.”

The 2025–2110 MHz band is used by NASA for science missions and by other countries for similar missions, Tilley noted. “Any other radio activity that’s occurring on this band is intentionally limited to avoid causing disruption to its primary purpose,” he said.

The band is used for some fully terrestrial, non-space purposes. Mobile service is allowed in 2025–2110 MHz, but ITU rules say that “administrations shall not introduce high-density mobile systems” in these frequencies. The band is also licensed in the US for non-federal terrestrial services, including the Broadcast Auxiliary Service, Cable Television Relay Service, and Local Television Transmission Service.

While Earth-based systems using the band, such as TV links from mobile studios, have legal protection against interference, Tilley noted that “they normally use highly directional and local signals to link a field crew with a studio… they’re not aimed into space but at a terrestrial target with a very directional antenna.” A trade group representing the US broadcast industry told Ars that it hasn’t observed any interference from Starshield satellites.

“There without anybody knowing it”

Spectrum consultant Rick Reaser told Ars that Starshield’s space-to-Earth transmissions likely haven’t caused any interference problems. “You would not see this unless you were looking for it, or if it turns out that your receiver looks for everything, which most receivers aren’t going to do,” he said.

Reaser said it appears that “whatever they’re doing, they’ve come up with a way to sort of be there without anybody knowing it,” or at least until Tilley noticed the signals.

“But then the question is, can somebody prove that that’s caused a problem?” Reaser said. Other systems using the same spectrum in the correct direction probably aren’t pointed directly at the Starshield satellites, he said.

Reaser’s extensive government experience includes managing spectrum for the Defense Department, negotiating a spectrum-sharing agreement with the European Union, and overseeing the development of new signals for GPS. Reaser said that Tilley’s findings are interesting because the signals would be hard to discover.

“It is being used in the wrong direction, if they’re coming in downlink, that’s supposed to be an uplink,” Reaser said. As for what the signals are being used for, Reaser said he doesn’t know. “It could be communication, it could be all sorts of things,” he said.

Tilley’s paper said the “results raise questions about frequency-allocation compliance and the broader need for transparent coordination among governmental, commercial, and scientific stakeholders.” He argues that international coordination is becoming more important because of the ongoing deployment of large constellations of satellites that could cause harmful interference.

“Cooperative disclosure—without compromising legitimate security interests—will be essential to balance national capability with the shared responsibility of preserving an orderly and predictable radio environment,” his paper said. “The findings presented here are offered in that spirit: not as accusation, but as a public-interest disclosure grounded in reproducible measurement and open analysis. The data, techniques, and references provided enable independent verification by qualified parties without requiring access to proprietary or classified information.”

While Tilley doesn’t know exactly what the emissions are for, his paper said the “signal characteristics—strong, coherent, and highly predictable carriers from a large constellation—create the technical conditions under which opportunistic or deliberate PNT exploitation could occur.”

PNT refers to Positioning, Navigation, and Timing (PNT) applications. “While it is not suggested that the system was designed for that role, the combination of wideband data channels and persistent carrier tones in a globally distributed or even regionally operated network represents a practical foundation for such use, either by friendly forces in contested environments or by third parties seeking situational awareness,” the paper said.

Emissions may have been approved in secret

Tilley told us that a few Starshield satellites launched just recently, in late September, have not emitted signals while moving toward their final orbits. He said this suggests the emissions are for an “operational payload” and not merely for telemetry, tracking, and control (TT&C).

“This could mean that [the newest satellites] don’t have this payload or that the emissions are not part of TT&C and may begin once these satellites achieve their place within the constellation,” Tilley told Ars. “If these emissions are TT&C, you would expect them to be active especially during the early phases of the mission, when the satellites are actively being tested and moved into position within the constellation.”

Whatever they’re for, Reaser said the emissions were likely approved by the NTIA and that the agency would likely have consulted with the Federal Communications Commission. For federal spectrum use, these kinds of decisions aren’t necessarily made public, he said.

“NRO would have to coordinate that through the NTIA to make sure they didn’t have an interference problem,” Reaser said. “And by the way, this happens a lot. People figure out a way [to transmit] on what they call a non-interference basis, and that’s probably how they got this approved. They say, ‘listen, if somebody reports interference, then you have to shut down.’”

Tilley said it’s clear that “persistent S-band emissions are occurring in the 2025–2110 MHz range without formal ITU coordination.” Claims that the downlink use was approved by the NTIA in a non-public decision “underscore, rather than resolve, the transparency problem,” he told Ars.

An NTIA spokesperson declined to comment. The NRO and FCC did not provide any comment in response to requests from Ars.

SpaceX just “a contractor for the US government”

Randall Berry, a Northwestern University professor of electrical and computer engineering, agreed with Reaser that it’s likely the NTIA approved the downlink use of the band and that this decision was not made public. Getting NTIA clearance is “the proper way this should be done,” he said.

“It would be surprising if NTIA was not aware, as Starshield is a government-operated system,” Berry told Ars. While NASA and other agencies use the band for Earth-to-space transmissions, “they may have been able to show that the Starshield space-to-Earth signals do not create harmful interference with these Earth-to-space signals,” he said.

There is another potential explanation that is less likely but more sinister. Berry said it’s possible that “SpaceX did not make this known to NTIA when the system was cleared for federal use.” Berry said this would be “surprising and potentially problematic.”

Digital rendering of a satellite in space.

SpaceX rendering of a Starshield satellite.

Credit: SpaceX

SpaceX rendering of a Starshield satellite. Credit: SpaceX

Tilley doesn’t think SpaceX is responsible for the emissions. While Starshield relies on technology built for the commercial Starlink broadband system of low Earth orbit satellites, Elon Musk’s space company made the Starshield satellites in its role as a contractor for the US government.

“I think [SpaceX is] just operating as a contractor for the US government,” Tilley said. “They built a satellite to the government specs provided for them and launched it for them. And from what I understand, the National Reconnaissance Office is the operator.”

SpaceX did not respond to a request for comment.

TV broadcasters conduct interference analysis

TV broadcasters with news trucks that use the same frequencies “protect their band vigorously” and would have reported interference if it was affecting their transmissions, Reaser said. This type of spectrum use is known as Electronic News Gathering (ENG).

The National Association of Broadcasters told Ars that it “has been closely tracking recent reports concerning satellite downlink operation in the 2025–2110 MHz frequency band… While it’s not clear that satellite downlink operations are authorized by international treaty in this range, such operations are uncommon, and we are not aware of any interference complaints related to downlink use.”

The NAB investigated after Tilley’s report. “When the Tilley report first surfaced, NAB conducted an interference analysis—based on some assumptions given that Starshield’s operating parameters have not been publicly disclosed,” the group told us. “That analysis found that interference with ENG systems is unlikely. We believe the proposed downlink operations are likely compatible with broadcaster use of the band, though coordination issues with the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) could still arise.”

Tilley said that a finding of interference being unlikely “addresses only performance, not legality… coordination conducted only within US domestic channels does not meet international requirements under the ITU Radio Regulations. This deployment is not one or two satellites, it is a distributed constellation of hundreds of objects with potential global implications.”

Canada agency: No coordination with ITU or US

When contacted by Ars, an ITU spokesperson said the agency is “unable to provide any comment or additional information on the specific matter referenced.” The ITU said that interference concerns “can be formally raised by national administrations” and that the ITU’s Radio Regulations Board “carefully examines the specifics of the case and determines the most appropriate course of action to address it in line with ITU procedures.”

The Canadian Space Agency (CSA) told Ars that its “missions operating within the frequency band have not yet identified any instances of interference that negatively impact their operations and can be attributed to the referenced emissions.” The CSA indicated that there hasn’t been any coordination with the ITU or the US over the new emissions.

“To date, no coordination process has been initiated for the satellite network in question,” the CSA told Ars. “Coordination of satellite networks is carried out through the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Radio Regulation, with Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) serving as the responsible national authority.”

The European Space Agency also uses the 2025–2100 band for TT&C. We contacted the agency but did not receive any comment.

The lack of coordination “remains the central issue,” Tilley told Ars. “This band is globally allocated for Earth-to-space uplinks and limited space-to-space use, not continuous space-to-Earth transmissions.”

NASA needs protection from interference

An NTIA spectrum-use report updated in 2015 said NASA “operates earth stations in this band for tracking and command of manned and unmanned Earth-orbiting satellites and space vehicles either for Earth-to-space links for satellites in all types of orbits or through space-to-space links using the Tracking Data and Relay Satellite System (TDRSS). These earth stations control ninety domestic and international space missions including the Space Shuttle, the Hubble Space Telescope, and the International Space Station.”

Additionally, the NOAA “operates earth stations in this band to control the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES) and Polar Operational Environmental Satellite (POES) meteorological satellite systems,” which collect data used by the National Weather Service. We contacted NASA and NOAA, but neither agency provided comment to Ars.

NASA’s use of the band has increased in recent years. The NTIA told the FCC in 2021 that 2025–2110 MHz is “heavily used today and require[s] extensive coordination even among federal users.” The band “has seen dramatically increased demand for federal use as federal operations have shifted from federal bands that were repurposed to accommodate new commercial wireless broadband operations.”

A 2021 NASA memo included in the filing said that NASA would only support commercial launch providers using the band if their use was limited to sending commands to launch vehicles for recovery and retrieval purposes. Even with that limit, commercial launch providers would cause “significant interference” for existing federal operations in the band if the commercial use isn’t coordinated through the NTIA, the memo said.

“NASA makes extensive use of this band (i.e., currently 382 assignments) for both transmissions from earth stations supporting NASA spacecraft (Earth-to-space) and transmissions from NASA’s Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS) to user spacecraft (space-to-space), both of which are critical to NASA operations,” the memo said.

In 2024, the FCC issued an order allowing non-federal space launch operations to use the 2025–2110 MHz band on a secondary basis. The allocation is “limited to space launch telecommand transmissions and will require commercial space launch providers to coordinate with non-Federal terrestrial licensees… and NTIA,” the FCC order said.

International non-interference rules

While US agencies may not object to the Starshield emissions, that doesn’t guarantee there will be no trouble with other countries. Article 4.4 of ITU regulations says that member nations may not assign frequencies that conflict with the Table of Frequency Allocations “except on the express condition that such a station, when using such a frequency assignment, shall not cause harmful interference to, and shall not claim protection from harmful interference caused by, a station operating in accordance with the provisions.”

Reaser said that under Article 4.4, entities that are caught interfering with other spectrum users are “supposed to shut down.” But if the Starshield users were accused of interference, they would probably “open negotiations with the offended party” instead of immediately stopping the emissions, he said.

“My guess is they were allowed to operate on a non-interference basis and if there is an interference issue, they’d have to go figure a way to resolve them,” he said.

Tilley told Ars that Article 4.4 allows for non-interference use domestically but “is not a blank check for continuous, global downlinks from a constellation.” In that case, “international coordination duties still apply,” he said.

Tilley pointed out that under the Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space, states must report the general function of a space object. “Objects believed to be part of the Starshield constellation have been registered with UNOOSA [United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs] under the broad description: ‘Spacecraft engaged in practical applications and uses of space technology such as weather or communications,’” his paper said.

Tilley told Ars that a vague description such as this “may satisfy the letter of filing requirements, but it contradicts the spirit” of international agreements. He contends that filings should at least state whether a satellite is for military purposes.

“The real risk is that we are no longer dealing with one or two satellites but with massive constellations that, by their very design, are global in scope,” he told Ars. “Unilateral use of space and spectrum affects every nation. As the examples of US and Chinese behavior illustrate, we are beginning from uncertain ground when it comes to large, militarily oriented mega-constellations, and, at the very least, this trend distorts the intent and spirit of international law.”

China’s constellation

Tilley said he has tracked China’s Guowang constellation and its use of “spectrum within the 1250–1300 MHz range, which is not allocated for space-to-Earth communications.” China, he said, “filed advance notice and coordination requests with the ITU for this spectrum but was not granted protection for its non-compliant use. As a result, later Chinese filings notifying and completing due diligence with the ITU omit this spectrum, yet the satellites are using it over other nations. This shows that the Chinese government consulted internationally and proceeded anyway, while the US government simply did not consult at all.”

By contrast, Canada submitted “an unusual level of detail” to the ITU for its military satellite Sapphire and coordinated fully with the ITU, he said.

Tilley said he reported his findings on Starshield emissions “directly to various western space agencies and the Canadian government’s spectrum management regulators” at the ISED.

“The Canadian government has acknowledged my report, and it has been disseminated within their departments, according to a senior ISED director’s response to me,” Tilley said, adding that he is continuing to collaborate “with other researchers to assist in the gathering of more data on the scope and impact of these emissions.”

The ISED told Ars that it “takes any reports of interference seriously and is not aware of any instances or complaints in these bands. As a general practice, complaints of potential interference are investigated to determine both the cause and possible resolutions. If it is determined that the source of interference is not Canadian, ISED works with its regulatory counterparts in the relevant administration to resolve the issue. ISED has well-established working arrangements with counterparts in other countries to address frequency coordination or interference matters.”

Accidental discovery

Two pictures of large antennas set up outdoors.

Antennas used by Scott Tilley.

Credit: Scott Tilley

Antennas used by Scott Tilley. Credit: Scott Tilley

Tilley’s discovery of Starshield signals happened because of “a clumsy move at the keyboard,” he told NPR. “I was resetting some stuff, and then all of a sudden, I’m looking at the wrong antenna, the wrong band,” he said.

People using the spectrum for Earth-to-space transmissions generally wouldn’t have any reason to listen for transmissions on the same frequencies, Tilley told Ars. Satellites using 2025–2100 MHz for Earth-to-space transmissions have their downlink operations on other frequencies, he said.

“The whole reason why I publicly revealed this rather than just quietly sit on it is to alert spacecraft operators that don’t normally listen on this band… that they should perform risk assessments and assess whether their missions have suffered any interference or could suffer interference and be prepared to deal with that,” he said.

A spacecraft operator may not know “a satellite is receiving interference unless the satellite is refusing to communicate with them or asking for the ground station to repeat the message over and over again,” Tilley said. “Unless they specifically have a reason to look or it becomes particularly onerous for them, they may not immediately realize what’s going on. It’s not like they’re sitting there watching the spectrum to see unusual signals that could interfere with the spacecraft.”

While NPR paraphrased Tilley as saying that the transmissions could be “designed to hide Starshield’s operations,” he told Ars that this characterization is “maybe a bit strongly worded.”

“It’s certainly an unusual place to put something. I don’t want to speculate about what the real intentions are, but it certainly could raise a question in one’s mind as to why they would choose to emit there. We really don’t know and probably never will know,” Tilley told us.

How amateurs track Starshield

After finding the signals, Tilley determined they were being sent by Starshield satellites by consulting data collected by amateurs on the constellation. SpaceX launches the satellites into what Tilley called classified orbits, but the space company distributes some information that can be used to track their locations.

For safety reasons, SpaceX publishes “a notice to airmen and sailors that they’re going to be dropping boosters and debris in hazard areas… amateurs use those to determine the orbital plane the launch is going to go into,” Tilley said. “Once we know that, we just basically wait for optical windows when the lighting is good, and then we’re able to pick up the objects and start tracking them and then start cataloguing them and generating orbits. A group of us around the world do that. And over the last year and a half or so since they started launching the bulk of this constellation, the amateurs have amassed considerable body of orbital data on this constellation.”

After accidentally discovering the emissions, Tilley said he used open source software to “compare the Doppler signal I was receiving to the orbital elements… and immediately started coming back with hits to Starshield and nothing else.” He said this means that “the tens of thousands of other objects in orbit didn’t match the radio Doppler characteristics that these objects have.”

Tilley is still keeping an eye on the transmissions. He told us that “I’m continuing to hear the signals, record them, and monitor developments within the constellation.”

Photo of Jon Brodkin

Jon is a Senior IT Reporter for Ars Technica. He covers the telecom industry, Federal Communications Commission rulemakings, broadband consumer affairs, court cases, and government regulation of the tech industry.

US spy satellites built by SpaceX send signals in the “wrong direction” Read More »