The issue is this. The merits of most of these Amazon / Viasat attacks or horribly weak.

here is the actual rule spaceX is (supposedly) violating:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/25.112

It simply says applications should be complete. SpaceX's application is complete as far as I can tell.

What's really weird, the Amazon application is very INCOMPLETE. How in the world is amazon complaining here?

SpaceX identifies two possible launch vehicles. Does anyone know what Amazon will be using for their constellation? How about pinning that down first before complaining that SpaceX has two options on table.

As to the law:

I could find nothing that a company can propose only one constellation. That's not in the law. Amazon cites 47 C.F.R. § 25.112(a)(1)

Which says

"The application is defective with respect to completeness of answers to questions, informational showings, internal inconsistencies, execution, or other matters of a formal character;"

There is nothing in here about not being allowed to have options.

People in glass castles… something about bricks

Right? I get it. But ship your own self first… then play the regulator game. Talk or walk or it just looks like waaaa.

There's this phrase "elite lawlessness" that comes to mind. Perhaps billionaires stepping on each others toes and getting into legal tussles is our best hope to contain the lawlessness.