SpaceX gets $886M from FCC to subsidize Starlink in 35 states • Hacker News Board

Re: SpaceX gets $886M from FCC to subsidize Starlink in 35 states

#101

Post by asdff » Mon, Dec 07, 2020, 9:55 PM UTC

marcusverus wrote: post #85

elihu wrote: post #42

I read a theory once that one of the reasons why so many Boomers were able to buy land or houses cheaply that later appreciated substantially in value was the interstate highway system built during WWII. Suddenly, a lot of real estate was in easy driving range of employers, and so there was a period of over-supply of highly desirable real estate. I wonder if Starlink (and changes in work expectations due to the pande…

I've had a similar thought regarding the impact of affordable autonomous vehicles, for two reasons. 1) Commuters who can read / game / whittle while they commute will be willing to commute farther, and 2) if widespread adoption of autonomous cars can mitigate the effects of traffic (i.e. enable us to actually drive the speed limit during rush hour, or at least closer to it), we'll be able to commute farther in the sa…

I have my doubts that autonomous cars will do much for traffic. Traffic doesn't necessarily happen because there are too many cars on the freeway, but too many cars on the much more limited capacity streets which back up onto the freeways. Everyone taking a self driving car into work isn't going to change the fact that traffic is bad because everyone insists on traveling 20'x5' apart from one another through a dense urban environment, which is the spacing a car gives you in bumper to bumper traffic.

Now autonomous articulated bus that can hold 60 people sitting down in the footprint of 3-4 cars, that's another story.

Re: SpaceX gets $886M from FCC to subsidize Starlink in 35 states

#102

Post by cromwellian » Mon, Dec 07, 2020, 9:55 PM UTC

markdown wrote: post #90

peey wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Mars Terraforming Not Possible Using Present-Day Technology" https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/goddard/2018/mars-terrafo... https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-018-0529-6

If we can't even stop our own planet from warming...

It's not an either-or. This canard comes up a lot. The US federal government invests in an enormous number of things, think of it as a huge portfolio. NASA's budget is less than 0.5% of the federal budget, it's existence won't harm policies needed to mitigate climate change (e.g. carbon taxes), and indeed, a chunk of NASA's investment helps climate science.

Re: SpaceX gets $886M from FCC to subsidize Starlink in 35 states

#103

Post by dkdk8283 » Mon, Dec 07, 2020, 9:57 PM UTC

octopoc wrote: post #96

sneak wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This view presupposes that nations themselves are important, and that preserving the existence and concept of nations, and their superiority over other nations, isn't wasteful. I doubt very much that the children born on Mars will share your view about the value of Earth nations.

Do you think nations are a bad thing? What's your alternative? City states? Planet-wide government?

Nations are great. Not everyone agrees on all policies. My personal opinion is that I do not want to live in a censored or communist country (Such as China). Having borders and different countries allows multiple ideas to exist and folks can choose where to live.

Re: SpaceX gets $886M from FCC to subsidize Starlink in 35 states

#104

Post by bumby » Mon, Dec 07, 2020, 9:57 PM UTC

cromwellian wrote: post #97

peey wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Mars Terraforming Not Possible Using Present-Day Technology" https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/goddard/2018/mars-terrafo... https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-018-0529-6

And? Building bases on the moon, mars, or the asteroid belt doesn't require terraforming, anymore than living on an Antarctic base through winter requires the ability to farm for food, and wear a bikini. We spent $700 billion a year on the defense budget, and $7 trillion on wars, $1 billion on inspiring stunts like moon landings or mars landings once a generation, are not really a waste, the money is mostly spent on…

>We spent $700 billion a year on the defense budget, and $7 trillion on wars, $1 billion on inspiring stunts like moon landings or mars landings once a generation, are not really a waste

That's because they are framed as a more immediate existential threat. Humans are present biased and don't like to spend lots of money on low-probability events until they are unavoidable (see: attitudes towards pandemic preparations in 2019).

Re: SpaceX gets $886M from FCC to subsidize Starlink in 35 states

#105

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Dec 07, 2020, 9:58 PM UTC

staunch wrote: post #63

juanbyrge wrote: post #9

If there is any corporate entity I'd happy giving public funding, it would be SpaceX. Their end goal is to settle Mars and potentially other bodies in the solar system. Compared with the absurd amounts of money wasted on defense contractors, I am perfectly happy with funding SpaceX in every way possible.

Imagine what we could do if it was possible to identify and fund a thousand Elon Musks with hundreds of millions each? He's eliminating gas vehicles, improving solar adoption, fixing rural internet, improving space science, making life interplanetary, etc. It may be that Elon Musk types are extremely rare but I doubt they're as nearly as rare as most people think and we only need a thousand out of billions. The thing…

[deleted]

Re: SpaceX gets $886M from FCC to subsidize Starlink in 35 states

#106

Post by cobookman » Mon, Dec 07, 2020, 9:58 PM UTC

tzm wrote: post #14

I live in the Mission hills of SF Bay and pay $600 / mo for internet via mobile hotspot (LTE). HughesNet is terrible. Nothing else is available. I can't wait for Starlink beta!

Check-out T-Mobile home internet. 50$/month unlimited 5G & LTE hotspot.

Re: SpaceX gets $886M from FCC to subsidize Starlink in 35 states

#107

Post by notthemessiah » Mon, Dec 07, 2020, 9:58 PM UTC

staunch wrote: post #63

juanbyrge wrote: post #9

If there is any corporate entity I'd happy giving public funding, it would be SpaceX. Their end goal is to settle Mars and potentially other bodies in the solar system. Compared with the absurd amounts of money wasted on defense contractors, I am perfectly happy with funding SpaceX in every way possible.

Imagine what we could do if it was possible to identify and fund a thousand Elon Musks with hundreds of millions each? He's eliminating gas vehicles, improving solar adoption, fixing rural internet, improving space science, making life interplanetary, etc. It may be that Elon Musk types are extremely rare but I doubt they're as nearly as rare as most people think and we only need a thousand out of billions. The thing…

He also lucked out on inheriting fortunes from his parents diamond mines. But, there are lots of people who inherit fortunes and do nothing with it. There are lots of people with drive and intelligence comparable to Elon Musk who don't have the privilege necessary to accomplish anything. Seems we're still a long way away from a meritocracy.

Re: SpaceX gets $886M from FCC to subsidize Starlink in 35 states

#108

Post by wmf » Mon, Dec 07, 2020, 9:59 PM UTC

bryanlarsen wrote: post #76

grecy wrote: post #44

For fun, highest to lowest: Etheric: $3,857/home CentryLink: $3,396/home Frontier: $2,916/home Windstream: $2,715/home LTD Broadband: $2,500/home Connect Everyone: $2,484/home Resound: $2,443/home AMG: $2,082/home GeoLinks: $1,831/home Rural Electric: $1,779/home SpaceX: $1,377/home Comcast: $1,151/home Even just 5 years ago who would have guessed satellite internet would be the cheapest... EDIT: Sorry for the orderi…

Most of the others are providing gigabit versus Starlink's 100Mbit.

Gigabit at ~$3,000 seems like a bad tradeoff compared to 100 Mbps for $1,377.

Re: SpaceX gets $886M from FCC to subsidize Starlink in 35 states

#109

Post by asdff » Mon, Dec 07, 2020, 9:59 PM UTC

barbacoa wrote: post #81

pkaye wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What percent of workers do work that can be done remotely?

>What percent of workers do work that can be done remotely? Not a huge number, but that's all you need to support a small town economy. It's like the plight of the rust belt -- you had small communities that relied on manufacturing job to support the local retail and services jobs. When those manufacturing jobs evaporated due to outsourcing those small towns imploded.

What percent of remote workers do their shopping at the local mom and pop vs. online? I would expect this is a much higher rate than non remote workers who are commuting past that mom and pop store every day, where it would be convenient to stop in and grab something on their way to work or home. Remote workers in a rural town have little reason to leave their house and go to town, which in a rural town might itself be a 10-15 min one way drive on unlit (and frequently unplowed in winter) roads that typically lack a sidewalk.

Re: SpaceX gets $886M from FCC to subsidize Starlink in 35 states

#110

Post by serf » Mon, Dec 07, 2020, 10:01 PM UTC

aaronblohowiak wrote: post #33

rictic wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two more questions: Can the subsidy be used to accelerate making the service available to more users sooner, and at higher quality? Most likely yes, because with the design of Starlink, more satellites gives better service. A related question: Were early subsidies into solar power a big help in climbing the learning curve while solar power had uncompetitive performance/$, or did advancements in related disciplines li…

Why should rural lifestyle be subsidized ?

(playing devils' advocate)

City/population-center living is wildly inefficient for a host of reasons, and a dollar of urban development towards a major metropolis goes much less far than a dollar of urban development for a rural community.

We deal with the inadequacies of living in such big population dense areas because we want to; not because it's efficient.

Turns out it's not efficient to stack up as many people vertically as possible.

It over-burdens local municipal systems to the point of skyrocketing economic costs, creates more job scarcity due to sheer population and high real-estate costs, and creates untenable situations during times where population density is a net-negative, like during a pandemic.

Rural living has major problems too; lack of access to high quality services and travel come to mind -- but these are things that can be improved upon, and by every metric these things are improving.

There is no such game-plan for dealing with the burdens of heavy density populations mid-city; it's considered to be a fact of life.