Live data from Hacker News

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

arstechnica.com

131–140 of 270 posts

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

#131
post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> more limited capacity streets which back up onto the freeways

These are often because of a bottleneck such as a traffic right (particularly left turn signal) or stop sign. If autonomous vehicles can be tweaked to increase throughput (better reaction times, shorter follow distance, less accidents, higher speed through chokepoints like tolls, not distracted or not accelerating slowly on light changes) you might see significant traffic reductions as a result. Little's law is applicable here.

The problems with bus or commuter lines is it's hard to get people to share a route efficiently. I've had it work in the past but only where I picked my housing according to an effective commuter line for my school or work. But that's hard to arrange at scale.

Where effective commuters line don't scale instead if you combine the above wins with an uber pool like service where 3-4 people are efficiently routed together. You could be looking at 2-3x fewer cars on roads that have better throughput and fewer bottlenecks.

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

#132
post #88

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.

"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

Talking about terraforming is kind of off-topic, but I would note that the articles refer specifically to terraforming by increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, which has pros and cons. It would raise the temperature, but it wouldn't result in human-breathable atmosphere, if that was a goal.

Perhaps there aren't any better alternatives, but I'd think that orbital mirrors at least would be an option (like the soletta from Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy), though the scale of construction would be beyond anything that's been done before even if it were extremely thin. Placing a million square miles of mylar into space doesn't sound like an easy problem, though something much smaller and specifically focused at, say, the equator or specific sites might be more practical.

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

#133
post #3
post #2

SpaceX has been awarded $885.51 million by the Federal Communications Commission to provide Starlink broadband to 642,925 rural homes and businesses in 35 states. That's $1376.52 in subsidies per customer

My initial reaction agrees that does sound quite high. However, I wonder what the alternative strategy costs for rural broadband are. My guess is that laying a lot of cable to remote locations could possibly be even higher than the $1376.52 per customer cost? It seems like something like Satelite internet connections could be less to set up, but it's not clear to me the cost of the equipment, installations and upkeep…

I wonder, what're the costs of providing fixed landline service, even in a city?

From burying the lines or stringing them on poles, to wiring up each drop into each dwelling, all the splices and repeaters and what-not, to the central office building and equipment and power and stuff, and maintaining that entire physical plant for years, it's all got to add up.

I'd imagine it's well within an order of magnitude.

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

#134
post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if those who would argue against funding SpaceX take the "either traditional defense contractors or SpaceX" bait. I think a major argument is that there are better ways to spend the money here on Earth. I.e., it's nobler and more feasible to protect and improve this planet than settle another one. As a former space industry worker, I don't know if I subscribe to that, but that's the best steelmanning I c…

The counter argument to that, is that it is worth while to do things, even if there are other things that are worth while to do. For any single item one can pick out "Why spend on X, when Y has a need", someone else can come along and say "Why spend on Y when Z has a need".

I think that's exactly the point. It's a disagreement about what gets priority to get optimized. The problem is exacerbated when there are multiple giant sinks for resources (e.g., colonizing Mars, combating climate change). In a world of limited resources, some things have to get sidelined.

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

#136
post #100

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.

I don't know if those who would argue against funding SpaceX take the "either traditional defense contractors or SpaceX" bait. I think a major argument is that there are better ways to spend the money here on Earth. I.e., it's nobler and more feasible to protect and improve this planet than settle another one. As a former space industry worker, I don't know if I subscribe to that, but that's the best steelmanning I c…

This money is being spent to improve things here on Earth. This is about providing internet to underserved communities on Earth. Now you could argue that SpaceX has made it clear that they created Starlink to increase their funding for settling Mars (developing Starship etc) but at the same time StarLink stands to be a huge boon for people in communities that don't have access to high speed internet currently and that seems like a win-win. According to the article, Charter Communications made even more money ($1.22 billion) from the FCC as part of this deal, I don't see anyone on here complaining about how Charter chooses to spend the profits from this deal, it's certainly not going to go to settling Mars.

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

#137

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.

I wouldn’t characterize defense spending as waste. China is a significant threat, for example, and maintaining superiority over them is of national importance IMO.

I can't think of a single scenario where having more tanks or fighter jets would be decisive in a full scale conflict between nuclear powers.

Suppose the US and China get into a direct conflict. How does the US having a 10x advantage in the number of traditional arms vs only, say, 2x stop China from threatening to obliterate humanity with nukes the minute their leadership is facing an existential crisis?

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

#138
post #100

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.

I don't know if those who would argue against funding SpaceX take the "either traditional defense contractors or SpaceX" bait. I think a major argument is that there are better ways to spend the money here on Earth. I.e., it's nobler and more feasible to protect and improve this planet than settle another one. As a former space industry worker, I don't know if I subscribe to that, but that's the best steelmanning I c…

> it's nobler and more feasible to protect and improve this planet than settle another one

That's an incredibly short sighted argument. As if this planet will last forever. I don't get this attitude at all. It's like saying why plan for the future at all!

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

#139
post #75
post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you have misunderstood the purpose of RDOF grants. The RDOF grants are not there to establish competition. RDOF grants exist purely for some company to provide broadband service where there is none. If anything it's funding a local monopoly.

If that wee true, since Starlink will reach everywhere, they would only need to fund Starlink. In fact the OP would be correct and no subsidy would be needed since Starlink is already being built.

It sounds like the FCC took a beauty contest approach to this funding so ISPs promising gigabit took 90% of the money and Starlink got what was left.

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

#140
post #129
post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if those who would argue against funding SpaceX take the "either traditional defense contractors or SpaceX" bait. I think a major argument is that there are better ways to spend the money here on Earth. I.e., it's nobler and more feasible to protect and improve this planet than settle another one. As a former space industry worker, I don't know if I subscribe to that, but that's the best steelmanning I c…

The problem with the "spend it here" argument is that there is plenty of money to be spent here. Nobody wants to. How many trillions are spent on war? On corporate subsidies and kickbacks on everything else? How much money is wasted in so many other stupid things? We have a GDP rising at a faster rate than our populations and have for decades. We don't spend the that extra money helping people. We could, but we don't…

I addressed this in a different comment, but the distinction is one of immediacy of existential threat. The DoD funding is framed in this context (and 60 years ago, NASA's as well - when it was almost 10x the fraction of GDP that it is today).

If people think there is an existential threat to their way of life, it's hard to convince them to take from that pocket to fund something more fanciful and likely only relevant generations away (if ever). That's the insidious part of the military boogeyman...and SpaceX probably knows this as well since they garner defense contracts too.

Post reply on HN