Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 270 posts

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

#161

Post by mulmen »

bumby wrote: post #134
derekp7 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My disagreement with these arguments is not around what gets prioritized. I disagree with the fundamental premise that we have to pick at all. Human civilization is not single threaded. We can absolutely colonize Mars while solving global warming. In fact I can even imagine ways in which colonizing Mars can help solve global warming.

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

#162

Post by mtalantikite »

madamelic wrote: post #89
ccorda wrote: post #47

This was a reverse auction, where the goal was to minimze cost to government to get high speed internet in rural areas. Starlink bid in the Above Baseline tier, meaning ≥ 100/20 Mbps (with data cap of ≥ 2 TB). According to the FCC [1], 99.7% of locations are at that tier or higher, and 85%+ in the highest Gigabit (1000/500) tier. So it looks like the auction funded gigabit where there was a provider bidding at that t…

>One question I have is whether these gigabit deployments actually happen, No. Every time the US gives money to telecoms to roll out fiber, the telecoms play a shell game and disappear the money or use it to fight against municipalities that try to build their own infrastructure. https://nationaleconomicseditorial.com/2017/11/27/americans-...

Verizon signed a contract with NYC in 2008 to pull fiber to New Yorkers by 2014 and I still can't get fiber here in Williamsburg, Brooklyn. At this point I've really given up hope that I'll ever get fiber into the home on a reasonable time scale.

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

#163

Post by unexpected »

rurp wrote: post #137
dkdk8283 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Does something like Starlink prevent direct conflict, though?

Imagine a world where anyone can get unfettered internet access. Instead of the great Firewall of China, citizens can just access a starlink satellite. How does that help with spreading democractic ideals? How does protesting and information dissemination look different? What if citizens in Iran, Middle East, Myanmar, etc. could all do the same thing?

I hope Starlink is thinking about these Big questions.

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

#164

Post by grecy »

spullara wrote: post #135

Once you buy Starlink does it work from anywhere or does it have to remain where you buy it?

Currently the beta is geo-locked to within about 35 miles of there address you signed up for it.

Elon has said multiple times it will work perfectly well on a yacht crossing the pacific, a moving train, etc., so we have to assume the "stay in one place" restriction will go away.

Country borders will be interesting though, I assume many want to tightly control how you communicate with sats.

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

#165

Post by joecool1029 »

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.

While I absolutely agree that defense contractor spending is an abhorrent waste of public funds, this is a bad take. Literally every company in this space (ISP's, and more so ISP's that utilize satellites) have used it as a platform to grift public funds. Examples include Lightsquared, Iridium, Globalstar, and the worst of all, DISH) SpaceX has significantly reduced the cost of building a satellite ISP but you need to consider the history here and the other players that have already cost American citizens a shitload of wasted money and resource.

If the FCC believed they should give assistance to SpaceX, it should have been in the form of access to the spectrum Charlie Ergen has been squatting over at DISH making the same promises SpaceX is doing right now. For those unaware of Ergan's history, the FCC for the first time decided to give a light wrist slap over setting up a constellation of fake shell corporations to bid on spectrum that included rural and small carrier subsidies. DISH has blown every build-out deadline and it's set back terrestrial carriers for years now. There were two they completely blew off that came due this year, and the only purpose they served was as an excuse to let the Sprint/TMUS merger happen, where previously TMUS had been calling out their business practices. I'm aware every Elon fanboy is going to wax poetic about how it won't be the same, but I'd caution you to consider SolarCity and what a public funds debacle that has been. There's a history of making big promises in areas and leaving a mess.

Running an ISP is an easy to understand business model, either be the only option in an area or provide better service (and/or price) then incumbents. As others in this thread have said, there's already a shitload of capital flowing around, so why should this capital come from the public. Why didn't Elon just run another 'Deposit $100 to get in line for Starlink!' As it stands most of the US is stuck with shit ISP's because of a lack of competition, and giving subsidies to incumbents (like Charter) are only going to enrich them and further entrench their monopolies.

SpaceX didn't launch this service as a practical or sensible business model for them, they already get paid to launch other telecommunications equipment into space, they are doing this to keep on the government, the public's tit.

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

#166

Post by grecy »

asdff wrote: post #101
marcusverus wrote: post #85

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…

> 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

That is true in the USA, which has absurdly short on and off ramps, but in my experience, many other countries around the world don't have this problem.

Canada, Australia and the UK all have much, MUCH longer on and off ramps, and traffic doesn't back up onto freeways. Freeways still clog up, however.

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

#167

Post by bumby »

mulmen wrote: post #161
bumby wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My disagreement with these arguments is not around what gets prioritized. I disagree with the fundamental premise that we have to pick at all . Human civilization is not single threaded. We can absolutely colonize Mars while solving global warming. In fact I can even imagine ways in which colonizing Mars can help solve global warming.

While I'm generally in favor of what SpaceX is doing, I don't think your point holds up in any sort of constrained environment. Could there be a marginal (or even reasonable) tangential benefit to other industries? Of course, but not as much as if those industries were the primary focus to begin with.

With limited resources, you have to prioritize or else you can run the risk of being spread so thin nothing is adequately funded so nothing really gets accomplished. You can't fight a war on all fronts, all the time.

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

#169

Post by 0xffff2 »

elihu wrote: post #71
0xffff2 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What kind of restaurant job do you see being done from home?

I'd guess that user oedoedxef is referring to running a customer-facing business (a diner, an auto repair shop, or whatever) out of a primary residence, whether that means living in a commercially-zoned property or doing commerce in a residentially-zoned property or perhaps eliminating the distinction entirely.

That's my guess as well, but that's a very, very strange definition of working from home.

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

#170

Post by cromwellian »

markdown wrote: post #146
cromwellian wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Oh I didn't mean what you think I meant. I'm sorry I wasn't more clear. I'm not one of those "why spend money on space when humans are starving on Earth" people. My point was more about the actual technology required to terraform a planet. Why talk about terraforming Mars when our own would be saved by the same non-existent tech.

Oh sorry, my bad. I'm just triggered from seeing that argument so much. I agree, we need to terraform earth first. 1) stop the damage from getting worse 2) if it doesn't reverse itself, we may need geo-engineering, carbon capture, orbital mirrors, etc
Post reply on HN