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

211–220 of 270 posts

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

#211

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

dkdk8283 wrote: post #77
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.

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.

The government seems to pay $100 for $1 of work. I work in defense.

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

#212

Post by grecy »

mtalantikite wrote: post #162
madamelic wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

In such a litigious society it's amazing Verizon can't be held to account for this, and at the very least be forced to pay back the money.

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

#213

Post by bumby »

extropy wrote: post #158
bumby wrote: 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 protect and conserve is that is leads to limited resources mentality. "There is not enough to go around" becomes ugly very fast. https://mobile.twitter.com/robert_zubrin/status/101347705748... Edit: Will surely invest considerable resources to convert Earth to a national park once we have outgrown earth's economy 100x

>is leads to limited resources mentality

I think greed and hedonic adaptation can also lead to this. There's no monopoly on some of the lesser angels of human nature.

That link is assuming that the ends justify the means, which I tend to believe is the road to evil. In this case, there are more foundational principals that would take precedence.

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

#214

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#215

Post by leafmeal »

notthemessiah wrote: post #122
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…

Ain't a theory, it's by design: Robert Moses was the architect of this suburban vision of America. Not only did they pave the way out of the city, the highways also paved over the homes of millions of existing residents in the city, displacing them further out. Furthermore, highways were often used as barriers between rich and poor neighborhoods. You should read The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York…

The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York earned Robert Caro a Pulitzer prize for biography. I'm reading the first of his 5 part (and counting?) biography of Lyndon Johnson which I also highly recommend.

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

#216

Post by Retric »

dragonwriter wrote: post #206
Retric wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Near misses are fairly common in all large navies, that says little about the British capacity for warfare. For example both the USS Fitzgerald and USS John McCain actually had significant collisions yet the US Navy is generally considered by far the strongest in the world. Similarly, military aircraft crash vastly more often than their civilian counterparts, but consider extreme safety simply isn't what militaires o…

> For example both the USS Fitzgerald and USS John McCain actually had significant collisions yet the US Navy is generally considered by far the strongest in the world. The series of four accidents including those two in a short period in the US 7th Fleet was considered a sign of very significant problems. It is not at all typical of large, capable navies.

I agree that these incidents where a sign of significant issues. My point what they said little about the US Nacy’s overall capacity for warfare. Rates of accidents that are completely unacceptable in peacetime are a rounding errors in a significant war.

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

#217

Post by CrazyStat »

unexpected wrote: post #163
rurp wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ho…

Accessing a starlink satellite requires a bulky and expensive piece of equipment that emits electromagnetic waves and so can be tracked and confiscated and the operator fined, imprisoned, or killed.

It doesn't seem like a very promising route for bypassing authoritarian government restrictions on the Internet.

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

#218

Post by cma »

Jach wrote: post #184
cma wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His father was a seed investor in Zip2.

"We started Zip2 with ~$2k from me plus my overclocked home-built PC, ~$5k from my bro & ~$8k from Greg Kouri (such a good guy — he is greatly missed). My Dad provided 10% of a ~$200k angel funding round much later, but by then risk was reduced & round would’ve happened anyway." https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1211064937004589056 Also relevant in that thread: "He didn’t own an emerald mine & I worked my way throu…

>Worked on my Mom’s cousin’s farm in Saskatchewan & a lumber mill in Vancouver.

This is pretty intense myth-making. He worked 4 days at a lumber mill.

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

#219

Post by nordsieck »

xoa wrote: post #69
pbreit wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to Morgan Stanley (not the final arbiter) Starlink is the bulk of SpaceX's commercial value: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/22/morgan-stanley-spacex-to-be-... SpaceX currently has a massive cost advantage in replenishing the satellite fleet which ever advancing equipment. It already offers the lowest transcontinental latencies which for high frequency trading alone would be a bonanza.

> It already offers the lowest transcontinental latencies which for high frequency trading alone would be a bonanza. Inter-satellite optical links aren't ready yet (and they're only barely getting to MVP on their initial generation sat shell). When those come online yes, Starlink should have a latency advantage over most any distance sufficiently long enough to make up their fixed RTT mileage cost with their 40% spee…

> one of their biggest bonanzas once intersat links are up will be marine and aviation internet. If you think rural pricing is bad...

I'm just not convinced about marine - IMO, there just aren't that many customers out there.

Aviation could be interesting, however, post Covid.

One market you didn't mention is military. I can see exactly why the military is cozying up to SpaceX over Starlink. They've had multiple failed attempts[1] at integrated networked warfare initiatives. Starlink seems like a backbone the military could use to implement their vision piecemeal (and with probably a much higher success rate).

___

1. One example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Combat_Systems

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

#220

Post by sjg007 »

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.

Settling Mars is a waste of time. Much better to save our current planet.
Post reply on HN