Why should the taxpayer subsidize a business run by one of the world’s richest men?
Because it's not a condition for acceptance or denial.
Bezos got tax credits for having kids
US agency will not reinstate $900M subsidy for Starlink
11–20 of 773 posts
Re: US agency will not reinstate $900M subsidy for Starlink
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
If there was any doubt this was purely political, that quote erases it. The FCC rural broadband program is an infamous boondoggle of vast overspending on bad services from third rate providers. It's insane that they even mentioned Starship in this, when it was a test launch of the largest rocket in history, and has nothing to do with the Starlink launches.
As much as I really despise just about everything adjacent to musk, I think you’re right. Wtf does starship have to do with starlink.
They said they'd use starship to launch and it's not yet ready
Re: US agency will not reinstate $900M subsidy for Starlink
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
As much as I really despise just about everything adjacent to musk, I think you’re right. Wtf does starship have to do with starlink.
They said they'd use starship to launch and it's not yet ready
They did not say Starship was a requirement for Starlink, they said they could use it when ready to speed up the rollout.
SpaceX has been launching the Gen2 satellites, originally intended to be launched on Starship, on Falcon 9 instead.
Re: US agency will not reinstate $900M subsidy for Starlink
#14Why should the taxpayer subsidize a business run by one of the world’s richest men?
The US Government has demanded that Starlink MUST CARRY and provide service to support foreign nations.
Foreign nations think that they're going to use Starlink to commit further genocide; that they run the show for this American company.
"MUST DENY"
If you cut off Internet service to emergency service personnel (with the red crosses) here, is that a war crime?
Re: US agency will not reinstate $900M subsidy for Starlink
#15When applying for RDOF you say what service tier you are targeting and instead of shooting for the minimum 25/3, Starlink applied for 100/20. When they didn't reach those speeds[1], they were ineligible but not just because they didn't hit the required speeds on their existing network. There are more details here[2] but the jist is that Starlink bid to supply 100/20 internet to over half a million subscribers and the FCC was required to assess if Starlink was reasonably, technically capable of supplying those speeds by 2025. Starlink reportedly argued that once they can properly launch Starship, they can surely hit the required speeds. As of yet Starship hasn't had a successful launch. On top of this, the statistics that were available at the time showed that Starlink transfer speeds were already trending down and the network is a lot less utilized than it would be in 2025. There are technical challenges that need to be solved before Starlink is remotely capable of meeting that obligation and the challenges don't appear to be resolved yet. Giving Starlink money is a gamble and the FCC would rather play it safe.
>RDOF rules set speeds of 25/3 Mbps as the minimum allowed for broadband service delivered by winners. However, participants were permitted to bid at four different performance tiers: 25/3 Mbps, 50/5 Mbps, 100/20 Mbps and 1 Gbps/500 Mbps. When the auction closed, the FCC noted 99.7% of locations were bid at 100/20 or higher, with 85% bid at the gigabit tier. That means Starlink will need to provide speeds of at least 100/20 in order to meet its obligations.
1. https://www.fiercetelecom.com/broadband/what-do-starlinks-la...
Re: US agency will not reinstate $900M subsidy for Starlink
#16I wish they’d bar companies that have failed to build out their rural service areas for more than a decade from accepting this money, and also that accepting the grant automatically granted you the appropriate right of way via imminent domain.
It costs essentially nothing to lay fiber in the ground in most places (they have little portable boring machines, so you don’t even have to trench), and independent ISPs have no problem profitably laying fiber where they are legally allowed to do so.
Re: US agency will not reinstate $900M subsidy for Starlink
#17Highly recommend actually reading the FCC reports. I know that is a high bar.
https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-reaffirms-rejection-nearly-...
I'm pretty convinced that this ruling was a bit horseshit.
Re: US agency will not reinstate $900M subsidy for Starlink
#18When applying for RDOF you say what service tier you are targeting and instead of shooting for the minimum 25/3, Starlink applied for 100/20. When they didn't reach those speeds[1], they were ineligible but not just because they didn't hit the required speeds on their existing network. There are more details here[2] but the jist is that Starlink bid to supply 100/20 internet to over half a million subscribers and the…
> Starlink reportedly argued that once they can properly launch Starship, they can surely hit the required speeds.
Read the article you are referencing
> To justify its motivated reasoning, the majority points to delays in the development of SpaceX’s Starship launch platform—the largest, most powerful rocket ever built—as evidence that SpaceX would be unable to launch enough Starlink satellites to meet its 2025 commitments. The trouble with this argument is that SpaceX never indicated that it was relying on the Starship platform to meet its RDOF obligations, and in fact it repeatedly stated that it was not. Undeterred by the facts, the Commission now resorts to twisting SpaceX’s words. For example, SpaceX said in a letter to the Commission that it had “reached a point in the development of its Starship launch vehicle and Gen2 satellites [such] that it can concentrate solely on Configuration 1 and no longer pursue Configuration 2” (emphasis added). Configuration 1 involves launching with Starship, and Configuration 2 involves launching with Falcon 9. Nothing in this sentence suggests that SpaceX needed Starship to launch Gen2 satellites, but that’s exactly the interpretation that the majority now relies on
Falcon 9 is launching Starlink V2 at 22 per launch regularly for a while now
Re: US agency will not reinstate $900M subsidy for Starlink
#19Highly recommend actually reading the FCC reports. I know that is a high bar. https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-reaffirms-rejection-nearly-... I'm pretty convinced that this ruling was a bit horseshit.
Care to summarize why for those of us who don't want to read the FCC report?
Re: US agency will not reinstate $900M subsidy for Starlink
#20When applying for RDOF you say what service tier you are targeting and instead of shooting for the minimum 25/3, Starlink applied for 100/20. When they didn't reach those speeds[1], they were ineligible but not just because they didn't hit the required speeds on their existing network. There are more details here[2] but the jist is that Starlink bid to supply 100/20 internet to over half a million subscribers and the…
These are future speed metrics, not current speed thresholds. And the performance metrics have been a constant shifting goalpost. You can read FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr's letter on this matter here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-105A2.pdf This is most likely political.