The argument that national average bandwidth for Starlink is probably worse than for those rural communities is a solid one. Not sure if it makes up for the large gap, but in my opinion Starlink is well suited because it works better the less other users are in your cell (ie better in less densely populated regions).
US agency will not reinstate $900M subsidy for Starlink
21–30 of 773 posts
Re: US agency will not reinstate $900M subsidy for Starlink
#22[flagged]
Re: US agency will not reinstate $900M subsidy for Starlink
#23I 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…
So, my tiny rural co-op ISP should barred from getting one of these, because they cannot afford to lay dozens of miles of fiber in order to serve a hundred households? You want to keep us country folk in the dark ages? Because that’s what it sounds like.
Laying fiber requires a small crew, and they don’t work for free. My driveway alone is over a 1/4 mile (400m), and it will take them a day to lay and terminate my branch due to all of the buried obstructions (based on how long it took them to lay new copper lines a decade ago).
I would be all for disqualifying the regional cable/telco monopolists, but who do you think lobbied their Congress critters to get these funds allocated in the first place? Ain’t never gunna happen….
Re: US agency will not reinstate $900M subsidy for Starlink
#24I 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…
Hmm, I would like to see a citation on that second comment. You can look at Frontier's last earnings release, they spent $168M of build Capex to pass 332k homes, or $506/home passed in the last quarter. Note that "passing" a home is not the same as connecting a home, there is additional cost involved there. And Frontier has tremendous cost benefit from the fact that they already own the telephone poles that they can reuse and have been doing this for decades at massive scale.
If you think the entire cost of laying fiber is just the cost of boring/digging, then you don't know what you are talking about.
Re: US agency will not reinstate $900M subsidy for Starlink
#25When 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 commi…
They are just using what SpaceX/Starlink has said in the past[1].
>SpaceX asked the FCC to expedite approval now that it has settled on the Starship-launched configuration.
Regardless, to reach those obligatory speeds by 2025 they would need to launch an insane amount of satellites with no failures. If the FCC doesn't think they can do that, they don't get funding.
1. https://spacenews.com/spacex-goes-all-in-on-starship-configu...
Re: US agency will not reinstate $900M subsidy for Starlink
#26When 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.
I read that letter, and was unconvinced that it's anything more than the FCC not wanting to gamble with nearly 1/16th of the total RDOF grant money (for that round) and would rather give it to a company that can be reasonably expected to hit the obligatory throughput.
If Starlink bid for 25/3 they might have made it.
Re: US agency will not reinstate $900M subsidy for Starlink
#27[dead]
Re: US agency will not reinstate $900M subsidy for Starlink
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I read that letter, and was unconvinced that it's anything more than the FCC not wanting to gamble with nearly 1/16th of the total RDOF grant money (for that round) and would rather give it to a company that can be reasonably expected to hit the obligatory throughput. If Starlink bid for 25/3 they might have made it.
You can arrive at your own conclusion. I think its pretty obvious whats happening here (the commissioners voted along party lines right down the middle). And theres no other company thats even close to Starlink now or in the medium term future. So I dont know who would practically fill this spot.
For below comment: This is for "rural" connection. You're not laying wire for that regardless of what Comcast wants you to believe. They can barely service what they have and the cost/benefit of laying 30 miles of wire to reach someone in the woods is never going to make sense.
Re: US agency will not reinstate $900M subsidy for Starlink
#29I 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…
eminent domain
Re: US agency will not reinstate $900M subsidy for Starlink
#30Does anyone know how to find out information on progress or updates if you live in one of the RDOF auction blocks? I can see that Charter won a bid for my location 4 years ago. The FCC page also states "Winning bidders must meet periodic buildout requirements that will require them to reach all assigned locations by the end of the sixth year." We're going on 4 years now since the auction closed. I'm just curious if this is actually going to happen as it impacts my decision whether to move or not. The cynic in me says they haven't even started yet, and inevitably will push for extensions and do everything conceivable to take this money and not deliver within 6 years or possibly ever.
Meanwhile for the past 2 years Starlink is the only service I can actually use with any reasonable stability and low(ish) latency. They have at times delivered up to 200Mbps down and 20 up but it is not consistent. I have much more faith that they will deliver 100/20 consistently by 2025 than Charter will be delivering gigabit to me by then.