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

US agency will not reinstate $900M subsidy for Starlink

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 773 posts

Re: US agency will not reinstate $900M subsidy for Starlink

#71

Post by rohansingh »

downvotetruth wrote: post #54

> The FCC cited among its reasons SpaceX's failure to successfully launch its Starship rocket, saying "the uncertain nature of Starship's future launches could impact Starlink's ability to meet" its obligations. The X beatings will continue until the tweeting improves.

OK, but that was far from the only reason. From the actual decision:

> While Starlink faults the Bureau for relying on the most recent available data at the time of its decision to evaluate is existing network performance, Starlink does not explain what other data source the Bureau should have used in lieu of using the most recently available data. When the Bureau's decision was made, the most recent available evidence showed that "Starlink’s performance had been declining for download speed, upload speed, and jitter test performance." In other words, it was not only failing to meet the RDOF public interest obligations, but also trending further away from them.

(edited to fix formatting)

Re: US agency will not reinstate $900M subsidy for Starlink

#73

Post by NovemberWhiskey »

pmorici wrote: post #63

Starlink service is so obviously phenomenal to anyone who's used it, this isn't going to change that or effect SpaceX's success one bit. The FCC's actions here are just embarrassing their agency by exposing their petty ineptitude and harming whomever this program was supposed to help.

I don't really see how it's embarrassing that the FCC set out a clear requirement for a low-latency, 100/20M rural service and Starlink (having failed to show a plan to achieve that) is not accepted into the program.

Which part is embarrassing to the FCC, exactly?

Re: US agency will not reinstate $900M subsidy for Starlink

#74

Post by oooyay »

trident5000 wrote: post #20
I_Am_Nous wrote: post #15

When 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.

This letter is junk, to put it lightly. I lived in a rural area with copper lines that were destined to stay that way because of classist inaction by the FCC - one that rewarded cities with new, expanded internet lines repeatedly and required vast parts of rural America to be torn up for backbones that they weren't allowed to tap, or could only be tapped with inexpensive copper lines mandated through telephony requirements. To put it less lightly, 100/20 is still a joke and a clear discrepancy between what's offered in most US cities and suburbs. The Biden Administration is trying to fix that history with the FCCs mandate; I don't care about whether Elon's satellite business is worth it in the end. I do care whether rural people get stable, dependable, fast internet that doesn't become irrelevant the moment it's laid.

Re: US agency will not reinstate $900M subsidy for Starlink

#75

Post by noarchy »

rpmisms wrote: post #50
toomuchtodo wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also involved in government procurement, also provide guidance to several Congressional reps gratis as a technologist subject matter expert. Change is possible, to believe otherwise is to give up. If you want to give up, head to the bar and make way for people who give a shit. I give a shit, so I am admittedly biased.

You're being incredibly optimistic. Show me a non-greedy person in Congress, with the exception of Thomas Massie, and I'll believe you that change is possible.

>Show me a non-greedy person in Congress, with the exception of Thomas Massie, and I'll believe you that change is possible.

"They're all bad except the one I agree with."

Re: US agency will not reinstate $900M subsidy for Starlink

#76

Post by _ea1k »

belltaco wrote: post #64
_ea1k wrote: post #62

If the goal is to get levels of performance that Starlink cannot provide, then this makes sense? Odd that they'd include comments about Starship in it, though. That doesn't seem like a requirement for continued development of Starlink and seems very speculative. There could be details on that aspect that I'm missing though.

> If the goal is to get levels of performance that Starlink cannot provide, then this makes sense? I think the metric is 'more likely than not meet peformance goals in 2025'. The technology itself is capable of the goals of latency and bandwidth.

Sure, and that makes sense if the competitors have proven approaches to meeting the requirements. While I expect Starlink to be able to improve, I can see their point that the outcome is far from certain.

Re: US agency will not reinstate $900M subsidy for Starlink

#77

Post by pmorici »

ortusdux wrote: post #66
pmorici wrote: post #63

Starlink service is so obviously phenomenal to anyone who's used it, this isn't going to change that or effect SpaceX's success one bit. The FCC's actions here are just embarrassing their agency by exposing their petty ineptitude and harming whomever this program was supposed to help.

Ehh, their average speeds have gone down by half in the last 3 years (150 down -> 75 down). They chased profits by signing up more people at the expense of network saturation. Had they held this reduction to 100+ down, they would have remained eligible for the grant they applied for.

If the terms of the deal were that they didn't need to hit the performance benchmarks until 2025 and they have demonstrated that the technology was capable of those speeds it makes little sense to do this now except as a thinly vailed political punishment.

Re: US agency will not reinstate $900M subsidy for Starlink

#78

Post by pardoned_turkey »

ortusdux wrote: post #66
pmorici wrote: post #63

Starlink service is so obviously phenomenal to anyone who's used it, this isn't going to change that or effect SpaceX's success one bit. The FCC's actions here are just embarrassing their agency by exposing their petty ineptitude and harming whomever this program was supposed to help.

Ehh, their average speeds have gone down by half in the last 3 years (150 down -> 75 down). They chased profits by signing up more people at the expense of network saturation. Had they held this reduction to 100+ down, they would have remained eligible for the grant they applied for.

I'm in a rural location. Not that rural, about five minutes away from a town of 10,000 people. I have exactly three internet choices: old-school satellite (with 600 ms latency), unreliable 10 Mbit DSL for $150/month, or Starlink for $120/month. Many of my neighbors aren't as lucky and don't even get DSL.

My DSL provider received hundreds of millions in government subsidies and did nothing to improve the service in the region, and brazenly lied about it to the FCC. I know that it's fashionable to criticize Elon Musk, and it's often justified, but Starlink is far more deserving of government funds than most of the grifter ISPs who actually get the subsidies.

Re: US agency will not reinstate $900M subsidy for Starlink

#79

Post by pmorici »

NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #73
pmorici wrote: post #63

Starlink service is so obviously phenomenal to anyone who's used it, this isn't going to change that or effect SpaceX's success one bit. The FCC's actions here are just embarrassing their agency by exposing their petty ineptitude and harming whomever this program was supposed to help.

I don't really see how it's embarrassing that the FCC set out a clear requirement for a low-latency, 100/20M rural service and Starlink (having failed to show a plan to achieve that) is not accepted into the program. Which part is embarrassing to the FCC, exactly?

Because if you use the service you know it is capable of that and more today. SpaceX is also capable of providing differentiated service speeds so looking at what an average user is getting today is not indicative of what could be provided if they were under some minimum speed obligation. The FCC's rational is clearly them twisting themselves into knots to try and get to the decision they want to satisfy their preferred politics.

When a government agency that is supposed to be impartial and fact based is clearly making decisions like this on a political basis that undermines it in the long term due to public mistrust.

Re: US agency will not reinstate $900M subsidy for Starlink

#80

Post by chrisco255 »

NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #73
pmorici wrote: post #63

Starlink service is so obviously phenomenal to anyone who's used it, this isn't going to change that or effect SpaceX's success one bit. The FCC's actions here are just embarrassing their agency by exposing their petty ineptitude and harming whomever this program was supposed to help.

I don't really see how it's embarrassing that the FCC set out a clear requirement for a low-latency, 100/20M rural service and Starlink (having failed to show a plan to achieve that) is not accepted into the program. Which part is embarrassing to the FCC, exactly?

No one else is even close to being able to offer 100/20M rural service.
Post reply on HN