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

81–90 of 773 posts

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

#81

Post by pardoned_turkey »

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?

The embarrassing part is how they have been allocating subsidies to ISPs that don't provide rural connectivity improvements nearly as significant as what Starlink managed to actually pull off. A competent agency would do whatever they can to support Starlink's efforts or replicate them elsewhere. Instead, they're cutting off the one ISP that actually revolutionized rural internet access after 20 years of government-bankrolled stagnation and grift.

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

#83

Post by _ea1k »

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?

Their goals are only 100/20mbps? I'd say that part is embarrassing. Given the amount of money involved, I'd have expected them to push for higher than that.

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

#84

Post by paxys »

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.

[flagged]

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

#85

Post by adgjlsfhk1 »

cma wrote: post #68
adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you're ignoring over-provisioning which generally is ~10x

The terms of these subsidies only allow 4X oversubscription.

ok, so that still cuts down the amount of launches by 4x which takes them from 1055 launches to 260 launches. Over 2 years that would require doubling Starlink's launch cadence which is a lot, but does seem plausible.

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

#87

Post by skissane »

belltaco wrote: post #59

Dissenting statement by one of the FCC commissioners. https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-105A3.pdf

From Simington’s dissenting statement:

> I was disappointed by this wrongheaded decision when it was first announced, but the majority today lays bare just how thoroughly and lawlessly arbitrary it was. If this is what passes for due process and the rule of law at the FCC, then this agency ought not to be trusted with the adjudicatory powers Congress has granted it and the deference that the courts have given it.

Sounds to me like he’s encouraging SpaceX to sue the FCC

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

#88

Post by dboreham »

voakbasda wrote: post #23
hedora wrote: post #16

I 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 br…

Indeed. Fiber as a last mile solution for true rural areas is a non-starter. Source: I also built a small WISP and still maintain my own microwave service, and use Starlink as a backup.

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

#89

Post by pclmulqdq »

chrisco255 wrote: post #80
NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's the point of the subsidy: to make the equivalent of fiber runs to rural areas (and presumably local WISPs) cost-effective. The main intent of the subsidy was not to subsidize the development of new, uncertain technologies.

Musk still managed to slide in and loot a few billion dollars before they realized that Starlink can't meet their definition of "broadband." No other satellite internet could either.

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

#90

Post by pclmulqdq »

pardoned_turkey wrote: post #78
ortusdux wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

If you start a WISP and service your neighbors, the FCC would probably be happy to provide you a subsidy now that they have an extra $1 billion that isn't going to Starlink.
Post reply on HN