US agency will not reinstate $900M subsidy for Starlink • Hacker News Board

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

#101

Post by bmitc » Wed, Dec 13, 2023, 4:57 PM UTC

pmorici wrote: post #79

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?

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 prefer…

If the service is so awesome, why does it need a billion dollar subsidy, i.e., free money paid for by taxpayers?

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

#102

Post by manuelabeledo » Wed, Dec 13, 2023, 4:57 PM UTC

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.

> 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.

Starlink success, and to that extent, SpaceX, are arguably tied to government money.

I would say that not getting almost $1B may impact their operations quite a bit.

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

#103

Post by pmorici » Wed, Dec 13, 2023, 4:58 PM UTC

baseballdork wrote: post #97

pmorici wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 prefer…

> Because if you use the service you know it is capable of that and more today. If you use their service, you know that it's capable of serving X amount of people at Y up and Z down with N latency? C'mon...

Yes, but that is a function of satellite density or so the argument seems to suggest. SpaceX is launching rockets multiple times a week and has put more satellites into orbit that any entity in the history of human kind by an order of magnitude or more. Betting they won't be able to meet these speed goals is not a rational conclusion.

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

#104

Post by fastball » Wed, Dec 13, 2023, 4:58 PM UTC

martinky24 wrote: post #86

data_monkey wrote: post #82

[flagged]

[flagged]

This was basically stated[1] by one of the (dissenting) FCC commissioners, so not exactly unfounded.

[1] https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-105A3.pdf

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

#105

Post by bryanlarsen » Wed, Dec 13, 2023, 4:59 PM UTC

If the complaint is that Elon Musk has a history of not delivering on his promises, why the #%@# are telecom companies still getting money based on promises? They also have an awful track record on delivering on their promises. Nobody should get anything until after they've delivered.

If they need money to do their deployments, they can take their FCC awards to the bank and get a factoring loan. And if their plan is not solid enough to convince a bank, it's not solid enough for FCC money either.

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

#106

Post by m3kw9 » Wed, Dec 13, 2023, 5:00 PM UTC

SpaceX can’t launch? Then who got the money?!

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

#107

Post by a2tech » Wed, Dec 13, 2023, 5:00 PM UTC

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.

In my parents county (very rural), the local electric coop is running fiber on all their poles. Its possible that my parents living 10 miles from the nearest town (2 4-way stops, a grocery store and a couple of gas stations) will get gigabit fiber before my friends that live in a well off suburb in a dense urban area will.

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

#108

Post by pmorici » Wed, Dec 13, 2023, 5:01 PM UTC

bmitc wrote: post #101

pmorici wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 prefer…

If the service is so awesome, why does it need a billion dollar subsidy, i.e., free money paid for by taxpayers?

It doesn't. This was originally legislated as a hand out to legacy telecom companies that lobbied for it. Seeing as it exists though I would rather the money be spent with the best option instead of it being used as a political retribution fund.

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

#109

Post by LukeLambert » Wed, Dec 13, 2023, 5:02 PM UTC

My parents in rural Northeast Texas use Starlink as their primary connection (they have a WISP as failover). Since Sept. 2022, I've been running automated speed tests four times a day (1 and 7, AM and PM). Speeds vary a lot throughout the day, but average about 100 Mbps down by 10 Mbps up.

https://gist.github.com/LukeLambert/dd722e49bc773bcb27e859d9...

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

#110

Post by kredd » Wed, Dec 13, 2023, 5:02 PM UTC

ren_engineer wrote: post #94

_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? no, because the only reason Starlink doesn't currently hit the metrics is due to them having so many users joining. They could hit the metrics by temporarily halting signups, cutting off users, or delaying the Pentagon's massive deployment project. Or Musk could cut off Ukraine's capacity, which the US military admits is…

> due to them having so many users joining

I’m actually curious, what is their userbase and where can I find the info?