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

131–140 of 773 posts

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

#131

Post by mason55 »

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…

> 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.

I admittedly don't know much about this process, but with a billion dollars on the line, why wouldn't they have presented these options? It's not like this came out of nowhere, Starlink knew that they were not meeting their obligations and was given a chance to present their case.

I don't know, it just seems like it would be pretty easy to halt signups for a month, show that speeds increased drastically as my launches got ahead of my signups, and then explain to the FCC why this would be the normal state of affairs at some point in the future. Or, don't even actually halt signups, just make a convincing case about why halting signups would drastically increase speeds, and by 2025 you plan to do whatever you need to do to hit that 100/20 metric, but right now you're trying to do the most good for the most people, which means more signups and lower speeds.

For a billion dollars, these all seem like easy & obvious arguments to make if they were at all viable.

Anyway, I think that if Starlink can prove that they're making progress towards their commitment, they become eligible for the subsidy again, so if halting signups is really a viable strategy and they really care about the billion dollars then it seems like they should do that.

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

#132

Post by Timon3 »

fastball wrote: post #104
martinky24 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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

Could you quote the part you're referring to? I searched for "censor" in the document, and it doesn't come up. Then I read through the document, and I don't see anything trying to explain possible reasons.

There seems to be no connection between "the feds punishing Musk for not participating in their well documented censorship operations" and this document.

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

#133

Post by shdwbannd1234 »

rohansingh wrote: post #71
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 eviden…

Amazing the arguments people make up when the obvious is well documented -- just another hoax people -- just another russian psyop -- it's all just so laughable. The us government has collapsed and lost all legitimacy and I'll be called the 'conspiracy theorist' or somen other inane response (if its even given one, likely shouted down or removed by the Mods on whatever flimsy pretext).

We no longer live under the rule of law, there is no equality brfore it, nor do the gears of justice turn without bias, lady justice isnt blind.

But yeah, we can all pretend and lie and make up bullshit excuses that will change on whim. Again, we have so much extensive documentation and people keep pretending it doesnt exist. Perhaps like my comment, does it exist for you?

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

#134

Post by jcims »

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.

This is dependent on the cell you're in. I've been on Starlink since Feb 2021 and dipping below 100 down is very rare. It' averages about 140 down and 20 up with about 30ms latency.

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

#135

Post by rapsey »

manuelabeledo wrote: post #102
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.

VCs are falling over themselves trying to get in on SpaceX. If there were to go public they would immediately be worth hundreds of billions. It will likely be one of the biggest IPOs in history. They are not that strapped for cash.

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

#136

Post by s1artibartfast »

rohansingh wrote: post #71
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 eviden…

Is there any truth to the statement from two of the five FCC commissioners that SpaceX was not required to meet those benchmarks until 2025, and this is a political action?

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

#137

Post by mason55 »

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…

> Because if you use the service you know it is capable of that and more today.

The numbers show otherwise and the FCC made it clear that Starlink presented no numbers to the contrary. This isn't even a case of the FCC's numbers saying one thing and Starlink's numbers saying another.

I totally believe that some places give you consistent 100/20 speeds, but aggregate numbers don't show that and Starlink made no attempt to argue otherwise.

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

#138

Post by I_Am_Nous »

adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #85
cma wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So to make the 2025 deadline they would have had to perfectly launch more rockets than they ever have before...sounds like the FCC made the correct choice.

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

#139

Post by philwelch »

bmitc wrote: post #8
thot_experiment wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My eyes nearly roll out of my head every time I see someone complain about this. People act like astronomy is ruined forever, it's not. You can predict where the satellites are going to be and avoid them. They're not even a problem for large portions of the night and sky at all because there's very little light for them to reflect. There are a lot of benefits to having a constellation like this, and the tech that's b…

> This is a very marginal issue, folks need to calm down. Is it? Why do we need to visually see, basically permanently, a ring or string of lights in the sky, unwittingly, just because of some billionaire? > You can predict where the satellites are going to be and avoid them. That doesn't make sense. It doesn't matter if you know where they're at if they're in your way. Telescope time is extremely precious and expens…

If it’s cheap and easy to fill the night sky with satellites, the obvious implication is that it will also be cheap and easy to do astronomy from space, and your “extremely precious and expensive” telescope time could be on a satellite outside the atmosphere in the first place. This is an entirely transitory issue and instead of trying to deprive people of internet access, astronomers should be working together on launching their own satellite megaconstellation.

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

#140

Post by dr-detroit »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #114
manuelabeledo wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Starlink has 2 million customers, likely with >$1000 ARPU and is growing quite rapidly. $1B annually would be material. $1B as a one time payment is significant but seems unlikely to affect viability. Musk has said that Starship and Starlink are each $5B-$10B investments.

[dead]
Post reply on HN