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

141–150 of 773 posts

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

#141

Post by Dig1t »

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?

It's obvious to anyone who actually used the service or lives in a rural area how much good the service is doing. In many rural places there are literally no other options, or the options are so bad that it is laughable. This is one of those letter of the law vs spirit of the law things. Yes technically the speeds you currently get are not exactly at the promised level yet, but the service is a monumental success and is providing service that is definitely in line with the intent behind the subsidy.

I could see this making sense if there was any real competition or someone else who was realistically going to provide the service. But the only competition for this money are companies with a poor track records and that are notoriously bad.

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

#142

Post by Deprecate9151 »

pmorici wrote: post #77
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.

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.

That was not the terms, there were buildout requirements attached that started when the bid was accepted. https://www.usac.org/high-cost/funds/rural-digital-opportuni...

Looks like Starlink was supposed to be 40% built with their participation starting in 2020, that are consistent with their winning bid (in this case 100/20). It seems they clearly failed by that metric.

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

#143

Post by rideontime »

shdwbannd1234 wrote: post #133
rohansingh wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 rul…

Polite disagree.

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

#144

Post by hnburnsy »

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…

I_Am_Nous wrote:

"Starlink reportedly argued that once they can properly launch Starship, they can surely hit the required speeds. As of yet Starship hasn't had a successful launch."

From one of the dissenting opinions:

> 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 commitments. The trouble with this argument is that SpaceX never indicated that it was relying on the Starship platform to meet its RDOF obligations, and in fact it repeatedly stated that it was not.

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

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

#145

Post by shkkmo »

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

That document doesn't make any claims about censorship nor have any relationship to the conspiracy theory you are saying it states.

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

#147

Post by Deprecate9151 »

jcims wrote: post #134
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.

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.

For this grant the 100/20 needed to be consistently available in specific geographic areas. So if the cells bring down the performance averages are concentrated in those grant areas, it makes sense for them to fail to meet the program criteria while still having a product that hits those metrics elsewhere.

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

#148

Post by hnburnsy »

mdasen wrote: post #38
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…

Starlink (and Musk in general) have been over-promising and under-delivering for years now. Starlink claimed 150Mbps back in 2020 and that speeds would double to 300Mbps by the end of 2021.[1] Instead, speeds have halved.[2] At this point, T-Mobile is likely serving more rural high speed internet customers with greater speeds (T-Mobile has 4.2M home internet customers and Ookla's stats show 34% to be rural for 1.4M;…

>In 2022, many RDOF recipients had deployed no service at any speed to any location at all, and they had no obligation to do so. By contrast, Starlink had half a million subscribers in June 2022 (and about two million in September 2023)

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

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

#149

Post by alwa »

shdwbannd1234 wrote: post #133
rohansingh wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 rul…

I don’t understand what you’re saying here. What is obvious and well-documented here, from your perspective? And of what do we have extensive documentation? The regulatory data at the time the decision was taken, or something in Starlink’s defense?

I didn’t find the article especially clear on this point, but it sounds like Starlink says that if the decision were taken today rather than in 2022, the performance data wouldn’t look so dire, and the FCC might have more faith in their promise to launch high-performance payloads with Starship during the grant’s required timeframe, is that what you mean?

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

#150

Post by 2devnull »

echelon wrote: post #57
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.

We need more competition [1] in orbital launch and orbital internet. Backing SpaceX alone when they have the lead will not lead to a good outcome. I'd imagine that there are also concerns about the close ties Musk has to the Russians and how he's tried to insert himself into the Ukrainian conflict on numerous occasions. [1] Not the largess of traditional government contractors Lockheed and Boeing, but the plethora of…

I don’t think moves like this, where the government acts in an adversarial capacity to successful businesses that it previously supported, will do a lot to attract new capital or technologists. If anything, I’d worry such capriciousness discourages investment in the area. If Musk can’t make it work, what odds do the rest of us face. At least that would be my concern, about how this is received by the wider tech community.
Post reply on HN