151–160 of 773 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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."
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]
Starlink hasn't failed to meet any agreed upon targets. The agreed upon targets are for 2025.
Starlink is currently providing service that is below those targets, but has several more years to meet them. Meanwhile, other recipients haven't delivered any service yet.
> Otherwise we will just have broadband 2.0, with Comcast & co getting billions in subsidies and not doing even a fraction of the necessary work.
Who do you think the other recipients are?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
https://www.sanders.senate.gov/ https://www.wyden.senate.gov/ https://www.fetterman.senate.gov/ https://foster.house.gov/ https://frost.house.gov/ Hope is in short supply, but not at empty yet. Make sure to vote every election. 1.8M voters over the age of 55 die every year in the US, and 4M voters age into voting at 18. Demographics are inevitable. As I tell the young folks, Hold Fast. https://www.pewresearch.org/sho…
However, considering that they hate me, I will pass.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
WISPs rely on a local enthusiastic person to make it work.
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.
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
It says, paraphrasing, "The commission's reasoning is attractive, but doesn't hold water. Why are we requiring Space X to meet its 2025 deadline three years earlier. The arguments are thin, and I'm appalled by the situation."
Nowhere does the opinion mention, allude to, imply, or call out whatever you think it does.
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?
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.
No one else comes even close. You can't run fiber there, can't mount towers everywhere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The government shouldn’t give out billion dollar participation trophies. There’s a set of metrics to meet. Starlink is moving the wrong way against those metrics. As such, they’ll need to succeed unaided in the marketplace, instead of getting a government handout.