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

161–170 of 773 posts

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

#161

Post by Coder1996 »

licomo wrote: post #35
jupp0r wrote: post #21

The argument that national average bandwidth for Starlink is probably worse than for those rural communities is a solid one. Not sure if it makes up for the large gap, but in my opinion Starlink is well suited because it works better the less other users are in your cell (ie better in less densely populated regions).

It has fluctuated over time, but has almost always been over the minimum limits (25/3) IMO. It is also vastly more reliable than our only WISP option in the area. What I have seen is that the cell will start to fill up, speeds slow down a little (still better than our WISP and other Satellite providers), then the cell closes. More satellites launch, speeds go up, and the cell opens again. It's my experience, so take…

I agree. I have a WISP and it is shite. $99/mo for up to (but almost never) 100 Mpbs down. Charter's trucks are now running lines to my property and we will be switching to Spectrum as soon as we can. Fuck Adaptive.

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

#162

Post by moralestapia »

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.

>the uncertain nature of Starship's future launches could impact Starlink's ability to meet" its obligations

Lol, what is the FCC on? No one else comes even close to their launch record [1].

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_He....

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

#163

Post by Faark »

I_Am_Nous wrote: post #25
tekla wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Starlink reportedly argued that once they can properly launch Starship, they can surely hit the required speeds. Read the article you are referencing > To justify its motivated reasoning, 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 commi…

They are just using what SpaceX/Starlink has said in the past[1]. >SpaceX asked the FCC to expedite approval now that it has settled on the Starship-launched configuration. Regardless, to reach those obligatory speeds by 2025 they would need to launch an insane amount of satellites with no failures. If the FCC doesn't think they can do that, they don't get funding. 1. https://spacenews.com/spacex-goes-all-in-on-stars…

Then why decide now that SpaceX won't get the money? Does another company get the contract? Otherwise would have assumed to simply check at/after the delivery date...

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

#164

Post by hnburnsy »

I_Am_Nous wrote: post #46
trident5000 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can arrive at your own conclusion. I think its pretty obvious whats happening here (the commissioners voted along party lines right down the middle). And theres no other company thats even close to Starlink now or in the medium term future. So I dont know who would practically fill this spot. For below comment: This is for "rural" connection. You're not laying wire for that regardless of what Comcast wants you to…

It's a letter from one FCC commissioner, of which there are currently 5. He dissents from the decision the commission as a whole came to. There are a lot of companies on the ground that could benefit from that ~$900 million so a single company replacing Starlink is not necessary. The main concern is if the FCC give Starlink money to reach 100/20 and they don't do it (because there are legitimate technical issues to s…

Did you miss the other dissent which would mean 40% of the commission disagreed with the decision?

DISSENTING STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER NATHAN SIMINGTON

>I wholeheartedly agree with the entirety of Commissioner Carr’s dissent. I write separately to further highlight some of the meretricious logic that underlies the Bureau’s, and now Commission’s, rescinding of SpaceX’s RDOF award. ... >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

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

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

#165

Post by chrisco255 »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #89
chrisco255 wrote: post #80

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.

By no means does the program make the claim "to make the equivalent of fiber runs". You're just making claims up to rationalize what in all likelihood, was politically driven. Even the votes from the FCC members were along party lines.

There were speed targets of 100Mbps available to 20M households. They're currently at a median of 65Mbps [1] and they already have more than 99% of the U.S. covered [2]. It's an egregious, questionable, partisan claim by the FCC that they can't reasonably be expected to hit the speed target by 2025.

[1] https://www.ookla.com/articles/us-satellite-performance-q3-2... [2] https://www.starlink.com/map?view=availability

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

#166

Post by maxerickson »

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.

Ineptly retracting a subsidy that isn't needed or even impactful?

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

#167

Post by danbruc »

lupusreal wrote: post #117
danbruc wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Starlink is nothing that you deploy and then you are done. When you have launched the last satellite, then the first ones launched will have reached the end of their lifespan and you essentially have to start over, deploy the entire constellation once again as the satellites reach the end of their lifespan one by one. With a lifespan of say 5 years, you will have to deploy the entire constellation once every 5 years,…

Their lifespan when active is longer than 5 years because they have thrusters. 5 years is if they're dead and left to decay

All the numbers I have seen were 5 to 7 years of operational lifespan but I can not find a primary source from SpaceX at the moment. I think I also read that there are plans to increase the lifespan eventually with larger satellites, deployed using Starship.

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

#168

Post by rohansingh »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #136
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…

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?

I don't feel knowledgeable enough about the expected process to comment on that. Two points of speculation though:

1. It looks like the commission believes Starlink is trending away from the targets rather than toward them, and that can't help their case.

2. It's hard for me to see how there would not be at least some political considerations here. The fact that this program exists at all is a political decision. So it's part & parcel of the playing field — which is probably why most leaders work hard to not piss off their regulators.

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

#169

Post by toomuchtodo »

rpmisms wrote: post #154
toomuchtodo wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Oh, I see. I agree that these are people who deeply embody the Democratic ethos, and Bernie is one of the poorer members of the Senate. I seriously dislike Fetterman's "working class" act, though. However, considering that they hate me, I will pass.

We may disagree politically, but I still want the best for you (although the debate lies in what that looks like). Take care, and I enjoyed the conversation regardless.

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

#170

Post by alwa »

NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #127
_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.

It's hard to tell due to the redactions, but it seems like Starlink brought Starship into the discussion as part of the explanation of how it would have the technical capability to deliver the service.

I’m an unqualified casual observer and working from memory, but I seem to remember capacity and throughput promises related to the “Starlink 2.0” satellites, which Mr. Musk claims are “an order of magnitude better” than the current birds on unspecified measures [0], and without which Starlink couldn’t credibly deliver the promised service to the promised number of households in the promised time to earn the subsidy [1].

The new satellite designs got a bit mired in regulatory complications until December of 2022, but it turned out to be moot since they’re too big and heavy to get up to orbit without Starship’s lift capacity and Starship isn’t there yet (and might not be within the period the subsidy contemplated). After the decision to cancel the subsidy (which is on appeal here) was taken back in 2022, Starlink seem to have rejiggered the 2.0 satellites into a “2.0-mini” configuration suitable for launch via Falcon 9 [2].

Apparently they would like for the FCC to reconsider the subsidy decision in light of them engineering around the Starship dependency?

[0] https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/spacex-starshi...

[1] https://www.jeffgeerling.com/blog/2022/starlinks-current-pro...

[2] https://starlinkinsider.com/starlink-gen2-satellites/

Post reply on HN