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

171–180 of 773 posts

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

#171

Post by stephenr »

moralestapia wrote: post #162
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... .

You do understand that "Starship" is the literal name of a prototype space craft that is currently in development, but has not yet made a successful launch to orbit, rather than just a generic term, which may include the earlier, well-proven Falcon 9, right?

SpaceX themselves have said that the future of their satellite internet business essentially depends on being able to put up a bigger model to replace the current ones, so much bigger that they can't feasibly use their existing, well-proven rockets to launch them.

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

#172

Post by hnburnsy »

convery wrote: post #67

As commissioner Brendan Carr's dissent wasn't included in the article: https://twitter.com/BrendanCarrFCC/status/173469670679577812...

And...

DISSENTING STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER NATHAN SIMINGTON

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

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

#173

Post by qarl »

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?

Well - I may be biased, but I've been seeing a lot of claims from Republicans lately which do not closely match reality.

Until there's actual evidence, I would be inclined to dismiss them.

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

#174

Post by 2devnull »

adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #120
ren_engineer wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

> Or Musk could cut off Ukraine's capacity, which the US military admits is consuming hundreds of millions in Starlink capacity that could be allocated to US consumers to speed up their internet Satellites in LEO over Ukraine can't provide service to the US. (and because of the way orbits work a LEO satellite that spends time over the US will also spend time over Ukraine)

Is there not internet bandwidth involved? Bandwidth for one person means less bandwidth for another, doesn’t it?

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

#176

Post by ilikehurdles »

libraryatnight wrote: post #122
karpatic wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I understand, this is a political hatchet job. Space X still had 2 years to meet the the mark but capricious new standards are being applied specifically to them.

or maybe speeds were dropping, requirements not met, and they didn't want to dump more money on self driving car man's company. Seems reasonable to me - if it also makes elon and his cult sad, that's just a happy accident.

This argument is too deeply rotted with bias to have value. This is going to slow the adoption of broadband and you’re happy because the guy you dislike might be harmed as a consequence.

You should reflect on this behavior, because you’re embodying everything you criticize this supposed “other side” of being.

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

#177

Post by philwelch »

dotnet00 wrote: post #34
hcfman wrote: post #22

[flagged]

No, because most of that fiasco was just garbage journalism. SpaceX has had a publicly stated policy of not allowing use of Starlink in that manner and the US government has not opposed that stance (hell, it's likely because of technology export regulations that the use of Starlink to directly control drones is not allowed). The initial story claiming shutdowns was actually just about terminals that the UK was paying…

I’ve always found the outrage on HN over this somewhat inconsistent. Lots and lots of people here are critical of the arms industry and were largely supportive of Google employees pressuring the company into dropping US defense contracts, but when it’s Elon who doesn’t want his satellite internet service to be weaponized he’s suddenly the bad guy? Personally I think Elon (and the general HN consensus against the defense industry) is naively pacifistic, but the double standard is noteworthy.

For what it’s worth, SpaceX is also launching a completely separate Starlink constellation, known as Starshield, for the US Space Force. So if the government wants to allow our allies to use a weaponized Starlink, they can share their own.

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

#178

Post by orwin »

data_monkey wrote: post #82

[flagged]

Okay, so I'll ask questions to understand your point :

- is starlink the only company that lost its subsidy?

- do you think starlink goals of serving 650 000 people 100/20 by 2025 are reachable? (it means 23 000 starlink satellites available, so basically 1000 launches with current tech, minus those who already reached space).

- do you think the US is so corrupt, public servants implement that kind of stuff without any leak? I remember when plans to remove net neutrality were in construction circa 2018, those were 'leaked' and fsf, Mozilla, and big tech had enough time to lobby against the new plans before it was even out. I understand that the agencies directors are under the power of the current administration, but I doubt 100% of people working at the FCC are the same (it's irrealist).

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

#179

Post by dbeardsl »

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?

Here's a dissenting opinion from FCC Commissioner Nathan Simington:

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

> What good is an agreement to build out service by 2025 if the FCC can, on a whim, hold you to it in 2022 instead? In 2022, many RDOF (the award in question) 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).

And this scathing conclusion:

> 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. -- FCC Commissioner Nathan Simington

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

#180

Post by zamadatix »

moralestapia wrote: post #162
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... .

I'm not necessarily happy with the outcome here but the FCC never compared their current generation vehicle launch record to anyone else's. They're saying SpaceX planned to launch 12,000-42,000 satellites within a certain timeline using new vehicles to keep up with demand but are currently at ~5,500 with Starship's start not going as smoothly as SpaceX planned for. Starship (or a Starship class vehicle) will get there eventually, almost certainly IMO, but the point here is it is uncertain if it'll get there in time to meet the obligations (part of which is timing) Starlink has made.
Post reply on HN