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

191–200 of 773 posts

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

#191

Post by valianteffort »

alwa wrote: post #149
shdwbannd1234 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's clear the government has been actively attacking Musk and his companies for any and all reasons it can find. During the past couple years of this administration the following has happened and it's just what I can recall:

1. Tesla gets no invite to whitehouse EV summit despite being the sole reason for the current EV movement

2. Tesla model 3/Y initially barred from new EV subsidies

3. SpaceX being investigated by justice department for not hiring foreigners (literally illegal due to ITAR)

4. NASA awards blue origin more than it awarded SpaceX for lunar lander despite them having zero orbital rocket experience or even a proper roadmap to orbit

5. FAA drags heels on approving starlink tests preventing progress on the requirements they say were failed to have been met today

6. Today's news about FCC revoking subsidy for the only company that actually cares to provide highspeed internet to rural Americans, which congress has appropriated funding for several times in the past two decades, and rewarded companies have failed to deliver on

It's safe to say any kind of bullshit can be justified (with even more bullshit reasons), so it's hard to believe actions like this are made good faith. I'm not just going to trust criminals because they're robbing someone I don't like.

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

#192

Post by moralestapia »

stephenr wrote: post #171
moralestapia wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 curren…

Sure, but if you were to bet on a company to achieve that goal and it comes down to SpaceX vs. ?, it's not far fetched to go with the first.

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

#193

Post by justapassenger »

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…

[dead]

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

#194

Post by mensetmanusman »

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.

In defense of the FCC, barely anyone survives the lobbying power of entrenched ISPs.

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

#195

Post by ianburrell »

2devnull wrote: post #174
adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Internet bandwidth in America and Ukraine are completely separate. Starlink is mostly bent-pipe, sending signals to station in view of the satellite. Over remote areas, the satellites need to talk to each other to relay signals. But my understanding is that goes to the closest ground station.

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

#196

Post by causal »

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

This document doesn't really support the censorship claim, perhaps you meant to link the other FCC commissioner's document: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-105A2.pdf

I don't know much about commissioner Carr other than that he was appointed by Trump, so perhaps it is unsurprising he would disagree. I don't know enough about the facts underlying the competing narratives to say confidently whether or not there is foul play here, and suspect it will ultimately be for a court to decide.

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

#197

Post by Faark »

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

5 years to deorbit passively is correct, but the expected service life is in somewhat similar. Best quote i've got on hand right now is wikipedia:

> "...implement an operations plan for the orderly de-orbit of satellites nearing the end of their useful lives (roughly five to seven years) at a rate far faster than is required under international standards.

Obviously there are many unknowns in factors like hardware reliability or fuel consumption.

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

#198

Post by why_at »

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…

The part that makes me question the legitimacy of this decision is the fact that there are still other companies receiving the subsidy.

Quote from the article:

>Starlink is the only company actually solving rural broadband at scale! They should arguably dissolve the program and return funds to taxpayers, but definitely not send it (to) those who aren’t getting the job done

Are these other companies meeting the targets? If not then it seems pretty arbitrary to reject just SpaceX for not doing so yet.

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

#199

Post by CamelCaseName »

rohansingh wrote: post #168
s1artibartfast wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think #1 is what really strikes me here.

It's like standing in front of a train and not moving because you asked the conductor to stop.

What happens when they reach 2025 and billions of dollars have gone down the drain? Why wait?

Post reply on HN