US agency will not reinstate $900M subsidy for Starlink • Hacker News Board

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

#201

Post by Deprecate9151 » Wed, Dec 13, 2023, 5:57 PM UTC

hnburnsy wrote: post #144

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 s…

The Commission decision does address this. Unfortunately the section is redacted of specific details, but it appears Starlink argued that it's second gen satellites would be launched via Starship and address these issues.

However, they didn't successfully launch Starship yet as they described in that plan, and only announced Falcon 9 would launch second gen satellites after they were already denied based off of the initial plan.

The dissenting letter unfortunately just says "no they didn't", but doesn't point to any documentary evidence. It's hard to accept it at face value when compared to the long form explanation. Especially when much of the "corrective action" taken by Starlink has come after the initial denial.

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

#202

Post by rpmisms » Wed, Dec 13, 2023, 6:00 PM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #169

rpmisms wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I understand and appreciate that perspective. I usually want the government to leave me alone, but if they won't, I want the most principled people duking it out. It sounds like we both value principles in office, maybe not to the exclusion of ideology, but it's a major factor.

I did as well, good to have some old-style HN conversation.

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

#203

Post by turquoisevar » Wed, Dec 13, 2023, 6:00 PM UTC

why_at wrote: post #198

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…

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 target…

You forgot to attribute the quote to Musk, arguably the least reliable person in our lifetime.

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

#204

Post by galaxyLogic » Wed, Dec 13, 2023, 6:01 PM UTC

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…

> We no longer live under the rule of law, there is no equality brfore it,

Anybody else but Trump would be in prison already for what he has done (urging his followers who he knew to be armed to "go to the capital and Fight Like Hell"). So it is true that equality before the law is definitely lacking in action.

Another thing that makes me agree with "there is no equality" is that when you follow the news you see things like Giuliani owes his lawyers over million dollars. So it seems you need over a million dollars to get justice. Or alternatively, you can try to avoid justice, by spending millions.

Trump says he has "over $100 million in legal fees"

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4282653-trump-s....

So again it seems you need $100 million to get justice, or alternatively to escape from it. How can justice that costs $100 million be fair and equitable to all?

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

#205

Post by pmorici » Wed, Dec 13, 2023, 6:01 PM UTC

mason55 wrote: post #137

pmorici wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because if you use the service you know it is capable of that and more today. SpaceX is also capable of providing differentiated service speeds so looking at what an average user is getting today is not indicative of what could be provided if they were under some minimum speed obligation. The FCC's rational is clearly them twisting themselves into knots to try and get to the decision they want to satisfy their prefer…

> Because if you use the service you know it is capable of that and more today. The numbers show otherwise and the FCC made it clear that Starlink presented no numbers to the contrary. This isn't even a case of the FCC's numbers saying one thing and Starlink's numbers saying another. I totally believe that some places give you consistent 100/20 speeds, but aggregate numbers don't show that and Starlink made no attemp…

Today your speed tier is based on what you pay. If you pay for the priority or business tier service you absolutely get over 100Mbps consistently, a lot more. If you pay for the basic service tier then yeah you might only get 3-4x DSL speeds which is still phenomenal for the purpose being discussed here.

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

#206

Post by rohansingh » Wed, Dec 13, 2023, 6:03 PM UTC

altairprime wrote: post #185

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…

Please don’t use code-formatted space-indent for quotes, your paragraph looks like a sawtooth on mobile with an indent every other sentence. Instead, use > *quote*. It’ll be unindented but readable, which is an improvement over being indented but unreadable: > While Starlink …

Thanks, struggled to find the correct formatting. Corrected it now.

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

#207

Post by altairprime » Wed, Dec 13, 2023, 6:04 PM UTC

pmorici wrote: post #205

mason55 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because if you use the service you know it is capable of that and more today. The numbers show otherwise and the FCC made it clear that Starlink presented no numbers to the contrary. This isn't even a case of the FCC's numbers saying one thing and Starlink's numbers saying another. I totally believe that some places give you consistent 100/20 speeds, but aggregate numbers don't show that and Starlink made no attemp…

Today your speed tier is based on what you pay. If you pay for the priority or business tier service you absolutely get over 100Mbps consistently, a lot more. If you pay for the basic service tier then yeah you might only get 3-4x DSL speeds which is still phenomenal for the purpose being discussed here.

If your basic service tier is lower than 100/20, you would be disqualified for the subsidy.

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

#208

Post by _ea1k » Wed, Dec 13, 2023, 6:05 PM UTC

literalAardvark wrote: post #159

_ea1k wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

100/20 average is spectacular for those living in the US boonies. And they're the target. No one else comes even close. You can't run fiber there, can't mount towers everywhere.

It is certainly better than a lot of existing options, but so is Starlink. I'd have expected an option that excludes Starlink to be something fairly future-proof. And, IME, people in those remote areas are using Starlink pretty successfully now.

Instead, these standards are so low that it makes me wonder how Starlink doesn't qualify. The fact that they are just out of reach of Starlink in just enough areas to disqualify them does make the whole process a bit suspect looking.

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

#209

Post by barbacoa » Wed, Dec 13, 2023, 6:07 PM UTC

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…

The reason individual speeds were trending down is because the number of users is increasing. Now that the service no longer has wait-lists and is fully available to everyone, one would imagine speeds increasing as more infrastructure is brought online.

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

#210

Post by stephenr » Wed, Dec 13, 2023, 6:08 PM UTC

moralestapia wrote: post #192

stephenr wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Well it looks like no one else is going to achieve what you said you could do, and you got kinda close so fuck it, keep the money" doesn't really sound like how you should expect a government subsidy to be managed.

For the record: I'm not commenting on whether the government was right or wrong to cancel the subsidy for SpaceX. I'm simply explaining why SpaceX's inability (so far) to get Starship to orbit is referenced, and more specifically, why the launch reliability of Falcon 9 is specifically not relevant in a sentence that says "Starship".