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

211–220 of 773 posts

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

#211

Post by pmorici »

Deprecate9151 wrote: post #142
pmorici wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the terms of the deal were that they didn't need to hit the performance benchmarks until 2025 and they have demonstrated that the technology was capable of those speeds it makes little sense to do this now except as a thinly vailed political punishment.

That was not the terms, there were buildout requirements attached that started when the bid was accepted. https://www.usac.org/high-cost/funds/rural-digital-opportuni... Looks like Starlink was supposed to be 40% built with their participation starting in 2020, that are consistent with their winning bid (in this case 100/20). It seems they clearly failed by that metric.

Seeing as they offer service basically everywhere in the US right now and the only quibble is that the average speed is only 75 Mbps instead of 100 Mbps I'd say they are well ahead of 40%.

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

#212

Post by neuronexmachina »

valianteffort wrote: post #191
alwa wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

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

Why would Tesla be at a summit on union-made EVs? If you look at the actual speech Biden gave at the event, a lot of it is pretty counter to Tesla's anti-union stance: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/20...

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

#213

Post by why_at »

turquoisevar wrote: post #203
why_at wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Fair enough I guess, this could be total BS. FWIW the dissenting FCC commissioners made similar arguments.

>In 2022, many RDOF recipients had deployed no service at any speed to any location at all, and they had no obligation to do so

Maybe this is just more spin from people who want to turn this into another political battleground. It's not entirely clear to me, but it seems like there is room for doubt.

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

#214

Post by manuelabeledo »

rapsey wrote: post #135
manuelabeledo wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Starlink success, and to that extent, SpaceX, are arguably tied to government money. I would say that not getting almost $1B may impact their operations quite a bit.

VCs are falling over themselves trying to get in on SpaceX. If there were to go public they would immediately be worth hundreds of billions. It will likely be one of the biggest IPOs in history. They are not that strapped for cash.

Then what's the deal with government funds?

For a company that doesn't need money, they seem quite upset that they aren't getting much of it.

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

#215

Post by manuelabeledo »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #114
manuelabeledo wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Starlink success, and to that extent, SpaceX, are arguably tied to government money. I would say that not getting almost $1B may impact their operations quite a bit.

Starlink has 2 million customers, likely with >$1000 ARPU and is growing quite rapidly. $1B annually would be material. $1B as a one time payment is significant but seems unlikely to affect viability. Musk has said that Starship and Starlink are each $5B-$10B investments.

> Starlink has 2 million customers, likely with >$1000 ARPU and is growing quite rapidly. $1B annually would be material.

This suggests that they are in the black, which they are not. They are losing a lot of money.

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

#216

Post by dotnet00 »

philwelch wrote: post #177
dotnet00 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 defe…

I'd agree, but on the other hand, it isn't entirely HN users' fault that scummy journalists intentionally misreport and/or don't circulate their corrections as loudly as their initial accusations.

Plus, I doubt those critical of the arms industry would be complaining about Google offering to take on defense contracts specifically intended to help Ukraine. If anything, they'd be complaining about Google not just paying for it out of pocket, as they did when SpaceX said that providing Starlink for free for an indefinite period of time would be financially unrealistic for them.

My understanding is that Starshield isn't an entirely separate constellation, it's a special mode of existing Starlink for which the DoD controls cell activations, probably has priority usage of some portion of bandwidth, plus custom terminals and the ability to have Starlink satellites with hosted payloads (which, by nature of being Starlink satellites, would be able to take advantage of the rest of the network for their own communications, enabling things like extremely hard to detect point-to-point beamed communications anywhere in the world).

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

#217

Post by baybal2 »

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…

[dead]

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

#218

Post by jm4 »

I wonder if behind the scenes this has anything to do with Elon’s Starlink shenanigans in Ukraine. He interfered with their military operations after a meeting with Putin and then pulled that nonsense where he basically extorted the U.S. government for more funding. Their options for dealing with him are somewhat limited because their relationship with him goes both ways. A good way to give him a little slap is in his wallet.

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

#219

Post by akamaka »

convery wrote: post #67

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

Reading that dissent felt as painful as reading a partisan reddit comment.

In one paragraph he said Biden is targeting Musk politically, and in the very next he states, as proof of the quality of the internet service, that the Pentagon just signed a contract with Starlink for military applications.

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

#220

Post by Deprecate9151 »

Faark wrote: post #163
I_Am_Nous wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

They didn't decide now. The program was created as a two step process initially. Starlink succeeded in the first round, but was denied in the second, more in depth, review that lead to the rejection. This was basically an appeal of that rejection.

The second round was designed to eliminate providers who didn't seem able to deliver on their promises even with the subsidies. It was made to prevent a situation where either party (but mostly the US Gov and tax payers by extension) was on the hook for unsuccessful delivery.

I'm not sure what happens with the funds that would have gone to Starlink.

Post reply on HN