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

231–240 of 773 posts

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

#231

Post by NovemberWhiskey »

_ea1k wrote: post #208
literalAardvark wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 disqual…

Starlink, when originally launched, did hit the performance targets. It seems pretty clear that Starlink could've produced a plan that would've restricted user onboarding in a way that showed a commitment to continue hitting the targets. Instead, they added subscribers to the point that service deteriorated below the standards and was trending worse.

I don't know whether this was a purely commercial decision to generate mass adoption prior to building out the constellation and the rest of the required infrastructure, or whether there was some kind of underperformance vs engineer plan or whatever.

In either case, it's not a good look. Particularly if it was a commercial decision, then it's a case of "decisions have consequences".

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

#232

Post by I_Am_Nous »

philwelch wrote: post #155
I_Am_Nous wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So to make the 2025 deadline they would have had to perfectly launch more rockets than they ever have before...sounds like the FCC made the correct choice.

SpaceX has done that every year since 2020. In 2020 they had 26 successful Falcon 9/Heavy launches, 31 in 2021, 61 in 2022, and 91 to date in 2023.

They need to do 180 a year to put enough satellites up to even try to hit the 2025 deadline. That's not even counting any satellites which may fail between now and then and need replaced. This is a major reason why the FCC didn't think they could have met the 2025 obligation to reach ~650,000 subscribers with 100/20 and rejected their application.

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

#233

Post by bryanlarsen »

Deprecate9151 wrote: post #182
hnburnsy wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. By contrast, Starlink had half a million subscribers in June 2022 (and about two million in September 2023) https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-105A3.pdf

That argument is a red herring. The RDOF program is concentrated in specific geographic areas. Starlink onboarding subscribers in other areas doesn't really have a bearing on this program if they can't prove they can extend that to the areas in scope and hit the service levels they bid at. It might even hurt their argument if performance degrades as they focus on areas outside the RDOF locations. More traditional off…

A rule of thumb is that big infrastructure projects are always significantly behind schedule and budget. Fiber rollouts are big infrastructure projects. They'll be late, almost guaranteed. Therefore demonstrating that they can hit a schedule is very difficult.

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

#234

Post by throw0101c »

mdasen wrote: post #38
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…

Starlink (and Musk in general) have been over-promising and under-delivering for years now. Starlink claimed 150Mbps back in 2020 and that speeds would double to 300Mbps by the end of 2021.[1] Instead, speeds have halved.[2] At this point, T-Mobile is likely serving more rural high speed internet customers with greater speeds (T-Mobile has 4.2M home internet customers and Ookla's stats show 34% to be rural for 1.4M;…

> […] (and Musk in general) have been over-promising and under-delivering for years now.

Related, "Tesla FSD Timeline":

> September 2014: They will be a factor of 10 safer than a person [at the wheel] in a six-year time frame

* https://motherfrunker.ca/fsd/

* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38625380 (earlier today)

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

#235

Post by lolbase »

2devnull wrote: post #160
lolbase wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government shouldn’t give out billion dollar participation trophies. There’s a set of metrics to meet. Starlink is moving the wrong way against those metrics. As such, they’ll need to succeed unaided in the marketplace, instead of getting a government handout.

Perhaps not billion dollar, but shouldn’t it give some participation trophies? How else to entice innovation in certain areas, especially when the interest rates are killing small tech outfits.

No, it should not.

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

#236

Post by bryanlarsen »

I_Am_Nous wrote: post #232
philwelch wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SpaceX has done that every year since 2020. In 2020 they had 26 successful Falcon 9/Heavy launches, 31 in 2021, 61 in 2022, and 91 to date in 2023.

They need to do 180 a year to put enough satellites up to even try to hit the 2025 deadline. That's not even counting any satellites which may fail between now and then and need replaced. This is a major reason why the FCC didn't think they could have met the 2025 obligation to reach ~650,000 subscribers with 100/20 and rejected their application.

They're upgrading Vandenburg to do 100/year and Kennedy/Canaveral to do a ~daily cadence.

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

#237

Post by TheAlchemist »

It looks like it's becoming apparent that Elon's empire is based on a lot of impossible promises.

Starlink is probably one of them. A perfect 'business' for Musk. You can show something great - high speed internet in remote areas - and then extrapolate that - just think about the whole world etc... Faster than fibre, with V2...

Thing is, this business is probably not economically viable. It can work if not a lot of people use it - but it's maintained afloat by government money. But if 10x customers sign on, bandwidth will completely plummet and it won't be such a great service anymore.

But in the meantime, and it's quite a long time, Elon can continue to extract billions $ of taxpayers money.

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

#238

Post by alwayseasy »

cubefox wrote: post #224
toomuchtodo wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd rather the federal government just roll out fiber and not put Starlink and Elon in a position of power. That fiber will always be in the ground and available. Elon has shown himself to be unworthy of any position where trust and good judgement is required. If it costs more, that is a premium worth paying. Fool me once. https://www.internetforall.gov/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases...…

> Elon has shown himself to be unworthy of any position where trust and good judgement is required. That's an insane statement given the unprecedented success of SpaceX.

The success of SpaceX is placing Musk in a position to decide where America's allies have access to the internet and choosing what region of the world can be cut off just through meeting politicians he likes.

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

#239

Post by bryanlarsen »

manuelabeledo wrote: post #215
bryanlarsen wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

SpaceX was profitable last quarter.

https://www.reuters.com/business/elon-musks-spacex-turns-pro...

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

#240

Post by btilly »

Deprecate9151 wrote: post #182
hnburnsy wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. By contrast, Starlink had half a million subscribers in June 2022 (and about two million in September 2023) https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-105A3.pdf

That argument is a red herring. The RDOF program is concentrated in specific geographic areas. Starlink onboarding subscribers in other areas doesn't really have a bearing on this program if they can't prove they can extend that to the areas in scope and hit the service levels they bid at. It might even hurt their argument if performance degrades as they focus on areas outside the RDOF locations. More traditional off…

Your counterargument hides a major flaw.

It is true that more traditional offerings have an easier time demonstrating that they should be able to do that. But decades of traditional telecoms failing to hit promised targets demonstrates that they are unlikely to perform as promised.

That said, regulatory capture has let them regularly get away with the argument that you describe. Regulators motivated by politics and corruption have pretended to believe them. Non-incumbents therefore struggle to navigate their higher bar.

Post reply on HN