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

251–260 of 773 posts

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

#251

Post by akho »

TheAlchemist wrote: post #237

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 p…

It’s very obviously a military project. I don’t see what you expect to be different wrt funding.

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

#252

Post by Powdering7082 »

chrisco255 wrote: post #130
mdasen wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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;…

I regularly get 150+ Mbps on my Starlink terminal. Don't really care that they didn't hit the ambitious goal of providing 300+, it is already more than 15x better than the next best option available for me. T-Mobile has a three decade head start (maybe four if you count their Sprint Wireless acquisition's history), so hardly surprising if there is currently more T-Mobile home internet users than Starlink users. But I…

Yeah there's a pretty common routine of SpaceX & Tesla having some of the best results in the world for what they are trying to accomplish AND being much worse than what was promised.

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

#253

Post by inemesitaffia »

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.

Starlink hasn't gotten any money, so they aren't subject to build requirements

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

#254

Post by rpmisms »

akamaka wrote: post #219
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.

Biden is not the Pentagon.

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

#255

Post by I_Am_Nous »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #236
I_Am_Nous wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That will be sweet when they can get it done and reliably launch Starship! Starlink isn't bad, it just wasn't capable of meeting the RDOF deadline according to the information available at the time.

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

#256

Post by inemesitaffia »

Deprecate9151 wrote: post #147
jcims wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is dependent on the cell you're in. I've been on Starlink since Feb 2021 and dipping below 100 down is very rare. It' averages about 140 down and 20 up with about 30ms latency.

For this grant the 100/20 needed to be consistently available in specific geographic areas. So if the cells bring down the performance averages are concentrated in those grant areas, it makes sense for them to fail to meet the program criteria while still having a product that hits those metrics elsewhere.

The denial doesn't quote speeds in those areas

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

#257

Post by goodguy29495 »

asylteltine wrote: post #250
TheAlchemist wrote: post #237

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 p…

Elon “over promise and under deliver” Musk FSD is coming any day now right?

you can try it out in any post-2018 Tesla with the option package.

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

#258

Post by inemesitaffia »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #90
pardoned_turkey wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm in a rural location. Not that rural, about five minutes away from a town of 10,000 people. I have exactly three internet choices: old-school satellite (with 600 ms latency), unreliable 10 Mbit DSL for $150/month, or Starlink for $120/month. Many of my neighbors aren't as lucky and don't even get DSL. My DSL provider received hundreds of millions in government subsidies and did nothing to improve the service in th…

If you start a WISP and service your neighbors, the FCC would probably be happy to provide you a subsidy now that they have an extra $1 billion that isn't going to Starlink.

That's not how this works.

Under this program there's no option of another org replacing a denied org. Who's stepping up for LTD broadband for example?

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

#259

Post by geoffpado »

WoahNoun wrote: post #225
hnburnsy wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you miss the other dissent which would mean 40% of the commission disagreed with the decision? DISSENTING STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER NATHAN SIMINGTON >I wholeheartedly agree with the entirety of Commissioner Carr’s dissent. I write separately to further highlight some of the meretricious logic that underlies the Bureau’s, and now Commission’s, rescinding of SpaceX’s RDOF award. ... >I was disappointed by this wron…

Where does that dissent say 40% disagreed? It only uses the term majority.

There are 5 FCC commissioners (as @I_Am_Nous's comment points out). @I_Am_Nous references one dissent. @hnburnsy links to another. That's 2 dissents. 2 out of 5 dissenting is 40%.

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

#260

Post by Waterluvian »

martindbp wrote: post #242
TheAlchemist wrote: post #237

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 p…

[flagged]

Are they wrong about these details then? Or is that the defense: “doesn’t matter if I’m actually doing that or not. The government is out to get me.”
Post reply on HN