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

451–460 of 773 posts

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

#451

Post by NovemberWhiskey »

_ea1k wrote: post #397
NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 gener…

I can understand that, but are they measuring Starlink's competitors by the same standard? Overloading backhaul, at least temporarily, is hardly a new problem.

They're using (AIUI) Ookla Speedtest data, rather than taking anyone's word for anything.

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

#452

Post by kulahan »

kelnos wrote: post #427
lesuorac wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you may not understand what the government is. The government is a collection of individuals. It is not a single borg instance. Some individuals within that collection are going to act different than other ones. Also the government does a lot of funding through different mechanisms. Many miltiary programs are a cost+ program where they pay the contractor the cost of development plus a profit% so the initial b…

The problem with cost+ is that contractors can inflate the actual cost of things, and pocket the difference. Obviously they can't do this to an unlimited extent, but the cynic in me would have a hard time believing this isn't a common practice.

It's much more likely that this stuff is difficult to do, and thus difficult to price out, than that somehow the managers of these companies are working with the finance people to secretly steal money from the government and hide it in their books, the government never catches it, and these very amicable ties between the government and defense contractors continues - and all of that is before we even get to what happens when you try to steal and your project falls behind.

It's way more valuable, usually, to get it done quickly and done well the first time, so you can move onto another project. You leave a few people on the original program pull in tons of super easy maintenance contract money for what essentially ends up being a skeleton crew.

Or, I suppose, you could try and inflate costs by a couple percentage points (not too much - you'll get caught and the risk here is MASSIVE), keep working on the same program, and hope the opportunity cost doesn't get too high.

I'm sure it happens, but I doubt it happens often.

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

#453

Post by flextheruler »

NotACop182 wrote: post #442
DoesntMatter22 wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This question was not asking about when FSD was going to work but when Enhanced Autopilot would noticeably depart from FSD. No where in there did it say "FSD will be working completely in 6 months". They did in fact diverge, no where was that a statement that FSD would be complete by then. It's ironic you are calling him a liar when your response seems to either be completely dishonest itself or you are not aware of…

I never understood someone so determined to ignore all the evidence. Yet when confronted doubles/triples down with excuses.

It’s called the sunk cost fallacy anyone who owns a Tesla and Tesla stock has been extremely susceptible for years now

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

#454

Post by constantly »

alephnan wrote: post #432
dbeardsl wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An FCC commissioner indicates that the FCC is yoinking the award because it thinks SpaceX won't hit the 2025 targets, yet many other award recipients have no service and no rollout and no speeds to even measure: > What good is an agreement to build out service by 2025 if the FCC can, on a whim, hold you to it in 2022 instead? In 2022, many RDOF recipients had deployed no service at any speed to any location at all, a…

> yet many other award recipients have no service and no rollout and no speeds to even measure: Unfortunately, most of the public won’t know or care about this blatant corruption and crony capitalism The revolving door between regulators and industry keeps on turning

As far as I can tell in a cursory reading, SpaceX Starlink applied for subsidies with enumerated requirements. They cannot meet those requirements, so the subsidy is rescinded.

Seems straightforward and doesn’t seem to matter, as far as I can tell, how many other companies couldn’t meet the requirements or don’t have the hardware to meet those requirements or whatever.

Unclear why this is “blatant corruption” or “crony capitalism” and in fact seems to be based in facts. Can you explain?

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

#455

Post by pid-1 »

madaxe_again wrote: post #285
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,…

I’ve got news for you about Earth-based networking gear. You don’t just install it and forget about it forever - you replace and upgrade, almost continuously, and lifespans are frequently significantly less than five years.

Tell that to your local telco carrier. I bet my ass they have network equipment runnning with zero updates for well over a decade.

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

#456

Post by Hamuko »

delecti wrote: post #357
DoesntMatter22 wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Never did Musk say "We'll have it done in six months".

This: https://motherfrunker.ca/fsd/ (linked in the GGP to your comment) links to this tweet from Jan 23, 2017 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/823727035088416768 When asked the question "At what point will "Full Self-Driving Capability" features noticeably depart from "Enhanced Autopilot" features?" Elon responded "3 months maybe, 6 months definitely" Also, lots of examples of "this year" stated in various January…

>I suspect his statements are carefully made to not technically meet the legal definition for fraud

2017 was before the infamous "funding secured" tweet, so I imagine there was no care in crafting his statements.

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

#457

Post by [deleted] »

DoesntMatter22 wrote: post #390
delecti wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This: https://motherfrunker.ca/fsd/ (linked in the GGP to your comment) links to this tweet from Jan 23, 2017 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/823727035088416768 When asked the question "At what point will "Full Self-Driving Capability" features noticeably depart from "Enhanced Autopilot" features?" Elon responded "3 months maybe, 6 months definitely" Also, lots of examples of "this year" stated in various January…

This question was not asking about when FSD was going to work but when Enhanced Autopilot would noticeably depart from FSD. No where in there did it say "FSD will be working completely in 6 months". They did in fact diverge, no where was that a statement that FSD would be complete by then. It's ironic you are calling him a liar when your response seems to either be completely dishonest itself or you are not aware of…

[deleted]

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

#458

Post by JohnFen »

MetaWhirledPeas wrote: post #431
kelnos wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that's one of the (many) frustrating things with Musk: he fairly consistently overpromises and underdelivers. Even if that underdelivering is better than what you can get elsewhere, it still leaves a bad taste in people's mouths.

> it still leaves a bad taste in people's mouths It definitely does, although I don't understand why. One thing making bold forecasts does is motivate your people. JFK told us we'd get to the moon this decade which is absolutely nuts. Would we have got there as soon if he had said we'd get to the moon eventually ? To the other responder: JFK also had no tangible justification to say we'd get there so soon, and the mo…

> It definitely does, although I don't understand why.

Maybe because it's a kind of lying, and people who do it on a regular basis are untrustworthy people?

> JFK told us we'd get to the moon this decade which is absolutely nuts.

Remember that he didn't phrase it as "we will do this", he phrased it as "this is our goal". He referred to it as a goal we're choosing, not as an inevitability.

Musk isn't goal-setting, he's making promises. The difference between the two is critical. One is being a leader, the other is being a liar.

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

#459

Post by dubcanada »

LukeLambert wrote: post #109

My parents in rural Northeast Texas use Starlink as their primary connection (they have a WISP as failover). Since Sept. 2022, I've been running automated speed tests four times a day (1 and 7, AM and PM). Speeds vary a lot throughout the day, but average about 100 Mbps down by 10 Mbps up. https://gist.github.com/LukeLambert/dd722e49bc773bcb27e859d9...

Is it weird that most of the ones around 1am are under 50mbps? The variability I think make sense, but the 1am consistency seems strange.

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

#460

Post by DoesntMatter22 »

tedivm wrote: post #411
DoesntMatter22 wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This question was not asking about when FSD was going to work but when Enhanced Autopilot would noticeably depart from FSD. No where in there did it say "FSD will be working completely in 6 months". They did in fact diverge, no where was that a statement that FSD would be complete by then. It's ironic you are calling him a liar when your response seems to either be completely dishonest itself or you are not aware of…

In October of 2016- > By the end of next year, said Musk, Tesla would demonstrate a fully autonomous drive from, say, a home in L.A., to Times Square ... without the need for a single touch, including the charging. So you're technically right- he said three months, not six. https://www.nbcnews.com/business/autos/driverless-tesla-will...

I don't see any direct quote of him saying what you are claiming. Please post that quote if you can find it
Post reply on HN