511–520 of 773 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The FCC didn't even give Starlink a chance to run late or underdeliver, they assessed the program and capability and decided it wasn't where they wanted to spend grant money. So they aren't being punished, they are being passed over for a better option.
What is the better option?
The risk is just much higher with satellites than with buried fiber. If the FCC is trying to build more permanent networks, fiber in the ground is much more permanent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a letter from one FCC commissioner, of which there are currently 5. He dissents from the decision the commission as a whole came to. There are a lot of companies on the ground that could benefit from that ~$900 million so a single company replacing Starlink is not necessary. The main concern is if the FCC give Starlink money to reach 100/20 and they don't do it (because there are legitimate technical issues to s…
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…
All of that to say: this whole point you're making about "40% disagreed" or "20% disagreed" because the decision wasn't unanimous is really fucking dumb. The decision by the Commission is the decision, it doesn't matter how many dissents there are.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As if cost+ contracting hasn't been a major factor in projects going overbudget and behind schedule. Even with cost+ the contractor needs to provide an estimate up front of both the time and money needed. While it is understood that it is just an estimate, having projects come in for 5x or more of the original estimated cost is egregious. SLS for example was estimated to cost $1.5B, but instead costs $11.2B and still…
> SLS for example was estimated to cost $1.5B I wish it was; lol. The initial estimate was $18B [1]. I suspect you saw the $1.5B number for some sub-component of SLS. That's another common problem with government projects. The media will read some government report that says a new railroad will cost $1B and then report that the entire project will cost $1B while the report only talked about track cost and not about l…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
no, it will be awarded to other applicants instead.
Not necessarily. This round of grants is closed. There is no guarantee that this money will be rolled into the next round. In fact, that seems quite unlikely to me.
When it says "at least $4.4 billion" that leaves the door open for phase 1 fund rollover. We'll see eventually. Maybe Starlink can get some money in phase 2.
I'm glad to see the FCC sticking to its requirements and having a testing regime for them. Starlink's own service specifications are far below the 100/20Mbps requirements. They currently are promising 25-100Mbps down, 5-10Mbps up. In congested areas they often don't even deliver that in the evenings. [1] I use Starlink in my rural area and am grateful for it. But hopefully the $900M will be better spent on other ISPs…
Now if the FCC was actually principled when when choosing when to " sticking to its requirements" because ti seems large traditional companies can just do what ever the hell they want and get subsidies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5SfDmL0sv3w
At ~6:20.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is the better option?
The FCC originally didn't want to include fixed wireless or satellite internet for RDOF consideration, so from that fact alone I believe they were intending it to be fiber optic. A fiber plant is pretty immutable, even if you end up upgrading the things connected to the fiber for higher speeds. Once it's buried, it's pretty reliable (unless a passing herd of excavators get hungry and smell the fiber buried undergroun…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with all of this, but if the problem is too hard for the expert, why would I listen to a billionaire/CEO?
Experts have a narrow, deep view while CEOs have a wide, shallow view. If the expert works in a lab developing new experimental solar panels they probably don’t see a clear path to mass production. The CEO might know another manufacturing expert that does see a path to production and have enough high level understanding to know the methods are compatible.
Like a CEO saying, I have a material that can protect wearers from nuclear fusion blasts and it will be on the market in 6 months, but the experts in the field have yet to actually prove that material exists and create it in a lab.