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

541–550 of 773 posts

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

#541

Post by concordDance »

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…

Thank you very much for linking the FCC letter! It really improves the discussion to have it available.

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

#542

Post by NelsonMinar »

phpisthebest wrote: post #486
NelsonMinar wrote: post #288

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.

Do you have an example with the RDOF of a "large traditional company" doing whatever the hell they want and getting subsidies? It's a bit complciated since it's still under review.

This happened in the past all the time, particularly in Ajit Pai's version of the FCC. But the RDOF process seems different. In particular the FCC is actually measuring performance, not just relying on ISP's self-reported numbers. AT&T was really good at strategically lying about those in the past.

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

#543

Post by czl »

JohnFen wrote: post #501
medvezhenok wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason people follow Musk is that even though he over-promises and under-delivers; the under-delivered product is still better than the alternatives (or at least was for a while). People are not complete fools and can learn to discount over-the-top rhetoric; sure, some people are harmed by believing everything verbatim, but those people also fall for scams, etc, etc. His statements are parsed as statements of int…

I have real trouble with "the ends justify the means" arguments. > Is it scammy? Probably. It's the behavior of a con artist. > But he likely got more out of people by pushing this false narrative than would have been otherwise accomplished. Even if that's the case, he could have had the same, or better, effect without the lying. The lying is clearly aimed at gaining investment money and preorders, though, not at som…

> The lying is clearly aimed at gaining investment money and preorders, though, not at some bizarre attempt at motivating engineers.

It would be dumb to be caught "lying" over and over and Musk is not know to be dumb. Consider the possibility Musk is using reflexivity to accelerate progress. When people become convinced something is possible and work towards that goal their strong belief changes reality because there is a feedback loop between reality and beliefs.

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

#544

Post by DoesntMatter22 »

Fountain1320 wrote: post #518
DoesntMatter22 wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Quote came from a conference call. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5SfDmL0sv3w At ~6:20.

Thank you for posting this. More proof of what I said. He did not say that they would definitively do it, he said exactly at the timestamp that you gave: "Our goal is".

So clearly didn't say that it would happen for certain

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

#545

Post by signatoremo »

serf wrote: post #356
DoesntMatter22 wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair FSD is the hardest software problem that man has ever attempted.

who in their right mind would look at any problem in any field with the title of "hardest problem" and then put a schedule to it?

Apparently 1700 AI experts in the field just recently did:

https://research.aimultiple.com/artificial-general-intellige...

Check out for more predictions by experts:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

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

#546

Post by lupusreal »

peterfirefly wrote: post #479
FredPret wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oceans are only a defense if you can float a navy on them. The British Islands got invaded a couple of times... until they built a big navy. Having two oceans is great, but now you need at least two fleets. Nukes are only worth something if you have a lot of them and can credibly delivery them in multiple ways. Now you need subs, long-range bombers and the fighters to protect them, and missile silos. Now add in relia…

Don't forget satellites and SIGINT (which just might involve crazy submarines and big "scientific" radio astronomy dishes). Or cover stories about ships and manganese extraction worthy of James Bond.

> Glomar Explorer

That was the CIA's plot, which the Navy vehemently objected to. The Navy said it was farcically complicated, too large of a plot to keep secret and likely to fail. Both proved true. The Navy offered to recover Intel from the Soviet submarine using DSVs and ROVs, low risk operations they could have easily kept secret. But the CIA won this dispute and fumbled the submarine and got putted by the press.

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

#547

Post by LukeLambert »

nikanj wrote: post #491
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 there any sort of data capping on their plan? Speed tests burn through quite a bit of data

I don't think Starlink has any data caps. On average, the tests download 140 MB and upload 15 MB each run (560 MB and 60 MB daily).

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

#548

Post by toomuchtodo »

cubefox wrote: post #537
toomuchtodo wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn’t negate the fact that he wields power against others when it meets his needs. He’s effective, I don’t dispute that, but still needs a metaphorical cage built around him to protect others.

He "wields power against others"? What are you talking about?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38127745

For someone who is such a fan, do you not know who your hero is?

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

#549

Post by [deleted] »

notyourwork wrote: post #450

Maybe a dumb take but I’d really like for the population to earn an ownership stake in the company for providing subsidies. I don’t know much about subsidies but it seems like it would be in the best interest of the population to be able to have an ownership stake in the companies that are providing a head start through monetary or policy subsidizing. Can someone tell me if there is a way for the US to recoup subsidy…

[deleted]

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

#550

Post by robocat »

notyourwork wrote: post #450

Maybe a dumb take but I’d really like for the population to earn an ownership stake in the company for providing subsidies. I don’t know much about subsidies but it seems like it would be in the best interest of the population to be able to have an ownership stake in the companies that are providing a head start through monetary or policy subsidizing. Can someone tell me if there is a way for the US to recoup subsidy…

We the people recoup the subsidy money in non-monetary rewards.

Culture is becoming so focused on only the money: I guess because capitalism appears to optimise for the single dimension of dollars so that is all we see.

Let's not forget the value of what we are buying: called "consumer surplus" in economics.

So often commenters seem to focus on the dollars or sometimes the negative externalities, but completely forget what we receive that isn't measured in dollars: in this case access to the internet for people in the boondocks ⃰.

Albeit I am not a US tax payer (however the USA charges me in many many other joyful ways).

⃰ 1940s: boondock from Tagalog bundok 'mountain'.

Post reply on HN