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

581–590 of 773 posts

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

#581

Post by constantly »

_ea1k wrote: post #526
constantly wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 They cannot meet those requirements, so the subsidy is rescinded.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 “cro…

I'm getting the impression that some of the competitors haven't built anything to test yet. Based upon that, using the current performance of Starlink and comparing it to the hypothetical performance of others might not be fair. If Starlink is losing an award because of supposition, that's bad. But I must admit that I haven't read all of the history here.

I think they’re not comparing to hypothetical performance of others, but comparing it to the threshold the FCC set originally, which SpaceX decided was achievable and so applied for subsidies based on their believed ability to hit the numbers.

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

#582

Post by tw04 »

wolverine876 wrote: post #497
coffeebeqn wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At this point anyone who takes his claims at face value is a fool

Is it legal to cheat the foolish and ignorant?

Actually, no. That's why there are laws against pyramid schemes, and false advertising.

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/topics/truth-advertising

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/investor_protection_guide_py...

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

#583

Post by Wytwwww »

aksss wrote: post #564
KennyBlanken wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> he fairly consistently overpromises and underdelivers. Can we please just call it what it really is? Lying. He's a pathological liar.

No, engineers and software developers tend to be overly optimistic about the ability and speed to do things, and it’s integral to the task of building cool shit. It’s simply not lying. It may look that way to those on the outside, and you can say it’s irresponsible not to recalibrate, but even the adjusted estimates are optimistically recalibrated. The estimating well is poisoned by vision. Lying is something very di…

> No, engineers and software developers tend to be overly optimistic about the ability and speed to do

He's not one though. He's a business executive, so someone who in theory who would have the job to reconcile those lofty dreams with reality.

However, I'd bet quite a bit that the actual engineers and software developers were that optimistic and certainly didn't believe they could achieve FSD in 6 months (they'd be horrible incompetent engineers if they actually believed that).

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

#584

Post by Wytwwww »

chiefalchemist wrote: post #464
KennyBlanken wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> he fairly consistently overpromises and underdelivers. Can we please just call it what it really is? Lying. He's a pathological liar.

How many startups start by telling investors, employees and customers, "We're going to fail"? They know the odds are that's going to happen. Are they pathological liars? No one can predict the future. Musk is what plenty of entrepreneurs are...over-confident. That's part of the profile. That doesn't make him or any of them liars.

There is a huge amount of space between saying that "We're going to fail" and promising something will be done in "6 months".

> Musk is what plenty of entrepreneurs are...over-confident

The real world describing this is delusional. Which I don't think he is (or was at that point anyway).

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

#585

Post by marginalia_nu »

DoesntMatter22 wrote: post #261
throw0101c wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> […] (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)

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

Especially if that is true, maybe don't promise a solution before having it working?

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

#586

Post by LispSporks22 »

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…

Does this Starship launch related stuff impact his plan to begin colonizing Mars by 2022?

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

#587

Post by AtlasBarfed »

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;…

Iirc the cable and telcos promised more, pocket more, and delivered practically nothing.

Starlink delivers a usable service that far exceeds hughesnet and other crappy alternatives.

Granted this is a five year old take and I haven't followed things, but as a rural in flyover country starlink is amazing.

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

#588

Post by DoesntMatter22 »

DonHopkins wrote: post #557
JohnFen wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would think it would be hard to find a reasonable person who takes anything Musk says seriously anymore and yet plenty seem to.

And I think it's safe to say that sycophants bending over backwards to carry Musk's water like DoesntMatter22 aren't reasonable people, don't base their opinions on facts or reality, and shouldn't be taken seriously.

What I've said is completely factual. Surprisingly a lot of people like who won't actually prove that he said that. Because the fact is that he didn't.

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

#589

Post by User23 »

tw04 wrote: post #582
wolverine876 wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it legal to cheat the foolish and ignorant?

Actually, no. That's why there are laws against pyramid schemes, and false advertising. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/topics/truth-advertising https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/investor_protection_guide_py...

Unless you're running for office. In that case you can lie to your heart's content about what you're offering.

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

#590

Post by lxgr »

snuxoll wrote: post #579
lxgr wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither are trivial, the two just scale very differently. I do see the benefit in resilience of building out fiber even to moderately unprofitable (from a unit economics point of view) regions, just like we also build roads to communities that will never "pay the investment back" in taxes. But there are cases where it just can't be justified. But it's also not a simple either-or: There are other technologies than fib…

Outside of truly rural areas the question with fiber is how long is the payback period, not "will it be profitable". Especially if deployment is integrated with routine highway re-pavement projects (roads need torn up and redone roughly every 30 years, after all), the majority of the cost becomes the fiber bundles themselves - perfect for even a smaller county or city government to handle with a modest bond issue.

> the question with fiber is how long is the payback period, not "will it be profitable".

The "payback period" might well be infinite (with non-zero interest rates), in which case we're talking about a subsidy, not an investment. (Which might still be a good idea! It won't "pay for itself", though.)

Post reply on HN