Live data from Hacker News

US agency will not reinstate $900M subsidy for Starlink

reuters.com

601–610 of 773 posts

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

#601
post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was basically stated[1] by one of the (dissenting) FCC commissioners, so not exactly unfounded. [1] https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-105A3.pdf

This document doesn't really support the censorship claim, perhaps you meant to link the other FCC commissioner's document: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-105A2.pdf I don't know much about commissioner Carr other than that he was appointed by Trump, so perhaps it is unsurprising he would disagree. I don't know enough about the facts underlying the competing narratives to say confidently whether or not…

Yep that's the one, thanks.

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

#602
post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was basically stated[1] by one of the (dissenting) FCC commissioners, so not exactly unfounded. [1] https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-105A3.pdf

It's good for you to provide the link. The problem is that people will follow the link and read it. It says, paraphrasing, "The commission's reasoning is attractive, but doesn't hold water. Why are we requiring Space X to meet its 2025 deadline three years earlier. The arguments are thin, and I'm appalled by the situation." Nowhere does the opinion mention, allude to, imply, or call out whatever you think it does.

Yep, as other comments have pointed out, I accidentally linked the wrong one (105A3 instead of 105A2). This one starts with "I wholeheartedly agree with the entirety of Commissioner Carr’s dissent". Carr's dissent goes into more detail that he thinks this is the Biden administration going after Musk for not playing ball.

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

#603
post #38

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;…

On the over promising and under delivering topic, one of my favorite is a site listing some of Musk’s promises and grandiose statements.

https://elonmusk.today/

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

#604
post #16

I wish they’d bar companies that have failed to build out their rural service areas for more than a decade from accepting this money, and also that accepting the grant automatically granted you the appropriate right of way via imminent domain. It costs essentially nothing to lay fiber in the ground in most places (they have little portable boring machines, so you don’t even have to trench), and independent ISPs have…

So, my tiny rural co-op ISP should barred from getting one of these, because they cannot afford to lay dozens of miles of fiber in order to serve a hundred households? You want to keep us country folk in the dark ages? Because that’s what it sounds like. Laying fiber requires a small crew, and they don’t work for free. My driveway alone is over a 1/4 mile (400m), and it will take them a day to lay and terminate my br…

I live in a small EU country, and we had the same issues here.... we solved them by municipalities building fiber (usually when (re)building the roads, because it's cheaper then) and ISPs just renting it out. There's actually EU fuding for that and ISPs aren't forced to invest where they don't want to (but have to pay rent to the municipality).

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

#605
post #16

I wish they’d bar companies that have failed to build out their rural service areas for more than a decade from accepting this money, and also that accepting the grant automatically granted you the appropriate right of way via imminent domain. It costs essentially nothing to lay fiber in the ground in most places (they have little portable boring machines, so you don’t even have to trench), and independent ISPs have…

> It costs essentially nothing to lay fiber in the ground in most places I'm sorry what? This part of your comment is so absurd that it calls into question anything else you might be saying here. I lived through a fiber roll out only a short year or so ago, it was an entire summer of trucks, mostly contractors by the look of them, with trailers, with boring machines, stacks of boxes, and of course, spools upon spools…

When you're rebuilding a road (so the old asphalt is dug out and new one put in place), laying an additional small pipe and running fiber through is actually very cheap. Here in my small country in europe the municipalites lay fiber along the road repair works and then rent it out to ISPs in rural areas. In some areas als private ISPs can apply to put their own fiber if they want.

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

#606
I have Starlink and live an hour from town in a national forest. If I did not have Starlink I would have no choice but to move. It is the only option for rural internet when you need bandwidth and data plans that permit daily video meetings and regular dowloading.

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

#607
post #24
post #16

I wish they’d bar companies that have failed to build out their rural service areas for more than a decade from accepting this money, and also that accepting the grant automatically granted you the appropriate right of way via imminent domain. It costs essentially nothing to lay fiber in the ground in most places (they have little portable boring machines, so you don’t even have to trench), and independent ISPs have…

Hmm, I would like to see a citation on that second comment. You can look at Frontier's last earnings release, they spent $168M of build Capex to pass 332k homes, or $506/home passed in the last quarter. Note that "passing" a home is not the same as connecting a home, there is additional cost involved there. And Frontier has tremendous cost benefit from the fact that they already own the telephone poles that they can…

I'd like to see a citation on the "imminent" domain comment as well. It seems far-fetched to me that the Federal government would take away local control from counties and municipal governments to issue permits and inspect their right-of-ways, just because a utility company was awarded a grant.

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

#608
post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't. This was originally legislated as a hand out to legacy telecom companies that lobbied for it. Seeing as it exists though I would rather the money be spent with the best option instead of it being used as a political retribution fund.

So the requirements set out however long ago that Starlink agreed to and now isn't meeting is political retribution? How so?

Because the obligation was to meet the requirements in 2025 and FCC basically just subjectivity said 2 years before the deadline they don’t think they will.

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

#609
post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not obvious that even level 5 FSD will require either self-awareness or a theory of mind: adequate modeling of the possible behaviors of nearby actors in the immediate future may be "all" it takes, and current systems are struggling with that. Of course, if one were to define FSD in terms of being so capable that it could also likely pass the Turing test (or whatever better replacement we come up with as a meas…

I said “substantial subset” precisely to avoid this kind of tangent. My point was simply that there are a lot of edge cases we have no clear path to solving which are masked at the current level by punting the problem to the human driver. We are a very long time from being able to build cars without manual controls even if we might hit the point where a majority of driving miles are automated long before then.

"Substantial subset" is precisely the claim here that I have my doubts about. I think it is entirely possible (for the reason I gave previously) that AGI is at least as far beyond level 5 autonomy as level 5 autonomy is from the current state of road vehicle automation.

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

#610
post #561
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because if you use the service you know it is capable of that and more today. SpaceX is also capable of providing differentiated service speeds so looking at what an average user is getting today is not indicative of what could be provided if they were under some minimum speed obligation. The FCC's rational is clearly them twisting themselves into knots to try and get to the decision they want to satisfy their prefer…

I’m confused. Do you think that SpaceX, who demonstrably failed to make those arguments, doesn’t know what it’s capable of? Or that they’re not smart enough to explain it? You seem to consistently ignore that SpaceX didn’t even make that case, and I’m confused why they didn’t, or why you know their business and fit better than they do.

It seems they did repeatedly say they could do it but fcc just ignored them.
Post reply on HN