Live data from Hacker News

US agency will not reinstate $900M subsidy for Starlink

reuters.com

631–640 of 773 posts

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

#631
post #628
post #623

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When someone's entire argument is "doing x would be dumb, and we know this guy isn't dumb", I see value in pointing out that this is a rather circular logic

I suspect you did not understand what I said and your bias affected your judgement. Please explain what you think I meant.

I had to look up reflexivity, as I was not previously familiar with it. I fail to see how it salvages your claim, and suspect you're fixating on this bit of economics trivia because you dislike that I made fun of the thing you said, and think I'm trying to get into a pissing contest about "intelligence", and like most ridiculous children who get into pissing contests about intelligence, seem to think that asking me to explain a concept with which I may then admit unfamiliarity might score you some points in such an undertaking. That about right?

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

#632
post #7

Well at least it can now be confidently state that Starlink was developed entirely with private funding. I do hope that the companies that do get it are providing proper fiber service though rather than the many many years of companies who were way slower than Starlink getting it.

That can't be further from the truth, spacex gets boatloads of government funding, just look at starshild

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

#633

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is taxes, what you’re looking for. Not to be snarky

At least back up your snark with an explanation of how that answers GP’s question.

I thought it was pretty obvious, and don't detect any snark.

A business/industry gets subsidies and is able to grow faster than it would have or just simply grow where nothing would before. Those businesses are then subject to taxes which the government collects and puts to use, which then benefits the populace at large.

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

#634

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 forge…

This whole thread is about the govt handing out hundreds of millions of dollars to private companies; the topic couldn't be more about money. There are plenty of worthwhile non-monetary things that can be done to improve society, but a discussion about how to allocate government cash subsidies seems like an odd place to object to a focus on financial matters.

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

#635
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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;…

I regularly get 150+ Mbps on my Starlink terminal. Don't really care that they didn't hit the ambitious goal of providing 300+, it is already more than 15x better than the next best option available for me. T-Mobile has a three decade head start (maybe four if you count their Sprint Wireless acquisition's history), so hardly surprising if there is currently more T-Mobile home internet users than Starlink users. But I…

T-Mobile Home Internet launched in April 2021, not 30 years ago

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

#636

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…

I find it impressive that the government is actually punishing a project for running late and underdelivering. They should expand this to all parts of the government. Can you imagine if the F-35 was cancelled the first time it fell behind schedule? The Space Launch System? The Littoral Combat System? The USS JFK? So many boondoggles could be killed off before they spend money. Maybe contractors would have to start pr…

I looked a bit more into this program and its all a lot more complicated

1) The money was granted in 2020 based on an inaccurate map (leading starlink & others to get funding for covering places like Target's and major airports)

2) This Starlink-FCC debate has been a protracted process, since then the program has essentially failed (a third of the money has gone to companies that didnt deliver)

3) Since then significantly more funding has been given to states for broadband, making this FCC program relatively small

It seems like the FCC is clawing back as much money as possible to try and recover from the initial auction design.

https://communitynets.org/content/worries-mount-rural-digita...

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

#637
post #631
post #628

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect you did not understand what I said and your bias affected your judgement. Please explain what you think I meant.

I had to look up reflexivity, as I was not previously familiar with it. I fail to see how it salvages your claim, and suspect you're fixating on this bit of economics trivia because you dislike that I made fun of the thing you said, and think I'm trying to get into a pissing contest about "intelligence", and like most ridiculous children who get into pissing contests about intelligence, seem to think that asking me t…

That is not correct. My words above require intelligence to understand and my ability to explain them in simpler terms is limited. This explanation from GPT4 is good. Hope it helps.

------

The reply you've presented suggests a debate about the intentions behind Elon Musk's public statements, specifically regarding whether he's misleading people for financial gain or using a strategy known as "reflexivity" to motivate progress.

1. *Lying for Financial Gain*: The first part of the reply posits that Musk might be making false or exaggerated claims ("lying") to attract investment and preorders for his projects. This view implies that Musk's primary goal is to secure funding by convincing investors and customers of the feasibility and near-term success of his ventures, even if those claims are not entirely grounded in current realities.

2. *Reflexivity to Accelerate Progress*: The second part of the reply introduces a different perspective, suggesting Musk might be employing a concept known as reflexivity. This idea, often associated with financier George Soros, posits that market participants' beliefs can shape market realities. Applied here, it means Musk could be making ambitious or seemingly unrealistic statements with the intention of inspiring his teams and the broader public. The underlying belief is that if people are convinced that a challenging goal is achievable, their collective effort and belief can actually bring that goal closer to reality, creating a positive feedback loop between belief and outcome.

The reply seems to be wrestling with the notion of whether Musk's statements are purely manipulative for financial gain or part of a sophisticated strategy to create self-fulfilling prophecies that drive technological and scientific breakthroughs. It reflects on Musk's reputation for not being "dumb," suggesting that his repeated bold claims might have a deeper strategic purpose rather than just being simple falsehoods.

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

#638

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Buried fiber is never going to happen for the rural folks serviced by Starlink. It's hard to get companies to put fiber down in well populated suburbs, getting them out into the country is pure wishful thinking, especially if you're only talking about a billion dollars.

Nation wide buried fiber is never going to be profitable, so why bother involving the for-profit corporations in getting it up and running?

Plus they've shown themselves to be not trust worthy after they stole previous funds for fiber expansion.

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

#639
post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

My post above requires some explanation so here is GP4 explain it.

------

The reply you've presented suggests a debate about the intentions behind Elon Musk's public statements, specifically regarding whether he's misleading people for financial gain or using a strategy known as "reflexivity" to motivate progress.

1. *Lying for Financial Gain*: The first part of the reply posits that Musk might be making false or exaggerated claims ("lying") to attract investment and preorders for his projects. This view implies that Musk's primary goal is to secure funding by convincing investors and customers of the feasibility and near-term success of his ventures, even if those claims are not entirely grounded in current realities.

2. *Reflexivity to Accelerate Progress*: The second part of the reply introduces a different perspective, suggesting Musk might be employing a concept known as reflexivity. This idea, often associated with financier George Soros, posits that market participants' beliefs can shape market realities. Applied here, it means Musk could be making ambitious or seemingly unrealistic statements with the intention of inspiring his teams and the broader public. The underlying belief is that if people are convinced that a challenging goal is achievable, their collective effort and belief can actually bring that goal closer to reality, creating a positive feedback loop between belief and outcome.

The reply seems to be wrestling with the notion of whether Musk's statements are purely manipulative for financial gain or part of a sophisticated strategy to create self-fulfilling prophecies that drive technological and scientific breakthroughs. It reflects on Musk's reputation for not being "dumb," suggesting that his repeated bold claims might have a deeper strategic purpose rather than just being simple falsehoods.

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

#640

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Starshield

Starshield has nothing to with Starlink business. The only thing that might affect it is the military wants to launch lots of Starshield-based satellites and that keeps SpaceX from launching Starlink satellites. But then SpaceX would get paid lots of money for the launches. The military hasn't agreed to launch constellation; my suspicion is that they are waiting for Starship.

> Starshield has nothing to with Starlink business.

Yes it does. See [0]:

> SpaceX is providing a best effort and global subscription for various land, maritime, stationary and mobility platforms and users... The task order for Starshield services is provided by the Starlink satellite constellation but is differentiated from the commercial Starlink service based on unique Department of Defense terms and conditions that are not found in commercial service contracts.

Translating the bureaucratese, the US military is buying access to the existing Starlink constellation under the umbrella of "Starshield". They have a special contract and no doubt lots of additional paperwork and oversight of Starlink operations.

I can understand your confusion, because there's also SDA's plan to build its own in-space communications backbone, for which SpaceX has been contracted, and SpaceX's plan (under Starshield) to build custom satellites on a Starlink bus to host defense payloads, so it's easy to get the impression that there will be the civilian Starlink and military Starshield constellations and they'll be entirely independent.

But that's not the case, and it would be really dumb if it were. The Starlink constellation's sheer size provides an immense amount of resiliency and reserve bandwidth that is of great military benefit, and that's been funded by commercial customers. Just like how the DoD no doubt tunnels its secure networks over the civilian internet rather than laying its own transoceanic cables etc., there's no reason for it not to make use of the existing Starlink constellation and many reasons to.

[0]: https://spacenews.com/spacex-providing-starlink-services-to-...

Post reply on HN