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

651–660 of 773 posts

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

#651

Post by boc »

hughesjj wrote: post #384
shmatt wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Abandoned_military_pr... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cancelled_military_pro... F35 Survived but there are like 50 other planes that didnt in that second list

And the f35 is honestly legit when it's all said and done. There's a reason why it's sold so well, and it's only getting better.

If the Marines hadn't insisted on adding STOL/VTOL capabilities wrt the F35B, the project would have been much more straightforward and successful. Even despite that crazy requirement, it's still a success for NATO exports.

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

#652

Post by piperswe »

YokoZar wrote: post #551
jandrese wrote: post #519

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Do we have to bury it? Why not just put it up on transmission lines? It seems weird to me that we can run Cable TV to fairly remote locations but not fiber.

We can! Many rural electric co-ops run fiber internet on their power poles.

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

#653

Post by boc »

cycomanic wrote: post #371
bryanlarsen wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Waymo deployed cars without safety drivers to Tempe in 2021.

I'd argue even waymo is still far away from FSD. Driverless cars on a restricted set of roads with a remote operator monitoring things (and the ability to quickly resolve issues), is nowhere close to what I (and the general public I would argue) understands as fully self driving.

IDK, the Waymo cars that drive around SF meet my definition of full self driving. They handle a ton of weird traffic patterns, pedestrians, pickup zones, and very dense urban environments much better than I think you realize. Unless you live here, you probably aren't aware of their capabilities.

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

#654

Post by fomine3 »

8ytecoder wrote: post #401
mcguire wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What speeds do you get? Edit: That's weird. San Gregorio is like 15-20 miles from Cupertino. Here in Jackson County, AL, Farmers Telecom Coop has gigabit or half-gigabit fiber to much of the county.

Bay Area’s fiber and broadband network is a joke. That it’s the tech capital of the world makes it so much worse. Things are improving - I got fiber in 2020 - and speeds are trending upwards with some local completion. AT&T and Comcast are finally getting a bit better with speed. Coverage still sucks. Number of available options still suck. Not to mention weird collusions between Comcast and apt management companies…

As a non resident, perhaps it's a good thing. Advanced people eat dogfood with slow connection.

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

#655

Post by X6S1x6Okd1st »

boldslogan wrote: post #539
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…

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

What tax properly emulates gains from holding stake?

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

#656

Post by tehjoker »

FredPret wrote: post #423
tehjoker wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> defense is an existential risk for the US this is not a true statement for a huge country with oceans on 2 sides and nukes. it is a true statement about people relying on the us military to make money tho

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…

this is hyperbolic. there are various coastal defenses and naval deployments that are not nearly as intensive as you describe.

the "crazy dictator" theory is a conjuring of the govt and media in service of empire. they are acquiring nukes because they are afraid of being invaded by us!

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

#657

Post by TeMPOraL »

JohnFen wrote: post #458
MetaWhirledPeas wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it still leaves a bad taste in people's mouths It definitely does, although I don't understand why. One thing making bold forecasts does is motivate your people. JFK told us we'd get to the moon this decade which is absolutely nuts. Would we have got there as soon if he had said we'd get to the moon eventually ? To the other responder: JFK also had no tangible justification to say we'd get there so soon, and the mo…

> It definitely does, although I don't understand why. Maybe because it's a kind of lying, and people who do it on a regular basis are untrustworthy people? > JFK told us we'd get to the moon this decade which is absolutely nuts. Remember that he didn't phrase it as "we will do this", he phrased it as "this is our goal". He referred to it as a goal we're choosing, not as an inevitability. Musk isn't goal-setting, he'…

Except Musk was goal-setting, and there's literally a comment upthread that responds to this factual correction by stating that published goals need to be held to the same standards as promises. Can't win against critics willing to bend reality and forgo consistency of beliefs...

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

#658

Post by someplaceguy »

tw04 wrote: post #650
someplaceguy wrote: post #644

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who said anything about regulating speech? You could just prosecute a politician if he didn't deliver what he promised, you know. Outside politics (and depending on the context) this is called breach of contract, fraud, misrepresentation or, say, false advertising or consumer protection violation. It's also colloquially called "holding someone accountable".

> You could just prosecute a politician if he didn't deliver what he promised, you know. What you’re asking for is a dictator. Politicians can’t unilaterally decide what happens by design. I think what you mean to say is that you want to prosecute politicians if they don’t vote in alignment with their stated goals, but even that is loaded in the US. Let’s assume we’re talking about a liberal politician. If he or she…

> What you’re asking for is a dictator.

No, I'm asking for the judicial system to prosecute politicians who make promises that they don't keep. Like they prosecute politicians in other instances of illegal behavior.

To be clear, I'm not saying that currently, it is illegal for politicians to make promises they don't keep. I'm saying it should be, in some form.

> If he or she ran on banning guns, introduced legislation to ban guns, but some conservative added a rider to ban abortion, should he or she be prosecuted for voting against their own bill? Because that kind of nonsense happens all the time.

Obviously not. I'm not advocating for putting politicians in prison willy nilly. But we should at least prosecute the obvious, egregious instances of the kind of wrongdoing I'm talking about.

Besides, the whole concept of a "rider" is stupid, corrupt and should be illegal as well (just like it is in other areas of the law). Then you wouldn't have that problem.

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

#659

Post by fomine3 »

intrasight wrote: post #434
lolbase wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government shouldn’t give out billion dollar participation trophies. There’s a set of metrics to meet. Starlink is moving the wrong way against those metrics. As such, they’ll need to succeed unaided in the marketplace, instead of getting a government handout.

Agreed. The FCC shouldn't be giving out any funds. They should stick to their role as regulator. Starlink as a properly grounded libertarian outfit should have lobbied to have any subsidy role by the FCC discontinued. Starlink should have just competed in the broadband marketplace - as should have everyone else. In such a level playing field, I think Starlink would do just fine.

LEO space is a limited global resource. I think government should regulate (and sometimes subsidy) to avoid it become a private company's suck.

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

#660

Post by wolverine876 »

someplaceguy wrote: post #644
wolverine876 wrote: post #622

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For good reason: We can't have politicians regulating the speech of the critics and opponents. Nothing is more protected in the US than political speech, esp (afaik) by someone running for office.

Who said anything about regulating speech? You could just prosecute a politician if he didn't deliver what he promised, you know. Outside politics (and depending on the context) this is called breach of contract, fraud, misrepresentation or, say, false advertising or consumer protection violation. It's also colloquially called "holding someone accountable".

Who will prosecute them? Another politician or someone appointed by one. It's politicians all the way down.
Post reply on HN