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

661–670 of 773 posts

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

#661

Post by coolspot »

ddxv wrote: post #646
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…

I just checked my Starlink and we have 150Mbps/6Mbps, by Speedtest.com, is that the same concept as the numbers you reference? Is the concern that if more users came online they wouldn't be able to maintain 100/20? I don't know much about the topic, FYI.

Yes, 100/20 refers to 100Mbit download and 20 Mbit upload speeds. Your is already below subsidy criteria.

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

#662

Post by inemesitaffia »

grecy wrote: post #625
toomuchtodo wrote: post #619

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, satellite or long haul fixed wireless will be the only option for some locations. I have been to rural Montana and Wyoming, but not Alaska. Customers will have to pay for their own StarLink where the FCC won’t. Perhaps we should not be subsidizing folks where it costs $1M to deliver terrestrial connectivity to you. Cheaper to pay them to move.

> Cheaper to pay them to move They are not going to move. Period. I know this sounds snarky, but in all honesty if you had been to Alaska you would understand. > Perhaps we should not be subsidizing folks where it costs $1M to deliver terrestrial connectivity to you Or serve them with fast, reliable internet that is not terrestrial, and does not cost anything remotely close to $1M.

I've seen subsidy numbers of $200k. I'm pretty sure a million is possible.

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

#663

Post by [deleted] »

sertbdfgbnfgsd wrote: post #441
inemesitaffia wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So he shouldn't have sent dishes in February 2022 or allowed use in the frontline thereafter?

He can do whatever he wants, as long as he's not helping enemies of America. Ok let me rephrase my comment: Maybeeeeeeee Musk shouldn't be helping America's enemies?

[deleted]

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

#664

Post by inemesitaffia »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #511
inemesitaffia wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not how this works. Under this program there's no option of another org replacing a denied org. Who's stepping up for LTD broadband for example?

There's a fixed pool of money ($16 billion), so everyone who gets some of it does replace a denied org.

You have no idea how this works. Denied money isn't redistributed.

Where do people get this from?

Maybe there will be a future award. But there's no rollover here.

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

#665

Post by inemesitaffia »

Deprecate9151 wrote: post #366
inemesitaffia wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The denial doesn't quote speeds in those areas

It doesn't, I'm just expanding on why a specific cell meeting the program specifications "usually" wouldn't really move the need for the FCC analysis.

The denial mentions national speed levels from a third party not the particular coverage areas or services delivered under RDOF

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

#666

Post by inemesitaffia »

sertbdfgbnfgsd wrote: post #441
inemesitaffia wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So he shouldn't have sent dishes in February 2022 or allowed use in the frontline thereafter?

He can do whatever he wants, as long as he's not helping enemies of America. Ok let me rephrase my comment: Maybeeeeeeee Musk shouldn't be helping America's enemies?

Can't remember SpaceX sending Russia dishes.

SpaceX interfered with the conflict by sending equipment and allowing them to be used for the conflict.

You're essentially saying SpaceX should have waited until the DOD contracted for services

There's a guy in the UK who sent his APC to Ukraine. He didn't just have it delivered via a truck. He handed it over to the UK MoD. That's how these things are meant to be done.

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

#667

Post by inemesitaffia »

qarl wrote: post #521
inemesitaffia wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can read the requirements, then read the denial letter, the appeal (and denial) and dissents.

That doesn't much help. Their main claim is that it is not normal (and hence political) for a subsidy to be canceled based for failure to make progress. I've seen no evidence supporting that claim, and lots of evidence to counter it.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38632987

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38633303

IMO not political. I remember Ajit Pai didn't want starlink

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

#668

Post by fastball »

causal wrote: post #196
fastball wrote: post #104

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…

Also, one of the other commissioners that form the majority opinion/decision (Geoffrey Starks) was also appointed by Trump, so I don't think that's a very valid point to make here.

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

#669

Post by inemesitaffia »

bilbo0s wrote: post #594
jlmorton wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Starlink also just launched in earnest a couple years ago, and is experiencing meteoric growth rates of ~100% a year. It doesn't take very many doublings for this comment to go down with "why would anyone want Dropbox."

At those growth rates, they shouldn't need the 900 Million. So this decision by the FCC shouldn't make a difference. As a matter of full disclosure, being from Wisconsin, (home of the great FoxConn boondoggle), I now find myself firmly against corporate welfare. Giving a guy who's supposed to be the richest man in the world a billion dollars to provide me internet service? Nah, that doesn't smell right to me. Somethi…

Bezos got a tax credit for his kids.

These things are for people to deliver. Not people who don't have money to deliver.

That's why the billionaires kid working at the grocery counter gets paid the same even though he's chauffeured to work in a Bentley

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

#670

Post by Timon3 »

fastball wrote: post #600
Timon3 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you quote the part you're referring to? I searched for "censor" in the document, and it doesn't come up. Then I read through the document, and I don't see anything trying to explain possible reasons. There seems to be no connection between "the feds punishing Musk for not participating in their well documented censorship operations" and this document.

Sorry, linked to the wrong one. This is the one[1] (and twitter thread[2]) that calls that out more specifically. And the one I linked first starts by saying it agrees completely with Carr's dissent. [1] https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-105A2.pdf [2] https://twitter.com/BrendanCarrFCC/status/173469670679577812...

Thank you for providing the correct link. I just read through it, and I guess you could stretch the first paragraph very, very far to make it compatible with "the feds punishing Musk for not participating in their well documented censorship operations", but unless Mr. Carr has brought something like this up more explicitly, it seems like you're trying to read something into it that he didn't write. There are many ways to interpret his initial paragraph without asserting some "well documented censorship operations" (which I do not believe exist).
Post reply on HN