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

701–710 of 773 posts

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

#701

Post by _ea1k »

constantly wrote: post #581
_ea1k wrote: post #526

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But... those thresholds do not apply yet. They aren't being held to the same standards as others.

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

#702

Post by Timon3 »

fastball wrote: post #700
Timon3 wrote: post #681

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why do you think it needs to be stretched very, very far? I don't think it needs to be stretched at all. The initial sentence "the feds punishing Musk for not participating in their well documented censorship operations" states that Musk isn't participating in censoring other people. The sentence you quoted states that Musk "voices his own political and ideological views without a filter", which doesn't have anythi…

It does not state that. Censoring yourself does count as censoring, and is therefore included in the concept of "censoring operations". You're putting words in the commissioner's mouth when you tack "people" on to it. That being said, Musk is also refusing to censor other people on Twitter, so your point is moot regardless.

If I try to follow your understanding, it would mean that "the feds punishing Musk for not participating in their well documented censorship operations" is about Musk openly sharing his views, not about censoring other people on Twitter. Can you share the documentation about censorship operations targeting Elon Musk?

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

#703

Post by voakbasda »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #228
voakbasda wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Thats not what they said. If your ISP already took millions and didn't do what they said they would last time, that should disqualify them for another grant. >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. Sounds like starlink may make more sense for your home and community than f…

They never qualified it as taking millions and not building out; the only qualifier included was not building out for a decade, which includes my ISP.

My ISP has applied for these funds to bring fiber to my property. The original statement asserts they should not be allowed to receive funding. You seem to feel the same way, unless you genuinely believe that Starlink is in any way comparable to fiber. To be clear, it is not even close, and it never will be.

Rural citizens do not deserve to be left behind with speeds that are an order of magnitude slower than what everyone else has. We subsidize other utilities to reach everyone, and we have decided internet is critical to our society. It is time for everyone to pony up to fund access for everyone.

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

#705

Post by voakbasda »

newaccount74 wrote: post #433
dboreham wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. Fiber as a last mile solution for true rural areas is a non-starter. Source: I also built a small WISP and still maintain my own microwave service, and use Starlink as a backup.

Why? We managed to get power lines and phone lines to pretty much every house even in rural areas. Why should laying fiber be a "non-starter"?

Exactly. We decided internet is as important as any other infrastructure service. It is only infeasible when people decide that rural citizens do not deserve it.

Indeed, it is hard for me not to read this thread in that light; I’m guessing those that seem to oppose subsidizing rural fiber either already have theirs or have simply given up all hope of it ever happening.

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

#706

Post by voakbasda »

esoterica wrote: post #598
voakbasda wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If you choose to live away from civilization then you’ve chosen to forgo the benefits of civilization. It’s ridiculous that we massively subsidize people who made the voluntary decision to live in a way that makes providing infrastructure for them cost prohibitive. It’s a free country and you can live in a cave on top of a mountain if you want, but you shouldn’t get to demand that the government spend millions of dol…

That is exactly what we do for power and phone, which are no more difficult to bring in than fiber. If you live in the city, you have made the choice to subsidize rural citizens.

We spend millions of dollars on shiny buildings, parks, and other infrastructure in the city. Is it ridiculous that rural taxpayers massively subsidize those things just because you have made the decision to live there?

It’s a free country and you can live in the city if you want, but you shouldn’t demand the government provide more services for you than it does for its rural citizens.

Or do you think people should be given fundamentally and grossly differently opportunities, based solely on where they happen to live? Remember, before you annswer: not everyone gets a choice where they were born or live.

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

#707

Post by turquoisevar »

Faark wrote: post #163
I_Am_Nous wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are just using what SpaceX/Starlink has said in the past[1]. >SpaceX asked the FCC to expedite approval now that it has settled on the Starship-launched configuration. Regardless, to reach those obligatory speeds by 2025 they would need to launch an insane amount of satellites with no failures. If the FCC doesn't think they can do that, they don't get funding. 1. https://spacenews.com/spacex-goes-all-in-on-stars…

Then why decide now that SpaceX won't get the money? Does another company get the contract? Otherwise would have assumed to simply check at/after the delivery date...

Because it wouldn’t do much good to decide once all the money is spent.

There are processes in place to gauge progress and viability along the way before handing over the bags with money.

SpaceX is hardly the only one who didn’t end up getting their share of the subsidies, it’s just the biggest with a very vocal person at the helm.

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

#708

Post by jcranmer »

czl wrote: post #624
DonHopkins wrote: post #569

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be dumb to be caught agreeing with anti semitic tweets, and telling advertisers to "go fuck yourself", yet here we are. Your argument is invalid.

Intelligent people have faults and make mistakes like the rest of us. What sets them apart is they are often better at seeing this and fixing things. Did Musk not make amends for that tweet? Do you think advertising should control social media? Do you genuinely believe Musk is dumb?

"Dumb" isn't the word I'd use; "incurious" is better. It's not that he's racist or antisemitic, I believe, but rather he doesn't have enough knowledge of history to recognize classic antisemitic tropes (or signs that someone is an outright Nazi) combined with some beliefs close enough to racist that he's liable to agree with antisemitic creeds without recognizing them as antisemitic tropes.

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

#709

Post by turquoisevar »

wnevets wrote: post #534
ejb999 wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, I am sure it is a complete coincidence that almost all of Musk's companies are suddenly being investigated by multiple federal departments...

The FCC canceled Starlink's welfare check on August 10, 2022. Elon took over Twitter on October 27, 2022. Where is the coincidence exactly?

In their imaginations.

But wouldn’t it something if we’d give that argument any merit.

You could be a billionaire that goes around and makes lofty promises that are never realized, treat your workers like shit, have the common populous play death by auto lottery, and so much more and the government couldn’t do anything about any of it because of *gasp* …the optics.

That would be a billionaire snake oil salesman’s wet dream right there.

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

#710

Post by fastball »

Timon3 wrote: post #702
fastball wrote: post #700

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does not state that. Censoring yourself does count as censoring, and is therefore included in the concept of "censoring operations". You're putting words in the commissioner's mouth when you tack "people" on to it. That being said, Musk is also refusing to censor other people on Twitter, so your point is moot regardless.

If I try to follow your understanding, it would mean that "the feds punishing Musk for not participating in their well documented censorship operations" is about Musk openly sharing his views, not about censoring other people on Twitter. Can you share the documentation about censorship operations targeting Elon Musk?

I cannot. At this point, you are clearly not approaching this discussion in good faith or you struggle with basic reading comprehension. Either way I am unable to help you further.
Post reply on HN