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

721–730 of 773 posts

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

#721

Post by turquoisevar »

inemesitaffia wrote: post #314
turquoisevar wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As with all government projects, it’s a highly technical (in the bureaucratic sense) process. You can find the relevant documents on their website[0]. That said, how the dissenters characterize it is nowhere near how it works. They’d like you to believe that you won a bid, and from then on, it’s “OK, talk to you at the deadline, enjoy our money!” Instead, it seems to me that it’s a continuous process where you must p…

LTD broadband couldn't show they had the money. RDOF requires speed testing of the devices deployed under RDOF, not the entire network. If say you have a 900Mhz network and you plan to deploy 5GNR for fixed wireless, they don't get to tell you you can only achieve 1 Mbps right now. You don't need to start deployment till you get the money. And there's deployment and testing steps.

> LTD broadband couldn't show they had the money.

The point was that it’s not some conspiracy against Musk, there are others that defaulted. Other than LTD and SpaceX there are 20 others that defaulted last year for varying reasons.

> RDOF requires speed testing of the devices deployed under RDOF, not the entire network.

You’re talking about seeing if the requirements are met at the end, the FCC and I are talking about looking at how feasible and likely it is that the requirements are going to be met before handing the bag with money.

> If say you have a 900Mhz network and you plan to deploy 5GNR for fixed wireless, they don't get to tell you you can only achieve 1 Mbps right now.

No they don’t. But they do get to tell you how feasible your plan is, how realistic your schedule is and how likely it is 5GNR is going to meet the requirements of your bid based on the knowledge of the technology and historical performance at prior implementations.

When you submit a LEO satellite bid with the exact same specifications as the ones you currently use, then you can’t then around and cry when they look at its current performance and performance trends.

> You don't need to start deployment till you get the money.

True, but you do need to present a plan that isn’t based on lofty promises and has a that explains why it’s likely you’ll be able to meet the requirements of your bid.

Edit: Just now realized that you’re wrong on not having to build anything, there are buildout requirements.

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

#722

Post by turquoisevar »

sinuhe69 wrote: post #693
NelsonMinar wrote: post #288

I'm glad to see the FCC sticking to its requirements and having a testing regime for them. Starlink's own service specifications are far below the 100/20Mbps requirements. They currently are promising 25-100Mbps down, 5-10Mbps up. In congested areas they often don't even deliver that in the evenings. [1] I use Starlink in my rural area and am grateful for it. But hopefully the $900M will be better spent on other ISPs…

I wonder whether you have any data to back up your claim, but other data seem to contradict it. Also see the comment of Luke Lambert on this thread https://gist.github.com/LukeLambert/dd722e49bc773bcb27e859d9...

Do you have a link to the other data?

I’m looking at Lambert’s data, but aside from the problem of sample size, it seems to support the FCC’s reading of the situation.

There are barely any samples that hit the required >= 20Mbps up and while it’s easier to spot >= 100Mbps down, it’s far from consistent and seems to be more of a “once a day” occurrence.

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

#723

Post by turquoisevar »

_ea1k wrote: post #62

If the goal is to get levels of performance that Starlink cannot provide, then this makes sense? Odd that they'd include comments about Starship in it, though. That doesn't seem like a requirement for continued development of Starlink and seems very speculative. There could be details on that aspect that I'm missing though.

The reason Starship is brought up is because all of this hinges on SpaceX’s explanation on how they’re going to achieve the requirements of their bid.

SpaceX has stated they’re going to use Starship for this, going as far as stating early last year that they were exclusively going to use Starship.

So obviously, when the FCC is going to weigh if SpaceX is going to be able to meet the requirements of their bid, they’re going to look at the plan presented to them by SpaceX. In the FCC’s defense, they apparently asked SpaceX questions regarding concerns they had, but SpaceX didn’t answer.

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

#724

Post by turquoisevar »

NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #73
pmorici wrote: post #63

Starlink service is so obviously phenomenal to anyone who's used it, this isn't going to change that or effect SpaceX's success one bit. The FCC's actions here are just embarrassing their agency by exposing their petty ineptitude and harming whomever this program was supposed to help.

I don't really see how it's embarrassing that the FCC set out a clear requirement for a low-latency, 100/20M rural service and Starlink (having failed to show a plan to achieve that) is not accepted into the program. Which part is embarrassing to the FCC, exactly?

You’re right.

The only point I’d like to point out is that the minimum requirement is 25/3Mbps with the option to bid for a higher tier that comes with more subsidies but also locks you into the higher requirement.

Starlink made a bid for the higher tier that requires 100/20Mbps and now it turns out that its plans don’t sufficiently establish how they’re going to meet those requirements.

While Starlink was able to achieve 100Mbps down in some areas (albeit not consistently), it is nowhere near 20Mbps up.

But with everything this man is involved in, he has a loyal army of fans who will carry water for him, no matter how much the facts say otherwise.

Who knows, maybe if I’ve spent $600 on a dish, I too will try to rationalize it by becoming a cheerleader.

Talk about embarrassing.

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

#725

Post by 93po »

NelsonMinar wrote: post #542
phpisthebest wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now if the FCC was actually principled when when choosing when to " sticking to its requirements" because ti seems large traditional companies can just do what ever the hell they want and get subsidies.

Do you have an example with the RDOF of a "large traditional company" doing whatever the hell they want and getting subsidies? It's a bit complciated since it's still under review. This happened in the past all the time, particularly in Ajit Pai's version of the FCC. But the RDOF process seems different. In particular the FCC is actually measuring performance, not just relying on ISP's self-reported numbers. AT&T was…

His point is more about the $200+ billion ISPs received in grants to roll out fiber and subsequently did very little work but kept all the money.

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

#726

Post by callalex »

omgwtfbyobbq wrote: post #626
JohnFen wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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'…

If that's lying, then the c-suite of every large auto manufacturer does it on a fairly regular basis. In general, they don't seem to get as much negative attention in the media, and I'm guessing that's because they pay a fair bit for advertising.

I’m not familiar with this, what are you referring to?

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

#727

Post by turquoisevar »

sinuhe69 wrote: post #699

By the way, is the FCC's decision likely to improve rural access in the future or not (without Starlink)? Perhaps not, as the past has demonstrated. But with Starlink they will have better access anyway. So Starlink is a victim of its own success? And the FCC has acted in the best interests of the nation by saving 900 million taxpayer dollars, while rural access will still improve? What an irony!

There are many other companies, using a variety of technologies, in many different states and regions that still get their funding.

This wasn’t a special Starlink project, this was an entire auction with many participants.

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

#728

Post by turquoisevar »

pard68 wrote: post #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.

You can check the map here to see if any of the other applicants have a bid for your area

https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/maps/rdof-phase-i-dec-2...

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

#729

Post by turquoisevar »

libraryatnight wrote: post #126
bryanlarsen wrote: post #105

If the complaint is that Elon Musk has a history of not delivering on his promises, why the #%@# are telecom companies still getting money based on promises? They also have an awful track record on delivering on their promises. Nobody should get anything until after they've delivered. If they need money to do their deployments, they can take their FCC awards to the bank and get a factoring loan. And if their plan is…

They did reject another broadband company - that company just doesn't have a cult of fans to throw tantrums online for them.

In total there were 22 that didn’t meet the requirements last year.

Like you said, one just has a cult attached to it.

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

#730

Post by turquoisevar »

Uzza wrote: post #13
inemesitaffia wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They said they'd use starship to launch and it's not yet ready

They did not say Starship was a requirement for Starlink, they said they could use it when ready to speed up the rollout. SpaceX has been launching the Gen2 satellites, originally intended to be launched on Starship, on Falcon 9 instead.

They explicitly stated in the plan they submitted to the FCC that they would use Starship, going as far as to say that they’re completely going to stop using the Falcon for Starlink in a letter to the FCC.

The letter was even picked up by media who then reported on this early last year.

https://spacenews.com/spacex-goes-all-in-on-starship-configu...

Post reply on HN