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

741–750 of 773 posts

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

#741

Post by TheAlchemist »

laverya wrote: post #325
TheAlchemist wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was. The V2 that they are deploying is supposedly communicating directly between satellites, making it faster than fiber over long distances. Elon advertised that in 2019 or something already. I don't deny it is life changing for those people ! All I'm saying is that it's not economically viable to provide that to those people. And the only way it is, it's because it's either a business bleeding money, or supporte…

> making it faster than fiber over long distances This does not mean you should use it if you have fiber available at your house. This means you should pay for transit over it if you need to have low-latency overseas connections, for instance for HFT or piloting drones.

Yes - the HFT space would pay a lot of money to use it if it's available.

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

#742

Post by czl »

rpy wrote: post #689
czl wrote: post #624

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

No, he did not make amends. He never even apologised for it.

Who is on stage in this clip and what they are saying?

https://youtu.be/xHZ-Dvv2cN4?si=VdmfLrcEq6AFm-7W

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

#743

Post by czl »

phatskat wrote: post #697
czl wrote: post #630

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compared to a same aged person does Musk do more dumb things each day? Perhaps his few dumb things get amplified by his haters? Any normal person that manages to earn themself what Musk has earned might that affect their personality? Maybe make them more narcissistic etc? Large wealth would not affect your psychology? Regarding bipolar: It would not surprise me but is there evidence? Did he admit it?

Of course wealth affects one’s mental state, this is pretty well studied. Also “earned” is a bit generous, he’s had a lot of “right people, right time, right place” in his life (not to mention a great start from the emerald mines). Also why look at dumb things per day when what matters (to me) is the enormity of dumb actions? He bought Twitter for way more than it was worth because he had a hissy fit. He’s “concerned…

> Also why look at dumb things per day when what matters (to me) is the enormity of dumb actions?

Elephant does what elephant does and ants complain. What do you expect?

> He bought Twitter for way more than it was worth because he had a hissy fit.

You don't make mistakes? Your ability grow wealth is superior? How then do you judge?

> He’s “concerned” that AI isn’t allowed to say the n-word.

Might he be concerned about censorship in general? If something against the law it is against the law but what gives you the right to impose your notion of "proper" speech on others? Do people have a right not to be offended? The attack on the Charlie Hebdo newspaper office in Paris by Islamic extremists you think they were justified due to being offended by cartoons?

> He did a live public call with Andrew Tate, Alex Jones, and Vivek Ramaswamy.

Now you want to impose rules on others about who they are allowed to talk to in public?

> I could do one simply dumb thing every day for my entire life and not live up to the sheer stupidity of this man’s actions.

Elephant does what elephant does. Ant does what ant does. You can not compare them. I believe strong feelings cloud your view.

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

#744

Post by mixdup »

chrisco255 wrote: post #682
mixdup wrote: post #635

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That's just a brand name of their 5G service. They have been providing hot spots for close to two decades. Their customer base goes back about 3 decades (easier to upsell your existing clients on a 5G hot spot than start from scratch to build a customer base like Starlink had to), and Sprint's (whom they acquired/merged with, and gained a lot of valuable wireless spectrum from) customer base goes back much further th…

LTE hotspots have not been a viable option since..well, basically any time. They have extremely high costs vs the amount of data you get. I guess it's better than absolutely nothing and may be manageable if you don't stream video, but it's not considered home broadband for a good reason

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

#745

Post by trident5000 »

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.

Doesnt sound snarky at all. "paying them to move" sure does though.

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

#746

Post by dnissley »

pseudocomposer wrote: post #691
dnissley wrote: post #633

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Businesses that don’t get subsidies pay the same exact taxes. And businesses pay very little tax in the first place. Finally, tax revenue isn’t an ownership stake in a company; no amount of money is.

> Businesses that don’t get subsidies pay the same exact taxes.

But the point of a subsidy is to create a business where one did not, possibly could not exist before. Therefore the tax revenue coming from companies created by subsidies is in addition to other businesses tax revenue, not replacing it.

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

#747

Post by robocat »

turquoisevar wrote: post #711
robocat wrote: post #550

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It’s funny how these corporations can hoover up billions of taxpayer dollars and only care about cold hard cash, but as soon as someone suggests that perhaps the people in whose name those subsidies are granted should get an ownership stake in the corporations receiving those subsidies if only to have a sliver of control into what those companies do with said subsidies, all of a sudden the guitar is whipped out, and…

Funny how you are complaining about a corporation receiving billions in subsidies, when the article is about Starlink not receiving subsidies. Especially when the corporation is providing the service without government help.

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

#748

Post by 2devnull »

adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #731
2devnull wrote: post #672

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are what 150 gateways/ground stations. That’s a finite number, no?

a ground station in the US can't see a satellite over Ukraine

Precisely. You need to build ground stations near your users.

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

#749

Post by turquoisevar »

robocat wrote: post #747
turquoisevar wrote: post #711

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s funny how these corporations can hoover up billions of taxpayer dollars and only care about cold hard cash, but as soon as someone suggests that perhaps the people in whose name those subsidies are granted should get an ownership stake in the corporations receiving those subsidies if only to have a sliver of control into what those companies do with said subsidies, all of a sudden the guitar is whipped out, and…

Funny how you are complaining about a corporation receiving billions in subsidies, when the article is about Starlink not receiving subsidies. Especially when the corporation is providing the service without government help.

Which should be music to your ears right?

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

#750

Post by intrasight »

fomine3 wrote: post #659
intrasight wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I think government should regulate

That would just move it from private company suck to nation-state suck. It needs to be regulated by the International Telecommunication Union (UN).

Post reply on HN