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

751–760 of 773 posts

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

#751

Post by daddylongstroke »

kelnos wrote: post #422
Powdering7082 wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah there's a pretty common routine of SpaceX & Tesla having some of the best results in the world for what they are trying to accomplish AND being much worse than what was promised.

And that's one of the (many) frustrating things with Musk: he fairly consistently overpromises and underdelivers. Even if that underdelivering is better than what you can get elsewhere, it still leaves a bad taste in people's mouths.

I don't know who these ungrateful people are with the bad taste in their mouths? Starlink is the only game in town for me at this point for broadband: my only other option is DSL from Centurylink at 3Mb/.5Mb - they've had 30 years to improve service here and hundreds of millions in taxpayer subsidies, and they haven't done it. The nearest T-Mobile signal is about 7 miles away. I for one, am grateful.

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

#752

Post by inemesitaffia »

callalex wrote: post #733
inemesitaffia wrote: post #669

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You’re conflating policy for individual people with policy for corporations. The post is specifically calling out corporate welfare.

The entire program is corporate welfare and the complaint is about it going to a particular person's company. Not about corporate welfare.

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

#753

Post by inemesitaffia »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #738
inemesitaffia wrote: post #664

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Two facts let you conclude this easily: 1. Money is fungible 2. Grant applications are still open So money not spent on SpaceX can go to a future application.

In 2026

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

#754

Post by Wytwwww »

chiefalchemist wrote: post #688
Wytwwww wrote: post #584

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a huge amount of space between saying that "We're going to fail" and promising something will be done in "6 months". > Musk is what plenty of entrepreneurs are...over-confident The real world describing this is delusional. Which I don't think he is (or was at that point anyway).

I'm not seeing that space. In fact, given what we know about startups, "in 6 months" has better odds of happening than pitching and ignoring the high risk (i.e., failure is inevitable). I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, simply asking you to show me the space you speak of.

> I'm not seeing that space.

Really? You don't see anything between "we're certain to fail" and "were going to accomplish this thing (even though we haven't got the slightest clue how) in X months"? Would you feel differently about it if Musk said they'll do it in 3 weeks? Because I don't, besides "6 months" being slightly easier to believe.

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

#755

Post by Wytwwww »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #734
Wytwwww wrote: post #576

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Software timelines are notoriously hard to forecast Perhaps. Of course, we all know for a certainty that this had almost nothing to do with you're describing. The people how were actually designing the software knew that it won't happen in six months. I doubt Musk wasn't aware of that, so the only alternative that he was lying.

> Of course, we all know for a certainty that this had almost nothing to do with you're describing. The people how were actually designing the software knew that it won't happen in six months. How do we know this? Waymo has had this "almost" working for years. In theory you could get from the status quo to actually working in a short period of time, if you're sufficiently smart or lucky and have the right resources.…

> How do we know this?

Some life experience + common sense?

> In theory you could get from the status quo to actually working in a short period of time,

In theory we could build a rocket that would fly a person to the moon in 6 months.

> if you're sufficiently smart

If that's the case, you wouldn't be making such bold claims (or rather actually believing in them yourself)

> LLMs and image generation were the sort of things many people said were many years away,

Does that include the people who were actually working on them in OpenAI?

> It's obvious that his estimates are optimistic, but optimism isn't inherently malicious.

In some cases it's either malice or stupidity/delusion.

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

#756

Post by kortilla »

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.

Not sure what your definition of fairly remote is, but these places absolutely don’t have cable TV.

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

#757

Post by AnthonyMouse »

Wytwwww wrote: post #755
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #734

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Of course, we all know for a certainty that this had almost nothing to do with you're describing. The people how were actually designing the software knew that it won't happen in six months. How do we know this? Waymo has had this "almost" working for years. In theory you could get from the status quo to actually working in a short period of time, if you're sufficiently smart or lucky and have the right resources.…

> How do we know this? Some life experience + common sense? > In theory you could get from the status quo to actually working in a short period of time, In theory we could build a rocket that would fly a person to the moon in 6 months. > if you're sufficiently smart If that's the case, you wouldn't be making such bold claims (or rather actually believing in them yourself) > LLMs and image generation were the sort of…

> Some life experience + common sense?

If you asked people with "life experience + common sense" if generative AI would soon be possible six months before it actually was, they'd have said no and been wrong.

> In theory we could build a rocket that would fly a person to the moon in 6 months.

Kennedy said it would be done by the end of the decade, people called him crazy, and then it happened. The people saying it couldn't be done were still saying it right up until the day it happened.

> If that's the case, you wouldn't be making such bold claims (or rather actually believing in them yourself)

I don't think he, or anyone, believes that it will definitely happen in six months. He's giving the optimistic end of the range, but everybody knows that.

> Does that include the people who were actually working on them in OpenAI?

Before they had them working internally? Yeah, it did. Nobody knew it would work until it actually worked.

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

#758

Post by inemesitaffia »

turquoisevar wrote: post #721
inemesitaffia wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 abo…

There are no buildout requirements before you can be awarded.

The build requirements, like the speed requirements are for 2025

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

#759

Post by [deleted] »

turquoisevar wrote: post #749
robocat wrote: post #747

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

[deleted]

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

#760

Post by inemesitaffia »

turquoisevar wrote: post #749
robocat wrote: post #747

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It's going to be spent elsewhere.

You're just wrong end to end

Post reply on HN