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

111–120 of 773 posts

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

#111

Post by nixgeek »

_ea1k wrote: post #83
NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Their goals are only 100/20mbps? I'd say that part is embarrassing. Given the amount of money involved, I'd have expected them to push for higher than that.

The FCC is pushing here and wants to see 1000/500 speeds but the lobbyists are pushing back.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/12/cable-lobby-to-f...

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

#112

Post by nicce »

bmitc wrote: post #101
pmorici wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because if you use the service you know it is capable of that and more today. SpaceX is also capable of providing differentiated service speeds so looking at what an average user is getting today is not indicative of what could be provided if they were under some minimum speed obligation. The FCC's rational is clearly them twisting themselves into knots to try and get to the decision they want to satisfy their prefer…

If the service is so awesome, why does it need a billion dollar subsidy, i.e., free money paid for by taxpayers?

Some other company could take it happily and increase the competition. Maybe even provide better results, while it might take some time.

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

#113

Post by karpatic »

paxys wrote: post #84
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.

[flagged]

From what I understand, this is a political hatchet job. Space X still had 2 years to meet the the mark but capricious new standards are being applied specifically to them.

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

#114

Post by bryanlarsen »

manuelabeledo wrote: post #102
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.

> 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. Starlink success, and to that extent, SpaceX, are arguably tied to government money. I would say that not getting almost $1B may impact their operations quite a bit.

Starlink has 2 million customers, likely with >$1000 ARPU and is growing quite rapidly. $1B annually would be material. $1B as a one time payment is significant but seems unlikely to affect viability. Musk has said that Starship and Starlink are each $5B-$10B investments.

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

#115

Post by danbruc »

_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.

Starlink is nothing that you deploy and then you are done. When you have launched the last satellite, then the first ones launched will have reached the end of their lifespan and you essentially have to start over, deploy the entire constellation once again as the satellites reach the end of their lifespan one by one. With a lifespan of say 5 years, you will have to deploy the entire constellation once every 5 years, with 12k satellites you are looking at replacing 200 satellites each month, forever. That sounds possible without Starship but I can also imagine that being able to use Starship is necessary for the economical viability in the long run.

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

#117

Post by lupusreal »

danbruc wrote: post #115
_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.

Starlink is nothing that you deploy and then you are done. When you have launched the last satellite, then the first ones launched will have reached the end of their lifespan and you essentially have to start over, deploy the entire constellation once again as the satellites reach the end of their lifespan one by one. With a lifespan of say 5 years, you will have to deploy the entire constellation once every 5 years,…

Their lifespan when active is longer than 5 years because they have thrusters. 5 years is if they're dead and left to decay

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

#119

Post by NovemberWhiskey »

pmorici wrote: post #79
NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Because if you use the service you know it is capable of that and more today. SpaceX is also capable of providing differentiated service speeds so looking at what an average user is getting today is not indicative of what could be provided if they were under some minimum speed obligation. The FCC's rational is clearly them twisting themselves into knots to try and get to the decision they want to satisfy their prefer…

So if all this is true, the embarrassing part is that SpaceX couldn't make a compelling presentation of the facts that support them. I'm sorry but "OK, yes, we are missing the target performance goals and trending further away from them but awesomeness" is ... not compelling.

This isn't like cable or fiber where the technology is already mature and it's simply the business case.

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

#120

Post by adgjlsfhk1 »

ren_engineer wrote: post #94
_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.

>If the goal is to get levels of performance that Starlink cannot provide, then this makes sense? no, because the only reason Starlink doesn't currently hit the metrics is due to them having so many users joining. They could hit the metrics by temporarily halting signups, cutting off users, or delaying the Pentagon's massive deployment project. Or Musk could cut off Ukraine's capacity, which the US military admits is…

> Or Musk could cut off Ukraine's capacity, which the US military admits is consuming hundreds of millions in Starlink capacity that could be allocated to US consumers to speed up their internet

Satellites in LEO over Ukraine can't provide service to the US. (and because of the way orbits work a LEO satellite that spends time over the US will also spend time over Ukraine)

Post reply on HN