Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SpaceX gets $886M from FCC to subsidize Starlink in 35 states

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 270 posts

Re: SpaceX gets $886M from FCC to subsidize Starlink in 35 states

#261

Post by staunch »

slim wrote: post #250
Jach wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, there's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiel_Fellowship but there aren't many of them and the funding is a few orders of magnitude less. Perhaps somewhat made up for in social network/connections. I've wanted to read about what happened if anyone ever decided to apply Asimov's filter at earlier ages. His filter was simply having interest in particular science fiction. https://www.gwern.net/docs/culture/1963-asim…

that's to identify and fund a thousand Peter Thiels. I'm not sure we want that

Peter Thiel is a big part of why PayPal succeeded. PayPal enabled Elon Musk. I think Thiel also invested in various Elon Musk projects, so we probably do want more Peter Thiels.

Re: SpaceX gets $886M from FCC to subsidize Starlink in 35 states

#262

Post by bumby »

eptcyka wrote: post #258
derekp7 wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if SpaceX shuts down their entire operations (and lets include all rocket companies), then that would completely fix health care and the climate crises? I'm not following the logic of how that would work. It is basically a larger version of the argument "Well, if you are so poor, why did you drink that cup of coffee this morning?"

I agree, spending more money on healthcare in the states would be fruitless, as the US already pays more per capita for healthcare than any other nation.

I'm not sure if this is meant to be snarky/sarcastic but do you understand some of the dynamics that bear this out?

For example, the U.S. pays more than 40% (down from 50%) of the worlds medical R&D. They essentially subsidize healthcare for much of the rest of the world (meaning the U.S. bears more of the cost so other countries can have cheaper care). There's plenty wrong with the U.S. healthcare system that needs fixing, but trite sentences don't begin to capture the real nature of the problem.

Re: SpaceX gets $886M from FCC to subsidize Starlink in 35 states

#263

Post by iptrans »

btilly wrote: post #187
iptrans wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not quite. The subsidy isn't large enough to pay for all the satellites they need. They have money to launch more satellites and will be doing more launches subsidy or no subsidy. The subsidy will only go directly to their bottom line.

Your reasoning has several holes. First, the fact that they have the money to launch more satellites does not mean that they have the money to launch ALL the satellites that the full system needs. Indeed their projected cost for fully setting up Starlink is $10 billion dollars, which is more than the projected operating profit that they have had over their entire history. So it is easy to see that they won't be able…

No.

As noted, there is a significant risk of Starlink going out of business. The RDOF grants are not venture funding, and should not be used as such.

The FCC's Rural Digital Opportunity Fund exists to bring high speed fixed broadband service to rural homes and small businesses that lack it.

I do not believe that Starlink would have excluded the areas it got subsidies for from service had it not gotten the subsidies.

Starlink must have ALL the money to launch and operate ALL the satellites it needs to become profitable. The subsidies do not even cover the cost of replacing deorbiting satellites.

> It is true that plenty of companies operate that way. However after 20 years of running companies, it is extremely safe to say that Elon does not. In fact he tends to take every scrap of money that his company is generating, finds ways to borrow or raise more, and then reinvests it into even more ambitious projects.

This is not proper use of RDOF money either.

Re: SpaceX gets $886M from FCC to subsidize Starlink in 35 states

#264

Post by nikolay »

stetrain wrote: post #255
nikolay wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Starlink is a new precedent for an affordable general public ISP using satellites.

But how is it different as far as being irradiated?

Starlink will have at least 700 satellites. And not only astronomers are unhappy. It's the most ridiculous way to provide an internet service anyway!

Re: SpaceX gets $886M from FCC to subsidize Starlink in 35 states

#265

Post by stetrain »

nikolay wrote: post #264
stetrain wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But how is it different as far as being irradiated?

Starlink will have at least 700 satellites. And not only astronomers are unhappy. It's the most ridiculous way to provide an internet service anyway!

But the number of satellites doesn't affect your ability to go somewhere without being irradiated.

GPS and TV sats beam radio signals to most habitable parts of the planet already. If you're worried about "radio pollution" I don't see how Starlink makes a huge difference.

Starlink won't cover the poles so maybe a bunker in Antarctica is an option.

Re: SpaceX gets $886M from FCC to subsidize Starlink in 35 states

#266

Post by sagarm »

Mountain_Skies wrote: post #28
liquidise wrote: post #7

This headline is only part of the story, looks like ~10 ISP's were awarded sizable subsidies. While i am not a fan of subsidies in general, the ISP space is particularly tricky for free-market forces to ensure competition. The capital requirements are overwhelming in many cases for a traditional startups, leaving the only other option as local/municipal votes, which have been successful in some areas. Long-term, i co…

My recent employer was one of the ISP providing rural telecom service. These subsidies accounted for a hefty percentage of our income and the company was still perpetually on the edge of failure. Most of our competitors were in similar situations, loaded down with breathtakingly large amounts of debt and expensive to maintain decaying infrastructure, much of it purchased from the Baby Bells when they got out of the m…

But why is it a problem that rural areas don't have telecom services? If they truly valued those services, they could move to where they are available.

These ISP subsidies are a classic example of government waste. ISPs promise, don't deliver, and are awarded even more cash to burn. There's no reason we should support this waste of our tax dollars.

Re: SpaceX gets $886M from FCC to subsidize Starlink in 35 states

#267

Post by azernik »

sagarm wrote: post #266
Mountain_Skies wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My recent employer was one of the ISP providing rural telecom service. These subsidies accounted for a hefty percentage of our income and the company was still perpetually on the edge of failure. Most of our competitors were in similar situations, loaded down with breathtakingly large amounts of debt and expensive to maintain decaying infrastructure, much of it purchased from the Baby Bells when they got out of the m…

But why is it a problem that rural areas don't have telecom services? If they truly valued those services, they could move to where they are available. These ISP subsidies are a classic example of government waste. ISPs promise, don't deliver, and are awarded even more cash to burn. There's no reason we should support this waste of our tax dollars.

Because the government has decided that the existence and viability of rural communities is a policy goal in and of itself; and that basic telecommunications services are necessary for public safety and good government in such communities.

See also USPS's Universal Service Obligation, which requires it to have a minimum level of service to every single address/user in the US.

This is common in developed countries (e.g. the EU requires all its member states to have universal service for both post and telecommunications). China isn't there yet, but is working towards that goal.

Re: SpaceX gets $886M from FCC to subsidize Starlink in 35 states

#268

Post by sagarm »

azernik wrote: post #267
sagarm wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But why is it a problem that rural areas don't have telecom services? If they truly valued those services, they could move to where they are available. These ISP subsidies are a classic example of government waste. ISPs promise, don't deliver, and are awarded even more cash to burn. There's no reason we should support this waste of our tax dollars.

Because the government has decided that the existence and viability of rural communities is a policy goal in and of itself; and that basic telecommunications services are necessary for public safety and good government in such communities. See also USPS's Universal Service Obligation, which requires it to have a minimum level of service to every single address/user in the US. This is common in developed countries (e.…

Similarly, most developed countries have some form of universal healthcare.

Nonetheless in America, this is considered an un-American example of socialism run amok. The same pro-individualist criticism applies to rural telecom, postal service, and infrastructure. And it applies even more directly to rural hospitals.

Re: SpaceX gets $886M from FCC to subsidize Starlink in 35 states

#269

Post by oedoedxef »

0xffff2 wrote: post #169
elihu wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd guess that user oedoedxef is referring to running a customer-facing business (a diner, an auto repair shop, or whatever) out of a primary residence, whether that means living in a commercially-zoned property or doing commerce in a residentially-zoned property or perhaps eliminating the distinction entirely.

That's my guess as well, but that's a very, very strange definition of working from home.

Why is it strange? Why should us software developers be allowed to work from home, but others who need a livelihood and provide valuable services to society should not be allowed to produce goods from home?

After all, dentists and tailors see clients in their homes, and people who sell t-shirts online often manufacture and ship the goods from their home.

Re: SpaceX gets $886M from FCC to subsidize Starlink in 35 states

#270

Post by etrabroline »

madamelic wrote: post #245
grecy wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In such a litigious society it's amazing Verizon can't be held to account for this, and at the very least be forced to pay back the money.

It isn't though. Money = power. The US is a barely veiled oligarchy. As long as you have enough money to pay off politicians to make it completely ok, you can do whatever you like. After you pocket a bunch of money or whatever other shenigans you want, you dump a percentage of the money into the politcian's re-election campaign. You don't even have to get politicians to make it legal, you could do other things like g…

Most nerd-types I talk to are in complete denial about this. Almost every US federal judge is the spouse of a corporate lobbyist or political apparatchik. They even get caught sometimes having their spouses taking money from parties to the cases they are hearing but nothing ever happens to them.
Post reply on HN