FCC doubts ability to provide high-speed, low-latency service in all grant areas.
SpaceX blasts FCC as it refuses to reinstate Starlink’s $886 million grant::FCC doubts ability to provide high-speed, low-latency service in all grant areas.
Ok, but we already have all those satellites up there now. Please fucking tell me those are not going to become space trash, because I will fully blame the government on that one.
Starlink’s grant was intended to subsidize deployment to 642,925 rural homes and businesses in 35 states. The August 2022 ruling that rejected the grant called Starlink a “nascent LEO [low Earth orbit] satellite technology” with “recognized capacity constraints.” The FCC questioned Starlink’s ability to consistently provide low-latency service with the required download speeds of 100Mbps and upload speeds of 20Mbps.
That’s Phony Stark for ya, everytime: Overpromise and Underdeliver. And then get angry when called on his bulkshit.
The grant requires applicants to meet these benchmarks by 2025. Only SpaceX came close to meeting this standard and only SpaceX is being denied the grant for not yet meeting this requirement.
"RDOF rules set speeds of 25/3 Mbps as the minimum allowed for broadband service delivered by winners. However, participants were permitted to bid at four different performance tiers: 25/3 Mbps, 50/5 Mbps, 100/20 Mbps and 1 Gbps/500 Mbps"
If SpaceX had bid on a lower tier of service that they were actually capable of delivering, they would have been fine.
This grant was not designed to fund the development of new technology, it was designed to build infrastructure (fiber, 5G, WISPs, etc) and they were originally going to exclude satellites from the bidding completely. The companies who would have used the grant to build fiber or set up point-to-point wireless would have had no problem meeting the requirements since it’s all proven technology.
I don’t particularly like Elon, but I think a lot of people are forgetting what Starlink has done for rural areas, and areas that don’t have highspeed internet. I live in the Southern US, and the only other options at my address are AT&T DSL or other satellite companies. We don’t have 5G towers in the area so I can’t go that route, most satellite companies have extremely low data caps, Hughesnet has a cap of 200Gbs for $150, with horrible connection, and AT&T DSL makes a 200MB download take 30-45 minutes at the fastest. My town has a population of 10k, and we’re still dealing with those being the only choices. If you go 30 minutes over to the next town they have Satellite, and that’s it. ISPs don’t care to fix the problem unless there’s another company taking customers from them with better service. Starlink has opened up a lot of the internet, and the possibility to work from home for a lot of people.
The real problem there is all of the government handouts that have gone to the other ISPs for the purpose of wiring up everybody… Taking the money and then not delivering. And I know some years ago it was said that Comcast’s internet division was running at over 90% profit margin… And like other companies that were regarded highly successful operate around 30% or less.
I think I’ve read about two occasions that the government handed money to ISPs to get Internet out to rural areas, and both times the results were essentially “ISPs pocket the money, nothing changes.” It’s infuriating, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s happened more than twice.
cable companies literally took a billion dollar grant to expand infrastructure and didnt do much of anything. This is literally doing something. F elon but the engineers who worked hard to make this a reality deserve better
In theory they’re gonna keep upgrading the network, they’ve been constantly launching new and better satellites since launch. Also yeah in theory they can turn it off but that’s such an odd hypothetical that who cares. In theory our old ISP could also do that.
The fastest we could get before was 10mpbs and it went out multiple times a day, sometimes for hours. I really doubt it’ll get that bad.
And if Starlink does die we just go back to our old garbage or hopefully someone else will have a functional LEO constellation by then.
However this isn’t about your anecdotal experience. This is about what level of service they can guarantee as minimum and overall to meet the conditions of the subsidy.
I would also note this isn’t reinstatement matter. FCC refused to give them the subsidy in the first place with this decision. What SpaceX are trying to spin as reneg on previous decision is them making the short list of companies to be considered. Well, getting short listed is not same as being selected fully.
They passed the criterion for the short list check, but the final authorization and selection included more wide and more through checking on the promises of companies to meet criterion and SpaceX failed the more through final round of scrutiny before being awarded the subsidy.
Government having awarded bad money previously isn’t fixed by following up bad awards with more bad awards. SpaceX exactly failed since previously money was handed out too losely and FCC has tightened the scrutiny on subsidy awards to not follow up bad money with more bad money.
Nobody is prevented from buying Starlink, this just means Starlink isn’t getting subsidized with tax payer money.
Maybe if they had just used the last subsidies payouts to expand coverage and reliability instead of lobbying local governments to kill off fiber coops, then they could have kept the tap open.
You know, on one hand, I do want to like. I have been looking into some cool space stuff more recently, and it seems like spaceX and starlink have been doing pretty well, relative to musk’s other business ventures, like X (no relation to spaceX, of course, which is great branding), and maybe tesla, which I kind of hate on the basis that they suck. But on the other hand, I wonder about how much of that is due to musk’s involvement, or if it’s just a factor of right place right time. I don’t think venture capital capture and attention capture from the balding manlet CEO of tesla, channeled towards reusable rockets, I don’t think any of that hurt, it was probably an advantage to those organizations, even if only like, by a small amount. But then, I dunno how much his mismanagement of these projects, and of most of his business ventures, have ended up hamstringing them in the long run, with unreasonable demands of his employees, and over-promising, and higher turnover rates than would probably be necessary. You know, I’m posting this from starlink internet, because I live in a rural place. Would that have happened without his idiocy? I’m inclined to say probably, but I’m also inclined to thank that guy that invented fertilizer, maybe even if he also invented mustard gas or whatever that story was. Which isn’t really to say that musk invented anything, or what have you.
Basically what I’m saying, is that I think it is probably a good thing, if you have gotten to a point where you can look at someone who’s “fucked up” history, and you can spin that into a good thing, even not by their intention, or even if it’s removed a causal step or two, it’s a good thing if you can spin their shit into gold. Probably. I dunno, it’s reassuring to me somehow, among the sea of situations that are the exact opposite where some guy’s cool idea gets taken by a soulless venture capital firm and drained like a vampire for investor hype before it’s discarded as useless vaporware. Mistakes into miracles.
While it’s always entertaining to read nonsense from haters as much as drama between haters and fanbois ……
Can’t y’all step back and look at the actual situation? US Government is spending our tax money to improve internet access for rural areas (good), but given the monopolistic behavior of telecoms, it will be going to one or more large companies (bad). The goal is improved access to the internet. The choice is between a turd and a shit sandwich.
Don’t anthropomorphize a corp: Starlink is one of the corps who can serve this goal. On their merit, do you really think they’re any worse than other candidates? Do you really prefer all that money disappearing into the mass of established internet providers, just like previous hundreds of billions, with nothing to show for it? Personally I see these companies with established technology but long history of not delivering, whereas Starlink has new technology not yet proven at scale, but really seems a lot more promising to serve the goal. Yes, I want grandpa Jones in North Haverville to have internet access and I really don’t care who runs the corp that provides it
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@lemmy.world
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
English
Ok, but we already have all those satellites up there now. Please fucking tell me those are not going to become space trash, because I will fully blame the government on that one.
That’s Phony Stark for ya, everytime: Overpromise and Underdeliver. And then get angry when called on his bulkshit.
The grant requires applicants to meet these benchmarks by 2025. Only SpaceX came close to meeting this standard and only SpaceX is being denied the grant for not yet meeting this requirement.
If SpaceX had bid on a lower tier of service that they were actually capable of delivering, they would have been fine.
This grant was not designed to fund the development of new technology, it was designed to build infrastructure (fiber, 5G, WISPs, etc) and they were originally going to exclude satellites from the bidding completely. The companies who would have used the grant to build fiber or set up point-to-point wireless would have had no problem meeting the requirements since it’s all proven technology.
Aww. Poor SpaceX. To quote the man himself:
I don’t particularly like Elon, but I think a lot of people are forgetting what Starlink has done for rural areas, and areas that don’t have highspeed internet. I live in the Southern US, and the only other options at my address are AT&T DSL or other satellite companies. We don’t have 5G towers in the area so I can’t go that route, most satellite companies have extremely low data caps, Hughesnet has a cap of 200Gbs for $150, with horrible connection, and AT&T DSL makes a 200MB download take 30-45 minutes at the fastest. My town has a population of 10k, and we’re still dealing with those being the only choices. If you go 30 minutes over to the next town they have Satellite, and that’s it. ISPs don’t care to fix the problem unless there’s another company taking customers from them with better service. Starlink has opened up a lot of the internet, and the possibility to work from home for a lot of people.
The real problem there is all of the government handouts that have gone to the other ISPs for the purpose of wiring up everybody… Taking the money and then not delivering. And I know some years ago it was said that Comcast’s internet division was running at over 90% profit margin… And like other companies that were regarded highly successful operate around 30% or less.
I think I’ve read about two occasions that the government handed money to ISPs to get Internet out to rural areas, and both times the results were essentially “ISPs pocket the money, nothing changes.” It’s infuriating, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s happened more than twice.
Way more than twice, we’ve provided them around 1 trillion to wire all homes in the USA…and yea. No where near that has been done.
On one hand, ew Elon Musk.
On the other hand Starlink has given us the first decent internet we’ve ever had so…
cable companies literally took a billion dollar grant to expand infrastructure and didnt do much of anything. This is literally doing something. F elon but the engineers who worked hard to make this a reality deserve better
The more people that use starlink the slower and less usable it becomes, additionally phony stark can turn it off whenever he sees fit.
Good luck with that
In theory they’re gonna keep upgrading the network, they’ve been constantly launching new and better satellites since launch. Also yeah in theory they can turn it off but that’s such an odd hypothetical that who cares. In theory our old ISP could also do that.
The fastest we could get before was 10mpbs and it went out multiple times a day, sometimes for hours. I really doubt it’ll get that bad.
And if Starlink does die we just go back to our old garbage or hopefully someone else will have a functional LEO constellation by then.
However this isn’t about your anecdotal experience. This is about what level of service they can guarantee as minimum and overall to meet the conditions of the subsidy.
I would also note this isn’t reinstatement matter. FCC refused to give them the subsidy in the first place with this decision. What SpaceX are trying to spin as reneg on previous decision is them making the short list of companies to be considered. Well, getting short listed is not same as being selected fully.
They passed the criterion for the short list check, but the final authorization and selection included more wide and more through checking on the promises of companies to meet criterion and SpaceX failed the more through final round of scrutiny before being awarded the subsidy.
Government having awarded bad money previously isn’t fixed by following up bad awards with more bad awards. SpaceX exactly failed since previously money was handed out too losely and FCC has tightened the scrutiny on subsidy awards to not follow up bad money with more bad money.
Nobody is prevented from buying Starlink, this just means Starlink isn’t getting subsidized with tax payer money.
Maybe if they had just used the last subsidies payouts to expand coverage and reliability instead of lobbying local governments to kill off fiber coops, then they could have kept the tap open.
Any tasty sauce to sample?
Subsideez nuts.
You know, on one hand, I do want to like. I have been looking into some cool space stuff more recently, and it seems like spaceX and starlink have been doing pretty well, relative to musk’s other business ventures, like X (no relation to spaceX, of course, which is great branding), and maybe tesla, which I kind of hate on the basis that they suck. But on the other hand, I wonder about how much of that is due to musk’s involvement, or if it’s just a factor of right place right time. I don’t think venture capital capture and attention capture from the balding manlet CEO of tesla, channeled towards reusable rockets, I don’t think any of that hurt, it was probably an advantage to those organizations, even if only like, by a small amount. But then, I dunno how much his mismanagement of these projects, and of most of his business ventures, have ended up hamstringing them in the long run, with unreasonable demands of his employees, and over-promising, and higher turnover rates than would probably be necessary. You know, I’m posting this from starlink internet, because I live in a rural place. Would that have happened without his idiocy? I’m inclined to say probably, but I’m also inclined to thank that guy that invented fertilizer, maybe even if he also invented mustard gas or whatever that story was. Which isn’t really to say that musk invented anything, or what have you.
Basically what I’m saying, is that I think it is probably a good thing, if you have gotten to a point where you can look at someone who’s “fucked up” history, and you can spin that into a good thing, even not by their intention, or even if it’s removed a causal step or two, it’s a good thing if you can spin their shit into gold. Probably. I dunno, it’s reassuring to me somehow, among the sea of situations that are the exact opposite where some guy’s cool idea gets taken by a soulless venture capital firm and drained like a vampire for investor hype before it’s discarded as useless vaporware. Mistakes into miracles.
While it’s always entertaining to read nonsense from haters as much as drama between haters and fanbois ……
Can’t y’all step back and look at the actual situation? US Government is spending our tax money to improve internet access for rural areas (good), but given the monopolistic behavior of telecoms, it will be going to one or more large companies (bad). The goal is improved access to the internet. The choice is between a turd and a shit sandwich.
Don’t anthropomorphize a corp: Starlink is one of the corps who can serve this goal. On their merit, do you really think they’re any worse than other candidates? Do you really prefer all that money disappearing into the mass of established internet providers, just like previous hundreds of billions, with nothing to show for it? Personally I see these companies with established technology but long history of not delivering, whereas Starlink has new technology not yet proven at scale, but really seems a lot more promising to serve the goal. Yes, I want grandpa Jones in North Haverville to have internet access and I really don’t care who runs the corp that provides it