[HN Gopher] US agency will not reinstate $900M subsidy for Starlink ___________________________________________________________________ US agency will not reinstate $900M subsidy for Starlink Author : adolph Score : 186 points Date : 2023-12-13 01:05 UTC (21 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.reuters.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.reuters.com) | adolph wrote: | _The FCC cited among its reasons SpaceX 's failure to | successfully launch its Starship rocket, saying "the uncertain | nature of Starship's future launches could impact Starlink's | ability to meet" its obligations._ | JPKab wrote: | If there was any doubt this was purely political, that quote | erases it. | | The FCC rural broadband program is an infamous boondoggle of | vast overspending on bad services from third rate providers. | | It's insane that they even mentioned Starship in this, when it | was a test launch of the largest rocket in history, and has | nothing to do with the Starlink launches. | appplication wrote: | As much as I really despise just about everything adjacent to | musk, I think you're right. Wtf does starship have to do with | starlink. | inemesitaffia wrote: | They said they'd use starship to launch and it's not yet | ready | Uzza wrote: | They did not say Starship was a requirement for Starlink, | they said they could use it when ready to speed up the | rollout. SpaceX has been launching the Gen2 satellites, | originally intended to be launched on Starship, on Falcon | 9 instead. | Racing0461 wrote: | Any deeper analysis on why? I doubt it's a Biden-Harris admin | retaliation against elon. | bmitc wrote: | How about they regulate low orbit megaconstellations instead of | allowing them to pollute the sky? | thot_experiment wrote: | My eyes nearly roll out of my head every time I see someone | complain about this. People act like astronomy is ruined | forever, it's not. You can predict where the satellites are | going to be and avoid them. They're not even a problem for | large portions of the night and sky at all because there's very | little light for them to reflect. There are a lot of benefits | to having a constellation like this, and the tech that's being | developed to support it will advance astronomy. | | Is it perfect? No. Is musk being an asshole about it? Probably, | haven't checked. Are the people complaining about it mostly | NIMBYs who care largely because Musk has a (deserved) bad rap? | Yes, absolutely. | | This is a very marginal issue, folks need to calm down. | bmitc wrote: | > This is a very marginal issue, folks need to calm down. | | Is it? Why do we need to visually see, basically permanently, | a ring or string of lights in the sky, unwittingly, just | because of some billionaire? | | > You can predict where the satellites are going to be and | avoid them. | | That doesn't make sense. It doesn't matter if you know where | they're at if they're in your way. Telescope time is | extremely precious and expensive. Not to mention, these | megaconstellations have basically permanently increased the | background noise in various spectrums. Not all astronomy uses | the visual spectrum. | | > They're not even a problem for large portions of the night | and sky at all because there's very little light for them to | reflect. | | That's not true. You can see them with your own eyes. | | Your eyes can roll all they want. It doesn't make the problem | go away. | philwelch wrote: | If it's cheap and easy to fill the night sky with | satellites, the obvious implication is that it will also be | cheap and easy to do astronomy from space, and your | "extremely precious and expensive" telescope time could be | on a satellite outside the atmosphere in the first place. | This is an entirely transitory issue and instead of trying | to deprive people of internet access, astronomers should be | working together on launching their own satellite | megaconstellation. | bmitc wrote: | > obvious implication is that it will also be cheap and | easy to do astronomy from space | | That's so beyond false it's difficult to even respond to. | Do you understand the size of the telescopes, both | optical and radio? | | Do you understand the complexity of space-based | instruments like the James Webb and Hubble telescopes? | thot_experiment wrote: | Optical band interferometry is gonna happen eventually, | perhaps directly as a result to advances in optical | interlinking being pursued by starlink right now. | gunapologist99 wrote: | Focal points. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_(optics) | bmitc wrote: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random | thot_experiment wrote: | > Is it? Why do we need to visually see, basically | permanently, a ring or string of lights in the sky, | unwittingly, just because of some billionaire? | | There are upsides also. | | > You can predict where the satellites are going to be and | avoid them. | | You could for example not collect from the relevant | photosites during transit, we're not using photographic | plates anymore. This is not some sort of insurmountable | problem, I'm not claiming it's _not_ a problem, but it is | not an astronomy ruining problem. As an indirect result of | starlink we have also vastly decreased the cost to put an | telescope in space. | | > That's not true. You can see them with your own eyes. | | You absolutely can't see them in the earth's umbra, they're | only 500km high, the umbra represents a significant portion | of the sky. | bmitc wrote: | > You absolutely can't see them in the earth's penumbra | | I have seen them with my own eyes and they've been | filmed. It's just not correct. It's particularly visible | when the sun is hitting them. You can find several photos | and videos of them from the ground. | thot_experiment wrote: | My mistake, I meant umbra, the part where there isn't any | sun, which makes up most of the sky most of the night. | mlindner wrote: | Well at least it can now be confidently state that Starlink was | developed entirely with private funding. | | I do hope that the companies that do get it are providing proper | fiber service though rather than the many many years of companies | who were way slower than Starlink getting it. | yuppie_scum wrote: | Why should the taxpayer subsidize a business run by one of the | world's richest men? | inemesitaffia wrote: | Because it's not a condition for acceptance or denial. | | Bezos got tax credits for having kids | westurner wrote: | The US Government has demanded that Starlink MUST CARRY and | provide service to support foreign nations. | | Foreign nations think that they're going to use Starlink to | commit further genocide; that they run the show for this | American company. | | "MUST DENY" | | If you cut off Internet service to emergency service personnel | (with the red crosses) here, is that a war crime? | I_Am_Nous wrote: | When applying for RDOF you say what service tier you are | targeting and instead of shooting for the minimum 25/3, Starlink | applied for 100/20. When they didn't reach those speeds[1], they | were ineligible but not _just_ because they didn 't hit the | required speeds on their existing network. There are more details | here[2] but the jist is that Starlink bid to supply 100/20 | internet to over half a million subscribers and the FCC was | required to assess if Starlink was reasonably, technically | capable of supplying those speeds by 2025. Starlink reportedly | argued that once they can properly launch Starship, they can | surely hit the required speeds. As of yet Starship hasn't had a | successful launch. On top of this, the statistics that were | available at the time showed that Starlink transfer speeds were | already trending down and the network is a lot less utilized than | it would be in 2025. There are technical challenges that need to | be solved before Starlink is remotely capable of meeting that | obligation and the challenges don't appear to be resolved yet. | Giving Starlink money is a gamble and the FCC would rather play | it safe. | | >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. When the | auction closed, the FCC noted 99.7% of locations were bid at | 100/20 or higher, with 85% bid at the gigabit tier. That means | Starlink will need to provide speeds of at least 100/20 in order | to meet its obligations. | | 1. https://www.fiercetelecom.com/broadband/what-do-starlinks- | la... | | 2. https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-105A1.pdf | tekla wrote: | > Starlink reportedly argued that once they can properly launch | Starship, they can surely hit the required speeds. | | Read the article you are referencing | | > To justify its motivated reasoning, the majority points to | delays in the development of SpaceX's Starship launch platform | --the largest, most powerful rocket ever built--as evidence | that SpaceX would be unable to launch enough Starlink | satellites to meet its 2025 commitments. The trouble with this | argument is that SpaceX never indicated that it was relying on | the Starship platform to meet its RDOF obligations, and in fact | it repeatedly stated that it was not. Undeterred by the facts, | the Commission now resorts to twisting SpaceX's words. For | example, SpaceX said in a letter to the Commission that it had | "reached a point in the development of its Starship launch | vehicle and Gen2 satellites [such] that it can concentrate | solely on Configuration 1 and no longer pursue Configuration 2" | (emphasis added). Configuration 1 involves launching with | Starship, and Configuration 2 involves launching with Falcon 9. | Nothing in this sentence suggests that SpaceX needed Starship | to launch Gen2 satellites, but that's exactly the | interpretation that the majority now relies on | | Falcon 9 is launching Starlink V2 at 22 per launch regularly | for a while now | I_Am_Nous wrote: | They are just using what SpaceX/Starlink has said in the | past[1]. | | >SpaceX asked the FCC to expedite approval now that it has | settled on the Starship-launched configuration. | | Regardless, to reach those obligatory speeds by 2025 they | would need to launch an insane amount of satellites with no | failures. If the FCC doesn't think they can do that, they | don't get funding. | | 1. https://spacenews.com/spacex-goes-all-in-on-starship- | configu... | Faark wrote: | Then why decide now that SpaceX won't get the money? Does | another company get the contract? Otherwise would have | assumed to simply check at/after the delivery date... | Deprecate9151 wrote: | They didn't decide now. The program was created as a two | step process initially. Starlink succeeded in the first | round, but was denied in the second, more in depth, | review that lead to the rejection. This was basically an | appeal of that rejection. | | The second round was designed to eliminate providers who | didn't seem able to deliver on their promises even with | the subsidies. It was made to prevent a situation where | either party (but mostly the US Gov and tax payers by | extension) was on the hook for unsuccessful delivery. | | I'm not sure what happens with the funds that would have | gone to Starlink. | I_Am_Nous wrote: | They decided a while ago (2022) that Starlink wouldn't | get the RDOF grant. This was essentially an appeal to see | if the decision would be reversed, and they upheld the | original decision not to fund Starlink. It's not a check | after deployment thing, it's a "check if they actually | _can_ deploy in the first place " situation. | | There are two rounds of funding so it's possible unspent | funds from the first round may roll over to fund the | second round. | devindotcom wrote: | F9 launches of v2 were only announced after the FCC denied | the award last year, this is in the primary doc | trident5000 wrote: | These are future speed metrics, not current speed thresholds. | And the performance metrics have been a constant shifting | goalpost. You can read FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr's letter | on this matter here: | https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-105A2.pdf This | is most likely political. | I_Am_Nous wrote: | I read that letter, and was unconvinced that it's anything | more than the FCC not wanting to gamble with nearly 1/16th of | the total RDOF grant money (for that round) and would rather | give it to a company that can be reasonably expected to hit | the obligatory throughput. | | If Starlink bid for 25/3 they might have made it. | trident5000 wrote: | You can arrive at your own conclusion. I think its pretty | obvious whats happening here (the commissioners voted along | party lines right down the middle). And theres no other | company thats even close to Starlink now or in the medium | term future. So I dont know who would practically fill this | spot. | | For below comment: This is for "rural" connection. You're | not laying wire for that regardless of what Comcast wants | you to believe. They can barely service what they have and | the cost/benefit of laying 30 miles of wire to reach | someone in the woods is never going to make sense. | ecshafer wrote: | Verizon was able to lay fiber all over rural New York in | a pretty short amount of time due to a New York law for | similar rural funding. Places that couldn't even get | cable have fiber now. Just laying fiber is an alternative | to satellite. | joecool1029 wrote: | Do want to point out buildout requirements that are | actually enforced in NY would be strongly compelling. | Spectrum was heavily fined and had their license | suspended on cable for failing to meet these commitments | a few years back. Other states just dole out the money | without punishing the companies that cash out dividends | and use it for mergers. | toomuchtodo wrote: | I'd rather the federal government just roll out fiber and | not put Starlink and Elon in a position of power. That | fiber will always be in the ground and available. Elon | has shown himself to be unworthy of any position where | trust and good judgement is required. If it costs more, | that is a premium worth paying. Fool me once. | | https://www.internetforall.gov/ | | https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements- | releases... | | https://spacenews.com/senate-armed-services-committee-to- | pro... | | https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/08/30/elon- | musk... | | https://www.cnas.org/press/in-the-news/elon-musks- | control-of... | | https://babel.ua/en/news/98461-elon-musk-partially- | transferr... | | (disclosure: starlink customer) | willcipriano wrote: | The government: "best I can do is give billions to | Comcast and when they don't build out the fiber, just let | them keep it" | toomuchtodo wrote: | Instead of a simple comment about historical grants, you | perhaps could educate yourself on current state grants | and efforts. Trying and failing previously doesn't mean | trying something different shouldn't be done, you know? | Should we just give up because of previous mistakes? No, | absolutely not. _That_ is failure. | rpmisms wrote: | You're replying to an accurate comment about how | government funding works. I am educated on this, I have | worked off of government grant money often, it's 100% who | you know, not what you do. | toomuchtodo wrote: | Also involved in government procurement, also provide | guidance to several Congressional reps gratis as a | technologist subject matter expert. Change is possible, | to believe otherwise is to give up. If you want to give | up, head to the bar and make way for people who give a | shit. I give a shit, so I am admittedly biased. | rpmisms wrote: | You're being incredibly optimistic. Show me a non-greedy | person in Congress, with the exception of Thomas Massie, | and I'll believe you that change is possible. | toomuchtodo wrote: | https://www.sanders.senate.gov/ | | https://www.wyden.senate.gov/ | | https://www.fetterman.senate.gov/ | | https://foster.house.gov/ | | https://frost.house.gov/ | | Hope is in short supply, but not at empty yet. Make sure | to vote every election. 1.8M voters over the age of 55 | die every year in the US, and 4M voters age into voting | at 18. Demographics are inevitable. As I tell the young | folks, Hold Fast. | | https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/02/07/the- | chang... | | https://www.americanprogress.org/article/americas- | electoral-... | | https://circle.tufts.edu/latest-research/41-million- | members-... | | https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/09/maxwell-frost-will-be- | the-fi... | | (disclaimer: I have maxed out my FEC political | contributions to every rep enumerated due to my belief in | their character; if someone's character changes or | evidence surfaces they are not a good person, my support | changes accordingly) | rpmisms wrote: | Oh, I see. I agree that these are people who deeply | embody the Democratic ethos, and Bernie is one of the | poorer members of the Senate. I seriously dislike | Fetterman's "working class" act, though. | | However, considering that they hate me, I will pass. | toomuchtodo wrote: | We may disagree politically, but I still want the best | for you (although the debate lies in what that looks | like). Take care, and I enjoyed the conversation | regardless. | rpmisms wrote: | I understand and appreciate that perspective. I usually | want the government to leave me alone, but if they won't, | I want the most principled people duking it out. It | sounds like we both value principles in office, maybe not | to the exclusion of ideology, but it's a major factor. | | I did as well, good to have some old-style HN | conversation. | noarchy wrote: | >Show me a non-greedy person in Congress, with the | exception of Thomas Massie, and I'll believe you that | change is possible. | | "They're all bad except the one I agree with." | rpmisms wrote: | I actually disagree with him on plenty, but he | consistently doesn't play the game and votes on | principle, hence why he's widely hated. | cubefox wrote: | > Elon has shown himself to be unworthy of any position | where trust and good judgement is required. | | That's an insane statement given the unprecedented | success of SpaceX. | alwayseasy wrote: | The success of SpaceX is placing Musk in a position to | decide where America's allies have access to the internet | and choosing what region of the world can be cut off just | through meeting politicians he likes. | cubefox wrote: | Surely there is no risk the US will be cut off. | toomuchtodo wrote: | That doesn't negate the fact that he wields power against | others when it meets his needs. He's effective, I don't | dispute that, but still needs a metaphorical cage built | around him to protect others. | cubefox wrote: | He "wields power against others"? What are you talking | about? | freejazz wrote: | I don't follow | WheatMillington wrote: | >just roll out fiber | | As if this were a trivial task | Shawnecy wrote: | This is in comparison to launching satellites into space. | I think most people would agree it's probably more along | the lines of "trivial" when compared to that. | lxgr wrote: | Neither are trivial, the two just scale very differently. | | I do see the benefit in resilience of building out fiber | even to moderately unprofitable (from a unit economics | point of view) regions, just like we also build roads to | communities that will never "pay the investment back" in | taxes. But there are cases where it just can't be | justified. | | But it's also not a simple either-or: There are other | technologies than fiber and satellite; there can be more | than one high-throughput LEO provider; we can have a few | GEO satellites for redundancy (although with | significantly worse latency) etc. | coding123 wrote: | That's what I read too: you're not democratic enough elon | I_Am_Nous wrote: | It's a letter from one FCC commissioner, of which there | are currently 5. He dissents from the decision the | commission as a whole came to. There are a lot of | companies on the ground that could benefit from that | ~$900 million so a single company replacing Starlink is | not necessary. The main concern is if the FCC give | Starlink money to reach 100/20 and they don't do it | (because there are legitimate technical issues to solve | before it's possible for Starlink to supply over half a | million people with 100/20), it's wasted money. The FCC | didn't think it was doable on that time scale. | | Doing some math, currently each satellite launch sends up | 22 satellites at around 2.8 Gbps per satellite. For each | launch, Starlink adds ~61.6 Gbps of capacity. If we cut | that up into 100/20 slices, each launch supports 616 | customers at 100/20. To support 650,000 subscribers at | 100/20, it would take about 1055 perfect launches. | | I don't think the FCC was wrong when they said Starlink | could not reach 650,000 people at 100/20 by 2025. There | aren't enough days to launch one rocket a day to even try | to catch up. | adgjlsfhk1 wrote: | you're ignoring over-provisioning which generally is ~10x | cma wrote: | The terms of these subsidies only allow 4X | oversubscription. | adgjlsfhk1 wrote: | ok, so that still cuts down the amount of launches by 4x | which takes them from 1055 launches to 260 launches. Over | 2 years that would require doubling Starlink's launch | cadence which is a lot, but does seem plausible. | I_Am_Nous wrote: | So to make the 2025 deadline they would have had to | perfectly launch more rockets than they ever have | before...sounds like the FCC made the correct choice. | philwelch wrote: | SpaceX has done that every year since 2020. In 2020 they | had 26 successful Falcon 9/Heavy launches, 31 in 2021, 61 | in 2022, and 91 to date in 2023. | hnaccount_rng wrote: | Sure but the assumption made already say, that SpaceX | uses _all_ capacity for this program (and nothing else) | and it doesn't require any double hops (I would think you | need to at least add a factor of two for the up/down | thing). And that you can see all satellites all the time. | So it was a _very_ conservative assumption. And it would | still require ~all launch capacity of 2024 and 2025. | SpaceX calculations is extremely optimistic to the point | of being delusional. | | At least without Starship, which I _personally_ think | that they will manage to iron out their problems of the | course of next year. But even then _this_ timeline they | won't be able to keep | I_Am_Nous wrote: | They need to do 180 a year to put enough satellites up to | even try to hit the 2025 deadline. That's not even | counting any satellites which may fail between now and | then and need replaced. This is a major reason why the | FCC didn't think they could have met the 2025 obligation | to reach ~650,000 subscribers with 100/20 and rejected | their application. | bryanlarsen wrote: | They're upgrading Vandenburg to do 100/year and | Kennedy/Canaveral to do a ~daily cadence. | I_Am_Nous wrote: | That will be sweet when they can get it done and reliably | launch Starship! Starlink isn't _bad_ , it just wasn't | capable of meeting the RDOF deadline according to the | information available at the time. | cycomanic wrote: | The calculation above assumes all satellites are | available to provide bandwidth to the customers. That | means essentially the 260 satellites need to be above the | US (let's ignore that the visible horizon is different | across the US). Now starlink are LEO, so 260 essentially | we need to divide the 260 by the fraction the globe area | the US is. | | The 260 is a significant underestimate. It's likely 4-10x | more | cavisne wrote: | Oversubscription where? | | ISPs are not buying anywhere near that much transit | bandwidth. | hnburnsy wrote: | Did you miss the other dissent which would mean 40% of | the commission disagreed with the decision? | | DISSENTING STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER NATHAN SIMINGTON | | >I wholeheartedly agree with the entirety of Commissioner | Carr's dissent. I write separately to further highlight | some of the meretricious logic that underlies the | Bureau's, and now Commission's, rescinding of SpaceX's | RDOF award. ... >I was disappointed by this wrongheaded | decision when it was first announced, but the majority | today lays bare just how thoroughly and lawlessly | arbitrary it was. If this is what passes for due process | and the rule of law at the FCC, then this agency ought | not to be trusted with the adjudicatory powers Congress | has granted it and the deference that the courts have | given it | | https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-105A3.pdf | WoahNoun wrote: | Where does that dissent say 40% disagreed? It only uses | the term majority. | geoffpado wrote: | There are 5 FCC commissioners (as @I_Am_Nous's comment | points out). @I_Am_Nous references one dissent. @hnburnsy | links to another. That's 2 dissents. 2 out of 5 | dissenting is 40%. | abduhl wrote: | Well if you want to really dig into the numbers here and | get down to the gnat's ass of uselessness, Simington was | confirmed with a 49-46 vote which means that less than | 50% of the Senate agreed with him being on the Commission | and hence he shouldn't even serve because he couldn't | garner a majority of Senate approval. So, while 40% of | the Commission disagreed with the decision, we should | recognize that 20% of that 40% comes from someone | undemocratically serving on the Commission and hence | should be ignored. Meaning that, in actuality, only 25% | of the democratically appointed Commission (1 out of 4) | disagreed with the decision, not 40%. | | All of that to say: this whole point you're making about | "40% disagreed" or "20% disagreed" because the decision | wasn't unanimous is really fucking dumb. The decision by | the Commission is the decision, it doesn't matter how | many dissents there are. | mcguire wrote: | Farmer's Telecom Coop service map, Jackson County and | nearby, AL. | | https://connect.farmerstel.com/front_end/zones | | Yes, it's fiber. Yes, to the home. Currently, 93Mbps | down, 83 Mbps up (but I have the cheap service). And the | service is a crap-ton better than that of Spectrum in NC. | tick_tock_tick wrote: | So basically now 15/16th of the money goes into a void to | never actually get service to anyone. | devindotcom wrote: | no, it will be awarded to other applicants instead. | bryanlarsen wrote: | Not necessarily. This round of grants is closed. There is | no guarantee that this money will be rolled into the next | round. In fact, that seems quite unlikely to me. | I_Am_Nous wrote: | >Phase 1: Will provide up to $16.4 billion >Phase 2: Will | provide at least $4.4 billion | | When it says "at least $4.4 billion" that leaves the door | open for phase 1 fund rollover. We'll see eventually. | Maybe Starlink can get some money in phase 2. | | 1. https://rdof.com/rdof | tick_tock_tick wrote: | I don't understand why you're just rephrasing my comment. | weswilson wrote: | Anecdotally, my dad lives in a rural area with no | cable/DSL broadband available. | | Cellular broadband only got him 10-15 Mbps. He was | excited when Starlink was available. I think he was | pretty early on the preorder list. Once he finally got | access to Starlink (Feb 2022) the speeds were close to | the advertised ~100 Mbps. | | Now the price has increased and on average he's back to | getting like 15-20 Mbps down. | | Luckily, the EMC that services the area received some | rural broadband grant money to roll out FTTH and that | build out has been pretty quick. They have already run | fiber down his road and said that service should be | available in a couple of months. The EMC is offering 2 | Gbps down / 1-2 Gbps up (!!!) for $100/mo. | | So this money is actually being spent effectively when it | goes to the right place. Starlink made a bunch of | promises that they couldn't fulfill and the money is | being redirected, as it should be. | isk517 wrote: | I feel like in 90% of Starlinks use cases it is only the | best option because they are the most motivated to | succeed. Running traditional wired service is the more | practical and permanent solution but the telecoms have | made far to much money by taking money then not | delivering. | LegitShady wrote: | >Running traditional wired service is the more practical | and permanent solution | | It's permanent but it depends on what the word practical | means. Often the cost of setting up infrastructure for | such low density population means the infrastructure will | never pay for itself, or that the same money spent | elsewhere would service many more customers, so its not | necessarily practical. | grecy wrote: | > _Running traditional wired service is the more | practical and permanent solution_ | | Not when you're 50+ miles from the nearest anything. | | Don't think of people that live kind of near a town and | still get LTE. Think of people that drive for hours and | still don't get LTE. | oooyay wrote: | This letter is junk, to put it lightly. I lived in a rural | area with copper lines that were destined to stay that way | because of classist inaction by the FCC - one that rewarded | cities with new, expanded internet lines repeatedly and | required vast parts of rural America to be torn up for | backbones that they weren't allowed to tap, or could only be | tapped with inexpensive copper lines mandated through | telephony requirements. To put it less lightly, 100/20 is | still a joke and a clear discrepancy between what's offered | in most US cities and suburbs. The Biden Administration is | trying to fix that history with the FCCs mandate; I don't | care about whether Elon's satellite business is worth it in | the end. I do care whether rural people get stable, | dependable, fast internet that doesn't become irrelevant the | moment it's laid. | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | Just FYI, in case it makes a difference to your assessment of | credibility, but this is the same commissioner who opposes | net neutrality, wants to rework the CDA to deal with the way | "the far left has worked to weaponize social media | platforms", hopes to have TikTok banned in the interest of | national security, and appeared on Fox News to talk about how | "the far-left has hopped from hoax to hoax to hoax to explain | how it lost to President Trump at the ballot box". | | When you say it is most likely political, it certainly is, | because Carr and Simington (who was rammed through the Senate | at the last moment by the Trump administration) are pretty | much the definition of partisan. People who were paying | attention to the development of this situation back in | 2020/21 saw it coming. | mdasen wrote: | Starlink (and Musk in general) have been over-promising and | under-delivering for years now. Starlink claimed 150Mbps back | in 2020 and that speeds would double to 300Mbps by the end of | 2021.[1] Instead, speeds have halved.[2] | | At this point, T-Mobile is likely serving more rural high speed | internet customers with greater speeds (T-Mobile has 4.2M home | internet customers and Ookla's stats show 34% to be rural for | 1.4M; Starlink has 2M customers and assuming two-thirds are in | the US and of those 83% are rural would make for 1.1M). | | [1] https://www.tomsguide.com/news/elon-musk-promises-to- | double-... | | [2] https://www.ookla.com/articles/us-satellite- | performance-q3-2... | chrisco255 wrote: | I regularly get 150+ Mbps on my Starlink terminal. Don't | really care that they didn't hit the ambitious goal of | providing 300+, it is already more than 15x better than the | next best option available for me. | | T-Mobile has a three decade head start (maybe four if you | count their Sprint Wireless acquisition's history), so hardly | surprising if there is currently more T-Mobile home internet | users than Starlink users. But I also doubt that their rural | base is as large as Starlink's currently is. Mobile broadband | speeds heavily depend on the strength of the signal available | in area, and in many rural areas, the 5G coverage is | extremely spotty, or non-existent. | Powdering7082 wrote: | 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. | kelnos wrote: | 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. | KennyBlanken wrote: | > he fairly consistently overpromises and underdelivers. | | Can we please just call it what it really is? Lying. He's | a pathological liar. | chiefalchemist wrote: | How many startups start by telling investors, employees | and customers, "We're going to fail"? They know the odds | are that's going to happen. Are they pathological liars? | | _No one_ can predict the future. Musk is what plenty of | entrepreneurs are...over-confident. That 's part of the | profile. That doesn't make him or any of them liars. | MetaWhirledPeas wrote: | > it still leaves a bad taste in people's mouths | | It definitely does, although I don't understand why. | | One thing making bold forecasts does is motivate your | people. JFK told us we'd get to the moon _this decade_ | which is absolutely nuts. Would we have got there as soon | if he had said we 'd get to the moon _eventually_? | | To the other responder: JFK also had no tangible | justification to say we'd get there so soon, and the most | likely outcome was that he was going to be wrong. Does | that make him a pathological liar? | dmix wrote: | It's pretty obvious why it's such a big deal recently. | JohnFen wrote: | > It definitely does, although I don't understand why. | | Maybe because it's a kind of lying, and people who do it | on a regular basis are untrustworthy people? | | > JFK told us we'd get to the moon this decade which is | absolutely nuts. | | Remember that he didn't phrase it as "we will do this", | he phrased it as "this is our goal". He referred to it as | a goal we're choosing, not as an inevitability. | | Musk isn't goal-setting, he's making promises. The | difference between the two is critical. One is being a | leader, the other is being a liar. | flextheruler wrote: | You don't think there was any consultation between JFK | and NASA before he gave that speech? | | A simple search for more information provides this. | Kennedy asked Johnson to consult with NASA. | | Johnson consulted with officials of the National | Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Its new | administrator, James E. Webb, told him that there was no | chance of beating the Russians to launching a space | station, and he was not certain that NASA could orbit a | man around the Moon first, so the best option would be to | attempt to land a man on the Moon. This would also be the | most expensive option; Webb believed it would require $22 | billion (equivalent to $166 billion in 2022) to achieve | it by 1970. Johnson also consulted with Wernher von | Braun; military leaders, including Lieutenant General | Bernard Schriever; and three business executives: Frank | Stanton from CBS, Donald C. Cook from American Electric | Power, and George R. Brown from Brown & Root. | | JFK was stating an experts opinion in a speech not | spitballing random estimates that were changing yearly in | order to make him and the US seem awesome. | kelnos wrote: | I think there are some lines you shouldn't cross. Like | having people pre-pay a bunch of money for FSD, claiming | it's going to be ready in a certain amount of time, but | wildly missing that deadline and not offering to refund | people's money. | | And certainly there's a "pile on" element as well. Musk | is, to put it mildly, a controversial character in | general. It's easier to take someone you already don't | like, and criticize them more harshly for other faults | than you would for someone (like JFK, perhaps) that you | otherwise generally like. Maybe that's not fair, but it | seems pretty human-nature-y. | | Another point: is there a way to make bold forecasts in | order to motivate your employees, without making it feel | like a promise to your customers? If so, Musk generally | fails at that. | SteveGerencser wrote: | Perhaps, but he does deliver. As a rural internet | customer who has been told for a decade now that "fiber | is coming to our area" by the local telco, I am more than | happy to give Musk the benefit of the doubt as one of the | cleanest players in a filthy industry full of lies and | graft. | KennyBlanken wrote: | > I regularly get 150+ Mbps on my Starlink terminal. | | Your anecdotal experience is not a refuting of statistical | data from the overall population of users. Starlink | consistently does not provide that level of service to a | large swath of its users. | hnburnsy wrote: | >In 2022, many RDOF recipients had deployed no service at any | speed to any location at all, and they had no obligation to | do so. By contrast, Starlink had half a million subscribers | in June 2022 (and about two million in September 2023) | | https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-105A3.pdf | Deprecate9151 wrote: | That argument is a red herring. The RDOF program is | concentrated in specific geographic areas. Starlink | onboarding subscribers in other areas doesn't really have a | bearing on this program if they can't prove they can extend | that to the areas in scope and hit the service levels they | bid at. It might even hurt their argument if performance | degrades as they focus on areas outside the RDOF locations. | | More traditional offerings have a much easier time | demonstrating they can do that, even if they haven't | started physically building yet. It's very easy for them to | say x amount of fiber capacity at this location will meet | the program specs, and this is how fast we can install it. | bryanlarsen wrote: | A rule of thumb is that big infrastructure projects are | always significantly behind schedule and budget. Fiber | rollouts are big infrastructure projects. They'll be | late, almost guaranteed. Therefore demonstrating that | they can hit a schedule is very difficult. | Deprecate9151 wrote: | It is difficult, but the program (theoretically, since | the program isn't at that stage yet) has checkpoints to | address failure to actually deliver. | | This stage was to focus on if the bid accepted based off | of the short-form proposal was progressing and likely to | deliver as described by reviewing additional information | provided in the long-form application. That is going to | be easier for tech with an established delivery history. | btilly wrote: | Your counterargument hides a major flaw. | | It is true that more traditional offerings have an easier | time demonstrating that they should be able to do that. | But decades of traditional telecoms failing to hit | promised targets demonstrates that they are unlikely to | perform as promised. | | That said, regulatory capture has let them regularly get | away with the argument that you describe. Regulators | motivated by politics and corruption have pretended to | believe them. Non-incumbents therefore struggle to | navigate their higher bar. | Deprecate9151 wrote: | Can't disagree there. | | That is why I actually like the approach in the RDOF. It | has regular progress check-ins built in, instead of the | seemingly no strings attached grants given historically. | This stage two review was "are you likely to succeed | based on progress since stage one", but there are further | delivery checkpoints that come with penalties and bonuses | for under and over delivering. | COGlory wrote: | As a Montanan with T-Mobile, I promise that those "rural" | T-Mobile ones are not the same type of rural that Starlink | can serve. | TaylorAlexander wrote: | Hell I work at a farm on the coast near Silicon Valley in | San Gregorio (designing a farming robot) and Starlink is | the only decent internet option we've ever had. | mcguire wrote: | What speeds do you get? | | Edit: That's weird. San Gregorio is like 15-20 miles from | Cupertino. Here in Jackson County, AL, Farmers Telecom | Coop has gigabit or half-gigabit fiber to much of the | county. | 8ytecoder wrote: | Bay Area's fiber and broadband network is a joke. That | it's the tech capital of the world makes it so much | worse. Things are improving - I got fiber in 2020 - and | speeds are trending upwards with some local completion. | AT&T and Comcast are finally getting a bit better with | speed. Coverage still sucks. Number of available options | still suck. Not to mention weird collusions between | Comcast and apt management companies and other anti- | competitive behaviour. Then there's PG&E using various | excuses to block using their poles to expand the network. | | It's terrible. | kelnos wrote: | Yep, completely terrible. My only high-speed choice in a | well-developed neighborhood in San Francisco is 1000/35 | from Comcast (not like I ever see that 1000, though). | AT&T's fiber trunk is a block away from me, but they want | $20k+ to run that fiber to my home. | | Apparently Comcast has been experimenting/offering higher | upload speeds for a while now, but it's still not | available where I am. | chrisdhoover wrote: | There is a slim sliver of coast that has farms, then | mountains, then the valley. | | The mountains are sparsely populated and heavily | forested. Driving up and out of the valley you enter into | a different world complete with legends of murder cults. | | Its a car and motorbike mecca. Drive down the coast from | San Francisco. Climb up the mountain at San Gregorio or | further south, stop at Alice's to look at the superbikes | and super cars, and drive back down into the valley. | TaylorAlexander wrote: | > Its a car and motorbike mecca. | | I'll say! In high school and college I had a 1991 | Mitsubishi 3000GT VR4 and I grew up on Highway 9 in Ben | Lomond. I went to college at Santa Clara University and | continued dating someone who lived off Highway 9 in | Boulder Creek. I got to rip it over HWY 9 a few times a | week! Such a lovely drive. Tho I lost a dear friend to a | car accident on that road and I slowed down a lot since | then. | TaylorAlexander wrote: | I've lived in lots of locations around the Bay Area over | the last 20 years and I didn't have fiber until a year | ago when I moved to Oakland. | | According to three speed tests with the command line | speedtest application I am getting these speeds with | Starlink: | | Download: 59.79, 88.52, 104.76 Mbit/s | | Upload: 6.45, 11.42, 15.79 Mbit/s | throw0101c wrote: | > [...] _(and Musk in general) have been over-promising and | under-delivering for years now._ | | Related, "Tesla FSD Timeline": | | > _September 2014: They will be a factor of 10 safer than a | person [at the wheel] in a six-year time frame_ | | * https://motherfrunker.ca/fsd/ | | * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38625380 (earlier | today) | DoesntMatter22 wrote: | To be fair FSD is the hardest software problem that man has | ever attempted. | bdcravens wrote: | Possibly, but then don't make promises and have the | audacity to charge for it | mikestew wrote: | That's not being fair, that's making excuses. If the | problem is _that_ hard, don 't be running your mouth | about you'll have it done in six months, and charge | people money while you work out the bugs. | DoesntMatter22 wrote: | Never did Musk say "We'll have it done in six months". | r3d0c wrote: | lol... but he has been saying "it'll be out next year" | for many years | | but please, keep defending in bad faith | delecti wrote: | This: https://motherfrunker.ca/fsd/ (linked in the GGP to | your comment) links to this tweet from Jan 23, 2017 | https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/823727035088416768 | | When asked the question "At what point will "Full Self- | Driving Capability" features noticeably depart from | "Enhanced Autopilot" features?" | | Elon responded "3 months maybe, 6 months definitely" | | Also, lots of examples of "this year" stated in various | Januarys, and multiple instances along the lines of | "complete autonomy in 2 years" going back 8 years. | | I suspect his statements are carefully made to not | technically meet the legal definition for fraud, but | colloquially he's absolutely a liar. | isk517 wrote: | Those don't count because Elon had this fingers crossed | when he made those tweets. /s | DoesntMatter22 wrote: | This question was _not_ asking about when FSD was going | to work but when Enhanced Autopilot would noticeably | depart from FSD. No where in there did it say "FSD will | be working completely in 6 months". | | They did in fact diverge, no where was that a statement | that FSD would be complete by then. | | It's ironic you are calling him a liar when your response | seems to either be completely dishonest itself or you are | not aware of the subject at hand. | tedivm wrote: | In October of 2016- | | > By the end of next year, said Musk, Tesla would | demonstrate a fully autonomous drive from, say, a home in | L.A., to Times Square ... without the need for a single | touch, including the charging. | | So you're technically right- he said three months, not | six. | | https://www.nbcnews.com/business/autos/driverless-tesla- | will... | DoesntMatter22 wrote: | I don't see any direct quote of him saying what you are | claiming. Please post that quote if you can find it | Fountain1320 wrote: | Quote came from a conference call. | | https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5SfDmL0sv3w | | At ~6:20. | NotACop182 wrote: | I never understood someone so determined to ignore all | the evidence. Yet when confronted doubles/triples down | with excuses. | flextheruler wrote: | It's called the sunk cost fallacy anyone who owns a Tesla | and Tesla stock has been extremely susceptible for years | now | natch wrote: | Confronted with evidence that nowhere supports the | claims. We really are in bizarro world here, rife with | sloppy thinking and fuzzy smears. Certainly Elon shoots | off his mouth and has underestimated timelines, but the | specific claims being made about those mistakes go way | beyond and into lala land. | DoesntMatter22 wrote: | There is no proof. He never said it. People keep posting | other quotes but none where he says what they claim. | | If you have proof of a direct quote where he says that | FSD will be done withing 6 or 3 months for certain than | please post it. | | Otherwise, attacking me is dishonest | jcranmer wrote: | > I suspect his statements are carefully made to not | technically meet the legal definition for fraud, but | colloquially he's absolutely a liar. | | They're probably not carefully made, but fraud requires | knowledge of falsity, and short of an internal report | saying "this feature won't be ready before XYZ," it is | going to be extremely difficult to prove Tesla knew the | claims were false. | | The other thing you'll run into is reasonability of | reliance--at this point, with so many deadlines | repeatedly blown through, it would be hard to demonstrate | that a reasonable person could rely on a representation | that a promised deadline would be met. | JohnFen wrote: | I would think it would be hard to find a reasonable | person who takes anything Musk says seriously anymore and | yet plenty seem to. | The_Colonel wrote: | If you're not following Musk every day, and maybe just | know he's the Tesla/rocket guy, why wouldn't you take him | seriously? | | Somehow, this sounds like shifting blame from the liar to | others ... | JohnFen wrote: | I wasn't assigning or shifting blame for anything. I was | just expressing that I am baffled by the reality. | medvezhenok wrote: | The reason people follow Musk is that even though he | over-promises and under-delivers; the under-delivered | product is still better than the alternatives (or at | least was for a while). | | People are not complete fools and can learn to discount | over-the-top rhetoric; sure, some people are harmed by | believing everything verbatim, but those people also fall | for scams, etc, etc. | | His statements are parsed as statements of intent more so | than actual timeline commitments. We'll have FSD in 6 | months = FSD is our main priority at the moment. And sure | it also makes for PR/free advertising. Is it scammy? | Probably. But he likely got more out of people by pushing | this false narrative than would have been otherwise | accomplished. | JohnFen wrote: | I have real trouble with "the ends justify the means" | arguments. | | > Is it scammy? Probably. | | It's the behavior of a con artist. | | > But he likely got more out of people by pushing this | false narrative than would have been otherwise | accomplished. | | Even if that's the case, he could have had the same, or | better, effect without the lying. The lying is clearly | aimed at gaining investment money and preorders, though, | not at some bizarre attempt at motivating engineers. | HWR_14 wrote: | > fraud requires knowledge of falsity | | Does it? Is there no "average person should be aware" | level? | dragonwriter wrote: | > fraud requires knowledge of falsity, | | The civil tort of fraud (criminal fraud is different) | generally requires either knowledge of falsity or | reckless indifference to the truth. | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | > _fraud requires knowledge of falsity_ | | Or recklessness as to falsity - like not caring whether | the statement was true or false. | wolverine876 wrote: | > with so many deadlines repeatedly blown through, it | would be hard to demonstrate that a reasonable person | could rely on a representation that a promised deadline | would be met. | | That enables fraudsters, of course. Also, what about | people who don't spend all their time on the Internet, on | HN, reading about Elon Musk? They buy stocks and cars | too. | Hamuko wrote: | > _I suspect his statements are carefully made to not | technically meet the legal definition for fraud_ | | 2017 was before the infamous "funding secured" tweet, so | I imagine there was no care in crafting his statements. | fragmede wrote: | I dunno, AGI seems like a hard problem too. | JoshTriplett wrote: | Safe AGI is a hard problem. AGI is, sadly, not hard | enough. | acdha wrote: | FSD is a substantial subset of AGI: driving is full of | edge cases where you need to be able to reason about | unusual conditions or behavior by other drivers, | understand what someone like a flagger or police officer | is saying, etc. | mannykannot wrote: | It is not obvious that even level 5 FSD will require | either self-awareness or a theory of mind: adequate | modeling of the possible behaviors of nearby actors in | the immediate future may be "all" it takes, and current | systems are struggling with that. | | Of course, if one were to _define_ FSD in terms of being | so capable that it could also likely pass the Turing test | (or whatever better replacement we come up with as a | measure of AGI), then, _by definition_ , it would be | close to as hard a problem as AGI itself. | acdha wrote: | I said "substantial subset" precisely to avoid this kind | of tangent. My point was simply that there are a lot of | edge cases we have no clear path to solving which are | masked at the current level by punting the problem to the | human driver. We are a very long time from being able to | build cars without manual controls even if we might hit | the point where a majority of driving miles are automated | long before then. | deepsun wrote: | Not necessarily -- we can have AGI, but it might be too | resource-intensive to put in a mobile platform like a | car. | mensetmanusman wrote: | We will know that AGI is more likely to be solved when | FSD is easily solved. | AlexandrB wrote: | This is important to consider when judging Tesla's | engineering capability, but not when judging Elon Musk's | highly optimistic promises. | | Either Elon is aware of the fact that FSD is really hard | and he's _lying repeatedly_ about being able to deliver | it "later this year". Or he is not aware that FSD is as | hard as you say and needs to "hit the books" and | understand the problem better. I don't really see an | "out" here after so many missed promises. | AnthonyMouse wrote: | Software timelines are notoriously hard to forecast | because you're essentially trying to predict how long it | will take to do something nobody has done before. | | So you look at what's left to do and as long as you don't | run into any unforeseen issues you say, looks like about | six months from now. | | Sometimes you don't run into any unforeseen issues and it | turns out to be about six months. | | Sometimes you do, and then it takes longer. So a year | later you found an unexpected problem that delayed you by | a year. Someone asks you how long you think it will take | again, that issue delayed you by a year but that was a | year ago, so you say, looks like about six months from | now. | | Eventually the estimate will be true but nobody knows | when because nobody knows how to make an accurate | estimate. Because you have to know how hard it is to do | in order to know how long it will take, which nobody | knows until after somebody has actually done it. | TaylorAlexander wrote: | I watched a panel discussion on self driving cars in 2015 | with several legit experts in the technology (I believe | Sebastian Thrun was one of them). There were also some | CEOs. The experts all said there's no way the tech would | deploy before 2025, potentially later. The CEOs were | saying 2018 or 2019. | | The experts had a clear view way back then, the CEOs just | don't want to listen. | bryanlarsen wrote: | Waymo deployed cars without safety drivers to Tempe in | 2021. | cycomanic wrote: | I'd argue even waymo is still far away from FSD. | Driverless cars on a restricted set of roads with a | remote operator monitoring things (and the ability to | quickly resolve issues), is nowhere close to what I (and | the general public I would argue) understands as fully | self driving. | bryanlarsen wrote: | Sure, if you set the goalposts in a place that's | unachievable we'll never reach them. | | - even human drivers cannot safely operate in all | locations/conditions | | - all self-driving cars will need a mechanism for cops to | talk to a human | kelnos wrote: | The goal is to replace a human driver in every situation | where a human driver could or would drive, with an | equivalent or (ideally) better safety record. | | Are you suggesting that Waymo is there? I don't think the | evidence would support that. Even if we relax that goal a | bit so the self-driving car can disengage and refuse to | drive in, say, the most difficult 20% of situations, I | don't think we can say Waymo is there, either. | mannykannot wrote: | You just moved the goalposts in order to set up a straw- | man argument! | | One can quite reasonably point out that level 5 autonomy | has not yet been achieved without moving the level 5 | goalposts. | aeturnum wrote: | This is always a game of boundary-setting. In one way | that's true, in another way Waymo is 21+ years behind[1]. | People have been setting up 'particular vehicles' to | navigate 'particular areas' for decades. If the Waymo | "self driving car" is an expansion of older site-specific | tech, then there's nothing new under the sun. If their | car is can be put anywhere then it just being able to | drive in Tempe isn't proof of that. | | IMO the truth is more with the experts. Each new location | seems to require a lot of tuning to get right and | function in a way the company is happy with. If a "self | driving car" is one we can drop anywhere and have it | drive we are still waiting on that. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ParkShuttle | hn_throwaway_99 wrote: | Oh, come on, these kinds of false analogies don't help to | elucidate, only to confuse. | | There is a universe of difference between something like | ParkShuttle (its own right of way, using magnets in the | road to detect position) and modern autonomous vehicles. | Saying modern autonomous vehicles have environmental | constraints is valid, saying that makes then no different | than a "people mover on wheels" is not. | aeturnum wrote: | So my analogy is false huh? Then say a true one! | | The point is that "deployed to a limited area" is not | what people are thinking when they talk about a "self | driving car." Of course ParkShuttle isn't the same as | Waymo (or any other modern self-driving car) - but the | question is how far we've come! | | Are you claiming Waymo is ready to drive anywhere in the | world? I do not think that's Waymo's position. So where | are we? Cut through the rhetoric and tell it like it is - | or join the rest of us who are speculating from the | sidelines with incomplete information. | deepsun wrote: | By the way, Particular Vehicles have been safely serving | Particular Areas for decades: airport driverless | shuttles. Slowly expanding from there is the right way to | go, not "New York to Palo Alto by 2017", as Musk | promised. | aeturnum wrote: | Yah, without any evidence to back it up my personal | suspicion is that we'll arrive at a local maxima of "full | self driving on highways and instrumented roads" in ~20 | years. I think the area has a lot of potential, but so | much of the hype (and stock price) is tied up with "a car | that can drive better than a human everywhere" which | seems impossible for anyone to produce. | | Just like with IoT we'll eventually arrive at a boring, | useful state...it will just take a while. | TaylorAlexander wrote: | Sure but the panel discussion was talking about consumer | release of self driving cars, which really requires level | 5 capabilities in a wide variety of conditions, not just | ideal weather. | DoesntMatter22 wrote: | Experts are wrong all the time. The experts said that | solar prices would come down but were off by nearly an | order of magnitude in how long it took. | | With something this hard it's extremely tough to tell for | sure when it will happen and often progress goes in | chunks where it seems like it's going to happen but then | doesnt. | r3d0c wrote: | > The experts said that solar prices would come down but | were off by nearly an order of magnitude in how long it | took. | | citation required | zbyte64 wrote: | I agree with all of this, but if the problem is too hard | for the expert, why would I listen to a billionaire/CEO? | skygazer wrote: | He also does dubiously claim to be an expert in many | fields, although despite the success of the engineers | working for him, his greatest personal expertise appears | to be sycophant creation -- competence can only propel | one so far. | | Although one should never believe the ravings, useful | work does surprisingly often nucleate around them, just | not to the degree or with the speed promised. | mulmen wrote: | Experts have a narrow, deep view while CEOs have a wide, | shallow view. | | If the expert works in a lab developing new experimental | solar panels they probably don't see a clear path to mass | production. | | The CEO might know another manufacturing expert that does | see a path to production and have enough high level | understanding to know the methods are compatible. | tcmart14 wrote: | In this case yes, but in this case we have to assume the | research side has achieved it's goal (its proven a | material exists with the desired properties), now it is a | manufacturing problem. If the lab can't produce the | material, the manufacturing lines have nothing to | manufacture with. And that seems to be the case with FSD. | CEOs make wild claims, but the tech isn't there. The | material has not been proven to exist in a lab with the | desired properties. | | Like a CEO saying, I have a material that can protect | wearers from nuclear fusion blasts and it will be on the | market in 6 months, but the experts in the field have yet | to actually prove that material exists and create it in a | lab. | LamaOfRuin wrote: | Many experts predicted price declines with pretty fair | accuracy. The large groups of experts that were making | these forecasts for purposes of global planning for | mitigation of climate change were often intentionally | conservative because the danger of planning with that | assumption outweighs anything you lose by making more | conservative predictions. | kelnos wrote: | Sure, but I'd trust experts in a field over a bunch of | CEOs who have a vested interest in claiming something | will be ready sooner rather than later. | | Even CEOs who _are_ an experts are by their very nature | too biased to take at face value. | medvezhenok wrote: | Not many people, even experts, predicted the success of | ChatGPT even five years ago - and most have moved their | timeline for AGI up significantly because of its release. | | AI is a hard field to make predictions in. | serf wrote: | who in their right mind would look at any problem in any | field with the title of "hardest problem" and then put a | schedule to it? | pyrale wrote: | A deluded narcissist? | freejazz wrote: | One would think this would be a good reason to not | promise that you'll have solved it within a timeframe | that's not even remotely realistic | didntknowya wrote: | can't be that hard if he claimed he could finish it in | 3-6months. | coffeebeqn wrote: | At this point anyone who takes his claims at face value is | a fool | wolverine876 wrote: | Is it legal to cheat the foolish and ignorant? | pstuart wrote: | It's legal to do lots of shitty things. But is it immoral | to do so? Yes. | madaxe_again wrote: | I get 300/30 on starlink. I'm not sure why ookla's data says | otherwise. | WheatMillington wrote: | Did you consider that your experience may not be | representative? | kelnos wrote: | Because you are not everyone who uses Starlink? Just | because you get good speeds, it doesn't mean that the | average Starlink user does as well. | jlmorton wrote: | Starlink also just launched in earnest a couple years ago, | and is experiencing meteoric growth rates of ~100% a year. | | It doesn't take very many doublings for this comment to go | down with "why would anyone want Dropbox." | tomcam wrote: | > T-Mobile is likely serving more rural high speed internet | customers with greater speeds | | I live exactly 13 miles away from T-Mobile HQ (one city over) | and their service was unusable. I know, I know, anecdotal. | But funny! | itslennysfault wrote: | When I was living in Seattle I found the service to be | shockingly bad. I "upgraded" to 5G and my service got | substantially worse. I'd often have "full signal 5G" and | barely be able to watch videos in Capitol Hill. I worked in | SoDo and I found multiple dead zones between the train | station and my work (just a few blocks). | | For a while I was tweeting at them regularly with | screenshots, but got bored of the "DM us so we can resolve | this right away" bots and realized I was screaming into the | void. I ultimately wound up switching to Verizon. | | Interestingly, T-Mobile service was far better in the 3 | other major cities I lived in, but it's still pretty | embarrassing that their service is so bad right in their | own backyard. | tomcam wrote: | > got bored of the "DM us so we can resolve this right | away" bots and realized I was screaming into the void | | You're giving me PTSD here lol | memish wrote: | "under-delivering" | | Delivered millions of EVs that everyone said would never | work, dragging the entire car industry out of its stupor. | | Delivered a vast electric charging network and made it | available to the competition. | | Delivered the best satellite internet. | | Delivered rockets that NASA uses. | | Delivered the most payload to space, more than even China. | | Gee, imagine under-delivering that badly. | I_Am_Nous wrote: | "under-delivering" was paired with "over-promising". Elon | has done some cool stuff, yeah. He promised _cooler_ stuff | and so far it hasn 't been possible for lots of reasons. So | you are both correct. | mensetmanusman wrote: | over delivering compared to the world, under delivering | compared to where Musk wants to be | hnburnsy wrote: | I_Am_Nous wrote: | | "Starlink reportedly argued that once they can properly launch | Starship, they can surely hit the required speeds. As of yet | Starship hasn't had a successful launch." | | From one of the dissenting opinions: | | > the majority points to delays in the development of SpaceX's | Starship launch platform--the largest, most powerful rocket | ever built--as evidence that SpaceX would be unable to launch | enough Starlink satellites to meet its 2025 commitments. The | trouble with this argument is that SpaceX never indicated that | it was relying on the Starship platform to meet its RDOF | obligations, and in fact it repeatedly stated that it was not. | | https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-105A3.pdf | Deprecate9151 wrote: | The Commission decision does address this. Unfortunately the | section is redacted of specific details, but it appears | Starlink argued that it's second gen satellites would be | launched via Starship and address these issues. | | However, they didn't successfully launch Starship yet as they | described in that plan, and only announced Falcon 9 would | launch second gen satellites after they were already denied | based off of the initial plan. | | The dissenting letter unfortunately just says "no they | didn't", but doesn't point to any documentary evidence. It's | hard to accept it at face value when compared to the long | form explanation. Especially when much of the "corrective | action" taken by Starlink has come after the initial denial. | trothamel wrote: | Given how much of the decision is blacked out, it's hard to | give it any credibility, either. | jandrese wrote: | I find it impressive that the government is actually punishing | a project for running late and underdelivering. They should | expand this to all parts of the government. Can you imagine if | the F-35 was cancelled the first time it fell behind schedule? | The Space Launch System? The Littoral Combat System? The USS | JFK? | | So many boondoggles could be killed off before they spend | money. Maybe contractors would have to start properly | estimating costs up front. Or maybe nothing would ever get done | again. | | I do wonder what the FCC is planning to do with these funds if | they aren't funding Starlink. Are they going to go towards a | "safer" project like Project Kuiper? Or maybe dumping it into | Inmarsat? | shmatt wrote: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Abandoned_military_pr. | .. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cancelled_military_pro. | .. | | F35 Survived but there are like 50 other planes that didnt in | that second list | justsomehnguy wrote: | Bradley IFV is _not_ on this list. | georgeecollins wrote: | Say what you want about the Bradley, and criticism of the | military is very healthy! I think the war in Ukraine | shows that while the project may have been wasteful the | end result is still useful. | mustacheemperor wrote: | Because the Bradley IFV was only a boondoggle within the | almost completely fictionalized setting of _Pentagon | Wars_. | | Someone else pointed out the performance in Ukraine, but | IMO this was already a settled point in 1991, when they | collectively destroyed more enemy armor than the Abrams | and only lost 3 vehicles to enemy fire. | Qwertious wrote: | The Pentagon Wars was misleading bullshit and the Bradley | IFV was a good idea that was slated to come in under | budget (before James Burton demanded his tests). | | The tests were a huge waste of money that conclusively | proved that the Bradley couldn't survive an anti-tank | missile, which is irrelevant because 1) the Bradley isn't | a tank and was never required to survive one, and 2) the | Pentagon already _knew_ that; they 'd tested the | components individually already. | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gOGHdZDmEk | | (28min 20sec) | jandrese wrote: | Most of those weren't cancelled because they ran behind | schedule, they were cancelled for political reasons or | because the role they were designed for went away. | Sometimes because some other project was overrunning their | budget so badly that they had to be cancelled to free up | the money for the boondoggle. | hughesjj wrote: | And the f35 is honestly legit when it's all said and done. | There's a reason why it's sold so well, and it's only | getting better. | lesuorac wrote: | I think you may not understand what the government is. | | The government is a collection of individuals. It is not a | single borg instance. Some individuals within that collection | are going to act different than other ones. | | Also the government does a lot of funding through different | mechanisms. Many miltiary programs are a cost+ program where | they pay the contractor the cost of development plus a | profit% so the initial budget is a bit moot since the point | is to pay for a capability. That obviously doesn't apply here | and the FCC wasn't offering a Cost+ program. | jandrese wrote: | As if cost+ contracting hasn't been a major factor in | projects going overbudget and behind schedule. Even with | cost+ the contractor needs to provide an estimate up front | of both the time and money needed. While it is understood | that it is just an estimate, having projects come in for 5x | or more of the original estimated cost is egregious. SLS | for example was estimated to cost $1.5B, but instead costs | $11.2B and still hasn't launched. | lesuorac wrote: | > SLS for example was estimated to cost $1.5B | | I wish it was; lol. The initial estimate was $18B [1]. I | suspect you saw the $1.5B number for some sub-component | of SLS. That's another common problem with government | projects. The media will read some government report that | says a new railroad will cost $1B and then report that | the entire project will cost $1B while the report only | talked about track cost and not about land acquisition, | even environmental studies, or etc. | | That said, yes SLS is over ($23B) the $18B budget and not | done. | | I do wish NASA would move closer to how DARPA does things | where you payout a reward to companies that achieve some | milestone. Somewhat close to what the FCC did here except | the FCC is giving the money ahead of milestone. But there | are pros and cons to this as government contracting is a | pia so when you get into the situation of a single | competitor it gets awkward. | | Contractors not meeting their bids is a problem though. | At the personal/corporate/government level I don't think | people account for enough the fact that the contractor | might not uphold their side of the bargin. Similar to how | many people choose the cheapest insurance and then | :surprise-pickachu-face: all their claims get denied. | | [1]: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System#Funding | jandrese wrote: | It was $1.5B per launch. But that figure keeps going up | as they have to amortize even more development cost into | each launch, and the total number of launches remains | constant or even drops. | kelnos wrote: | The problem with cost+ is that contractors can inflate the | actual cost of things, and pocket the difference. Obviously | they can't do this to an unlimited extent, but the cynic in | me would have a hard time believing this isn't a common | practice. | kulahan wrote: | It's much more likely that this stuff is difficult to do, | and thus difficult to price out, than that somehow the | managers of these companies are working with the finance | people to secretly steal money from the government and | hide it in their books, the government never catches it, | and these very amicable ties between the government and | defense contractors continues - and all of that is before | we even get to what happens when you try to steal and | your project falls _behind_. | | It's way more valuable, usually, to get it done quickly | and done well the first time, so you can move onto | another project. You leave a few people on the original | program pull in tons of super easy maintenance contract | money for what essentially ends up being a skeleton crew. | | Or, I suppose, you could try and inflate costs by a | couple percentage points (not too much - you'll get | caught and the risk here is MASSIVE), keep working on the | same program, and hope the opportunity cost doesn't get | too high. | | I'm sure it happens, but I doubt it happens often. | lesuorac wrote: | I mean there's almost certainly crime that happens in | contracting but there is a real risk of being caught if | you commit fraud. Do remember that companies such as | Google do pay out literally millions of dollars to random | people that send in invoices for work never requested or | done. | | Cost+ at face-value isn't that bad of an idea. An | alternative to it is the government hiring a bunch of | people to do a project and ideally the government only | pays Cost in that case. For people that don't believe the | government can do anything this is a pretty good trade | off. | | IIRC, the `+` part is capped at 15% profit so IIUC that's | similar to an operating margin of 15%. Although IIUC, | executive expenses and a ton of other things come out of | the `+` part so it should be lower than 15%. But the | point I'm going to make here is that an operating margin | of 15% isn't really impressive and that's the best that | the contractor can do. | commandlinefan wrote: | > Some individuals within that collection are going to act | different than other ones | | Actually, no, they seem to have been acting as a | (predictable) monolith for at least the past three years... | atty wrote: | To be fair, defense is an existential risk for the US and its | allies. NATO can't really afford to not have a reasonably up- | to-date combat jet. They also need to continually feed money | into the military industrial complex so that suppliers don't | go under/downsize too much/etc. | | Not disagreeing with your sentiment, just think that certain | fields like defense, healthcare, etc have slightly different | priority lists. | tehjoker wrote: | > defense is an existential risk for the US | | this is not a true statement for a huge country with oceans | on 2 sides and nukes. it is a true statement about people | relying on the us military to make money tho | FredPret wrote: | Oceans are only a defense if you can float a navy on | them. The British Islands got invaded a couple of | times... until they built a big navy. | | Having _two_ oceans is great, but now you need at least | two fleets. | | Nukes are only worth something if you have a lot of them | and can credibly delivery them in multiple ways. Now you | need subs, long-range bombers and the fighters to protect | them, and missile silos. | | Now add in reliance on a global supply chain (many types | of oil and minerals, grades of steel not made in the US, | TSMC), and all of a sudden you need to be able to help | protect your partners on the other side of the world. | | Now sprinkle in a couple of crazy dictators with nuclear | arsenals and huge armies of their own, and it's starting | to make sense why the US military needs constant re- | investment. | peterfirefly wrote: | Don't forget satellites and SIGINT (which just might | involve crazy submarines and big "scientific" radio | astronomy dishes). Or cover stories about ships and | manganese extraction worthy of James Bond. | I_Am_Nous wrote: | The FCC didn't even give Starlink a chance to run late or | underdeliver, they assessed the program and capability and | decided it wasn't where they wanted to spend grant money. So | they aren't being punished, they are being passed over for a | better option. | ALittleLight wrote: | What is the better option? | I_Am_Nous wrote: | The FCC originally didn't want to include fixed wireless | or satellite internet for RDOF consideration, so from | that fact alone I believe they were intending it to be | fiber optic. A fiber plant is pretty immutable, even if | you end up upgrading the things connected to the fiber | for higher speeds. Once it's buried, it's pretty reliable | (unless a passing herd of excavators get hungry and smell | the fiber buried underground) while a satellite system is | hard to upgrade and subject to the unpredictability of | space. For example, mission Group 4-7 deployed 49 | satellites and a geomagnetic storm killed all but 10 of | them. | | The risk is just much higher with satellites than with | buried fiber. If the FCC is trying to build more | permanent networks, fiber in the ground is much more | permanent. | jandrese wrote: | 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. | wizardwes wrote: | Part of the issue is that some of these companies are the | only companies in the US _capable_ of this scale of | manufacturing, which is expensive to maintain, and only the | government really uses. In other words, they 're too big to | fail. If we penalize them, and they go out of business or | even just downsize, and then we need something urgently, | we're SOL. And so we keep ponying up so that, should we need | it, we keep their manufacturing capabilities. | bsder wrote: | > So many boondoggles could be killed off before they spend | money. | | This is, in fact, _precisely_ the issue with government | contracting. But not in the way you think. | | For all practical purposes, every single government contract | can be cancelled without warning and there's not a damn thing | you can do about it. Consequently, every single government | contract is executed with that in mind. | | This leads to all the pathological behaviors that everybody | bitches about. | hedora wrote: | I wish they'd bar companies that have failed to build out their | rural service areas for more than a decade from accepting this | money, and also that accepting the grant automatically granted | you the appropriate right of way via imminent domain. | | It costs essentially nothing to lay fiber in the ground in most | places (they have little portable boring machines, so you don't | even have to trench), and independent ISPs have no problem | profitably laying fiber where they are legally allowed to do so. | voakbasda wrote: | So, my tiny rural co-op ISP should barred from getting one of | these, because they cannot afford to lay dozens of miles of | fiber in order to serve a hundred households? You want to keep | us country folk in the dark ages? Because that's what it sounds | like. | | Laying fiber requires a small crew, and they don't work for | free. My driveway alone is over a 1/4 mile (400m), and it will | take them a day to lay and terminate my branch due to all of | the buried obstructions (based on how long it took them to lay | new copper lines a decade ago). | | I would be all for disqualifying the regional cable/telco | monopolists, but who do you think lobbied their Congress | critters to get these funds allocated in the first place? Ain't | never gunna happen.... | dboreham wrote: | Indeed. Fiber as a last mile solution for true rural areas is | a non-starter. Source: I also built a small WISP and still | maintain my own microwave service, and use Starlink as a | backup. | newaccount74 wrote: | Why? We managed to get power lines and phone lines to | pretty much every house even in rural areas. Why should | laying fiber be a "non-starter"? | I_Am_Nous wrote: | Fiber can even run aerial on those same power lines. It | doesn't _have_ to be buried, which could help some of the | more remote areas that already have power. | s1artibartfast wrote: | Thats not what they said. | | <I wish they'd bar companies that have failed to build out | their rural service areas for more than a decade from | accepting this money | | If your ISP already took millions and didn't do what they | said they would last time, that should disqualify them for | another grant. | | >because they cannot afford to lay dozens of miles of fiber | in order to serve a hundred households? You want to keep us | country folk in the dark ages? Because that's what it sounds | like. | | Sounds like starlink may make more sense for your home and | community than fiber. There is obviously a density threshold | where laying fiber is not cost effective. | iav wrote: | Hmm, I would like to see a citation on that second comment. You | can look at Frontier's last earnings release, they spent $168M | of build Capex to pass 332k homes, or $506/home passed in the | last quarter. Note that "passing" a home is not the same as | connecting a home, there is additional cost involved there. And | Frontier has tremendous cost benefit from the fact that they | already own the telephone poles that they can reuse and have | been doing this for decades at massive scale. | | If you think the entire cost of laying fiber is just the cost | of boring/digging, then you don't know what you are talking | about. | sumtechguy wrote: | The thing is they keep saying it IS the digging that is | hampering them (we know that to be false). The one I saw a | few weeks ago they ran about 1000ft of cable in under an | hour. Most of that was getting the machine off/on the trailer | and reterminating the lines. | arolihas wrote: | eminent domain | inemesitaffia wrote: | Of what exactly? You want the Feds to pay 100's of billions | for SpaceX? Instead of Fiber? | arolihas wrote: | I don't want that. I don't think a lot of what OP made | sense, but I was just correcting their typo since it's an | understandable mistake and can be easily fixed. | ToucanLoucan wrote: | > It costs essentially nothing to lay fiber in the ground in | most places | | I'm sorry what? This part of your comment is so absurd that it | calls into question anything else you might be saying here. | | I lived through a fiber roll out only a short year or so ago, | it was an _entire summer_ of trucks, mostly contractors by the | look of them, with trailers, with boring machines, stacks of | boxes, and of course, spools upon spools of fiber and conduit. | If that cost "essentially nothing" do you really assert that | all of those workmen, all of those resources, all of those | assets were simply brought forth from the void to perform their | work and then sent back? | | And that's just the actual work, I'm sure there was months if | not years of permitting, working with the city engineers to | plan things out, the logistics behind all of that shit, for | actual months of work that was barely completed before snow hit | the ground. | | Holy fuck people. Infrastructure is HARD. It's one of the | hardest things you CAN BUILD. | rpmisms wrote: | I love how the cost of directional drilling is completely | discounted here. It's an expensive process that requires a ton | of skilled (often union) labor. | ejb999 wrote: | >>It costs essentially nothing to lay fiber in the ground in | most places | | How to tell us you know absolutely nothing about the costs of | running fiber, without actually saying you know absolutely | nothing about the costs of running fiber | tekla wrote: | Highly recommend actually reading the FCC reports. I know that is | a high bar. | | https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-reaffirms-rejection-nearly-... | | I'm pretty convinced that this ruling was a bit horseshit. | jupp0r wrote: | Care to summarize why for those of us who don't want to read | the FCC report? | jcranmer wrote: | Paragraphs 30 and 31 seem pretty dispositive to me. Starlink | has not yet been able to reach the required speeds, its speeds | have gotten worse over the past years, and it can point to no | concrete evidence to suggest that Starlink's aspirational plans | to suddenly and dramatically change that trend over the next | several months are in fact realistic. Not that the report | points this out, but Musk's companies do have a long history of | touting unrealistic milestones and a very short history of | actually reaching any such milestone on time. | | So what's horseshit about it? | inemesitaffia wrote: | The RDOF has a testing and deployment timeline. | | It's supposed to only cover deployments under the award | itself. | jupp0r wrote: | The argument that national average bandwidth for Starlink is | probably worse than for those rural communities is a solid one. | Not sure if it makes up for the large gap, but in my opinion | Starlink is well suited because it works better the less other | users are in your cell (ie better in less densely populated | regions). | licomo wrote: | It has fluctuated over time, but has almost always been over | the minimum limits (25/3) IMO. It is also _vastly_ more | reliable than our only WISP option in the area. | | What I have seen is that the cell will start to fill up, speeds | slow down a little (still better than our WISP and other | Satellite providers), then the cell closes. More satellites | launch, speeds go up, and the cell opens again. It's my | experience, so take it with a grain of salt. I've had it since | the original beta / before 100% coverage. | | Most of the complaints I see are from people with existing | cable options. It is _not_ as good as cable /fiber, but a | complete game changer for those of us who have had flakey | connections. | SECProto wrote: | > It has fluctuated over time, but has almost always been | over the minimum limits (25/3) IMO | | SpaceX didn't apply for 25/3, they applied for 100/20. The | rest of your comment matches my experience. | licomo wrote: | I understand, but the original comment was saying that was | worse than what was available to many. That is not true in | my case. | Coder1996 wrote: | I agree. I have a WISP and it is shite. $99/mo for up to (but | almost never) 100 Mpbs down. Charter's trucks are now running | lines to my property and we will be switching to Spectrum as | soon as we can. Fuck Adaptive. | ciarlill wrote: | Does anyone know how to find out information on progress or | updates if you live in one of the RDOF auction blocks? I can see | that Charter won a bid for my location 4 years ago. The FCC page | also states "Winning bidders must meet periodic buildout | requirements that will require them to reach all assigned | locations by the end of the sixth year." We're going on 4 years | now since the auction closed. I'm just curious if this is | actually going to happen as it impacts my decision whether to | move or not. The cynic in me says they haven't even started yet, | and inevitably will push for extensions and do everything | conceivable to take this money and not deliver within 6 years or | possibly ever. | | Meanwhile for the past 2 years Starlink is the only service I can | actually use with any reasonable stability and low(ish) latency. | They have at times delivered up to 200Mbps down and 20 up but it | is not consistent. I have much more faith that they will deliver | 100/20 consistently by 2025 than Charter will be delivering | gigabit to me by then. | Nifty3929 wrote: | Yes indeed, those subsidies were intended to go to the major | telcom companies who lobbied for them. Starlink (and Musk) | receiving them would be an unintended consequence and ruin the | plan. | cmrdporcupine wrote: | The moment Starlink started rolling out here (barely rural | southern Ontario, just 5km-10km from town) -- along with more and | more point to point wireless towers going up from indie ISPs -- | the local telco (Bell Canada) suddenly found it in their heart to | run fiber optic up and down the road. Which I'm sure promptly put | all that out of business. | | So now I have 3gbps fiber to the house, after 10 years of | surviving on low bandwidth capped expensive Internet despite | being proximous to the suburbs of the biggest city in Canada. | | It may be in the end something like Starlink ends up being like | Google's Fiber was in the cities it went into -- a fire lit under | the bigger providers, forcing them to actually do something. | | Seems like a shitty way to get society's infrastructure built | though, doesn't it? Imagine if the power grid had developed this | way. | edent wrote: | Why does arch-capitalist Musk want to be beholden to the | socialist policies of state-subsidies? | rpmisms wrote: | It sounds like they decided to compete for a contract that was | otherwise designed to just give money to traditional telecoms | for doing nothing. | dehrmann wrote: | Except for X, most of his companies have involved large | government subsidies or contracts. Tesla, SpaceX, Boring, | Hyperloop. | pmorici wrote: | He doesn't, he has publicly said the company didn't lobby for | this program. If it exists though would you rather have the | most efficient player be award the contract or some legacy | telco who lobbied for the largesse and is woefully slow and | inefficient? | josefritz wrote: | This is consistent with the original decision. LTD Broadband, | another big 2020 recipient is no longer eligible. | https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-rejects-ltd-broadband-starl... | wnevets wrote: | This is precisely why anyone trying to tie this to Twitter is a | political dunce. | ejb999 wrote: | Right, I am sure it is a complete coincidence that almost all | of Musk's companies are suddenly being investigated by | multiple federal departments... | wnevets wrote: | The FCC canceled Starlink's welfare check on August 10, | 2022. | | Elon took over Twitter on October 27, 2022. | | Where is the coincidence exactly? | inemesitaffia wrote: | LTD broadband couldn't raise the cash. | downvotetruth wrote: | > The FCC cited among its reasons SpaceX's failure to | successfully launch its Starship rocket, saying "the uncertain | nature of Starship's future launches could impact Starlink's | ability to meet" its obligations. | | The X beatings will continue until the tweeting improves. | echelon wrote: | We need more competition [1] in orbital launch and orbital | internet. Backing SpaceX alone when they have the lead will not | lead to a good outcome. | | I'd imagine that there are also concerns about the close ties | Musk has to the Russians and how he's tried to insert himself | into the Ukrainian conflict on numerous occasions. | | [1] Not the largess of traditional government contractors | Lockheed and Boeing, but the plethora of startups entering into | this space. | 2devnull wrote: | I don't think moves like this, where the government acts in | an adversarial capacity to successful businesses that it | previously supported, will do a lot to attract new capital or | technologists. If anything, I'd worry such capriciousness | discourages investment in the area. If Musk can't make it | work, what odds do the rest of us face. At least that would | be my concern, about how this is received by the wider tech | community. | lolbase wrote: | It is beyond parody to refer to "not giving money that was | not earned" as acting in an "adversarial capacity". | | Your argument is completely detached from reality, and | devoid of logic. | 2devnull wrote: | My argument is that perceptions matter more than reality. | Disagreeing on the grounds that my argument is not | reality is not a dismissal, but I certainly understand | that you do not perceive things as such. You are only one | anecdote out of many. | rohansingh wrote: | OK, but that was far from the only reason. From the actual | decision: | | > While Starlink faults the Bureau for relying on the most | recent available data at the time of its decision to evaluate | is existing network performance, Starlink does not explain what | other data source the Bureau should have used in lieu of using | the most recently available data. When the Bureau's decision | was made, the most recent available evidence showed that | "Starlink's performance had been declining for download speed, | upload speed, and jitter test performance." In other words, it | was not only failing to meet the RDOF public interest | obligations, but also trending further away from them. | | (edited to fix formatting) | shdwbannd1234 wrote: | Amazing the arguments people make up when the obvious is well | documented -- just another hoax people -- just another | russian psyop -- it's all just so laughable. The us | government has collapsed and lost all legitimacy and I'll be | called the 'conspiracy theorist' or somen other inane | response (if its even given one, likely shouted down or | removed by the Mods on whatever flimsy pretext). | | We no longer live under the rule of law, there is no equality | brfore it, nor do the gears of justice turn without bias, | lady justice isnt blind. | | But yeah, we can all pretend and lie and make up bullshit | excuses that will change on whim. Again, we have so much | extensive documentation and people keep pretending it doesnt | exist. Perhaps like my comment, does it exist for you? | rideontime wrote: | Polite disagree. | alwa wrote: | I don't understand what you're saying here. What is obvious | and well-documented here, from your perspective? And of | what do we have extensive documentation? The regulatory | data at the time the decision was taken, or something in | Starlink's defense? | | I didn't find the article especially clear on this point, | but it sounds like Starlink says that if the decision were | taken today rather than in 2022, the performance data | wouldn't look so dire, and the FCC might have more faith in | their promise to launch high-performance payloads with | Starship during the grant's required timeframe, is that | what you mean? | valianteffort wrote: | It's clear the government has been actively attacking | Musk and his companies for any and all reasons it can | find. During the past couple years of this administration | the following has happened and it's just what I can | recall: | | 1. Tesla gets no invite to whitehouse EV summit despite | being the sole reason for the current EV movement | | 2. Tesla model 3/Y initially barred from new EV subsidies | | 3. SpaceX being investigated by justice department for | not hiring foreigners (literally illegal due to ITAR) | | 4. NASA awards blue origin more than it awarded SpaceX | for lunar lander despite them having zero orbital rocket | experience or even a proper roadmap to orbit | | 5. FAA drags heels on approving starlink tests preventing | progress on the requirements they say were failed to have | been met today | | 6. Today's news about FCC revoking subsidy for the only | company that actually cares to provide highspeed internet | to rural Americans, which congress has appropriated | funding for several times in the past two decades, and | rewarded companies have failed to deliver on | | It's safe to say any kind of bullshit can be justified | (with even more bullshit reasons), so it's hard to | believe actions like this are made good faith. I'm not | just going to trust criminals because they're robbing | someone I don't like. | neuronexmachina wrote: | > 1. Tesla gets no invite to whitehouse EV summit despite | being the sole reason for the current EV movement | | Why would Tesla be at a summit on union-made EVs? If you | look at the actual speech Biden gave at the event, a lot | of it is pretty counter to Tesla's anti-union stance: | https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches- | remarks/20... | galaxyLogic wrote: | > We no longer live under the rule of law, there is no | equality brfore it, | | Anybody else but Trump would be in prison already for what | he has done (urging his followers who he knew to be armed | to "go to the capital and Fight Like Hell"). So it is true | that equality before the law is definitely lacking in | action. | | Another thing that makes me agree with "there is no | equality" is that when you follow the news you see things | like Giuliani owes his lawyers over million dollars. So it | seems you need over a million dollars to get justice. Or | alternatively, you can try to avoid justice, by spending | millions. | | Trump says he has "over $100 million in legal fees" | | https://thehill.com/regulation/court- | battles/4282653-trump-s.... | | So again it seems you need $100 million to get justice, or | alternatively to escape from it. How can justice that costs | $100 million be fair and equitable to all? | s1artibartfast wrote: | Is there any truth to the statement from two of the five FCC | commissioners that SpaceX was not required to meet those | benchmarks until 2025, and this is a political action? | rohansingh wrote: | I don't feel knowledgeable enough about the expected | process to comment on that. Two points of speculation | though: | | 1. It looks like the commission believes Starlink is | trending away from the targets rather than toward them, and | that can't help their case. | | 2. It's hard for me to see how there would _not_ be at | least some political considerations here. The fact that | this program exists at all is a political decision. So it | 's part & parcel of the playing field -- which is probably | why most leaders work hard to not piss off their | regulators. | CamelCaseName wrote: | I think #1 is what really strikes me here. | | It's like standing in front of a train and not moving | because you asked the conductor to stop. | | What happens when they reach 2025 and billions of dollars | have gone down the drain? Why wait? | inemesitaffia wrote: | There's fines and no evidence SpaceX was getting | billions. The award amount is public and paid monthly | CamelCaseName wrote: | Sorry, I thought the award stated was annual, reading it | more closely I see that it's not. | inemesitaffia wrote: | The amount everyones quoting is the full fat amount over | the life of the contract. | | You have to show you can do most of it yourself i.e raise | the money. | | After a %age deployment the FCC checks if you've met the | deployment timeline and checks your speeds then starts | paying you and keeps testing as you deploy according to | the timeline. | | You don't get a dime upfront. | barbacoa wrote: | The reason individual speeds were trending down is | because the number of users is increasing. Now that the | service no longer has wait-lists and is fully available | to everyone, one would imagine speeds increasing as more | infrastructure is brought online. | inemesitaffia wrote: | Service tiers, QOS, QCI | qarl wrote: | Well - I may be biased, but I've been seeing a lot of | claims from Republicans lately which do not closely match | reality. | | Until there's actual evidence, I would be inclined to | dismiss them. | inemesitaffia wrote: | You can read the requirements, then read the denial | letter, the appeal (and denial) and dissents. | qarl wrote: | That doesn't much help. Their main claim is that it is | not normal (and hence political) for a subsidy to be | canceled based for failure to make progress. | | I've seen no evidence supporting that claim, and lots of | evidence to counter it. | dbeardsl wrote: | Here's a dissenting opinion from FCC Commissioner Nathan | Simington: | | https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-105A3.pdf | | > What good is an agreement to build out service by 2025 if | the FCC can, on a whim, hold you to it in 2022 instead? In | 2022, many RDOF (the award in question) recipients had | deployed no service at any speed to any location at all, | and they had no obligation to do so. By contrast, Starlink | had half a million subscribers in June 2022 (and about two | million in September 2023). | | And this scathing conclusion: | | > I was disappointed by this wrongheaded decision when it | was first announced, but the majority today lays bare just | how thoroughly and lawlessly arbitrary it was. If this is | what passes for due process and the rule of law at the FCC, | then this agency ought not to be trusted with the | adjudicatory powers Congress has granted it and the | deference that the courts have given it. -- FCC | Commissioner Nathan Simington | turquoisevar wrote: | As with all government projects, it's a highly technical | (in the bureaucratic sense) process. You can find the | relevant documents on their website[0]. | | That said, how the dissenters characterize it is nowhere | near how it works. They'd like you to believe that you won | a bid, and from then on, it's "OK, talk to you at the | deadline, enjoy our money!" | | Instead, it seems to me that it's a continuous process | where you must present plans along the way, and progress is | measured, as it should be because we're dealing with | billions in public funds. | | The idea that this is exclusively targeted at Musk is also | just nonsense. This article[1] states that Terrestrial | telco LTD Broadband also lost their allotment of subsidies, | and a cursory glance at the documents on the FCC website | shows that many other companies lost theirs either due to | withdrawing or having "defaulted" (i.e., not followed | through on the promises/requirements). | | But none of that is compatible with the victim narrative of | Musk et al., of course Musk _was_ the biggest in the | subsidies; the other companies won smaller projects. | | 0: https://www.fcc.gov/auction/904 | | 1: https://spacenews.com/fcc-upholds-denial-of- | starlinks-900-mi... | inemesitaffia wrote: | 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. | altairprime wrote: | Please don't use code-formatted space-indent for quotes, your | paragraph looks like a sawtooth on mobile with an indent | every other sentence. | | Instead, use > *quote*. It'll be unindented but readable, | which is an improvement over being indented but unreadable: | | > _While Starlink ..._ | rohansingh wrote: | Thanks, struggled to find the correct formatting. Corrected | it now. | why_at wrote: | The part that makes me question the legitimacy of this | decision is the fact that there are still other companies | receiving the subsidy. | | Quote from the article: | | >Starlink is the only company actually solving rural | broadband at scale! They should arguably dissolve the program | and return funds to taxpayers, but definitely not send it | (to) those who aren't getting the job done | | Are these other companies meeting the targets? If not then it | seems pretty arbitrary to reject just SpaceX for not doing so | yet. | turquoisevar wrote: | You forgot to attribute the quote to Musk, arguably the | least reliable person in our lifetime. | why_at wrote: | Fair enough I guess, this could be total BS. FWIW the | dissenting FCC commissioners made similar arguments. | | >In 2022, many RDOF recipients had deployed no service at | any speed to any location at all, and they had no | obligation to do so | | Maybe this is just more spin from people who want to turn | this into another political battleground. It's not | entirely clear to me, but it seems like there is room for | doubt. | moralestapia wrote: | >the uncertain nature of Starship's future launches could | impact Starlink's ability to meet" its obligations | | Lol, what is the FCC on? No one else comes even close to their | launch record [1]. | | 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_He | .... | stephenr wrote: | You do understand that "Starship" is the literal name of a | prototype space craft that is currently in development, but | has not yet made a successful launch to orbit, rather than | just a generic term, which may include the earlier, well- | proven Falcon 9, right? | | SpaceX themselves have said that the future of their | satellite internet business essentially depends on being able | to put up a bigger model to replace the current ones, so much | bigger that they can't feasibly use their existing, well- | proven rockets to launch them. | moralestapia wrote: | Sure, but if you were to bet on a company to achieve that | goal and it comes down to SpaceX vs. <literally who>?, it's | not far fetched to go with the first. | stephenr wrote: | "Well it looks like no one else is going to achieve what | _you_ said you could do, and you got kinda close so fuck | it, keep the money " doesn't really sound like how you | should expect a government subsidy to be managed. | | For the record: I'm not commenting on whether the | government was right or wrong to cancel the subsidy for | SpaceX. I'm simply explaining why SpaceX's inability (so | far) to get Starship to orbit is referenced, and more | specifically, why the launch reliability of Falcon 9 is | specifically not relevant in a sentence that says | "Starship". | zamadatix wrote: | I'm not necessarily happy with the outcome here but the FCC | never compared their current generation vehicle launch record | to anyone else's. They're saying SpaceX planned to launch | 12,000-42,000 satellites within a certain timeline using new | vehicles to keep up with demand but are currently at ~5,500 | with Starship's start not going as smoothly as SpaceX planned | for. Starship (or a Starship class vehicle) will get there | eventually, almost certainly IMO, but the point here is it is | uncertain if it'll get there in time to meet the obligations | (part of which is timing) Starlink has made. | toss1 wrote: | >> : "SpaceX continues to put more satellites into orbit every | month, which should translate to even faster and more reliable | service." | | NB. | | Should =/= does | | "Should" is doing a _LOT_ of work in that sentence. | | If Starlink dosen't meet requirements today, they can improve and | meet them in the future. Meanwhile, this seems like more of an | effort to unfairly pre-empt funds going to other competitors. | belltaco wrote: | From one of the dissenting opinions: | | > the majority points to delays in the development of SpaceX's | Starship launch platform--the largest, most powerful rocket | ever built--as evidence that SpaceX would be unable to launch | enough Starlink satellites to meet its 2025 commitments. The | trouble with this argument is that SpaceX never indicated that | it was relying on the Starship platform to meet its RDOF | obligations, and in fact it repeatedly stated that it was not. | | I think the metric was 'more likely than not achieve the metric | by 2025' and the decision was made in 2022. | toss1 wrote: | Sure. Neither you nor I were in the room, and the evidence is | that the committee that _was_ in the room evaluated those | plans and it seemed more unlikely to meet the goals. | | Given Musk's track record, it is _very_ reasonable to treat | any timeline with a shipload of salt. He literally took | $thousands from thousands of customers for Full-Self-Driving | upgrades that were to transform their Teslas into self- | driving Uber /Lyft goldmines by 2021, not 2022, not 2023, | no... oops, recall 2 million yesterday because of safety | failures in "autopilot" that isn't. Even with the assumption | that Starship is not part of the equation, Starlink still is | falling down on bandwidth reliability as subscription exceeds | capacity. | chrisco255 wrote: | Space X is launching Falcon 9 rockets multiple times per | week with additional capacity for Starlink on the regular. | | Space X is not Elon Musk. It's a company with its own | staff, with its own track record, so let's set aside any | emotional arguments about FSD from Tesla, which is | completely unrelated and which itself is an extremely | difficult problem to solve. The "recall" from Tesla, again | a completely unrelated issue to SpaceX and the Starlink | internet service, was simply a required software patch. | Millions of vehicles get recalled all the time from all car | manufacturers: | | "Ford is recalling 870,701 of the bestselling pickups from | 2021 through 2023" | | "About a quarter of a million 2016-2019 models are under | recall for a connecting rod defect that can cause the | engine to stall or not start, including the Pilot, Odyssey, | Ridgeline, and Acura TLX and MDX." | | "2013-2018 Toyota RAV4s Recalled Due to a Potential Fire | Risk The increased fire risk stems from loose-fitting | 12-volt batteries, with the recall affecting nearly 1.9 | million RAV4s." | | The Starlink service is popular, because it generally | works, and it's better than what a lot of people even have | available to them in many parts of the country or in | specific situations (like fulltime RVers). | hnburnsy wrote: | "Hyundai and Kia are recalling more than 3 million | vehicles and advising owners to park them outside due to | risk of fire in the engine compartments." | | https://www.npr.org/2023/09/27/1202075844/kia-hyundai- | recall... | toss1 wrote: | >> The Starlink service is popular, because it generally | works, and it's better than what a lot of people even | have available to them in many parts of the country or in | specific situations (like fulltime RVers). | | Right. And the issue is the ratio of popularity to | supply. A neighbor near a family cabin in rural Maine, | where the service is only copper ~10mbps down/1 up and | more expensive that FIOS at home just installed two | Starlinks. They're generally satisfied, but the first | thing they mentioned is occasional slow speeds. | | The officials in charge of the contract must ensure that | the required service level will be met. Granting nearly a | Billion dollars to provide a level of service, and then | having them say "sorry, it's too popular and everyone is | slow" will not cut it. Everyone (I hope including you) | would be screaming about wasting taxpayer dollars on a | service that did not provide the service. | | I'm sure one fix for Starlink would be to offer a | prioritized service level for all of the rural broadband | customers. Yes, this could mean that RVers might just | wind up with no service at some times and locales, but if | Starlink really wants that contract, perhaps they should | offer that assurance. | inemesitaffia wrote: | They can offer an RDOF specific plan. Think internet | essentials from Comcast. | oittaa wrote: | How do I block/mute these trolls on this website? I tried | searching the FAQ but didn't see anything. | belltaco wrote: | Dissenting statement by one of the FCC commissioners. | | https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-105A3.pdf | skissane wrote: | From Simington's dissenting statement: | | > I was disappointed by this wrongheaded decision when it was | first announced, but the majority today lays bare just how | thoroughly and lawlessly arbitrary it was. If this is what | passes for due process and the rule of law at the FCC, then | this agency ought not to be trusted with the adjudicatory | powers Congress has granted it and the deference that the | courts have given it. | | Sounds to me like he's encouraging SpaceX to sue the FCC | Veserv wrote: | Ah yes, the same Nathan Simington who made statements like this | about Elon Musk's purchase of Twitter [1]: | | "If Mr. Musk follows through on his stated intention to ease | Twitter's restrictions on speech, he would almost certainly | enhance competition and better serve those Americans, the | majority, who value free speech. ... We should instead applaud | Mr. Musk for doing something about a serious problem that | government has so far failed to address." | | A very unbiased party who has no ulterior motives at all to | consider things out of scope. | | [1] https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-382898A1.pdf | jsight wrote: | 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. | belltaco wrote: | > If the goal is to get levels of performance that Starlink | cannot provide, then this makes sense? | | I think the metric is 'more likely than not meet peformance | goals in 2025'. The technology itself is capable of the goals | of latency and bandwidth. | jsight wrote: | Sure, and that makes sense if the competitors have proven | approaches to meeting the requirements. While I expect | Starlink to be able to improve, I can see their point that | the outcome is far from certain. | lolbase wrote: | The government shouldn't give out billion dollar | participation trophies. | | There's a set of metrics to meet. Starlink is moving the | wrong way against those metrics. As such, they'll need to | succeed unaided in the marketplace, instead of getting a | government handout. | 2devnull wrote: | Perhaps not billion dollar, but shouldn't it give some | participation trophies? How else to entice innovation in | certain areas, especially when the interest rates are | killing small tech outfits. | lolbase wrote: | No, it should not. | intrasight wrote: | 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. | jsight wrote: | I agree with this. But we have to operate in the world | that exists and not necessarily the one that we wish to | exist. | jn1234 wrote: | I'd think it would be because SpaceX probably argued that the | trajectory with Startship launching 10s of thousands of | satellites that it would meet the program requirements. | ren_engineer wrote: | >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 consuming hundreds of millions in Starlink capacity | that could be allocated to US consumers to speed up their | internet | | >U.S. defense officials had previously estimated that the | annual cost for Starlink in Ukraine, which Musk mostly had been | donating, will be hundreds of millions of dollars. | | https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/06/01/... | | The tech is proven to work, the FCC is just playing politics. | kredd wrote: | > due to them having so many users joining | | I'm actually curious, what is their userbase and where can I | find the info? | danbruc wrote: | Wikipedia has some numbers [1] according to which they | passed 2M users in September 2023 and are growing pretty | consistently by about 100k users per month since mid 2022. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink#Subscribers | adgjlsfhk1 wrote: | > 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) | 2devnull wrote: | Is there not internet bandwidth involved? Bandwidth for one | person means less bandwidth for another, doesn't it? | ianburrell wrote: | Internet bandwidth in America and Ukraine are completely | separate. Starlink is mostly bent-pipe, sending signals | to station in view of the satellite. Over remote areas, | the satellites need to talk to each other to relay | signals. But my understanding is that goes to the closest | ground station. | mason55 wrote: | > _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._ | | I admittedly don't know much about this process, but with a | billion dollars on the line, why wouldn't they have presented | these options? It's not like this came out of nowhere, | Starlink knew that they were not meeting their obligations | and was given a chance to present their case. | | I don't know, it just seems like it would be pretty easy to | halt signups for a month, show that speeds increased | drastically as my launches got ahead of my signups, and then | explain to the FCC why this would be the normal state of | affairs at some point in the future. Or, don't even actually | halt signups, just make a convincing case about why halting | signups would drastically increase speeds, and by 2025 you | plan to do whatever you need to do to hit that 100/20 metric, | but right now you're trying to do the most good for the most | people, which means more signups and lower speeds. | | For a billion dollars, these all seem like easy & obvious | arguments to make if they were at all viable. | | Anyway, I think that if Starlink can prove that they're | making progress towards their commitment, they become | eligible for the subsidy again, so if halting signups is | really a viable strategy and they really care about the | billion dollars then it seems like they should do that. | rpmisms wrote: | Ah, but here you assume that the FCC is acting in good | faith. Assume no good faith, and follow the same trail. | ianburrell wrote: | What Pentagon deployment project? I can't find any news | stories about military rolling out Starlink. The only news is | US paying for Ukraine's access; cutting off Ukraine would not | be good for SpaceX. The military doesn't need Starlink with | all their communications satellites. They are looking at it | for polar use where Starlink has better coverage. | | Are you talking about the SDA Starshield constellation? That | isn't launching yet, the contract is for development. | Starshield has nothing to do with Starlink except using the | same platform and taking up launch slots. | | I like how you didn't mention that Starlink could solve | capacity problems by launching more satellites. | inemesitaffia wrote: | Starshield | _fizz_buzz_ wrote: | > 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 | | That doesn't sound right. Satellites over Ukraine cannot be | reached anywhere from the US and they also wouldn't use the | same gateways. So I could see the use of starlink in Ukraine | possibly slowing service in Europe. But I cannot see how it | would affect customers in the US. | danbruc wrote: | 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. | lupusreal wrote: | Their lifespan when active is longer than 5 years because | they have thrusters. 5 years is if they're dead and left to | decay | danbruc wrote: | All the numbers I have seen were 5 to 7 years of | operational lifespan but I can not find a primary source | from SpaceX at the moment. I think I also read that there | are plans to increase the lifespan eventually with larger | satellites, deployed using Starship. | Faark wrote: | 5 years to deorbit passively is correct, but the expected | service life is in somewhat similar. Best quote i've got on | hand right now is wikipedia: | | > "...implement an operations plan for the orderly de-orbit | of satellites nearing the end of their useful lives | (roughly five to seven years) at a rate far faster than is | required under international standards. | | Obviously there are many unknowns in factors like hardware | reliability or fuel consumption. | madaxe_again wrote: | I've got news for you about Earth-based networking gear. You | don't just install it and forget about it forever - you | replace and upgrade, almost continuously, and lifespans are | frequently significantly less than five years. | JumpinJack_Cash wrote: | A 1000Gbps cable laid down in the ground will be able to | support 1000Gbps even 50 years from now provided that it | doesn't get truncated by accident or Earthquake | throwaway4aday wrote: | a cable is pretty useless without all of the other | hardware | oittaa wrote: | That "cable laid down" is vacuum of the space in this | situation. It's not going to disappear. | pid-1 wrote: | Tell that to your local telco carrier. I bet my ass they | have network equipment runnning with zero updates for well | over a decade. | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | It's hard to tell due to the redactions, but it seems like | Starlink brought Starship into the discussion as part of the | explanation of how it would have the technical capability to | deliver the service. | alwa wrote: | I'm an unqualified casual observer and working from memory, | but I seem to remember capacity and throughput promises | related to the "Starlink 2.0" satellites, which Mr. Musk | claims are "an order of magnitude better" than the current | birds on unspecified measures [0], and without which Starlink | couldn't credibly deliver the promised service to the | promised number of households in the promised time to earn | the subsidy [1]. | | The new satellite designs got a bit mired in regulatory | complications until December of 2022, but it turned out to be | moot since they're too big and heavy to get up to orbit | without Starship's lift capacity and Starship isn't there yet | (and might not be within the period the subsidy | contemplated). After the decision to cancel the subsidy | (which is on appeal here) was taken back in 2022, Starlink | seem to have rejiggered the 2.0 satellites into a "2.0-mini" | configuration suitable for launch via Falcon 9 [2]. | | Apparently they would like for the FCC to reconsider the | subsidy decision in light of them engineering around the | Starship dependency? | | [0] https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/spacex- | starshi... | | [1] https://www.jeffgeerling.com/blog/2022/starlinks-current- | pro... | | [2] https://starlinkinsider.com/starlink-gen2-satellites/ | throwaway4aday wrote: | do you mean v3 instead of v2? I thought they already had v2 | in service but just weren't able to launch very many of | them on falcon | axus wrote: | I feel like it's a fair decision, they had certain criteria. | Even so, more broadband competition in rural areas would be | better than subsidizing the incumbents. | dbeardsl wrote: | An FCC commissioner indicates that the FCC is yoinking the | award because it thinks SpaceX won't hit the 2025 targets, yet | many other award recipients have _no_ service and _no_ rollout | and _no_ speeds to even measure: | | > What good is an agreement to build out service by 2025 if the | FCC can, on a whim, hold you to it in 2022 instead? In 2022, | many RDOF recipients had deployed no service at any speed to | any location at all, and they had no obligation to do so. By | contrast, Starlink had half a million subscribers in June 2022 | (and about two million in September 2023). The majority's only | response to this point is that those other recipients were | relying on proven technologies like fiber, while SpaceX was | relying on new LEO technology. | | https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-105A3.pdf | ezfe wrote: | They also revoked LTD Broadband's award | inemesitaffia wrote: | LTD broadband couldn't raise cash | alephnan wrote: | > yet many other award recipients have no service and no | rollout and no speeds to even measure: | | Unfortunately, most of the public won't know or care about | this blatant corruption and crony capitalism | | The revolving door between regulators and industry keeps on | turning | constantly wrote: | As far as I can tell in a cursory reading, SpaceX Starlink | applied for subsidies with enumerated requirements. They | cannot meet those requirements, so the subsidy is | rescinded. | | Seems straightforward and doesn't seem to matter, as far as | I can tell, how many other companies couldn't meet the | requirements or don't have the hardware to meet those | requirements or whatever. | | Unclear why this is "blatant corruption" or "crony | capitalism" and in fact seems to be based in facts. Can you | explain? | jsight wrote: | I'm getting the impression that some of the competitors | haven't built anything to test yet. Based upon that, | using the current performance of Starlink and comparing | it to the hypothetical performance of others might not be | fair. If Starlink is losing an award because of | supposition, that's bad. | | But I must admit that I haven't read all of the history | here. | pmorici wrote: | 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. | ortusdux wrote: | Ehh, their average speeds have gone down by half in the last 3 | years (150 down -> 75 down). They chased profits by signing up | more people at the expense of network saturation. Had they held | this reduction to 100+ down, they would have remained eligible | for the grant they applied for. | pmorici wrote: | If the terms of the deal were that they didn't need to hit | the performance benchmarks until 2025 and they have | demonstrated that the technology was capable of those speeds | it makes little sense to do this now except as a thinly | vailed political punishment. | Deprecate9151 wrote: | That was not the terms, there were buildout requirements | attached that started when the bid was accepted. | https://www.usac.org/high-cost/funds/rural-digital- | opportuni... | | Looks like Starlink was supposed to be 40% built with their | participation starting in 2020, that are consistent with | their winning bid (in this case 100/20). It seems they | clearly failed by that metric. | pmorici wrote: | Seeing as they offer service basically everywhere in the | US right now and the only quibble is that the average | speed is only 75 Mbps instead of 100 Mbps I'd say they | are well ahead of 40%. | Deprecate9151 wrote: | That isn't a quibble, the 100/20 requirement was a key | requirement they set themselves. | | Regardless though, I was wrong about the buildout | reasoning. The FCC just doesn't believe, based off the | information provided by Starlink, they had a strong | enough likelihood of success with the plan provided to | stay in the running. | inemesitaffia wrote: | Starlink hasn't gotten any money, so they aren't subject | to build requirements | Deprecate9151 wrote: | Yeah I messed that up. After reading more the denial was | focused on the fact that Starlink didn't refute they were | not consistently delivering speeds and latency that | matched the tier they bid on, and their plan to bridge | that gap wasn't convincing to the reviewers or the | Commission. | inemesitaffia wrote: | The argument is if they had paid on time would they have | been able to deliver to the particular customers by 2025? | i.e not everyone. Just RDOF subsided users in the awarded | areas | | The Dems say no. Evidence is current state of network and | absence of starship. | | SpaceX says yes. V2 is already launching on Falcon. We | don't need starship to meet our obligations but it will | make it faster. | | Republicans say both of you are talking nonsense. Until | 2025 you can't find out. And there's a process for | getting there. You only test devices that are under the | RDOF plan, not everyone. And since SpaceX hasn't been | awarded, you can't do any testing that's relevant. | | Imagine SpaceX got awarded say Diomede and you're | bringing up speeds in LA and Seattle or the Midwest. | | SpaceX will sue and lose due to Chevron deference | pardoned_turkey wrote: | I'm in a rural location. Not that rural, about five minutes | away from a town of 10,000 people. I have exactly three | internet choices: old-school satellite (with 600 ms latency), | unreliable 10 Mbit DSL for $150/month, or Starlink for | $120/month. Many of my neighbors aren't as lucky and don't | even get DSL. | | My DSL provider received hundreds of millions in government | subsidies and did nothing to improve the service in the | region, and brazenly lied about it to the FCC. I know that | it's fashionable to criticize Elon Musk, and it's often | justified, but Starlink is far more deserving of government | funds than most of the grifter ISPs who actually get the | subsidies. | pclmulqdq wrote: | If you start a WISP and service your neighbors, the FCC | would probably be happy to provide you a subsidy now that | they have an extra $1 billion that isn't going to Starlink. | inemesitaffia wrote: | That's not how this works. | | Under this program there's no option of another org | replacing a denied org. Who's stepping up for LTD | broadband for example? | pclmulqdq wrote: | There's a fixed pool of money ($16 billion), so everyone | who gets some of it does replace a denied org. | jcims wrote: | This is dependent on the cell you're in. I've been on | Starlink since Feb 2021 and dipping below 100 down is very | rare. It' averages about 140 down and 20 up with about 30ms | latency. | Deprecate9151 wrote: | For this grant the 100/20 needed to be consistently | available in specific geographic areas. So if the cells | bring down the performance averages are concentrated in | those grant areas, it makes sense for them to fail to meet | the program criteria while still having a product that hits | those metrics elsewhere. | inemesitaffia wrote: | The denial doesn't quote speeds in those areas | Deprecate9151 wrote: | It doesn't, I'm just expanding on why a specific cell | meeting the program specifications "usually" wouldn't | really move the need for the FCC analysis. | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | 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? | pmorici wrote: | 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 preferred politics. | | When a government agency that is supposed to be impartial and | fact based is clearly making decisions like this on a | political basis that undermines it in the long term due to | public mistrust. | baseballdork wrote: | > Because if you use the service you know it is capable of | that and more today. | | If you use their service, you know that it's capable of | serving X amount of people at Y up and Z down with N | latency? C'mon... | pmorici wrote: | Yes, but that is a function of satellite density or so | the argument seems to suggest. SpaceX is launching | rockets multiple times a week and has put more satellites | into orbit that any entity in the history of human kind | by an order of magnitude or more. Betting they won't be | able to meet these speed goals is not a rational | conclusion. | rrook wrote: | If you read through the decision, the reasoning is all | there, it's absolutely rational. What's _not_ rational is | preferring personal anecdotal experience over the | aggregate analysis. | pmorici wrote: | The reasoning that is there is all subjective. | bmitc wrote: | If the service is so awesome, why does it need a billion | dollar subsidy, i.e., free money paid for by taxpayers? | pmorici wrote: | It doesn't. This was originally legislated as a hand out | to legacy telecom companies that lobbied for it. Seeing | as it exists though I would rather the money be spent | with the best option instead of it being used as a | political retribution fund. | bmitc wrote: | So the requirements set out however long ago that | Starlink agreed to and now isn't meeting is political | retribution? How so? | nicce wrote: | Some other company could take it happily and increase the | competition. Maybe even provide better results, while it | might take some time. | brandonagr2 wrote: | Heavy emphasis on maybe, do you think legacy telecoms | have a history of actually delivering on rural broadband | deployment promises? | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | 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. | mason55 wrote: | > _Because if you use the service you know it is capable of | that and more today._ | | The numbers show otherwise and the FCC made it clear that | Starlink presented no numbers to the contrary. This isn't | even a case of the FCC's numbers saying one thing and | Starlink's numbers saying another. | | I totally believe that some places give you consistent | 100/20 speeds, but aggregate numbers don't show that and | Starlink made no attempt to argue otherwise. | pmorici wrote: | Today your speed tier is based on what you pay. If you | pay for the priority or business tier service you | absolutely get over 100Mbps consistently, a lot more. If | you pay for the basic service tier then yeah you might | only get 3-4x DSL speeds which is still phenomenal for | the purpose being discussed here. | altairprime wrote: | If your basic service tier is lower than 100/20, you | would be disqualified for the subsidy. | pmorici wrote: | That's not how it works, they just need to offer a | service tier that provides a service with the required | minimums by a particular date, it is obviously possible | unless you are blinded by revenge politics. | altairprime wrote: | I see. I've misunderstood the broadband auctions, and | have reviewed https://www.fcc.gov/auction/904 to | determine more correctly what's going on here. | | All, please disregard my comment and refer instead to | this top comment instead: | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38628276 | enraged_camel wrote: | The question isnt whether it is phenomenal. The question | is if Starlink is meeting the obligations outlined in the | grant, and if so, why they didn't bother to dispute the | numbers FCC showed. | chrisco255 wrote: | No one else is even close to being able to offer 100/20M | rural service. | pclmulqdq wrote: | That's the point of the subsidy: to make the equivalent of | fiber runs to rural areas (and presumably local WISPs) | cost-effective. The main intent of the subsidy was not to | subsidize the development of new, uncertain technologies. | | Musk still managed to slide in and loot a few billion | dollars before they realized that Starlink can't meet their | definition of "broadband." No other satellite internet | could either. | pmorici wrote: | "Musk still managed to slide in and loot a few billion | dollars before they realized that Starlink can't meet | their definition of "broadband."" | | That's false. SpaceX doesn't appear to have actually | received any money from the FCC for this program yet, and | now won't assuming this decision holds. | karpatic wrote: | It sounds as though these new mitigating standards were | brought out after the grant was already awarded which is | where accusations of political malfeasance come into | play. | cavisne wrote: | Starlink is basically a WISP with an actually scalable | business model, just the towers (and soon a lot of the | backhaul) are up in space. | | WISPs rely on a local enthusiastic person to make it | work. | chrisco255 wrote: | By no means does the program make the claim "to make the | equivalent of fiber runs". You're just making claims up | to rationalize what in all likelihood, was politically | driven. Even the votes from the FCC members were along | party lines. | | There were speed targets of 100Mbps available to 20M | households. They're currently at a median of 65Mbps [1] | and they already have more than 99% of the U.S. covered | [2]. It's an egregious, questionable, partisan claim by | the FCC that they can't reasonably be expected to hit the | speed target by 2025. | | [1] https://www.ookla.com/articles/us-satellite- | performance-q3-2... [2] | https://www.starlink.com/map?view=availability | inemesitaffia wrote: | Where did you get this idea spacex has been paid any | money? This article is a denial of said subsidy | a2tech wrote: | In my parents county (very rural), the local electric coop | is running fiber on all their poles. Its possible that my | parents living 10 miles from the nearest town (2 4-way | stops, a grocery store and a couple of gas stations) will | get gigabit fiber before my friends that live in a well off | suburb in a dense urban area will. | kyralis wrote: | About 5 years ago I moved from Silicon Valley to rural | Vermont. I have 750 symmetric fiber on my dirt road, and | have had more reliable internet here than I did in the | South Bay for the decade I lived there. | | Where politics doesn't impede the growth of municipal and | co-op internet solutions, it is absolutely possible for | rural communities to end up with very capable internet | access. | ejb999 wrote: | same here. - I don't live far from you, in a town of less | than 1000 people - and more than 40 miles from even a | modest-sized city - and we now have 1GB symmetrical | fiber-to-the-home for less than $100/month - and it | hasn't gone out even once in over 2 years. | | It can work. | chrisco255 wrote: | In my parents not-so-rural any longer home (although it | was when I was a kid), despite being located less than a | mile from a 100K+ population community, they still cannot | get more than 1.5 Mbps and DSL is the only wired option | available to them. They have an AT&T hotspot card that | they use, but it gets throttled (dramatically) after 30GB | of data usage, and itself has to be positioned in very | specific areas of their house in order to get 1 or 2 bars | to eke out a 10Mbps connection speed. | | It's nice that your parents have a co-op that is actively | rolling out such infrastructure. That's not the rule | though, and the U.S. has massive swaths of low density | population areas with substandard internet speeds. | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | There's some kind of disconnect here, because 85% of the | service areas covered by the RDOF have winning bidders | committed to providing at least 1000/500M service. | pardoned_turkey wrote: | The embarrassing part is how they have been allocating | subsidies to ISPs that don't provide rural connectivity | improvements nearly as significant as what Starlink managed | to actually pull off. A competent agency would do whatever | they can to support Starlink's efforts or replicate them | elsewhere. Instead, they're cutting off the one ISP that | actually revolutionized rural internet access after 20 years | of government-bankrolled stagnation and grift. | jsight wrote: | 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. | nixgeek wrote: | 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... | literalAardvark wrote: | 100/20 average is spectacular for those living in the US | boonies. And they're the target. | | No one else comes even close. You can't run fiber there, | can't mount towers everywhere. | jsight wrote: | It is certainly better than a lot of existing options, | but so is Starlink. I'd have expected an option that | excludes Starlink to be something fairly future-proof. | And, IME, people in those remote areas are using Starlink | pretty successfully now. | | Instead, these standards are so low that it makes me | wonder how Starlink doesn't qualify. The fact that they | are just out of reach of Starlink in just enough areas to | disqualify them does make the whole process a bit suspect | looking. | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | Starlink, when originally launched, did hit the | performance targets. It seems pretty clear that Starlink | could've produced a plan that would've restricted user | onboarding in a way that showed a commitment to continue | hitting the targets. Instead, they added subscribers to | the point that service deteriorated below the standards | and was trending worse. | | I don't know whether this was a purely commercial | decision to generate mass adoption prior to building out | the constellation and the rest of the required | infrastructure, or whether there was some kind of | underperformance vs engineer plan or whatever. | | In either case, it's not a good look. Particularly if it | was a commercial decision, then it's a case of "decisions | have consequences". | jsight wrote: | I can understand that, but are they measuring Starlink's | competitors by the same standard? Overloading backhaul, | at least temporarily, is hardly a new problem. | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | They're using (AIUI) Ookla Speedtest data, rather than | taking anyone's word for anything. | Dig1t wrote: | It's obvious to anyone who actually used the service or lives | in a rural area how much good the service is doing. In many | rural places there are literally no other options, or the | options are so bad that it is laughable. This is one of those | letter of the law vs spirit of the law things. Yes | technically the speeds you currently get are not exactly at | the promised level yet, but the service is a monumental | success and is providing service that is definitely in line | with the intent behind the subsidy. | | I could see this making sense if there was any real | competition or someone else who was realistically going to | provide the service. But the only competition for this money | are companies with a poor track records and that are | notoriously bad. | manuelabeledo wrote: | > 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. | bryanlarsen wrote: | 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. | manuelabeledo wrote: | > Starlink has 2 million customers, likely with >$1000 ARPU | and is growing quite rapidly. $1B annually would be | material. | | This suggests that they are in the black, which they are | not. They are losing a lot of money. | bryanlarsen wrote: | SpaceX was profitable last quarter. | | https://www.reuters.com/business/elon-musks-spacex-turns- | pro... | rapsey wrote: | VCs are falling over themselves trying to get in on SpaceX. | If there were to go public they would immediately be worth | hundreds of billions. It will likely be one of the biggest | IPOs in history. They are not that strapped for cash. | manuelabeledo wrote: | Then what's the deal with government funds? | | For a company that doesn't need money, they seem quite | upset that they aren't getting much of it. | inemesitaffia wrote: | When your competition gets funds and you don't it puts | you at a disadvantage. | | You can see NEVI as an example. | rpmisms wrote: | "Oh look, free money to provide the service we're | _already providing_ " | sangnoir wrote: | > They are not that strapped for cash. | | Exactly - because they were/are getting boatloads of cash | from the government. There is no shame in that. | grecy wrote: | > _Starlink success, and to that extent, SpaceX, are arguably | tied to government money._ | | Citation please. | | The government are paying SpaceX as a customer, they're not | giving them free money. | | Also note they're paying them a lot less than they pay ULA | for the same things | jrflowers wrote: | This is a good point. So long as you define "government | money" as "something other than money from the government", | SpaceX does not rely on government money. | | You can see that this is true with other businesses as | well, no business relies on getting "customer money" | because "customer money" means when customers donate to you | in exchange for nothing, not money that they pay in | exchange for goods or services. | maxerickson wrote: | Ineptly retracting a subsidy that isn't needed or even | impactful? | mensetmanusman wrote: | In defense of the FCC, barely anyone survives the lobbying | power of entrenched ISPs. | colechristensen wrote: | Is it phenomenal? Not quite. In my experience speeds vary and | brief dropouts are frequent. It's great to be able to access | high speed internet from anywhere, but it has its limitations. | _fizz_buzz_ wrote: | If starlink would be a success regardless, why should it be | subsidized with tax payer money. Isn't the point of subsidies | to support things that would otherwise not be a success? | convery wrote: | As commissioner Brendan Carr's dissent wasn't included in the | article: | https://twitter.com/BrendanCarrFCC/status/173469670679577812... | hnburnsy wrote: | And... | | DISSENTING STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER NATHAN SIMINGTON | | https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-105A3.pdf | akamaka wrote: | Reading that dissent felt as painful as reading a partisan | reddit comment. | | In one paragraph he said Biden is targeting Musk politically, | and in the very next he states, as proof of the quality of the | internet service, that the Pentagon just signed a contract with | Starlink for military applications. | rpmisms wrote: | Biden is not the Pentagon. | freejazz wrote: | But he's the FCC? They are both the executive branch. | tomjakubowski wrote: | The President has a lot less control over independent | agencies like the FCC. For example, the FCC commissioner | currently attacking Biden is able to enjoy doing so from | that position because Biden doesn't have the legal power | to dismiss him. | freejazz wrote: | Sure, but that runs against the argument that was being | made, which is that Biden isn't the pentagon but he's the | fcc... | tick_tock_tick wrote: | He said it's good enough for the military but apparently not | good enough for the FCC chair who Biden appointed. How is | that hard to understand? | Coder1996 wrote: | I wonder who was ultimately approved for RDOF at my house. How do | I find that out? | ciarlill wrote: | You can check out this map. Data is from 2020 though and I have | found no other updates about the program. | https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/maps/rdof-phase-i-dec-2... | paxys wrote: | I don't know if it is part of the official report or not, but I'd | bet that Starlink cutting off service in Ukraine to prevent them | from launching an attack on Russian vessels in Crimea definitely | played a part in this decision. | belltaco wrote: | Starlink only cut off service in the occupied parts of Ukraine | because you don't want Russia using Starlink there. The | Ukrainian forces say Starlink has and is continuing to help | them. | | > Starlink in use on 'all front lines,' Ukraine spy chief says | | > "They have proven themselves on the front lines. You can say | what you want about whether [Starlink systems] are good or bad, | but facts are facts. Absolutely all front lines are using | them," Kyrylo Budanov, head of the Main Ukrainian Intelligence | Directorate, said Saturday, according to Interfax Ukraine. | | https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/10/europe/ukraine-starlink-not-a... | | Crimea is under occupied territory and didn't have Starlink | activated, so it's wrong to say they deacivated it. | rapsey wrote: | Starlink would literally be breaking the law if they were to | provide connectivity to Crimea. | literalAardvark wrote: | I doubt Starlink make any military related decisions. They have | a framework from the US government that they follow and that's | that. | | Musk can't just randomly decide to give Ukraine access to | Starlink on Russian territory without severe consequences, and | this fcc bullshit isn't that. | inemesitaffia wrote: | Have you tried using a FAANG product with a Crimean IP address? | bryanlarsen wrote: | If the complaint is that Elon Musk has a history of not | delivering on his promises, why the #%@# are telecom companies | still getting money based on promises? They also have an awful | track record on delivering on their promises. Nobody should get | anything until after they've delivered. | | If they need money to do their deployments, they can take their | FCC awards to the bank and get a factoring loan. And if their | plan is not solid enough to convince a bank, it's not solid | enough for FCC money either. | libraryatnight wrote: | They did reject another broadband company - that company just | doesn't have a cult of fans to throw tantrums online for them. | ilikehurdles wrote: | They rejected that telecom company for the same underlying | reason as this one - the company presented a challenge to | legacy telecoms, and the industry dominated by regulatory | capture defeated it. You're celebrating a win for the Comcast | and AT&T protection racket. | memish wrote: | Bizarre complaint of someone who has delivered far beyond what | anyone thought possible. Starlink, rockets, millions of EVs | have been provably produced, not just promised. | m3kw9 wrote: | SpaceX can't launch? Then who got the money?! | LukeLambert wrote: | My parents in rural Northeast Texas use Starlink as their primary | connection (they have a WISP as failover). Since Sept. 2022, I've | been running automated speed tests four times a day (1 and 7, AM | and PM). Speeds vary a lot throughout the day, but average about | 100 Mbps down by 10 Mbps up. | | https://gist.github.com/LukeLambert/dd722e49bc773bcb27e859d9... | plumeria wrote: | What are you using to run the automated speed tests? | jamroom wrote: | Not sure what they use but I've used Speedtest CLI: | | https://www.speedtest.net/apps/cli | | works good. | LukeLambert wrote: | Yep! speedtest -f json -I eth0 | | I also test the WISP connection on eth1 | dubcanada wrote: | Is it weird that most of the ones around 1am are under 50mbps? | The variability I think make sense, but the 1am consistency | seems strange. | spurgu wrote: | I wonder if the satellites fly in a pattern that repeats | every 24 hours... | LukeLambert wrote: | Note that the timestamps are UTC, while Texas is UTC-6:00 | during Standard Time and UTC-5:00 during Daylight Saving | Time. There's definitely a dip during prime streaming hours. | ejb999 wrote: | Before starlink my only option was 3MB DSL from Verizon, it was | literally life changing as a WFH person to get the 100-200Mbps | downloads that Starlink gave me (for $99/month). | | Fast forward and now I have 1GB symmetrical fiber-to-the-home. | | Really nice to have that, but the leap from DSL to Starlink was | life changing, the leap from Starlink to fiber was merely a | minor improvment. | atlgator wrote: | It's also possible that you would not have gotten fiber in | the same timeframe if Starlink hadn't competed for your | business. Companies like Windstream are notorious for gaining | regulated monopolies in rural areas, gobbling up government | subsidies, only to deliver low bandwidth, saturated service | to customers. | stusmall wrote: | Huh. It's really nice to see actual metrics. I live in a rural | area and get my internet through a fixed wireless provider. For | a while I'd been wondering if it was worth giving Starlink a | try | | While this is usually a bit more bandwidth than I get, that | isn't consistent and the ping is much worse. I pretty | consistently get 50/15 with 15ms ping at about $90/mo after | tax+fees. Based on some of the hype and press Starlink gets I | assumed it would have had much better bandwidth, even if the | latency is about inline with my expectations. Thanks for | gathering and sharing this. | nikanj wrote: | Is there any sort of data capping on their plan? Speed tests | burn through quite a bit of data | sertbdfgbnfgsd wrote: | Maybeeeeeeee Musk shouldn't be conducting personal foreign | policy? | inemesitaffia wrote: | So he shouldn't have sent dishes in February 2022 or allowed | use in the frontline thereafter? | sertbdfgbnfgsd wrote: | He can do whatever he wants, as long as he's not helping | enemies of America. | | Ok let me rephrase my comment: | | Maybeeeeeeee Musk shouldn't be helping America's enemies? | chung8123 wrote: | I don't understand with so much money being poured into NASA, | rural broadband, and the Military why the Government cannot setup | their own starlink. It will be less money in the end. | inemesitaffia wrote: | Falcon 9 cost ~ 400 million for block 1. NASA thinks they could | have done it for over 10X | | Starlink+Falcon+Starship have so far cost less than | SLS+Ares+Orion development. | | The best you could have got would have been something like | Oneweb. Prices available online. | TradingPlaces wrote: | This is all being superseded by IIJA anyway. A lot of fiber is | going to go in the ground. | mensetmanusman wrote: | SpaceX already subsidizes the government for billions of dollars | of launch cost savings and a lowered reliance on Russia. | | It only makes sense to save taxpayers money by being subsidized | even more. | jm4 wrote: | I wonder if behind the scenes this has anything to do with Elon's | Starlink shenanigans in Ukraine. He interfered with their | military operations after a meeting with Putin and then pulled | that nonsense where he basically extorted the U.S. government for | more funding. Their options for dealing with him are somewhat | limited because their relationship with him goes both ways. A | good way to give him a little slap is in his wallet. | inemesitaffia wrote: | There's no evidence of a Putin meeting. | | The government was refusing to pay their bills. | | They've fattened his wallet with starshield. | | This denial happened ages ago. This article is a response to | the appeal. | TheAlchemist wrote: | It looks like it's becoming apparent that Elon's empire is based | on a lot of impossible promises. | | Starlink is probably one of them. A perfect 'business' for Musk. | You can show something great - high speed internet in remote | areas - and then extrapolate that - just think about the whole | world etc... Faster than fibre, with V2... | | Thing is, this business is probably not economically viable. It | can work if not a lot of people use it - but it's maintained | afloat by government money. But if 10x customers sign on, | bandwidth will completely plummet and it won't be such a great | service anymore. | | But in the meantime, and it's quite a long time, Elon can | continue to extract billions $ of taxpayers money. | asylteltine wrote: | Elon "over promise and under deliver" Musk | | FSD is coming any day now right? | goodguy29495 wrote: | you can try it out in any post-2018 Tesla with the option | package. | bdcravens wrote: | Beta test it, if you're eligible, and if you paid for it. | asylteltine wrote: | You mean you can BETA test this in a life or death | situation and put non-consenting individuals at risk | because you want to flex your toy right? It's demonstrably | dangerous and shouldn't be allowed on public roads. | brianpan wrote: | What you can try out today is "fully" self-driving with | limited capabilities in limited scenarios. Hardly fully | anything. | akho wrote: | It's very obviously a military project. I don't see what you | expect to be different wrt funding. | madaxe_again wrote: | How is it "maintained afloat" by government money, when it | receives no subsidies? The only government payment for starlink | that I am aware of is for the terminals in Ukraine. | Waterluvian wrote: | If it recives no subsidies then not getting a $900M subsidy | shouldn't be a surprise! | belltaco wrote: | The comment said "continue to extract..". Try again. | grecy wrote: | Starlink was never designed to be faster than fibre, and it was | certainly never designed or intended for use by people that ave | access to fibre (or cable, or LTE for that matter). | | SpaceX have re-iterated this on many, many occasions. | | Anyone who things otherwise simply doesn't understand the | product. | | Starlink is designed for people who live in remote areas that | have no access to any of that. | | Go out right now and see how life changing it is for those | people. All across Northern Canada & rural Australia I've met | dozens of people who previously had access to dial-up AT BEST | in 2022, and now have solid broadband connections. | TheAlchemist wrote: | 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 supported by the | government. | grecy wrote: | > _It was_ | | No. It was never designed or advertised to offer "faster | than fibre" connections to end users, and all along Musk | and maintained it makes absolutely no sense for a person to | use Starlink if they already have access to a ground-based | option like fibre or cable or LTE. | | > _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 supported | by the government_ | | Those are wild claims. | | Please post citations about how it's bleeding money or is | supported by the government. | alsodumb wrote: | You are obviously giving very biased answers without any | substantial proof. | JumpinJack_Cash wrote: | The proof is everywhere when you look at products | manufactured by Musk companies | | They are all based on re-inventing the wheel (quite | literally) for political purposes and government money | extraction. | | You'll never find the guy developing something that | customers really want such as self-checkout system that | doesn't suck, because there is no Government money to be | extracted from it. | alsodumb wrote: | Let's see, Tesla is reinventing the wheel for extracting | government money extraction? They make a solid profit on | each car they sell. You gonna bring up the loan. But that | loan was repaid in full by Tesla, ahead of time, where as | Ford and other who also got similar loans defaulted on | it. You going to bring up EV subsidies - but that's open | to every automaker and Tesla is probably the only company | that can make a margin on their car even without EV | subsidy. | | Now let's talk SpaceX - people who are not familiar with | the space industry don't realize how much SpaceX | fundamentally changed the industry - before SpaceX it was | like two players in the space launch area, and they used | to charge government a shit ton of money for each launch, | often using Russian engines. SpaceX made it so cheap that | it was hard for anyone to compete, and their offerings | are so cheap when compared to anyone else (and sometimes | they are the only launch option US) that even competitors | are compelled to use SpaceX. You being a Musk hater would | argue that all the government launch contracts to SpaceX | are 'subsidies' but nope, they launches were gonna happen | whether SpaceX existed or not. SpaceX only saved | government tens of billions of dollars by reducing the | launch costs. | | I can keep going on but it wouldn't matter to you. | Customers really wanted SpaceX. Everyone who uses | Starlink really wants it, go talk to actual users. Just | because the products the guy is developing doesn't align | with your notion of what customers really want doesn't | mean if it's something useful. | | Starlink would exist without this subsidy from the | government. That doesn't mean that Starlink should not | try to get a share of the subsidy that government offered | to all the players in this market. If you have a problem | with the subsidy complain about the government, not one | of the many beneficiaries just because you hate the guy | that owns the company. | JumpinJack_Cash wrote: | Tesla is the signal that the American Empire is | collapsing, it's a company that is based on the political | idea that it's necessary to change the transportation | pollutant from oil to lithium. | | It's the same old car ownership experience that our | grandfathers experienced in 1970s, Tesla was founded in | 2002 and I can find cars from that year on the used | market which are more aestetically pleasing and have much | better interiors quality and still beat Tesla cars (or | should I say boats given how heavy they are?) around a | racetrack which is the true measure of a car performance. | Picture this , a 20 year old Mercedes or BMW with better | interior and better looks can beat a brand new 2023 Tesla | lap time around Laguna Seca or the Nurburgring , and also | it will be able to go around the track for hours and | hours whereas the Tesla would overheat and leave you | stranded on lap 2. | | We are going backwards in the name of politics, that | cannot be accepted quitely, it's stupid and un-American. | Solely done in the name of politics and Government money | extraction. | | > > Customers really wanted SpaceX | | 90% of global population lives in urban areas, that's | only going to increase, so that's 90% who will never need | SpaceX. You have to go and pick your sample with a | searchlight to get the result you want, and even then | only about 30% are going to be happy with the service | considering that SpaceX is cutting their download speed | all the time compared to what they clocked at the time of | first installation, that's predatory. | laverya wrote: | > 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. | gruez wrote: | >Thing is, this business is probably not economically viable. | It can work if not a lot of people use it - but it's maintained | afloat by government money. But if 10x customers sign on, | bandwidth will completely plummet and it won't be such a great | service anymore. | | That's a nice story, but can you do some math to substantiate | it? For instance, is there some fundamental limit between how | much bandwidth a satellite can provide, how much it costs, and | how much the monthly subscription is? | UltimateFloofy wrote: | do reporters not use spellcheck anymore? the number of spelling | mistakes in that article was ridiculous. | NelsonMinar wrote: | I'm glad to see the FCC sticking to its requirements and having a | testing regime for them. Starlink's own service specifications | are far below the 100/20Mbps requirements. They currently are | promising 25-100Mbps down, 5-10Mbps up. In congested areas they | often don't even deliver that in the evenings. [1] | | I use Starlink in my rural area and am grateful for it. But | hopefully the $900M will be better spent on other ISPs. A | particular problem with Starlink is if it fails, there's no | infrastructure left behind. The fiber installs that RDOF is | paying for should outlive the companies getting the grants. | | [1] https://www.starlink.com/legal/documents/DOC-1400-28829-70 | devindotcom wrote: | that's an interesting point, I hadn't thought about that if | there's a failure for whatever reason, the infra burns up. | phpisthebest wrote: | Now if the FCC was actually principled when when choosing when | to " sticking to its requirements" because ti seems large | traditional companies can just do what ever the hell they want | and get subsidies. | spurgu wrote: | You have to be on good terms with people high up. | chrisweekly wrote: | Tangent: a few months ago there was a huge bonfire party at the | beach in my town (Duxbury, MA), and my friends and I were treated | to the trifecta of the conflagration plus a gorgeous blood moon | rise, capped off by a starlink satellite train passing directly | overhead. It was unforgettable. | thehappypm wrote: | Tangent off a tangent: I'm new to the south shore area, do you | have a favorite beach spot? | tehjoker wrote: | > The two Republican commissioners on the five-member FCC | dissented from the decision saying the FCC was improperly holding | SpaceX to 2025 targets three years early and suggesting the Biden | administration's anger toward Musk was to blame. | | didn't elon switch off starlink for ukrainian forces in the | middle of an attack that one time? | | https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/sep/07/elon-musk... | adolph wrote: | No, Starlink services were never turned on for portions of | Ukraine previously occupied by Russia such as Crimea. | | _On Friday, Isaacson tweeted a clarification, writing that | "the Ukrainians THOUGHT coverage was enabled all the way to | Crimea, but it was not. They asked Musk to enable it for their | drone sub attack on the Russian fleet. Musk did not enable it, | because he thought, probably correctly, that would cause a | major war."_ | | https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/sep/12/elon-musk-biog... | notyourwork wrote: | Maybe a dumb take but I'd really like for the population to earn | an ownership stake in the company for providing subsidies. I | don't know much about subsidies but it seems like it would be in | the best interest of the population to be able to have an | ownership stake in the companies that are providing a head start | through monetary or policy subsidizing. Can someone tell me if | there is a way for the US to recoup subsidy money or how this | works? | chiefalchemist wrote: | Isn't the DoD one of Starlink's top customers? The FCC can | certainly pull their funds, but if the DoD has many - too many? - | eggs in the Starlink basket - and no legit viable alternatives - | and this funding pull-back compromises Starlink on a broader | scale, isn't it likely the DoD steps in, in the name of national | defense? | flareback wrote: | The government shouldn't be funding internet anyways. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-12-13 23:00 UTC)