- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
SpaceX blasts FCC as it refuses to reinstate Starlink’s $886 million grant::FCC doubts ability to provide high-speed, low-latency service in all grant areas.
You must log in or register to comment.
deleted
Removed by mod
There were a dozen companies that applied for the grant. Musk won by over promising.
Not just that, he used star link to manage international relations by suddenly stopping service for Ukraine.
He’s a “free speech abolitionist” and egotistical megalomaniac that’s willing lie about deliverables and take illegal actions because there’s been no punishment.
Here’s punishment.
deleted
If you are expanding the deep state to include regulatory bodies, you are just talking about the state.
Can you provide an instance of the state ever hiding the fact that they regulate businesses, or did you just find out that was one of their powers?
deleted
I think I misunderstood you the first time. I thought you were a musk fan boy claiming the regulators themselves were the deepstate.
deleted
Removed by mod
Well he never won in the first place. This is the original final decision of him losing in the first place. What was “won” previously was SpaceX getting short listed as one of the companies to be seriously considered for award. Then followed the actual final full decision checks and SpaceX failed to meet criterion for the subsidy.
If it’s not a scam, then they don’t need that money.
Removed by mod
Yes. Exactly.
Hey, you’re catching on!
Giving government money to muskrat companies is the scam.
Removed by mod
Have you tried gaming on satellite internet?
Removed by mod
Do you personally have starlink and experience those ping levels? Reports from people online claim higher ping times.
Removed by mod
People will keep down voting you, but I just wanted to stop in and let you know that there are other people like you who can read.
People on Lemmy are leftist AF and their seething hate for Musk clouds their ability to think.
Removed by mod
It is genuinely concerning the mentality round here, anything with musk must be bad and no one wants to even consider the possibility it’s not. That’s certainly not the only subject like that either, people are very clearly basing options on what suits their personal beliefs rather than what is baked up by fact.
Well you know we get that mentality by observing what he does, listening to what he says, seeing who he keeps company with, and paying attention to the demeanor of the people under him. It’s not very complicated.
but you don’t pay attention to the actual impacts the companies have. SpaceX gets bashed a lot which is hilarious. There is no argument that SpaceX is bad. Like what, ULA was better? Throwing boosters in the ocean and charging $500 million+ per flight? SpaceX is objectively an amazing achievement that we should all be proud of.
Removed by mod
And yet HE gets all the money and glory for doing nothing but acting like an asshole.
What should happen is that he be removed from all of these compenies and replaced with a competent leader…and no, Musk is NOT a competent leader.
Starlink’s grant was intended to subsidize deployment to 642,925 rural homes and businesses in 35 states. The August 2022 ruling that rejected the grant called Starlink a “nascent LEO [low Earth orbit] satellite technology” with “recognized capacity constraints.” The FCC questioned Starlink’s ability to consistently provide low-latency service with the required download speeds of 100Mbps and upload speeds of 20Mbps.
That’s Phony Stark for ya, everytime: Overpromise and Underdeliver. And then get angry when called on his bulkshit.
bulkshit
I love it, because he is so full of shit, you get it in bulk.
The grant requires applicants to meet these benchmarks by 2025. Only SpaceX came close to meeting this standard and only SpaceX is being denied the grant for not yet meeting this requirement.
"RDOF rules set speeds of 25/3 Mbps as the minimum allowed for broadband service delivered by winners. However, participants were permitted to bid at four different performance tiers: 25/3 Mbps, 50/5 Mbps, 100/20 Mbps and 1 Gbps/500 Mbps"
If SpaceX had bid on a lower tier of service that they were actually capable of delivering, they would have been fine.
This grant was not designed to fund the development of new technology, it was designed to build infrastructure (fiber, 5G, WISPs, etc) and they were originally going to exclude satellites from the bidding completely. The companies who would have used the grant to build fiber or set up point-to-point wireless would have had no problem meeting the requirements since it’s all proven technology.
Aww. Poor SpaceX. To quote the man himself:
Go fuck yourself.
Funny how the FCC decided starlink is incapable of doing this, but was happy enough to pay all the other ISPs who are still incapable of doing it after decades of payments
God I hate how our options are between shit and shit like every time. I just want RC cola internet, instead of pepsi and coke, is that too much to ask? I want kirkland signature internet, that’s what I want.
I would buy Kirkland signature internet in a heartbeat, all their stuff is so good.
Removed by mod
Yes. Verizon, AT&T et al
Removed by mod
They were paid to provide broadband services to the rural areas. As millions of people living in the rural areas can attest, the majority of their promises were not fulfilled.
They’ve been paid multiple times to do it.
Removed by mod
Hi, it’s me with my rural community that doesn’t have service at all.
Removed by mod
RUS
Just so we’re clear, the discussion here is not about RUS, but the Rural Broadband Initiative. ISPs were paid billions to bring broadband services to the countryside. They took the money and did nothing with it.
Removed by mod
pull yourself up by your bootstraps. no handouts.
Musk cannot make a profitable company without government subsidies. Hilarious.
Almost no major company can, have you seen how much the US subsidizes oil and gas despite their profits? How much we subsidize food production? Renewable technology such as wind and solar is only becoming so vastly popular because we’re heavily subsidizing it finally.
Don’t get me wrong fuck Elon musk, but don’t kid yourself and pretend like most companies wouldn’t fail without subsidies. That includes other internet companies which we subsidize regularly
there’s no greater welfare than corporate welfare. And for some absolutely bizzare reason, people are ok with this. it’s even worse because a lot of these companies don’t just make obscene profits on the back of tax payer ‘donations’ they they go on to in some cases pay zero or close to zero tax. (gas and oil companies are the greatest offenders BTW).
SpaceX is doing just fine
SpaceX is estimated to have 8 billion in revenue this year.
How much are SpaceX expenses though? Revenue is different from Net Profit.
Maybe if they had just used the last subsidies payouts to expand coverage and reliability instead of lobbying local governments to kill off fiber coops, then they could have kept the tap open.
Any tasty sauce to sample?
I still think Starlink can be a great service for rural areas, but it seems they need to improve their capabilities first. Which in a way makes a chicken-egg scenario. If they expand servers to handle all those people, they should be eligible for a grant, but they don’t wanna do it until they get the grant.
It’s just not a sustainable idea. To expand service, they need to launch even more satellites. Which degrade and fall down after a year. The only reason it could exist thus far is because the US taxpayer paid for it with subsidies like this.
America has problems with getting cable companies to actually lay cable after giving them money to do that, which is a separate thing. But at least if you get cable laid, it is in the ground providing service for hundreds of years instead of 1 year.
They could do it and make money too, but they are only thinking of short term gains. In my neck of the woods spectrum kept taking the money and barely putting up any cable until our state finally told them to pound sand. Fios then said we’ll do it, and they did. They have run thousands of miles of fibre in the last few years, and guess who everyone is paying for internet service because it’s the only service available up here.
This is exactly it and everyone should keep it in mind even if it’s helped you individually in your rural area. Elon keeps taking shortcuts for a cash grab and shooting garbage into space is not a long term answer.
Removed by mod
The SATs burn up after a few years.
Releasing all kinds of cool chemicals into the upper atmosphere, and no one really knows what kind of effect that will have. Cool.
No trash in space,
The number of satellites Starlink plans to launch will quintuple the number of spacecraft in LEO.
if you think sats in space in large numbers is clogging up space. I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
It absolutely is clogging up LEO, and multiple space agencies share that opinion. NASA wrote a whole letter on the potential hazards Starlink presents, and the challenges it adds to critical missions.
Do you crash into every house you drive past?
The speeds these satellites are moving at make this comparison so bad it’s embarrassing. Starlink satellites have accounted for over half of all close calls since they’ve been in orbit, and when the constellation is done, it’s estimated that that number will grow to 90% of all close encounters.
Removed by mod
do you know how much shit burns up in our atmosphere yearly? It’s a nothing burger.
About 60 tons or so of rock a day, which mostly deposit oxygen, magnesium, and silicon into the atmosphere, with known effects. Once Starlink is fully up, an additional 2 tons of aluminum satellite per day will be burning up in the upper atmosphere, giving off alumina dust and potentially wreaking havoc on the ozone layer and blocking sunlight. It’s impossible to know the full effects of that drastic of a change.
Ooo nooo, you do realize how large space is right?
The satellites are in low Earth orbit (LEO) though, a very specific, very small, and very crowded region of space.
Yes and spacex addressed those concerns.
You know what you’re right, they did say they’ll steer Starlink away from the ISS during docking, how nice of them. Still doesn’t address the rest of their concerns in that letter, nor the concerns of the rest of the scientific community.
It’s also, not on a flat plane like the earth is … and unlike the earth it’s on a 3d plain.
This is a weird thing to repeat twice. It almost sounds like you think the earth is flat.
Go look up what a close encounter is
Any encounter between two craft that get closer than 1km.
earth has close encounters with big rocks all the damn time,
Again, the “big rocks” that burn up in the Earth’s atmosphere have known effects. Also I don’t think you know what a close encounter is - the whole world would know if a “big rock” came within 1km of the Earth’s surface.
and it misses shit by hundreds of thousands of miles…
Ah, yeah, you have no idea what a close encounter is.
again space is huge.
Again, we’re talking about low Earth orbit, a very specific, very small, very crowded region of space. Where the spacecraft there are traveling at speeds up to 30,000 kph. Dismissing all that and just saying “but but space is huge” is ignorant.
Wow you have alot of patience trying to actually refute/educate this dumbass. Good explanations
Bless you for having the amount of patience to respond to this elon-bot
deleted by creator
Also not only would they need more satellites, but satellites more densely in any area with multitude of customers. Which eventually hits RF interference saturation.
Radio signal has only so much bandwidth in certain amount of frequency band. Infact being high up and far away makes it worse. Since more receivers hit the beam of the satellite transmission. One would have to acquire more radio bands, but we’ll unused global satellite transmission bands don’t grow in trees.
Tighter transmitters and better filtering receivers can help, but usually at great expense and in the end eventually one hits a limit of “can’t cheat laws of physics”
After 5 years.
SpaceX sells services. Just because they’re selling services to the government doesn’t make it a subsidy.
Starlink is a service sold to you, not the American government. You seem confused. You don’t get it for free paid for by taxes.
You have to buy it, and the American government subsidies it to encourage private sector spending on low to no profit endeavours like Internet to remote regions
SpaceX has paid for starlink through selling flights on their rockets, not through “subsidies like this”
You seem confused if you’re flip flopping between starlink being paid for by consumers and subsidies.
No, they didn’t. They got almost a billion a year in subsidies, which is what this whole thread is about.
Starlink is paid for by consumers and heavily subsidized by governments. It’s not that hard to follow.
deleted by creator
Subsideez nuts.
Got em
On one hand, ew Elon Musk.
On the other hand Starlink has given us the first decent internet we’ve ever had so…
However this isn’t about your anecdotal experience. This is about what level of service they can guarantee as minimum and overall to meet the conditions of the subsidy.
I would also note this isn’t reinstatement matter. FCC refused to give them the subsidy in the first place with this decision. What SpaceX are trying to spin as reneg on previous decision is them making the short list of companies to be considered. Well, getting short listed is not same as being selected fully.
They passed the criterion for the short list check, but the final authorization and selection included more wide and more through checking on the promises of companies to meet criterion and SpaceX failed the more through final round of scrutiny before being awarded the subsidy.
Government having awarded bad money previously isn’t fixed by following up bad awards with more bad awards. SpaceX exactly failed since previously money was handed out too losely and FCC has tightened the scrutiny on subsidy awards to not follow up bad money with more bad money.
Nobody is prevented from buying Starlink, this just means Starlink isn’t getting subsidized with tax payer money.
The more people that use starlink the slower and less usable it becomes, additionally phony stark can turn it off whenever he sees fit.
Good luck with that
In theory they’re gonna keep upgrading the network, they’ve been constantly launching new and better satellites since launch. Also yeah in theory they can turn it off but that’s such an odd hypothetical that who cares. In theory our old ISP could also do that.
The fastest we could get before was 10mpbs and it went out multiple times a day, sometimes for hours. I really doubt it’ll get that bad.
And if Starlink does die we just go back to our old garbage or hopefully someone else will have a functional LEO constellation by then.
“In theory”?
He did turn it off in an effort to influence the Ukraine/Russia conflict.
The original source of that claim retracted his statement…
But yeah, like I said he could shut it off at any time, but I don’t see how that’s why different that the idiot who owns our local ISP and could also shut it off at any time.
cable companies literally took a billion dollar grant to expand infrastructure and didnt do much of anything. This is literally doing something. F elon but the engineers who worked hard to make this a reality deserve better
It looked so promising but I feel like once I fell in love with the service they will start enshitification. Like Gmail, maps, pixel phones, YouTube, g-drive. Etc…
This is the best summary I could come up with:
SpaceX is furious at the Federal Communications Commission after the agency refused to reinstate an $886 million broadband grant that was tentatively awarded to Starlink during the previous administration.
But the satellite provider still needed FCC approval of a long-form application to receive the money, which is meant to subsidize deployment in areas with little or no high-speed broadband access.
The Starlink and LTD rejections were the two biggest changes to a $9.2 billion round of grants that, in the Rosenworcel FCC’s words, fueled “complaints that the program was poised to fund broadband to parking lots and well-served urban areas.”
The August 2022 ruling that rejected the grant called Starlink a “nascent LEO [low Earth orbit] satellite technology” with “recognized capacity constraints.”
In rejecting SpaceX’s appeal, yesterday’s FCC order said the agency’s Wireline Competition Bureau “followed Commission guidance and correctly concluded that Starlink is not reasonably capable of offering the required high-speed, low-latency service throughout the areas where it won auction support.”
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has acknowledged Starlink’s capacity limits several times, saying for example that it will face “a challenge [serving everyone] when we get into the several million user range.”
The original article contains 508 words, the summary contains 192 words. Saved 62%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Ok, but we already have all those satellites up there now. Please fucking tell me those are not going to become space trash, because I will fully blame the government on that one.
They’re not high enough to become space debris
Any altitude of orbit can become space debris. They just won’t stay space debris for nearly as long as geosynchronous or high orbit.
SLAMSBLASTSdeleted by creator
You know, on one hand, I do want to like. I have been looking into some cool space stuff more recently, and it seems like spaceX and starlink have been doing pretty well, relative to musk’s other business ventures, like X (no relation to spaceX, of course, which is great branding), and maybe tesla, which I kind of hate on the basis that they suck. But on the other hand, I wonder about how much of that is due to musk’s involvement, or if it’s just a factor of right place right time. I don’t think venture capital capture and attention capture from the balding manlet CEO of tesla, channeled towards reusable rockets, I don’t think any of that hurt, it was probably an advantage to those organizations, even if only like, by a small amount. But then, I dunno how much his mismanagement of these projects, and of most of his business ventures, have ended up hamstringing them in the long run, with unreasonable demands of his employees, and over-promising, and higher turnover rates than would probably be necessary. You know, I’m posting this from starlink internet, because I live in a rural place. Would that have happened without his idiocy? I’m inclined to say probably, but I’m also inclined to thank that guy that invented fertilizer, maybe even if he also invented mustard gas or whatever that story was. Which isn’t really to say that musk invented anything, or what have you.
Basically what I’m saying, is that I think it is probably a good thing, if you have gotten to a point where you can look at someone who’s “fucked up” history, and you can spin that into a good thing, even not by their intention, or even if it’s removed a causal step or two, it’s a good thing if you can spin their shit into gold. Probably. I dunno, it’s reassuring to me somehow, among the sea of situations that are the exact opposite where some guy’s cool idea gets taken by a soulless venture capital firm and drained like a vampire for investor hype before it’s discarded as useless vaporware. Mistakes into miracles.