8 ms·

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

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.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ortusdux 3y ago
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 3y ago
  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 3y ago
    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-opportunity-fund/ 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 3y ago
      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 3y ago
        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 3y ago
      Starlink hasn't gotten any money, so they aren't subject to build requirements
      - Deprecate9151 3y ago
        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 3y ago
        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 3y ago
  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 3y ago
    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 3y ago
      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 3y ago
        There's a fixed pool of money ($16 billion), so everyone who gets some of it does replace a denied org.
        inemesitaffia 3y ago
        You have no idea how this works. Denied money isn't redistributed. Where do people get this from? Maybe there will be a future award. But there's no rollover here.
        pclmulqdq 3y ago
- jcims 3y ago
  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 3y ago
    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 3y ago
      The denial doesn't quote speeds in those areas
      - Deprecate9151 3y ago
        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.
        inemesitaffia 3y ago
        The denial mentions national speed levels from a third party not the particular coverage areas or services delivered under RDOF
NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
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 3y ago
  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 3y ago
    > 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 3y ago
      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 3y ago
        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.
paxys 3y ago
[flagged]
- karpatic 3y ago
  From what I understand, this is a political hatchet job. Space X still had 2 years to meet the the mark but capricious new standards are being applied specifically to them.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - libraryatnight 3y ago
    or maybe speeds were dropping, requirements not met, and they didn't want to dump more money on self driving car man's company. Seems reasonable to me - if it also makes elon and his cult sad, that's just a happy accident.
    - ilikehurdles 3y ago
      This argument is too deeply rotted with bias to have value. This is going to slow the adoption of broadband and you’re happy because the guy you dislike might be harmed as a consequence. You should reflect on this behavior, because you’re embodying everything you criticize this supposed “other side” of being.
      - JumpinJack_Cash 3y ago
        > > This is going to slow the adoption of broadband Just lay down fiber. Unlike satellites you only have to do it once, but that's not exciting enough for rocket man because unlike satellites you don't get the government to pay you to play with rockets. This is all there is to it, like the Apollo program was. A bunch of techbros want to play with rockets and try really hard to reverse engineer an excuse for government to hand them cash for it. For the Apollo program it was collecting moon rocks that were supposed to hold god knows what secrets, for the current age of space it's rural internet.
manuelabeledo 3y ago
> 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 3y ago
  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.
  - dr-detroit 3y ago
    [dead]
  - manuelabeledo 3y ago
    > 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 3y ago
      SpaceX was profitable last quarter. https://www.reuters.com/business/elon-musks-spacex-turns-profit-first-quarter-revenue-soars-wsj-2023-08-17/ https://www.reuters.com/business/elon-musks-spacex-turns-pro...
- rapsey 3y ago
  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.
maxerickson 3y ago
Ineptly retracting a subsidy that isn't needed or even impactful?
mensetmanusman 3y ago
In defense of the FCC, barely anyone survives the lobbying power of entrenched ISPs.
colechristensen 3y ago
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.
- pmorici 3y ago
  In truly rural or remote areas relative to any available alternative it is as close to a miracle product as one could imagine. If you haven’t had to use other satellite Internet services like BGAN, Iridium, viasat, etc… it’s hard to explain what a revolution Starlink is in every aspect.
_fizz_buzz_ 3y ago
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?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

ortusdux 3y ago

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 3y ago
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 3y ago
  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-opportunity-fund/ 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 3y ago
    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 3y ago
      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 3y ago
    Starlink hasn't gotten any money, so they aren't subject to build requirements
    - Deprecate9151 3y ago
      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 3y ago
        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 3y ago
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 3y ago
  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 3y ago
    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 3y ago
      There's a fixed pool of money ($16 billion), so everyone who gets some of it does replace a denied org.
      - inemesitaffia 3y ago
        You have no idea how this works. Denied money isn't redistributed. Where do people get this from? Maybe there will be a future award. But there's no rollover here.
        pclmulqdq 3y ago
jcims 3y ago
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 3y ago
  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 3y ago
    The denial doesn't quote speeds in those areas
    - Deprecate9151 3y ago
      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.
      - inemesitaffia 3y ago
        The denial mentions national speed levels from a third party not the particular coverage areas or services delivered under RDOF

NovemberWhiskey 3y ago

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 3y ago
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 3y ago
  > 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 3y ago
    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 3y ago
      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.

paxys 3y ago

[flagged]

karpatic 3y ago
From what I understand, this is a political hatchet job. Space X still had 2 years to meet the the mark but capricious new standards are being applied specifically to them.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- libraryatnight 3y ago
  or maybe speeds were dropping, requirements not met, and they didn't want to dump more money on self driving car man's company. Seems reasonable to me - if it also makes elon and his cult sad, that's just a happy accident.
  - ilikehurdles 3y ago
    This argument is too deeply rotted with bias to have value. This is going to slow the adoption of broadband and you’re happy because the guy you dislike might be harmed as a consequence. You should reflect on this behavior, because you’re embodying everything you criticize this supposed “other side” of being.
    - JumpinJack_Cash 3y ago
      > > This is going to slow the adoption of broadband Just lay down fiber. Unlike satellites you only have to do it once, but that's not exciting enough for rocket man because unlike satellites you don't get the government to pay you to play with rockets. This is all there is to it, like the Apollo program was. A bunch of techbros want to play with rockets and try really hard to reverse engineer an excuse for government to hand them cash for it. For the Apollo program it was collecting moon rocks that were supposed to hold god knows what secrets, for the current age of space it's rural internet.

manuelabeledo 3y ago

> 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 3y ago
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.
- dr-detroit 3y ago
  [dead]
- manuelabeledo 3y ago
  > 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 3y ago
    SpaceX was profitable last quarter. https://www.reuters.com/business/elon-musks-spacex-turns-profit-first-quarter-revenue-soars-wsj-2023-08-17/ https://www.reuters.com/business/elon-musks-spacex-turns-pro...
rapsey 3y ago
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.

maxerickson 3y ago

Ineptly retracting a subsidy that isn't needed or even impactful?

mensetmanusman 3y ago

In defense of the FCC, barely anyone survives the lobbying power of entrenched ISPs.

colechristensen 3y ago

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.

pmorici 3y ago
In truly rural or remote areas relative to any available alternative it is as close to a miracle product as one could imagine. If you haven’t had to use other satellite Internet services like BGAN, Iridium, viasat, etc… it’s hard to explain what a revolution Starlink is in every aspect.

_fizz_buzz_ 3y ago

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?