4 ms·
US House panel probes FCC decision to deny Starlink nearly $900M
- ydlr 2y ago[flagged]
- torstenvl 2y agoIt isn't a subsidy to Starlink, it's a subsidy to the end-users. Starlink wanted the contract, and arguably should have gotten it. Instead we've spent tons of taxpayer $$$$ and connected approximately nobody (except for the donated Starlinks used for emergency disaster relief in WNC).
- delfinom 2y agoThe steps of government subsidies: 1. Company raises prices of plans 2. Government gives subsidy to company 3. End user sees neigh benefit. 4. Government increases subsidy 5. Company raises prices of plans 6. End user sees neigh benefit. See also: College tuition death cycle
- easthanover 2y agoI am guess this is a "joke" reply because of the forced colloquialism but this is not a subsidy for the business, it was a group of companies bidding to provide rural broadband service. This is concerning 9 Billion that was awarded in 2020. The 2021 infrastructure bill included and additional 40 Billion. None of the 2021 money has been spent and companies that won the 2020 award have been given extensions: https://www.wsj.com/opinion/dish-directv-fcc-charlie-ergen-jessica-rosenworcel-c50c31b4 https://www.wsj.com/opinion/dish-directv-fcc-charlie-ergen-j...
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- highwayman47 2y agoAt what point do these companies return the money?
- verdverm 2y agoFWIW, the 2021 IIJA at least has a clawback for those companies that take funding but don't deliver https://www.ey.com/en_us/insights/government-public-sector/protecting-distributed-capital-from-the-iija#:~:text=The%20IIJA%20provides%20state%20broadband%20leaders%20opportunity%20but%20also%20clawback%20risk%20if%20grants%20are%20not%20managed%20successfully%20by%20strong%20grant%20management%20programs https://www.ey.com/en_us/insights/government-public-sector/p....
- Eumenes 2y ago[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- whoiskevin 2y agoWould have been effective based on what evidence? "Starlink had difficulty meeting the basic uplink and downlink speed standards for the program" and added Starlink’s proposal would have required subscribers to purchase a $600 dish to start service. I'd say that is a pretty good reason for a decision. Questioning it is fine but as usual anything Musk makes some people believe he is smart and magically has the best solution to any problem instead of just mostly a con artist.
- dlahoda 2y ago350 usd dish, on par with good 5g antenaroputer thing.
- Eumenes 2y agoBEAD funding was $42 billion (lets be real, that'll probably be doubled in the years to come like every project) to connect ~ 9 million households. Thats $4.6k per household. Seems like satellite internet would be way cheaper, even with a $600 dish. Also, if the speeds are an issue, alter that. Poor rural households that aren't even connected today don't need fiber optic speed internet. The goal should be connection.
- jf22 2y agoWhy do you have a "theory" about a public program when you could uncover the details yourself?
- Eumenes 2y agoYou're right. Its not a theory. The ridiculous requirements related to DEI, climate, and wage/labor are right in the text. If the goal was to provide internet to 9 million people, it wouldn't cost $42 billion.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- justin66 2y agoThe FCC is quoted in the article as indicating Starlink would require rural customers to purchase a $600 dish to start service. That's fine, but what the heck do they need $900M for if they're not subsidizing that equipment cost? Their satellites will be flying overhead anyway. Normally when the federal government throws gobs of money at internet providers it's in the name of building out physical infrastructure. (on some occasions it even gets built) Here... it's for what? > House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer, a Republican, asked the FCC in a letter Monday to turn over documents by Oct. 21 on the decision. The committee seeks to ensure the FCC "followed established processes and is not improperly using the regulatory process for political purposes." There's a potential for comedy here, at least. James Comer, for people who aren't familiar, makes the Alaskan senator who once compared the internet to "a series of tubes" look like Isaac Newton by comparison.
- josefritzishere 2y agoThe 900M was earmarked to build infastructure as any terestrial ISP would have had to construction costs to build out services. For Starlink it would basically be money for nothing. A planned program to give consumers free routers and dishes would not even necessarily ISP-facing. That could be done directly with consumers either as tax credits, or the like.
- inemesitaffia 2y agoYou're mistaken. RDOF in particular required installation and battery backup. It's not money for nothing and ground stations aren't free. The plan was to deliver a free to the customer bundle with telephony
- inemesitaffia 2y agoThese plans are delivered to the ends user free of charge, including installation and battery backup. No one's states that in their application because it's a given so this $600 nonsense is misplaced. And there's other middle mile infrastructure
- jqpabc123 2y agoWho will insure that this panel is "following established processes and not improperly using the regulatory process for political purposes" in order to appease one large donor?
- acover 2y agoThe requirements they failed was meeting 100mbps down and 20 up. They were measured at 90/9. Starlink meets the intent of fast internet, if not their arbitrary line. Everyone I know who has one loves it. https://spacenews.com/fcc-commissioner-criticizes-starlinks-900-million-subsidy-rejection/ https://spacenews.com/fcc-commissioner-criticizes-starlinks-...
- slenk 2y ago9 up is abysmal.
- init2null 2y agoYes, everyone loves it, but it fails the surprisingly sane criteria. Try uploading a video to YT on 9. Or even do a cloud phone backup. Why do we tolerate connections that force us to be nothing but consumers online? Creation needs real upstream bandwidth. Starlink is also painfully expensive. I've sent them several customers, but I know what it is: a last chance for rural people who've been abandoned to rotting DSL lines. That being said, line of sight is impressively competitive both on bandwidth potential and the most important factor to casual users, cost.
- lxgr 2y agoFor anything wired I fully agree, but radio-based connections are sometimes power limited (as opposed to bandwidth limited) in the uplink path. You don't want your mobile phone to drain even faster than it already does, or a Starlink antenna exceeding microwave radiation limits for anyone walking past it (I've seen many of them installed on the ground or at least below eye level).
- _fs 2y agoIn my major metropolitan san diego suburb, I have one option for high speed internet. No fiber in the ground. (Closest is about 2 miles away) and I live in a canyon, so 5g is very hit or miss. I get Spectrum Cable. And they give me ~200 Mb down, 10 Mb up for 80$ a month. The upload speed is hard limited. Its abysmal. If I need to back up my server, I pack it up and take it to work. It's literally faster to move my server to a new location then try to back up 10Tb of data.
- josefritzishere 2y agoThe original intention of these rural internet subsidies was to build rural infastructure. It's historically similar to rural electrification in the 1930s and 1940s. Starlink provides this service without local infastructure, and below the speed guideline. Making an exception for them would be a violation of public trust.
- inemesitaffia 2y agoThere's rural infrastructure
- inemesitaffia 2y agoPointless effort IMO. Good luck delivering
- 7e 2y agoElon Musk is a subsidy vampire, I see it continues here.