306
submitted 11 months ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] LWD@lemm.ee 147 points 11 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)
[-] SupraMario@lemmy.world 13 points 11 months ago

The level of ignorance from you musk haters is hilarious. Starlink has done 100xs more for rural areas than the nearly trillion we gave to the telecoms. Yea musk is a dick but you're ignorant as fuck if you think starlink is a scam.

[-] czech@low.faux.moe 49 points 11 months ago

There were a dozen companies that applied for the grant. Musk won by over promising.

[-] Cheers@sh.itjust.works 43 points 11 months ago

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.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] variaatio@sopuli.xyz 14 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

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.

[-] shartedchocolate@lemmy.world 12 points 11 months ago

Giving government money to muskrat companies is the scam.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[-] Uglyhead@lemmy.world 104 points 11 months ago

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.

[-] KyuubiNoKitsune 40 points 11 months ago

bulkshit

I love it, because he is so full of shit, you get it in bulk.

[-] Marcbmann@lemmy.world 13 points 11 months ago

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.

[-] kalleboo@lemmy.world 32 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

"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.

[-] wahming@monyet.cc 84 points 11 months ago

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

[-] daltotron@lemmy.world 12 points 11 months ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (16 replies)
[-] voracitude@lemmy.world 78 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Aww. Poor SpaceX. To quote the man himself:

Go fuck yourself.

[-] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 56 points 11 months ago

pull yourself up by your bootstraps. no handouts.

[-] skozzii@lemmy.ca 51 points 11 months ago

Musk cannot make a profitable company without government subsidies. Hilarious.

[-] LordKitsuna@lemmy.world 16 points 11 months ago

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

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world 39 points 11 months ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] ItsaB3AR@sh.itjust.works 25 points 11 months ago

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.

[-] echo64@lemmy.world 60 points 11 months ago

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.

[-] A7thStone@lemmy.world 13 points 11 months ago

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.

[-] Botanicals@lemmy.world 12 points 11 months ago

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.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Brkdncr@sh.itjust.works 25 points 11 months ago

I love shitting on Elon but starlink is one of the most important things that has come out of the US. It made remote work possible for thousands. It provided real internet access for so many rural areas. The FCC needs to fix this.

[-] mindlight@lemm.ee 62 points 11 months ago

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."

Isn't it Starlink that should fix this?

[-] hperrin@lemmy.world 44 points 11 months ago

this applicant had failed to meet its burden to be entitled to nearly $900 million in universal service funds for almost a decade

Maybe we should invest in another company that will actually deserve it.

[-] CmdrShepard@lemmy.one 10 points 11 months ago

The problem is that this company doesn't exist.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] FiFoFree@lemmy.world 19 points 11 months ago

In Iowa, at least, the state had a pre-existing fiber network that got expanded to a shit-ton of rural communities and local (often municipal) ISPs. It's more expensive than what you'd get in the cities, but much better bang for buck than Starlink.

The only people still struggling to get service are those who live way, way outside those communities -- the kind of people for whom "neighbor" means somebody who lives a significant fraction of a mile away. And, outside of comfortably wealthy individuals, those people are a dying breed, at least in Iowa.

If Iowa of all places can pull something like that off, I figure it's not out of reach of any state (or nation, for that matter) whose inhabitants give a nano-fuck about access to technology.

[-] Brkdncr@sh.itjust.works 8 points 11 months ago

Rural Iowa has phone lines and can easily put up p2p wireless as long as it’s above the tree line . It’s also easy to trench cable through most of the state . I used to live there.

Many places in the US are much more difficult.

Verizon offered me 3mbps/1mbps dsl for $60/mo 4 years ago and it was their best and only option. I had their LTE service and it was flakey due to mountain interference and distance from tower. Two p2p wireless services exist but 1 had 20% packet loss across all of their customers and after 2 years still refused to fix it and the other was offering single-digit speeds for $100+ per month.

Verizon put up a sign 3 years ago that said “high speed internet coming soon!” The sign has since deteriorated and blew away. It’s symbolic.

The fcc needs to support LEO so that areas like mine are serviced. Starlink doesn’t compete with any other terrestrial service. It’s for the people that don’t have another option, and there are a lot.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] I_Miss_Daniel@lemmy.world 12 points 11 months ago

Hi from me, a Starlink customer in rural Australia. It's a premium service but greatly outperforms the alternatives.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] londos@lemmy.world 21 points 11 months ago
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] nixcamic@lemmy.world 16 points 11 months ago

On one hand, ew Elon Musk.

On the other hand Starlink has given us the first decent internet we've ever had so...

[-] variaatio@sopuli.xyz 24 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

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.

[-] Fades@lemmy.world 16 points 11 months ago

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

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Acters@lemmy.world 12 points 11 months ago

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Shohmini@lemmy.world 13 points 11 months ago

I don't particularly like Elon, but I think a lot of people are forgetting what Starlink has done for rural areas, and areas that don't have highspeed internet. I live in the Southern US, and the only other options at my address are AT&T DSL or other satellite companies. We don't have 5G towers in the area so I can't go that route, most satellite companies have extremely low data caps, Hughesnet has a cap of 200Gbs for $150, with horrible connection, and AT&T DSL makes a 200MB download take 30-45 minutes at the fastest. My town has a population of 10k, and we're still dealing with those being the only choices. If you go 30 minutes over to the next town they have Satellite, and that's it. ISPs don't care to fix the problem unless there's another company taking customers from them with better service. Starlink has opened up a lot of the internet, and the possibility to work from home for a lot of people.

[-] n3m37h@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 points 11 months ago

Sounds like y'all should start building your own infrastructure as others have done

[-] roofuskit@lemmy.world 11 points 11 months ago

That only works when the republicans that run the place don't ban municipal internet build outs.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] CaptPretentious@lemmy.world 12 points 11 months ago

The real problem there is all of the government handouts that have gone to the other ISPs for the purpose of wiring up everybody... Taking the money and then not delivering. And I know some years ago it was said that Comcast's internet division was running at over 90% profit margin... And like other companies that were regarded highly successful operate around 30% or less.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 9 points 11 months ago

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!

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 15 Dec 2023
306 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

59299 readers
3789 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS