this post was submitted on 15 Dec 2023
255 points (92.6% liked)

Technology

76663 readers
2235 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 news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  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, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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 130 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)
[–] Uglyhead@lemmy.world 89 points 2 years ago (2 children)

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.

[–] Marcbmann@lemmy.world -5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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 31 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years 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.

[–] voracitude@lemmy.world 69 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Aww. Poor SpaceX. To quote the man himself:

Go fuck yourself.

[–] wahming@monyet.cc 62 points 2 years ago (2 children)

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 11 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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.

[–] uid0gid0@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

I would buy Kirkland signature internet in a heartbeat, all their stuff is so good.

[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Which other ISPs? Do you mean the BOCs & RBOCs?

[–] wahming@monyet.cc 8 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world -4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

They pulled wire for miles to service rural areas and are maintaining a network to service rural customers. The BOCs are why there are RUS funds

[–] wahming@monyet.cc 25 points 2 years ago (6 children)

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.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 55 points 2 years ago

pull yourself up by your bootstraps. no handouts.

[–] skozzii@lemmy.ca 45 points 2 years ago (4 children)

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

[–] LordKitsuna@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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

[–] set_secret@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

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).

[–] cole@lemdro.id 1 points 2 years ago

SpaceX is doing just fine

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world 36 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Jarix@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

Any tasty sauce to sample?

[–] londos@lemmy.world 16 points 2 years ago

Subsideez nuts.

[–] nixcamic@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago (4 children)

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 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years 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 15 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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

[–] nixcamic@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Mongostein@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

“In theory”?

He did turn it off in an effort to influence the Ukraine/Russia conflict.

[–] nixcamic@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/sep/12/elon-musk-biographer-admits-suggestion-spacex-head-blocked-ukraine-drone-attack-was-wrong

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.

[–] Acters@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years 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

[–] Vex_Detrause@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 years ago

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...

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 8 points 2 years 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!

[–] RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Matthew@midwest.social 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

They're not high enough to become space debris

[–] 4onen@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Any altitude of orbit can become space debris. They just won't stay space debris for nearly as long as geosynchronous or high orbit.

[–] daltotron@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago

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.

[–] Shohmini@lemmy.world -3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

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 17 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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

[–] roofuskit@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago (2 children)

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

[–] Zoidberg@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Exactly. I truly hate Elon but I admit that Starlink works and is a good option for rural areas. But now, the irony here is that people in these areas are the first ones to point out when the government gives "hand outs" to others, and vote for the party that gives all the power to the big players, who then give the rural population the finger.

[–] n3m37h@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 years ago

I live out in the boonies myself, to the point dialup isn't an option. We got wireless connection akin to a cellphone connection. I tried star link and it was pretty trash compared to the ground based wireless solution even though the advertised speed and latency seemed too good to be true (because they were)

SpaceX is just massively over engineering a solution for literally 0 reason. The money that was used to design and implement could have been used to

A) lay fiber lines

B) build wireless infrastructure

C) mix of A/B

And prob still have a boatload of money left over. IMO Elon is an idiot for wanting to pollute the atmosphere and the night sky with temporary satilites (2-16 months IIRC) instead of building traditional infrastructure. Also if SpaceX collapses, star link will be done too in a matter of months

[–] n3m37h@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago

Well get everyone together and CHANGE THEIR FUCKING MINDS. Government is beholdent to THE PEOPLE not the other way around. If that is your excuse, well you did done fuck up

[–] CaptPretentious@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Shohmini@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I think I've read about two occasions that the government handed money to ISPs to get Internet out to rural areas, and both times the results were essentially "ISPs pocket the money, nothing changes." It's infuriating, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's happened more than twice.

[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Way more than twice, we've provided them around 1 trillion to wire all homes in the USA...and yea. No where near that has been done.

load more comments
view more: next ›