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.

    • SupraMario@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      65
      ·
      1 year 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        46
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

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

        • Cheers@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          38
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year 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.

            • brambledog@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              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?

                • brambledog@lemmy.today
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I think I misunderstood you the first time. I thought you were a musk fan boy claiming the regulators themselves were the deepstate.

        • variaatio@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year 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.

        • SupraMario@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yea…fuck all those people who work on projects that have literally changed humanity for the better…

      • Marcbmann@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        18
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • SupraMario@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yea I know, literally SpaceX has helped NASA out a ton and do a lot of ground breaking work, but because musk is involved, they want all of his shit to fail

          • Meowoem@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • IHadTwoCows@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • cole@lemdro.id
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

            • SupraMario@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yep, waiting for all the bashing of AWS since bezo runs Amazon…the level of hate companies get that are tied to musk in anyway is insane. Musk is a mouth piece and a shit one at that but musk isn’t making these companies and doing the work, hundreds of thousands of people are.

              • IHadTwoCows@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

  • Uglyhead@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    101
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year 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.

    • Marcbmann@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      1 year 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        29
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year 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
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    80
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 year 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

        • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          14
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            30
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              26
              ·
              1 year ago

              No. They were paid to provide services, which is what they did/do. The rural customers pay no more than urban customers but use a hell of a lot lot more infrastructure. Broadband is now a service that can be used for RUS, that’s all.

              • wahming@monyet.cc
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                17
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

                • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  17
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Rural Utility Service is the government body where the initiative exists. Hard to bring a true broadband to rural areas. For any decent customer penetration you need radio. IDK, but I think 5G qualifies if there isn’t a range problem.

  • skozzii@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

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

    • LordKitsuna@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year 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

      • set_secret@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year 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).

  • RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year 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.

  • Bear@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      59
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        1 year 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year 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.

        • SupraMario@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          1 year ago

          The SATs burn up after a few years. No trash in space, and if you think sats in space in large numbers is clogging up space. I’ve got a bridge to sell you. Do you crash into every house you drive past?

          • zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • SupraMario@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              1 year ago

              Releasing all kinds of cool chemicals into the upper atmosphere, and no one really knows what kind of effect that will have. Cool.

              Lol what the fuck are you talking about, do you know how much shit burns up in our atmosphere yearly? It’s a nothing burger.

              The number of satellites Starlink plans to launch will quintuple the number of spacecraft in LEO.

              Ooo nooo, you do realize how large space is right? It’s also, not on a flat plane like the earth is …

              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.

              Yes and spacex addressed those concerns. It’s not clogging up anything. Space is massive…and unlike the earth it’s on a 3d plain.

              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.

              Go look up what a close encounter is…earth has close encounters with big rocks all the damn time, and it misses shit by hundreds of thousands of miles… again space is huge.

              • zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

      • variaatio@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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”

      • Marcbmann@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        After 5 years.

        SpaceX sells services. Just because they’re selling services to the government doesn’t make it a subsidy.

        • echo64@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          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

          • Marcbmann@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • echo64@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year 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!

  • nixcamic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 year 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

      • nixcamic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          “In theory”?

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

    • Acters@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year 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…

  • RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

      • 4onen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year 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.

  • Shoh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    1 year 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.

      • roofuskit@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

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

        • Zoidberg@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year 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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year 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.

      • Shoh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year 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.

  • AA5B@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    While it’s always entertaining to read nonsense from haters as much as drama between haters and fanbois ……

    Can’t y’all step back and look at the actual situation? US Government is spending our tax money to improve internet access for rural areas (good), but given the monopolistic behavior of telecoms, it will be going to one or more large companies (bad). The goal is improved access to the internet. The choice is between a turd and a shit sandwich.

    Don’t anthropomorphize a corp: Starlink is one of the corps who can serve this goal. On their merit, do you really think they’re any worse than other candidates? Do you really prefer all that money disappearing into the mass of established internet providers, just like previous hundreds of billions, with nothing to show for it? Personally I see these companies with established technology but long history of not delivering, whereas Starlink has new technology not yet proven at scale, but really seems a lot more promising to serve the goal. Yes, I want grandpa Jones in North Haverville to have internet access and I really don’t care who runs the corp that provides it

    • wagoner@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      They failed to meet the agreed requirements but you’re arguing they should still be allowed to provide sub standard service?

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I’m arguing that the bs from its ceo is irrelevant, that all the contestants to waste our money are big corps, and I’m less optimistic about legacy ISPs who will likely get most of the money, given proven history of no results

  • Brkdncr@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    52
    ·
    1 year 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      63
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      44
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year 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.

        • kalleboo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          This grant was originally not going to even allow satellite providers - the idea was it was going to go to hundreds of small fiber and wireless ISPs who needed the money to build infrastructure to rural areas that is not profitable on the face of it.

          A one-time grant like this isn’t going to make or break Starlink - they’re not building anything infrastructure with the money (the satellites burn up in a few years and need to be replaced - are they going to need ongoing grants?), so basically it’s just giving free money to SpaceX. Whereas if the money went to a company building fiber or wireless repeaters that money would pay itself back over and over again and the fees would just pay for maintenance

        • theneverfox@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          If only there was some way for the government to take the money, then just like… Directly hire qualified people to actually do it.

          Maybe we could take a little money from everyone, then charge just enough to keep the system running?

          I know, it’s a pretty crazy idea…I mean, it would be expensive up front, but it would be way cheaper for the service. Plus, we could stop paying ISPs to pinkie promise to build out modern infrastructure or lying about serving rural areas to get grants

          (Btw, the government bought out iridium, the company that does satellite phones, when they ran out of money and were days away from decommissioning the whole constellation. And they’ve kept it going for decades… So I bet they could tap those guys for the roadmap to a lower orbit solution… Or we could just keep it wired while we improve the tech)

    • FiFoFree@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year 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.

        • SupraMario@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yep, I was 2 miles from my town that had fiber, was considered rural. Called Comcast to bring out the line, which was 1700’ from my property (not fiber, just coax) first quote was $7,500…mailed them the check for it. It sat on someone’s desk for nearly 3 months before they finally told me the company they hired got it wrong and it would be 30k, so I got neighbors around me to jump on board…got signatures and all that. 6 months later they tell us it’s not possible and will cost $250k to service the 15 homes 1600’ from the hub…yea starlink has musk stink on it, but way to many don’t realize what it has done for us “rural” people who have been lied to by all the big telecoms.

      • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Iowa is pretty flat. It’s all farmland that’s been plowed a million times (making trenching much easier, and a lot more opportunity for things like directional drilling/conduit drivers).

        Try running cable through somewhere with harder ground/rocks, trees, mountains, swamp (Mid Atlantic, Florida, Alabama, Minnesota, etc) dealing with right-of-way, over-populated poles, etc, etc.

        Then there’s the connection rate. In a more populated area there would be many more final connects, which can drive the cost a lot more than running the mainline. If you run fiber across 20 miles with no connects (just point to point), there’s minimal hardware infrastructure along the way. Add in needing switching for 5 communities, now you need buildings, power, termination, switching, runs to houses, etc, etc.

        It’s not really a good comparison.

    • I_Miss_Daniel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

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