Hacker News Reader

Comment by ortusdux | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

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-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.

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%.

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.

Starlink hasn't gotten any money, so they aren't subject to build requirements

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

There's a fixed pool of money ($16 billion), so everyone who gets some of it does replace a denied org.

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.

Two facts let you conclude this easily:

1. Money is fungible

2. Grant applications are still open

So money not spent on SpaceX can go to a future application.

In 2026

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.

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.

The denial doesn't quote speeds in those areas

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.

The denial mentions national speed levels from a third party not the particular coverage areas or services delivered under RDOF

Reply on news.ycombinator.com