Is there any truth to the statement from two of the five FCC commissioners that SpaceX was not required to meet those benchmarks until 2025, and this is a political action?
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-105A3.pdf
> What good is an agreement to build out service by 2025 if the FCC can, on a whim, hold you to it in 2022 instead? In 2022, many RDOF (the award in question) recipients had deployed no service at any speed to any location at all, and they had no obligation to do so. By contrast, Starlink had half a million subscribers in June 2022 (and about two million in September 2023).
And this scathing conclusion:
> I was disappointed by this wrongheaded decision when it was first announced, but the majority today lays bare just how thoroughly and lawlessly arbitrary it was. If this is what passes for due process and the rule of law at the FCC, then this agency ought not to be trusted with the adjudicatory powers Congress has granted it and the deference that the courts have given it. -- FCC Commissioner Nathan Simington
That said, how the dissenters characterize it is nowhere near how it works. They’d like you to believe that you won a bid, and from then on, it’s “OK, talk to you at the deadline, enjoy our money!”
Instead, it seems to me that it’s a continuous process where you must present plans along the way, and progress is measured, as it should be because we’re dealing with billions in public funds.
The idea that this is exclusively targeted at Musk is also just nonsense. This article[1] states that Terrestrial telco LTD Broadband also lost their allotment of subsidies, and a cursory glance at the documents on the FCC website shows that many other companies lost theirs either due to withdrawing or having “defaulted” (i.e., not followed through on the promises/requirements).
But none of that is compatible with the victim narrative of Musk et al., of course Musk was the biggest in the subsidies; the other companies won smaller projects.
0: https://www.fcc.gov/auction/904
1: https://spacenews.com/fcc-upholds-denial-of-starlinks-900-mi...
RDOF requires speed testing of the devices deployed under RDOF, not the entire network.
If say you have a 900Mhz network and you plan to deploy 5GNR for fixed wireless, they don't get to tell you you can only achieve 1 Mbps right now.
You don't need to start deployment till you get the money. And there's deployment and testing steps.
The point was that it’s not some conspiracy against Musk, there are others that defaulted. Other than LTD and SpaceX there are 20 others that defaulted last year for varying reasons.
> RDOF requires speed testing of the devices deployed under RDOF, not the entire network.
You’re talking about seeing if the requirements are met at the end, the FCC and I are talking about looking at how feasible and likely it is that the requirements are going to be met before handing the bag with money.
> If say you have a 900Mhz network and you plan to deploy 5GNR for fixed wireless, they don't get to tell you you can only achieve 1 Mbps right now.
No they don’t. But they do get to tell you how feasible your plan is, how realistic your schedule is and how likely it is 5GNR is going to meet the requirements of your bid based on the knowledge of the technology and historical performance at prior implementations.
When you submit a LEO satellite bid with the exact same specifications as the ones you currently use, then you can’t then around and cry when they look at its current performance and performance trends.
> You don't need to start deployment till you get the money.
True, but you do need to present a plan that isn’t based on lofty promises and has a that explains why it’s likely you’ll be able to meet the requirements of your bid.
Edit: Just now realized that you’re wrong on not having to build anything, there are buildout requirements.
The build requirements, like the speed requirements are for 2025
Until there's actual evidence, I would be inclined to dismiss them.
I've seen no evidence supporting that claim, and lots of evidence to counter it.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38633303
IMO not political. I remember Ajit Pai didn't want starlink
1. It looks like the commission believes Starlink is trending away from the targets rather than toward them, and that can't help their case.
2. It's hard for me to see how there would not be at least some political considerations here. The fact that this program exists at all is a political decision. So it's part & parcel of the playing field — which is probably why most leaders work hard to not piss off their regulators.
It's like standing in front of a train and not moving because you asked the conductor to stop.
What happens when they reach 2025 and billions of dollars have gone down the drain? Why wait?
You have to show you can do most of it yourself i.e raise the money.
After a %age deployment the FCC checks if you've met the deployment timeline and checks your speeds then starts paying you and keeps testing as you deploy according to the timeline.
You don't get a dime upfront.