this post was submitted on 15 Dec 2023
261 points (93.1% liked)

Technology

59622 readers
2908 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
 

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
[–] [email protected] 139 points 11 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (25 children)
load more comments (25 replies)
[–] [email protected] 93 points 11 months ago (3 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.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 11 months ago

bulkshit

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

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 74 points 11 months ago (17 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

[–] [email protected] 12 points 11 months 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.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 11 months ago

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

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] [email protected] 63 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Aww. Poor SpaceX. To quote the man himself:

Go fuck yourself.

[–] [email protected] 47 points 11 months ago (4 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 13 points 11 months 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

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 41 points 11 months ago

pull yourself up by your bootstraps. no handouts.

[–] [email protected] 38 points 11 months 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ItsaB3AR 23 points 11 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 54 points 11 months ago (7 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 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.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 11 months ago (8 children)

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)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months 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"

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 11 months ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 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 ›