3 ms·

This is my feeling too. Was this contest run poorly? Definitely. Is the claim that SpaceX is getting funds for census areas that really shouldn't have funds at

by gpm 5y ago

This is my feeling too. Was this contest run poorly? Definitely. Is the claim that SpaceX is getting funds for census areas that really shouldn't have funds attached true? Almost certainly. Are they the primary beneficiary of the contest being poorly run? That seems very unlikely. The FCC and Ajit Pai attempted to exclude them from this competition entirely [1], it seems pretty clear from the start that this competition was designed to give too much money to the incumbents, not SpaceX. Do I think that the FCC would be trying to clawback money if SpaceX hadn't won? I wish I did, but the fact that they're primarily trying to clawback money from SpaceX makes me skeptical. It seems much more likely that this is just corruption in action trying to stop money going to the "wrong" recipient. [1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/05/elon-musks-promise-of-low-latency-broadband-meets-skepticism-at-fcc/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/05/elon-musks-promi...

dragonwriter 5y ago
> Do I think that the FCC would be trying to clawback money if SpaceX hadn't won? Looking at this as a clawback attempt is the wrong framework. The awards are tied to contract terms with clawback-with-penalty provisions. The FCC has identified cases where it is unlikely that the contract terms could be met and provided an opportunity for those with grants to surrender them without penalty if they feel they could not meet the award terms. No effort is being made to undo awards, and if winners think they can meet the terms, they can keep the money. Its win-win if award winners avail themselves of this opportunity, where they can't meet the terms, because it avoids an after-the-fact clawback with penalty which is good for the winner, and enables the funds to be redirected in advance rather than recovered in arrears, which is good for the government. The mismanagement is that the places where it is almost certaibly impossible for the terms to be fulfilled, the FCC should not have granted the awards in the first place (of course, it is also true that applicants should have done their due diligence and not applied, so its not exclusively the FCC at fault.)
cycomanic 5y ago
It's fascinating how many here if someone goes against a Musk company immediately assume that it's due to corruption or protection for the incumbents. Considering how Tesla benefits significantly from regulations (they make more money from carbon credits than selling cars), I think they are very good at taking advantage of regulation themselves. Also regarding the current article, maybe it is like in the article SpaceX bit largely on census blocks that do not deserve government subsidies? Maybe they even did it on purpose because they knew they could use other means to provide broadband if they can't get starlink up quick enough?
- fallingknife 5y ago
  Last quarter 3% of Tesla's revenue was from carbon credits.
  - 8ytecoder 5y ago
    That result came out yesterday or the day before.
- 908B64B197 5y ago
  > It's fascinating how many here if someone goes against a Musk company immediately assume that it's due to corruption or protection for the incumbents. Legacy aerospace players tried to sue SpaceX multiple times over (lucrative) exclusive government contracts. There's no local monopoly for cars, it's a relatively open market with multiple players. Telecom and Space, well that's a different story. https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/20/21377025/spacex-air-force-nssl-defense-department-lsa-awards-lawsuit-ula https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/20/21377025/spacex-air-force... https://spacenews.com/spacex-air-force-reach-agreement/ https://spacenews.com/spacex-air-force-reach-agreement/ https://www.ulalaunch.com/about/news/2014/04/28/united-launch-alliance-(ula)-statement-in-response-to-spacex-lawsuit https://www.ulalaunch.com/about/news/2014/04/28/united-launc...

by gpm 5y ago

dragonwriter 5y ago

> Do I think that the FCC would be trying to clawback money if SpaceX hadn't won? Looking at this as a clawback attempt is the wrong framework. The awards are tied to contract terms with clawback-with-penalty provisions. The FCC has identified cases where it is unlikely that the contract terms could be met and provided an opportunity for those with grants to surrender them without penalty if they feel they could not meet the award terms. No effort is being made to undo awards, and if winners think they can meet the terms, they can keep the money. Its win-win if award winners avail themselves of this opportunity, where they can't meet the terms, because it avoids an after-the-fact clawback with penalty which is good for the winner, and enables the funds to be redirected in advance rather than recovered in arrears, which is good for the government. The mismanagement is that the places where it is almost certaibly impossible for the terms to be fulfilled, the FCC should not have granted the awards in the first place (of course, it is also true that applicants should have done their due diligence and not applied, so its not exclusively the FCC at fault.)

cycomanic 5y ago

It's fascinating how many here if someone goes against a Musk company immediately assume that it's due to corruption or protection for the incumbents. Considering how Tesla benefits significantly from regulations (they make more money from carbon credits than selling cars), I think they are very good at taking advantage of regulation themselves. Also regarding the current article, maybe it is like in the article SpaceX bit largely on census blocks that do not deserve government subsidies? Maybe they even did it on purpose because they knew they could use other means to provide broadband if they can't get starlink up quick enough?

fallingknife 5y ago
Last quarter 3% of Tesla's revenue was from carbon credits.
- 8ytecoder 5y ago
  That result came out yesterday or the day before.
908B64B197 5y ago
> It's fascinating how many here if someone goes against a Musk company immediately assume that it's due to corruption or protection for the incumbents. Legacy aerospace players tried to sue SpaceX multiple times over (lucrative) exclusive government contracts. There's no local monopoly for cars, it's a relatively open market with multiple players. Telecom and Space, well that's a different story. https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/20/21377025/spacex-air-force-nssl-defense-department-lsa-awards-lawsuit-ula https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/20/21377025/spacex-air-force... https://spacenews.com/spacex-air-force-reach-agreement/ https://spacenews.com/spacex-air-force-reach-agreement/ https://www.ulalaunch.com/about/news/2014/04/28/united-launch-alliance-(ula)-statement-in-response-to-spacex-lawsuit https://www.ulalaunch.com/about/news/2014/04/28/united-launc...