9 ms·

If you look at the authorized bids[1] versus the defaulted bids[2], you can see only three companies got any money from the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund broad

by chroma 4y ago

If you look at the authorized bids[1] versus the defaulted bids[2], you can see only three companies got any money from the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund broadband subsidy. The other five companies got nothing, including SpaceX and LTD. E-Fiber San Juan LLC gets $7.5M to provide broadband services to 1,085 homes in rural Utah. Monster Broadband gets $5.8M for 11,286 homes in Texas and Tennessee. Northern Arapaho Tribal Industries gets $7.8M for 2,408 homes in Wyoming (probably on Indian reservations). So a total of around $21 million will be spent on 15,000ish homes. The FCC's budget for the RDOF subsidy is around $20 billion for 4 million homes, so 99.99% of the money is still up for grabs, as are 99.96% of the rural households. 1. https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-22-848A2.pdf https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-22-848A2.pdf 2. https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-22-848A3.pdf https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-22-848A3.pdf

chrisjc 4y ago
I have a feeling that Starlink will end up being an indirect recipient despite the rejection. Starlink might just end up making deals with the companies that won their bids and sell their services/hardware as rebranded solutions. It's probably cheaper for these companies to do this instead of setting up their own infrastructure. Of course the real question is probably whether not following through on their obligations and getting fined is less than the amount they were awarded.
- bryanlarsen 4y ago
  Starlink won in the 100Mbps category. Almost everybody else won in the 1Gbps category, so can't sub out to Starlink. The way the rules were set up, virtually any bid in the gigabit category beat the megabit category, so Starlink only won in the regions nobody bid in.
  - jessaustin 4y ago
    Does that reflect permanent limitations on Starlink speed? Somehow that's less impressive than it initially seemed...
    - throwaway0asd 4y ago
      Yes. You will likely see a maximum theoretical speed of about 600mbps (like WiFi). In practice it will be much slower, maybe half. It’s noise shooting through atmosphere, so there will be physical limitations.
    - preisschild 4y ago
      Wireless will always be worse than proper fiber. In a perfect world, we would all have active optical fiber from the backbone to our home routers. But 5G and satellite internet is cheaper...
      - bushbaba 4y ago
        Cheaper, in some situations. E.g. starlink would be horrendously expensive to provide service to everyone in downtown SF. But yes. For rural less dense deployments. Long range signal through the air is much cheaper.
        hef19898 4y ago
        Agreed, problem is with everything SpaceX hard numbers are hard to come buy. So wireless will be cheaper, if satelites are cheaper than 5g and other groind based solutuons is hard to tell.
        thereddaikon 4y ago
        Cell towers already provide internet to everyone in downtown SF and have for 20 years. Just because you aren't using your PC with it normally doesn't mean it doesn't count. Wireless is always cheaper than wired for an equivalent coverage area. It just requires less physical infrastructure. But in almost every other way it has inferior performance.
      - elif 4y ago
        Could you explain your reasoning? My understanding is that: fiber=c lasers=c fiber=nonlinear lasers=linear So in physics terms, starlink will eventually surpass buried fiber in latency for all situations where fiber routing divergence from linear exceeds the ~1000km orbital round trip.
- retrocryptid 4y ago
  I think SpaceX would have to deliver downlink terminals at scale before third parties would be interested.
  - chrisjc 4y ago
    Definitely, and there are several other areas that need to be scaled up as well. - Completing the gen 1 constellation, as well as getting gen 2 up. - All of the ground stations - Meeting the bandwidth requirements However, there are potentially other ways SpaceX might be able indirectly benefit. Another idea I've heard floating around is that Starlink can be used to link ground stations together. This might be very important in those especially hard to reach locations where laying fiber or establishing line of sight, etc might be too complicated/difficult/expensive. I've heard that this is not really a viable solution with gen 1s though.
- gertrunde 4y ago
  I'm not sure how viable that would be, given that two of the reasons given for cutting them out would still stand: - Not meeting the bandwidth requirements in practice. - High initial hardware cost. Starlink effectively being judged not able to meet the program requirements would surely rule them out to be used in connection with RDOF in any capacity?
- parasense 4y ago
  I would imagine a $500 dish, plus installation (which can be done oneself) is much cheaper than digging trenches for fiber or copper lines, or hanging lines on utilities with obnoxious right of ways. For the cost of the dish to be cited as a blocker is mysterious, it's actually cheap compared to the prices quoted to truly rural folks to get fiber pulled to their remote locations. It's a political move against Elon, just like the previous EV TAX incentive where the strings-attached involved having factories with union labor. Sure $500 is costly, but it's better than nothing.... that's the point.
  - JohnFen 4y ago
    > Sure $500 is costly, but it's better than nothing. It's not better than nothing if you can't afford the $500.
  - janef0421 4y ago
    Starlink's primary competition in those areas is likely to be 4G or 5G wireless using a fibre backhaul, not fibre to the network access terminal.
    - chrisjc 4y ago
      Yup, this is another idea I've heard floating around. In some situations where fiber backhaul or line-of-sight is not feasible, Starlink could link their ground stations to these hard to service locations extending the reach of existing backhaul. Then the 4/5G can be set up using a mixture of fiber, line-of-sight or Starlink backhaul, depending on the situation and location. Of course this is another way that Starlink might be able to win some of these contracts. They could set up (or work with a partner) mini 4/5G networks in these rural areas and also use a mixture of fiber and Starlink backhaul. After all, they still need fiber backhaul for their ground stations anyways. Starlink customers end up not needing to buy the current, expensive hardware and just use relatively inexpensive 4/5G modems. I've heard this isn't possible with the gen 1 satellites, so still a theory until the Starship program is off the ground.
_23sd 4y ago
To be clear, those links are only for the eleventh batch of "ready to authorize" bids that was released today. Other bids were authorized in different batches, viewable at https://www.fcc.gov/auction/904/releases https://www.fcc.gov/auction/904/releases
devindotcom 4y ago
I don't think this is correct. The FCC announcement notes that $5B of the original RDOF auction has been authorized already. It gave out $23M today in a separate announcement.
theptip 4y ago
It’s weird… at that level of subsidy why can’t StarLink just give away the terminal for subsidized users? That’s over $1k per user, more than enough to pay for the dish.
- colinmhayes 4y ago
  I believe the issue is that they don’t have the bandwidth, not the dishes. They need more satellites to provide the speeds and amount of service they promised.
  - martinald 4y ago
    Exactly. Look at the starlink coverage map (https://www.starlink.com/map https://www.starlink.com/map). Nearly the entire east of the US is "waitlist" aka at capacity. This is basically exactly what I predicted would happen - starlink is beyond awesome as a way to get internet but really suffers from lack of capacity "at scale". Keep in mind too that each year average internet consumption rises so the existing sats can service fewer and fewer users. I am personally surprised they have reached capacity so quickly - I thought they would have fit more users per sat on by aggressive traffic shaping/data caps. Starlink will only be a niche service imo, FTTH/cellular will continue to roll out to more and more rural locations. It's a great niche service but the capacity really constrains it. I also wonder how long SpaceX can afford all these falcon launches for starlink. I think the plan was spaceship would do huge deploys at a way lower cost per sat, which would increase capacity much quicker. But it seems spaceship is understandably delayed?
    - teruakohatu 4y ago
      > starlink is beyond awesome as a way to get internet but really suffers from lack of capacity "at scale". Keep Surely it pays for itself if they can sign up users as fast as they can scale? But if capital is the problem, maybe Starlink should be IPO'd the old fashioned way, to raise capital rather than cash out investors.
      - 4y ago

by chroma 4y ago

chrisjc 4y ago

I have a feeling that Starlink will end up being an indirect recipient despite the rejection. Starlink might just end up making deals with the companies that won their bids and sell their services/hardware as rebranded solutions. It's probably cheaper for these companies to do this instead of setting up their own infrastructure. Of course the real question is probably whether not following through on their obligations and getting fined is less than the amount they were awarded.

bryanlarsen 4y ago
Starlink won in the 100Mbps category. Almost everybody else won in the 1Gbps category, so can't sub out to Starlink. The way the rules were set up, virtually any bid in the gigabit category beat the megabit category, so Starlink only won in the regions nobody bid in.
- jessaustin 4y ago
  Does that reflect permanent limitations on Starlink speed? Somehow that's less impressive than it initially seemed...
  - throwaway0asd 4y ago
    Yes. You will likely see a maximum theoretical speed of about 600mbps (like WiFi). In practice it will be much slower, maybe half. It’s noise shooting through atmosphere, so there will be physical limitations.
  - preisschild 4y ago
    Wireless will always be worse than proper fiber. In a perfect world, we would all have active optical fiber from the backbone to our home routers. But 5G and satellite internet is cheaper...
    - bushbaba 4y ago
      Cheaper, in some situations. E.g. starlink would be horrendously expensive to provide service to everyone in downtown SF. But yes. For rural less dense deployments. Long range signal through the air is much cheaper.
      - hef19898 4y ago
        Agreed, problem is with everything SpaceX hard numbers are hard to come buy. So wireless will be cheaper, if satelites are cheaper than 5g and other groind based solutuons is hard to tell.
      - thereddaikon 4y ago
        Cell towers already provide internet to everyone in downtown SF and have for 20 years. Just because you aren't using your PC with it normally doesn't mean it doesn't count. Wireless is always cheaper than wired for an equivalent coverage area. It just requires less physical infrastructure. But in almost every other way it has inferior performance.
    - elif 4y ago
      Could you explain your reasoning? My understanding is that: fiber=c lasers=c fiber=nonlinear lasers=linear So in physics terms, starlink will eventually surpass buried fiber in latency for all situations where fiber routing divergence from linear exceeds the ~1000km orbital round trip.
retrocryptid 4y ago
I think SpaceX would have to deliver downlink terminals at scale before third parties would be interested.
- chrisjc 4y ago
  Definitely, and there are several other areas that need to be scaled up as well. - Completing the gen 1 constellation, as well as getting gen 2 up. - All of the ground stations - Meeting the bandwidth requirements However, there are potentially other ways SpaceX might be able indirectly benefit. Another idea I've heard floating around is that Starlink can be used to link ground stations together. This might be very important in those especially hard to reach locations where laying fiber or establishing line of sight, etc might be too complicated/difficult/expensive. I've heard that this is not really a viable solution with gen 1s though.
gertrunde 4y ago
I'm not sure how viable that would be, given that two of the reasons given for cutting them out would still stand: - Not meeting the bandwidth requirements in practice. - High initial hardware cost. Starlink effectively being judged not able to meet the program requirements would surely rule them out to be used in connection with RDOF in any capacity?
parasense 4y ago
I would imagine a $500 dish, plus installation (which can be done oneself) is much cheaper than digging trenches for fiber or copper lines, or hanging lines on utilities with obnoxious right of ways. For the cost of the dish to be cited as a blocker is mysterious, it's actually cheap compared to the prices quoted to truly rural folks to get fiber pulled to their remote locations. It's a political move against Elon, just like the previous EV TAX incentive where the strings-attached involved having factories with union labor. Sure $500 is costly, but it's better than nothing.... that's the point.
- JohnFen 4y ago
  > Sure $500 is costly, but it's better than nothing. It's not better than nothing if you can't afford the $500.
- janef0421 4y ago
  Starlink's primary competition in those areas is likely to be 4G or 5G wireless using a fibre backhaul, not fibre to the network access terminal.
  - chrisjc 4y ago
    Yup, this is another idea I've heard floating around. In some situations where fiber backhaul or line-of-sight is not feasible, Starlink could link their ground stations to these hard to service locations extending the reach of existing backhaul. Then the 4/5G can be set up using a mixture of fiber, line-of-sight or Starlink backhaul, depending on the situation and location. Of course this is another way that Starlink might be able to win some of these contracts. They could set up (or work with a partner) mini 4/5G networks in these rural areas and also use a mixture of fiber and Starlink backhaul. After all, they still need fiber backhaul for their ground stations anyways. Starlink customers end up not needing to buy the current, expensive hardware and just use relatively inexpensive 4/5G modems. I've heard this isn't possible with the gen 1 satellites, so still a theory until the Starship program is off the ground.

_23sd 4y ago

To be clear, those links are only for the eleventh batch of "ready to authorize" bids that was released today. Other bids were authorized in different batches, viewable at https://www.fcc.gov/auction/904/releases https://www.fcc.gov/auction/904/releases

devindotcom 4y ago

I don't think this is correct. The FCC announcement notes that $5B of the original RDOF auction has been authorized already. It gave out $23M today in a separate announcement.

theptip 4y ago

It’s weird… at that level of subsidy why can’t StarLink just give away the terminal for subsidized users? That’s over $1k per user, more than enough to pay for the dish.

colinmhayes 4y ago
I believe the issue is that they don’t have the bandwidth, not the dishes. They need more satellites to provide the speeds and amount of service they promised.
- martinald 4y ago
  Exactly. Look at the starlink coverage map (https://www.starlink.com/map https://www.starlink.com/map). Nearly the entire east of the US is "waitlist" aka at capacity. This is basically exactly what I predicted would happen - starlink is beyond awesome as a way to get internet but really suffers from lack of capacity "at scale". Keep in mind too that each year average internet consumption rises so the existing sats can service fewer and fewer users. I am personally surprised they have reached capacity so quickly - I thought they would have fit more users per sat on by aggressive traffic shaping/data caps. Starlink will only be a niche service imo, FTTH/cellular will continue to roll out to more and more rural locations. It's a great niche service but the capacity really constrains it. I also wonder how long SpaceX can afford all these falcon launches for starlink. I think the plan was spaceship would do huge deploys at a way lower cost per sat, which would increase capacity much quicker. But it seems spaceship is understandably delayed?
  - teruakohatu 4y ago
    > starlink is beyond awesome as a way to get internet but really suffers from lack of capacity "at scale". Keep Surely it pays for itself if they can sign up users as fast as they can scale? But if capital is the problem, maybe Starlink should be IPO'd the old fashioned way, to raise capital rather than cash out investors.
    - 4y ago