4 ms·
No this is not the same thing they’ve done for decades. You just make that assertion but it’s not true. It’s not some crazy conspiracy. This is the whole point
by publicmenace 4y ago
No this is not the same thing they’ve done for decades. You just make that assertion but it’s not true.
It’s not some crazy conspiracy. This is the whole point of winning elections. The people in charge of tech policy in this admin want universal fiber service. You don’t get tens of billions from Congress every year for that unless there’s public demand for it. Starlink would undermine that demand despite not being good enough to replace universal fiber service, in the eyes of the administration.
Also you’re free to look up how Starlink’s launch proposals have been slow rolled at the FCC. You can also look at the Republican Commissioner’s statements on the revocation of Starlink’s RDOF award.
- shaklee3 4y agokeep in mind that at the time the FCC allowed them past the first round of RDOF, they did not know the price of the terminal since StarLink wasn't live. part of their complaint was that the user had to buy a $600 terminal with no subsidies. this excludes a lot of the population outright since they don't have a payment plan for lower income users to afford it. the FCC's letter says that they determined they could not deploy a system of the size they promised in the timeframe they promised. whether you agree with it or not, that assertion has been correct so far.
- publicmenace 4y agoThere was nothing in the rules prohibiting the terminal price. And the letter of course says that. That doesn’t mean it’s their real motive or a correct conclusion.