20 ms·

When applying for RDOF you say what service tier you are targeting and instead of shooting for the minimum 25/3, Starlink applied for 100/20. When they didn't r

When applying for RDOF you say what service tier you are targeting and instead of shooting for the minimum 25/3, Starlink applied for 100/20. When they didn't reach those speeds[1], they were ineligible but not just because they didn't hit the required speeds on their existing network. There are more details here[2] but the jist is that Starlink bid to supply 100/20 internet to over half a million subscribers and the FCC was required to assess if Starlink was reasonably, technically capable of supplying those speeds by 2025. Starlink reportedly argued that once they can properly launch Starship, they can surely hit the required speeds. As of yet Starship hasn't had a successful launch. On top of this, the statistics that were available at the time showed that Starlink transfer speeds were already trending down and the network is a lot less utilized than it would be in 2025. There are technical challenges that need to be solved before Starlink is remotely capable of meeting that obligation and the challenges don't appear to be resolved yet. Giving Starlink money is a gamble and the FCC would rather play it safe. >RDOF rules set speeds of 25/3 Mbps as the minimum allowed for broadband service delivered by winners. However, participants were permitted to bid at four different performance tiers: 25/3 Mbps, 50/5 Mbps, 100/20 Mbps and 1 Gbps/500 Mbps. When the auction closed, the FCC noted 99.7% of locations were bid at 100/20 or higher, with 85% bid at the gigabit tier. That means Starlink will need to provide speeds of at least 100/20 in order to meet its obligations. 1. https://www.fiercetelecom.com/broadband/what-do-starlinks-latest-ookla-results-mean-its-886m-rdof-winnings https://www.fiercetelecom.com/broadband/what-do-starlinks-la... 2. https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-105A1.pdf https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-105A1.pdf

tekla 3y ago
> Starlink reportedly argued that once they can properly launch Starship, they can surely hit the required speeds. Read the article you are referencing > To justify its motivated reasoning, the majority points to delays in the development of SpaceX’s Starship launch platform—the largest, most powerful rocket ever built—as evidence that SpaceX would be unable to launch enough Starlink satellites to meet its 2025 commitments. The trouble with this argument is that SpaceX never indicated that it was relying on the Starship platform to meet its RDOF obligations, and in fact it repeatedly stated that it was not. Undeterred by the facts, the Commission now resorts to twisting SpaceX’s words. For example, SpaceX said in a letter to the Commission that it had “reached a point in the development of its Starship launch vehicle and Gen2 satellites [such] that it can concentrate solely on Configuration 1 and no longer pursue Configuration 2” (emphasis added). Configuration 1 involves launching with Starship, and Configuration 2 involves launching with Falcon 9. Nothing in this sentence suggests that SpaceX needed Starship to launch Gen2 satellites, but that’s exactly the interpretation that the majority now relies on Falcon 9 is launching Starlink V2 at 22 per launch regularly for a while now
- I_Am_Nous 3y ago
  They are just using what SpaceX/Starlink has said in the past[1]. >SpaceX asked the FCC to expedite approval now that it has settled on the Starship-launched configuration. Regardless, to reach those obligatory speeds by 2025 they would need to launch an insane amount of satellites with no failures. If the FCC doesn't think they can do that, they don't get funding. 1. https://spacenews.com/spacex-goes-all-in-on-starship-configuration-for-second-gen-starlink/ https://spacenews.com/spacex-goes-all-in-on-starship-configu...
  - Faark 3y ago
    Then why decide now that SpaceX won't get the money? Does another company get the contract? Otherwise would have assumed to simply check at/after the delivery date...
    - turquoisevar 3y ago
      Because it wouldn’t do much good to decide once all the money is spent. There are processes in place to gauge progress and viability along the way before handing over the bags with money. SpaceX is hardly the only one who didn’t end up getting their share of the subsidies, it’s just the biggest with a very vocal person at the helm.
    - Deprecate9151 3y ago
      They didn't decide now. The program was created as a two step process initially. Starlink succeeded in the first round, but was denied in the second, more in depth, review that lead to the rejection. This was basically an appeal of that rejection. The second round was designed to eliminate providers who didn't seem able to deliver on their promises even with the subsidies. It was made to prevent a situation where either party (but mostly the US Gov and tax payers by extension) was on the hook for unsuccessful delivery. I'm not sure what happens with the funds that would have gone to Starlink.
    - I_Am_Nous 3y ago
      They decided a while ago (2022) that Starlink wouldn't get the RDOF grant. This was essentially an appeal to see if the decision would be reversed, and they upheld the original decision not to fund Starlink. It's not a check after deployment thing, it's a "check if they actually can deploy in the first place" situation. There are two rounds of funding so it's possible unspent funds from the first round may roll over to fund the second round.
trident5000 3y ago
These are future speed metrics, not current speed thresholds. And the performance metrics have been a constant shifting goalpost. You can read FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr's letter on this matter here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-105A2.pdf https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-105A2.pdf This is most likely political.
- I_Am_Nous 3y ago
  I read that letter, and was unconvinced that it's anything more than the FCC not wanting to gamble with nearly 1/16th of the total RDOF grant money (for that round) and would rather give it to a company that can be reasonably expected to hit the obligatory throughput. If Starlink bid for 25/3 they might have made it.
  - trident5000 3y ago
    You can arrive at your own conclusion. I think its pretty obvious whats happening here (the commissioners voted along party lines right down the middle). And theres no other company thats even close to Starlink now or in the medium term future. So I dont know who would practically fill this spot. For below comment: This is for "rural" connection. You're not laying wire for that regardless of what Comcast wants you to believe. They can barely service what they have and the cost/benefit of laying 30 miles of wire to reach someone in the woods is never going to make sense.
    - ecshafer 3y ago
      Verizon was able to lay fiber all over rural New York in a pretty short amount of time due to a New York law for similar rural funding. Places that couldn't even get cable have fiber now. Just laying fiber is an alternative to satellite.
      - joecool1029 3y ago
        Do want to point out buildout requirements that are actually enforced in NY would be strongly compelling. Spectrum was heavily fined and had their license suspended on cable for failing to meet these commitments a few years back. Other states just dole out the money without punishing the companies that cash out dividends and use it for mergers.
mdasen 3y ago
Starlink (and Musk in general) have been over-promising and under-delivering for years now. Starlink claimed 150Mbps back in 2020 and that speeds would double to 300Mbps by the end of 2021.[1] Instead, speeds have halved.[2] At this point, T-Mobile is likely serving more rural high speed internet customers with greater speeds (T-Mobile has 4.2M home internet customers and Ookla's stats show 34% to be rural for 1.4M; Starlink has 2M customers and assuming two-thirds are in the US and of those 83% are rural would make for 1.1M). [1] https://www.tomsguide.com/news/elon-musk-promises-to-double-starlink-satellite-broadband-speeds-this-year https://www.tomsguide.com/news/elon-musk-promises-to-double-... [2] https://www.ookla.com/articles/us-satellite-performance-q3-2023 https://www.ookla.com/articles/us-satellite-performance-q3-2...
- eggy 3y ago
  <<Starlink (and Musk in general) have been over-promising and under-delivering for years now. It's not even 2024, and the targets are for 2025. How long has T-Mobile been ramping up their program to achieve this 1.4M vs. 1.1M, and how much does the government subsidy ACP cover for this 1.4M in order to have those customers under T-Mobile? And it seems they are being fined $200M for not complying with the subsidy's rules [1]. [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tmobile-fine-idUKKBN27K255/ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tmobile-fine-idUKKBN27K25...
- CodeWriter23 3y ago
  > Starlink (and Musk in general) have been over-promising and under-delivering for years now. Starlink claimed 150Mbps back in 2020 and that speeds would double to 300Mbps by the end of 2021.[1] Instead, speeds have halved.[2] How dare they during a globally-disruptive pandemic?
- chrisco255 3y ago
  I regularly get 150+ Mbps on my Starlink terminal. Don't really care that they didn't hit the ambitious goal of providing 300+, it is already more than 15x better than the next best option available for me. T-Mobile has a three decade head start (maybe four if you count their Sprint Wireless acquisition's history), so hardly surprising if there is currently more T-Mobile home internet users than Starlink users. But I also doubt that their rural base is as large as Starlink's currently is. Mobile broadband speeds heavily depend on the strength of the signal available in area, and in many rural areas, the 5G coverage is extremely spotty, or non-existent.
hnburnsy 3y ago
I_Am_Nous wrote: "Starlink reportedly argued that once they can properly launch Starship, they can surely hit the required speeds. As of yet Starship hasn't had a successful launch." From one of the dissenting opinions: > the majority points to delays in the development of SpaceX’s Starship launch platform—the largest, most powerful rocket ever built—as evidence that SpaceX would be unable to launch enough Starlink satellites to meet its 2025 commitments. The trouble with this argument is that SpaceX never indicated that it was relying on the Starship platform to meet its RDOF obligations, and in fact it repeatedly stated that it was not. https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-105A3.pdf https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-105A3.pdf
- Deprecate9151 3y ago
  The Commission decision does address this. Unfortunately the section is redacted of specific details, but it appears Starlink argued that it's second gen satellites would be launched via Starship and address these issues. However, they didn't successfully launch Starship yet as they described in that plan, and only announced Falcon 9 would launch second gen satellites after they were already denied based off of the initial plan. The dissenting letter unfortunately just says "no they didn't", but doesn't point to any documentary evidence. It's hard to accept it at face value when compared to the long form explanation. Especially when much of the "corrective action" taken by Starlink has come after the initial denial.
  - trothamel 3y ago
    Given how much of the decision is blacked out, it's hard to give it any credibility, either.
    - nozzlegear 3y ago
      Presumably the people who are relevant to the decision making are able to read the full reasoning and give it its due credibility.
      - 3y ago
justapassenger 3y ago
[dead]
jandrese 3y ago
I find it impressive that the government is actually punishing a project for running late and underdelivering. They should expand this to all parts of the government. Can you imagine if the F-35 was cancelled the first time it fell behind schedule? The Space Launch System? The Littoral Combat System? The USS JFK? So many boondoggles could be killed off before they spend money. Maybe contractors would have to start properly estimating costs up front. Or maybe nothing would ever get done again. I do wonder what the FCC is planning to do with these funds if they aren't funding Starlink. Are they going to go towards a "safer" project like Project Kuiper? Or maybe dumping it into Inmarsat?
- shmatt 3y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Abandoned_military_projects_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Abandoned_military_pr... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cancelled_military_projects#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cancelled_military_pro... F35 Survived but there are like 50 other planes that didnt in that second list
  - justsomehnguy 3y ago
    Bradley IFV is not on this list.
    - runlaszlorun 3y ago
      Former Bradley guy here. Like others have mentioned, it’s done far better then expected. It (along with any other IFV) are pretty much the ultimate Swiss army knife of a military vehicle. It can pretty much do almost any ground role even though isn’t insanely awe inspiring for any one. And the 25mm autocannon is prob the easiest thing in our existing arsenal we have to adapt for an anti-drone role. And, no, that one set of photos from Ukraine of Bradleys damaged in a minefield has zero bearing pro or con given the 40 years of experience we have otherwise with it.
      - fullspectrumdev 3y ago
concordDance 3y ago
Thank you very much for linking the FCC letter! It really improves the discussion to have it available.
LispSporks22 3y ago
Does this Starship launch related stuff impact his plan to begin colonizing Mars by 2022?
ddxv 3y ago
I just checked my Starlink and we have 150Mbps/6Mbps, by Speedtest.com, is that the same concept as the numbers you reference? Is the concern that if more users came online they wouldn't be able to maintain 100/20? I don't know much about the topic, FYI.
- coolspot 3y ago
  Yes, 100/20 refers to 100Mbit download and 20 Mbit upload speeds. Your is already below subsidy criteria.
shaklee3 3y ago
Thanks for the excellent summary. I said this in previous stories (not as eloquently) and got an angry mob for not praising spacex. There's a difference between respecting what they're doing for launches and what they're doing for Internet. The former is extremely impressive and groundbreaking. The latter is hitting the same problems everyone in the industry knew would happen. It costs too much money to maintain the launch cadence, speeds will suffer as the network gets congested, and latency will grow. All of these happened and are continuing to get worse.

tekla 3y ago

> Starlink reportedly argued that once they can properly launch Starship, they can surely hit the required speeds. Read the article you are referencing > To justify its motivated reasoning, the majority points to delays in the development of SpaceX’s Starship launch platform—the largest, most powerful rocket ever built—as evidence that SpaceX would be unable to launch enough Starlink satellites to meet its 2025 commitments. The trouble with this argument is that SpaceX never indicated that it was relying on the Starship platform to meet its RDOF obligations, and in fact it repeatedly stated that it was not. Undeterred by the facts, the Commission now resorts to twisting SpaceX’s words. For example, SpaceX said in a letter to the Commission that it had “reached a point in the development of its Starship launch vehicle and Gen2 satellites [such] that it can concentrate solely on Configuration 1 and no longer pursue Configuration 2” (emphasis added). Configuration 1 involves launching with Starship, and Configuration 2 involves launching with Falcon 9. Nothing in this sentence suggests that SpaceX needed Starship to launch Gen2 satellites, but that’s exactly the interpretation that the majority now relies on Falcon 9 is launching Starlink V2 at 22 per launch regularly for a while now

I_Am_Nous 3y ago
They are just using what SpaceX/Starlink has said in the past[1]. >SpaceX asked the FCC to expedite approval now that it has settled on the Starship-launched configuration. Regardless, to reach those obligatory speeds by 2025 they would need to launch an insane amount of satellites with no failures. If the FCC doesn't think they can do that, they don't get funding. 1. https://spacenews.com/spacex-goes-all-in-on-starship-configuration-for-second-gen-starlink/ https://spacenews.com/spacex-goes-all-in-on-starship-configu...
- Faark 3y ago
  Then why decide now that SpaceX won't get the money? Does another company get the contract? Otherwise would have assumed to simply check at/after the delivery date...
  - turquoisevar 3y ago
    Because it wouldn’t do much good to decide once all the money is spent. There are processes in place to gauge progress and viability along the way before handing over the bags with money. SpaceX is hardly the only one who didn’t end up getting their share of the subsidies, it’s just the biggest with a very vocal person at the helm.
  - Deprecate9151 3y ago
    They didn't decide now. The program was created as a two step process initially. Starlink succeeded in the first round, but was denied in the second, more in depth, review that lead to the rejection. This was basically an appeal of that rejection. The second round was designed to eliminate providers who didn't seem able to deliver on their promises even with the subsidies. It was made to prevent a situation where either party (but mostly the US Gov and tax payers by extension) was on the hook for unsuccessful delivery. I'm not sure what happens with the funds that would have gone to Starlink.
  - I_Am_Nous 3y ago
    They decided a while ago (2022) that Starlink wouldn't get the RDOF grant. This was essentially an appeal to see if the decision would be reversed, and they upheld the original decision not to fund Starlink. It's not a check after deployment thing, it's a "check if they actually can deploy in the first place" situation. There are two rounds of funding so it's possible unspent funds from the first round may roll over to fund the second round.

trident5000 3y ago

These are future speed metrics, not current speed thresholds. And the performance metrics have been a constant shifting goalpost. You can read FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr's letter on this matter here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-105A2.pdf https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-105A2.pdf This is most likely political.

I_Am_Nous 3y ago
I read that letter, and was unconvinced that it's anything more than the FCC not wanting to gamble with nearly 1/16th of the total RDOF grant money (for that round) and would rather give it to a company that can be reasonably expected to hit the obligatory throughput. If Starlink bid for 25/3 they might have made it.
- trident5000 3y ago
  You can arrive at your own conclusion. I think its pretty obvious whats happening here (the commissioners voted along party lines right down the middle). And theres no other company thats even close to Starlink now or in the medium term future. So I dont know who would practically fill this spot. For below comment: This is for "rural" connection. You're not laying wire for that regardless of what Comcast wants you to believe. They can barely service what they have and the cost/benefit of laying 30 miles of wire to reach someone in the woods is never going to make sense.
  - ecshafer 3y ago
    Verizon was able to lay fiber all over rural New York in a pretty short amount of time due to a New York law for similar rural funding. Places that couldn't even get cable have fiber now. Just laying fiber is an alternative to satellite.
    - joecool1029 3y ago
      Do want to point out buildout requirements that are actually enforced in NY would be strongly compelling. Spectrum was heavily fined and had their license suspended on cable for failing to meet these commitments a few years back. Other states just dole out the money without punishing the companies that cash out dividends and use it for mergers.

mdasen 3y ago

Starlink (and Musk in general) have been over-promising and under-delivering for years now. Starlink claimed 150Mbps back in 2020 and that speeds would double to 300Mbps by the end of 2021.[1] Instead, speeds have halved.[2] At this point, T-Mobile is likely serving more rural high speed internet customers with greater speeds (T-Mobile has 4.2M home internet customers and Ookla's stats show 34% to be rural for 1.4M; Starlink has 2M customers and assuming two-thirds are in the US and of those 83% are rural would make for 1.1M). [1] https://www.tomsguide.com/news/elon-musk-promises-to-double-starlink-satellite-broadband-speeds-this-year https://www.tomsguide.com/news/elon-musk-promises-to-double-... [2] https://www.ookla.com/articles/us-satellite-performance-q3-2023 https://www.ookla.com/articles/us-satellite-performance-q3-2...

eggy 3y ago
<<Starlink (and Musk in general) have been over-promising and under-delivering for years now. It's not even 2024, and the targets are for 2025. How long has T-Mobile been ramping up their program to achieve this 1.4M vs. 1.1M, and how much does the government subsidy ACP cover for this 1.4M in order to have those customers under T-Mobile? And it seems they are being fined $200M for not complying with the subsidy's rules [1]. [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tmobile-fine-idUKKBN27K255/ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tmobile-fine-idUKKBN27K25...
CodeWriter23 3y ago
> Starlink (and Musk in general) have been over-promising and under-delivering for years now. Starlink claimed 150Mbps back in 2020 and that speeds would double to 300Mbps by the end of 2021.[1] Instead, speeds have halved.[2] How dare they during a globally-disruptive pandemic?
chrisco255 3y ago
I regularly get 150+ Mbps on my Starlink terminal. Don't really care that they didn't hit the ambitious goal of providing 300+, it is already more than 15x better than the next best option available for me. T-Mobile has a three decade head start (maybe four if you count their Sprint Wireless acquisition's history), so hardly surprising if there is currently more T-Mobile home internet users than Starlink users. But I also doubt that their rural base is as large as Starlink's currently is. Mobile broadband speeds heavily depend on the strength of the signal available in area, and in many rural areas, the 5G coverage is extremely spotty, or non-existent.

hnburnsy 3y ago

I_Am_Nous wrote: "Starlink reportedly argued that once they can properly launch Starship, they can surely hit the required speeds. As of yet Starship hasn't had a successful launch." From one of the dissenting opinions: > the majority points to delays in the development of SpaceX’s Starship launch platform—the largest, most powerful rocket ever built—as evidence that SpaceX would be unable to launch enough Starlink satellites to meet its 2025 commitments. The trouble with this argument is that SpaceX never indicated that it was relying on the Starship platform to meet its RDOF obligations, and in fact it repeatedly stated that it was not. https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-105A3.pdf https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-105A3.pdf

Deprecate9151 3y ago
The Commission decision does address this. Unfortunately the section is redacted of specific details, but it appears Starlink argued that it's second gen satellites would be launched via Starship and address these issues. However, they didn't successfully launch Starship yet as they described in that plan, and only announced Falcon 9 would launch second gen satellites after they were already denied based off of the initial plan. The dissenting letter unfortunately just says "no they didn't", but doesn't point to any documentary evidence. It's hard to accept it at face value when compared to the long form explanation. Especially when much of the "corrective action" taken by Starlink has come after the initial denial.
- trothamel 3y ago
  Given how much of the decision is blacked out, it's hard to give it any credibility, either.
  - nozzlegear 3y ago
    Presumably the people who are relevant to the decision making are able to read the full reasoning and give it its due credibility.
    - 3y ago

justapassenger 3y ago

[dead]

jandrese 3y ago

I find it impressive that the government is actually punishing a project for running late and underdelivering. They should expand this to all parts of the government. Can you imagine if the F-35 was cancelled the first time it fell behind schedule? The Space Launch System? The Littoral Combat System? The USS JFK? So many boondoggles could be killed off before they spend money. Maybe contractors would have to start properly estimating costs up front. Or maybe nothing would ever get done again. I do wonder what the FCC is planning to do with these funds if they aren't funding Starlink. Are they going to go towards a "safer" project like Project Kuiper? Or maybe dumping it into Inmarsat?

shmatt 3y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Abandoned_military_projects_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Abandoned_military_pr... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cancelled_military_projects#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cancelled_military_pro... F35 Survived but there are like 50 other planes that didnt in that second list
- justsomehnguy 3y ago
  Bradley IFV is not on this list.
  - runlaszlorun 3y ago
    Former Bradley guy here. Like others have mentioned, it’s done far better then expected. It (along with any other IFV) are pretty much the ultimate Swiss army knife of a military vehicle. It can pretty much do almost any ground role even though isn’t insanely awe inspiring for any one. And the 25mm autocannon is prob the easiest thing in our existing arsenal we have to adapt for an anti-drone role. And, no, that one set of photos from Ukraine of Bradleys damaged in a minefield has zero bearing pro or con given the 40 years of experience we have otherwise with it.
    - fullspectrumdev 3y ago

concordDance 3y ago

Thank you very much for linking the FCC letter! It really improves the discussion to have it available.

LispSporks22 3y ago

Does this Starship launch related stuff impact his plan to begin colonizing Mars by 2022?

ddxv 3y ago

I just checked my Starlink and we have 150Mbps/6Mbps, by Speedtest.com, is that the same concept as the numbers you reference? Is the concern that if more users came online they wouldn't be able to maintain 100/20? I don't know much about the topic, FYI.

coolspot 3y ago
Yes, 100/20 refers to 100Mbit download and 20 Mbit upload speeds. Your is already below subsidy criteria.

shaklee3 3y ago

Thanks for the excellent summary. I said this in previous stories (not as eloquently) and got an angry mob for not praising spacex. There's a difference between respecting what they're doing for launches and what they're doing for Internet. The former is extremely impressive and groundbreaking. The latter is hitting the same problems everyone in the industry knew would happen. It costs too much money to maintain the launch cadence, speeds will suffer as the network gets congested, and latency will grow. All of these happened and are continuing to get worse.