3 ms·

It's a letter from one FCC commissioner, of which there are currently 5. He dissents from the decision the commission as a whole came to. There are a lot of com

It's a letter from one FCC commissioner, of which there are currently 5. He dissents from the decision the commission as a whole came to. There are a lot of companies on the ground that could benefit from that ~$900 million so a single company replacing Starlink is not necessary. The main concern is if the FCC give Starlink money to reach 100/20 and they don't do it (because there are legitimate technical issues to solve before it's possible for Starlink to supply over half a million people with 100/20), it's wasted money. The FCC didn't think it was doable on that time scale. Doing some math, currently each satellite launch sends up 22 satellites at around 2.8 Gbps per satellite. For each launch, Starlink adds ~61.6 Gbps of capacity. If we cut that up into 100/20 slices, each launch supports 616 customers at 100/20. To support 650,000 subscribers at 100/20, it would take about 1055 perfect launches. I don't think the FCC was wrong when they said Starlink could not reach 650,000 people at 100/20 by 2025. There aren't enough days to launch one rocket a day to even try to catch up.

adgjlsfhk1 3y ago
you're ignoring over-provisioning which generally is ~10x
- cma 3y ago
  The terms of these subsidies only allow 4X oversubscription.
  - adgjlsfhk1 3y ago
    ok, so that still cuts down the amount of launches by 4x which takes them from 1055 launches to 260 launches. Over 2 years that would require doubling Starlink's launch cadence which is a lot, but does seem plausible.
    - I_Am_Nous 3y ago
      So to make the 2025 deadline they would have had to perfectly launch more rockets than they ever have before...sounds like the FCC made the correct choice.
      - philwelch 3y ago
        SpaceX has done that every year since 2020. In 2020 they had 26 successful Falcon 9/Heavy launches, 31 in 2021, 61 in 2022, and 91 to date in 2023.
        hnaccount_rng 3y ago
        Sure but the assumption made already say, that SpaceX uses _all_ capacity for this program (and nothing else) and it doesn't require any double hops (I would think you need to at least add a factor of two for the up/down thing). And that you can see all satellites all the time. So it was a _very_ conservative assumption. And it would still require ~all launch capacity of 2024 and 2025. SpaceX calculations is extremely optimistic to the point of being delusional. At least without Starship, which I _personally_ think that they will manage to iron out their problems of the course of next year. But even then _this_ timeline they won't be able to keep
        I_Am_Nous 3y ago
        They need to do 180 a year to put enough satellites up to even try to hit the 2025 deadline. That's not even counting any satellites which may fail between now and then and need replaced. This is a major reason why the FCC didn't think they could have met the 2025 obligation to reach ~650,000 subscribers with 100/20 and rejected their application.
        bryanlarsen 3y ago
        They're upgrading Vandenburg to do 100/year and Kennedy/Canaveral to do a ~daily cadence.
        I_Am_Nous 3y ago
        That will be sweet when they can get it done and reliably launch Starship! Starlink isn't bad, it just wasn't capable of meeting the RDOF deadline according to the information available at the time.
        3y ago
  - cavisne 3y ago
    Oversubscription where? ISPs are not buying anywhere near that much transit bandwidth.
hnburnsy 3y ago
Did you miss the other dissent which would mean 40% of the commission disagreed with the decision? DISSENTING STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER NATHAN SIMINGTON >I wholeheartedly agree with the entirety of Commissioner Carr’s dissent. I write separately to further highlight some of the meretricious logic that underlies the Bureau’s, and now Commission’s, rescinding of SpaceX’s RDOF award. ... >I was disappointed by this wrongheaded decision when it was first announced, but the majority today lays bare just how thoroughly and lawlessly arbitrary it was. If this is what passes for due process and the rule of law at the FCC, then this agency ought not to be trusted with the adjudicatory powers Congress has granted it and the deference that the courts have given it https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-105A3.pdf https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-105A3.pdf
- WoahNoun 3y ago
  Where does that dissent say 40% disagreed? It only uses the term majority.
  - geoffpado 3y ago
    There are 5 FCC commissioners (as @I_Am_Nous's comment points out). @I_Am_Nous references one dissent. @hnburnsy links to another. That's 2 dissents. 2 out of 5 dissenting is 40%.
- abduhl 3y ago
  Well if you want to really dig into the numbers here and get down to the gnat's ass of uselessness, Simington was confirmed with a 49-46 vote which means that less than 50% of the Senate agreed with him being on the Commission and hence he shouldn't even serve because he couldn't garner a majority of Senate approval. So, while 40% of the Commission disagreed with the decision, we should recognize that 20% of that 40% comes from someone undemocratically serving on the Commission and hence should be ignored. Meaning that, in actuality, only 25% of the democratically appointed Commission (1 out of 4) disagreed with the decision, not 40%. All of that to say: this whole point you're making about "40% disagreed" or "20% disagreed" because the decision wasn't unanimous is really fucking dumb. The decision by the Commission is the decision, it doesn't matter how many dissents there are.

adgjlsfhk1 3y ago

you're ignoring over-provisioning which generally is ~10x

cma 3y ago
The terms of these subsidies only allow 4X oversubscription.
- adgjlsfhk1 3y ago
  ok, so that still cuts down the amount of launches by 4x which takes them from 1055 launches to 260 launches. Over 2 years that would require doubling Starlink's launch cadence which is a lot, but does seem plausible.
  - I_Am_Nous 3y ago
    So to make the 2025 deadline they would have had to perfectly launch more rockets than they ever have before...sounds like the FCC made the correct choice.
    - philwelch 3y ago
      SpaceX has done that every year since 2020. In 2020 they had 26 successful Falcon 9/Heavy launches, 31 in 2021, 61 in 2022, and 91 to date in 2023.
      - hnaccount_rng 3y ago
        Sure but the assumption made already say, that SpaceX uses _all_ capacity for this program (and nothing else) and it doesn't require any double hops (I would think you need to at least add a factor of two for the up/down thing). And that you can see all satellites all the time. So it was a _very_ conservative assumption. And it would still require ~all launch capacity of 2024 and 2025. SpaceX calculations is extremely optimistic to the point of being delusional. At least without Starship, which I _personally_ think that they will manage to iron out their problems of the course of next year. But even then _this_ timeline they won't be able to keep
      - I_Am_Nous 3y ago
        They need to do 180 a year to put enough satellites up to even try to hit the 2025 deadline. That's not even counting any satellites which may fail between now and then and need replaced. This is a major reason why the FCC didn't think they could have met the 2025 obligation to reach ~650,000 subscribers with 100/20 and rejected their application.
        bryanlarsen 3y ago
        They're upgrading Vandenburg to do 100/year and Kennedy/Canaveral to do a ~daily cadence.
        I_Am_Nous 3y ago
        That will be sweet when they can get it done and reliably launch Starship! Starlink isn't bad, it just wasn't capable of meeting the RDOF deadline according to the information available at the time.
      - 3y ago
- cavisne 3y ago
  Oversubscription where? ISPs are not buying anywhere near that much transit bandwidth.

hnburnsy 3y ago

Did you miss the other dissent which would mean 40% of the commission disagreed with the decision? DISSENTING STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER NATHAN SIMINGTON >I wholeheartedly agree with the entirety of Commissioner Carr’s dissent. I write separately to further highlight some of the meretricious logic that underlies the Bureau’s, and now Commission’s, rescinding of SpaceX’s RDOF award. ... >I was disappointed by this wrongheaded decision when it was first announced, but the majority today lays bare just how thoroughly and lawlessly arbitrary it was. If this is what passes for due process and the rule of law at the FCC, then this agency ought not to be trusted with the adjudicatory powers Congress has granted it and the deference that the courts have given it https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-105A3.pdf https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-105A3.pdf

WoahNoun 3y ago
Where does that dissent say 40% disagreed? It only uses the term majority.
- geoffpado 3y ago
  There are 5 FCC commissioners (as @I_Am_Nous's comment points out). @I_Am_Nous references one dissent. @hnburnsy links to another. That's 2 dissents. 2 out of 5 dissenting is 40%.
abduhl 3y ago
Well if you want to really dig into the numbers here and get down to the gnat's ass of uselessness, Simington was confirmed with a 49-46 vote which means that less than 50% of the Senate agreed with him being on the Commission and hence he shouldn't even serve because he couldn't garner a majority of Senate approval. So, while 40% of the Commission disagreed with the decision, we should recognize that 20% of that 40% comes from someone undemocratically serving on the Commission and hence should be ignored. Meaning that, in actuality, only 25% of the democratically appointed Commission (1 out of 4) disagreed with the decision, not 40%. All of that to say: this whole point you're making about "40% disagreed" or "20% disagreed" because the decision wasn't unanimous is really fucking dumb. The decision by the Commission is the decision, it doesn't matter how many dissents there are.