9 ms·

> If the goal is to get levels of performance that Starlink cannot provide, then this makes sense? I think the metric is 'more likely than not meet peformance

> If the goal is to get levels of performance that Starlink cannot provide, then this makes sense? I think the metric is 'more likely than not meet peformance goals in 2025'. The technology itself is capable of the goals of latency and bandwidth.

_ea1k 3y ago
Sure, and that makes sense if the competitors have proven approaches to meeting the requirements. While I expect Starlink to be able to improve, I can see their point that the outcome is far from certain.
- lolbase 3y ago
  The government shouldn’t give out billion dollar participation trophies. There’s a set of metrics to meet. Starlink is moving the wrong way against those metrics. As such, they’ll need to succeed unaided in the marketplace, instead of getting a government handout.
  - 2devnull 3y ago
    Perhaps not billion dollar, but shouldn’t it give some participation trophies? How else to entice innovation in certain areas, especially when the interest rates are killing small tech outfits.
    - lolbase 3y ago
      No, it should not.
  - intrasight 3y ago
    Agreed. The FCC shouldn't be giving out any funds. They should stick to their role as regulator. Starlink as a properly grounded libertarian outfit should have lobbied to have any subsidy role by the FCC discontinued. Starlink should have just competed in the broadband marketplace - as should have everyone else. In such a level playing field, I think Starlink would do just fine.
    - _ea1k 3y ago
      I agree with this. But we have to operate in the world that exists and not necessarily the one that we wish to exist.
    - fomine3 3y ago
      LEO space is a limited global resource. I think government should regulate (and sometimes subsidy) to avoid it become a private company's suck.
      - intrasight 3y ago
        > I think government should regulate That would just move it from private company suck to nation-state suck. It needs to be regulated by the International Telecommunication Union (UN).

_ea1k 3y ago

Sure, and that makes sense if the competitors have proven approaches to meeting the requirements. While I expect Starlink to be able to improve, I can see their point that the outcome is far from certain.

lolbase 3y ago
The government shouldn’t give out billion dollar participation trophies. There’s a set of metrics to meet. Starlink is moving the wrong way against those metrics. As such, they’ll need to succeed unaided in the marketplace, instead of getting a government handout.
- 2devnull 3y ago
  Perhaps not billion dollar, but shouldn’t it give some participation trophies? How else to entice innovation in certain areas, especially when the interest rates are killing small tech outfits.
  - lolbase 3y ago
    No, it should not.
- intrasight 3y ago
  Agreed. The FCC shouldn't be giving out any funds. They should stick to their role as regulator. Starlink as a properly grounded libertarian outfit should have lobbied to have any subsidy role by the FCC discontinued. Starlink should have just competed in the broadband marketplace - as should have everyone else. In such a level playing field, I think Starlink would do just fine.
  - _ea1k 3y ago
    I agree with this. But we have to operate in the world that exists and not necessarily the one that we wish to exist.
  - fomine3 3y ago
    LEO space is a limited global resource. I think government should regulate (and sometimes subsidy) to avoid it become a private company's suck.
    - intrasight 3y ago
      > I think government should regulate That would just move it from private company suck to nation-state suck. It needs to be regulated by the International Telecommunication Union (UN).