5 ms·

Ehh, their average speeds have gone down by half in the last 3 years (150 down -> 75 down). They chased profits by signing up more people at the expense of net

Ehh, their average speeds have gone down by half in the last 3 years (150 down -> 75 down). They chased profits by signing up more people at the expense of network saturation. Had they held this reduction to 100+ down, they would have remained eligible for the grant they applied for.

pmorici 3y ago
If the terms of the deal were that they didn't need to hit the performance benchmarks until 2025 and they have demonstrated that the technology was capable of those speeds it makes little sense to do this now except as a thinly vailed political punishment.
- Deprecate9151 3y ago
  That was not the terms, there were buildout requirements attached that started when the bid was accepted. https://www.usac.org/high-cost/funds/rural-digital-opportunity-fund/ https://www.usac.org/high-cost/funds/rural-digital-opportuni... Looks like Starlink was supposed to be 40% built with their participation starting in 2020, that are consistent with their winning bid (in this case 100/20). It seems they clearly failed by that metric.
  - pmorici 3y ago
    Seeing as they offer service basically everywhere in the US right now and the only quibble is that the average speed is only 75 Mbps instead of 100 Mbps I'd say they are well ahead of 40%.
    - Deprecate9151 3y ago
      That isn't a quibble, the 100/20 requirement was a key requirement they set themselves. Regardless though, I was wrong about the buildout reasoning. The FCC just doesn't believe, based off the information provided by Starlink, they had a strong enough likelihood of success with the plan provided to stay in the running.
  - inemesitaffia 3y ago
    Starlink hasn't gotten any money, so they aren't subject to build requirements
    - Deprecate9151 3y ago
      Yeah I messed that up. After reading more the denial was focused on the fact that Starlink didn't refute they were not consistently delivering speeds and latency that matched the tier they bid on, and their plan to bridge that gap wasn't convincing to the reviewers or the Commission.
      - inemesitaffia 3y ago
        The argument is if they had paid on time would they have been able to deliver to the particular customers by 2025? i.e not everyone. Just RDOF subsided users in the awarded areas The Dems say no. Evidence is current state of network and absence of starship. SpaceX says yes. V2 is already launching on Falcon. We don't need starship to meet our obligations but it will make it faster. Republicans say both of you are talking nonsense. Until 2025 you can't find out. And there's a process for getting there. You only test devices that are under the RDOF plan, not everyone. And since SpaceX hasn't been awarded, you can't do any testing that's relevant. Imagine SpaceX got awarded say Diomede and you're bringing up speeds in LA and Seattle or the Midwest. SpaceX will sue and lose due to Chevron deference
pardoned_turkey 3y ago
I'm in a rural location. Not that rural, about five minutes away from a town of 10,000 people. I have exactly three internet choices: old-school satellite (with 600 ms latency), unreliable 10 Mbit DSL for $150/month, or Starlink for $120/month. Many of my neighbors aren't as lucky and don't even get DSL. My DSL provider received hundreds of millions in government subsidies and did nothing to improve the service in the region, and brazenly lied about it to the FCC. I know that it's fashionable to criticize Elon Musk, and it's often justified, but Starlink is far more deserving of government funds than most of the grifter ISPs who actually get the subsidies.
- pclmulqdq 3y ago
  If you start a WISP and service your neighbors, the FCC would probably be happy to provide you a subsidy now that they have an extra $1 billion that isn't going to Starlink.
  - inemesitaffia 3y ago
    That's not how this works. Under this program there's no option of another org replacing a denied org. Who's stepping up for LTD broadband for example?
    - pclmulqdq 3y ago
      There's a fixed pool of money ($16 billion), so everyone who gets some of it does replace a denied org.
      - inemesitaffia 3y ago
        You have no idea how this works. Denied money isn't redistributed. Where do people get this from? Maybe there will be a future award. But there's no rollover here.
        pclmulqdq 3y ago
jcims 3y ago
This is dependent on the cell you're in. I've been on Starlink since Feb 2021 and dipping below 100 down is very rare. It' averages about 140 down and 20 up with about 30ms latency.
- Deprecate9151 3y ago
  For this grant the 100/20 needed to be consistently available in specific geographic areas. So if the cells bring down the performance averages are concentrated in those grant areas, it makes sense for them to fail to meet the program criteria while still having a product that hits those metrics elsewhere.
  - inemesitaffia 3y ago
    The denial doesn't quote speeds in those areas
    - Deprecate9151 3y ago
      It doesn't, I'm just expanding on why a specific cell meeting the program specifications "usually" wouldn't really move the need for the FCC analysis.
      - inemesitaffia 3y ago
        The denial mentions national speed levels from a third party not the particular coverage areas or services delivered under RDOF

pmorici 3y ago

If the terms of the deal were that they didn't need to hit the performance benchmarks until 2025 and they have demonstrated that the technology was capable of those speeds it makes little sense to do this now except as a thinly vailed political punishment.

Deprecate9151 3y ago
That was not the terms, there were buildout requirements attached that started when the bid was accepted. https://www.usac.org/high-cost/funds/rural-digital-opportunity-fund/ https://www.usac.org/high-cost/funds/rural-digital-opportuni... Looks like Starlink was supposed to be 40% built with their participation starting in 2020, that are consistent with their winning bid (in this case 100/20). It seems they clearly failed by that metric.
- pmorici 3y ago
  Seeing as they offer service basically everywhere in the US right now and the only quibble is that the average speed is only 75 Mbps instead of 100 Mbps I'd say they are well ahead of 40%.
  - Deprecate9151 3y ago
    That isn't a quibble, the 100/20 requirement was a key requirement they set themselves. Regardless though, I was wrong about the buildout reasoning. The FCC just doesn't believe, based off the information provided by Starlink, they had a strong enough likelihood of success with the plan provided to stay in the running.
- inemesitaffia 3y ago
  Starlink hasn't gotten any money, so they aren't subject to build requirements
  - Deprecate9151 3y ago
    Yeah I messed that up. After reading more the denial was focused on the fact that Starlink didn't refute they were not consistently delivering speeds and latency that matched the tier they bid on, and their plan to bridge that gap wasn't convincing to the reviewers or the Commission.
    - inemesitaffia 3y ago
      The argument is if they had paid on time would they have been able to deliver to the particular customers by 2025? i.e not everyone. Just RDOF subsided users in the awarded areas The Dems say no. Evidence is current state of network and absence of starship. SpaceX says yes. V2 is already launching on Falcon. We don't need starship to meet our obligations but it will make it faster. Republicans say both of you are talking nonsense. Until 2025 you can't find out. And there's a process for getting there. You only test devices that are under the RDOF plan, not everyone. And since SpaceX hasn't been awarded, you can't do any testing that's relevant. Imagine SpaceX got awarded say Diomede and you're bringing up speeds in LA and Seattle or the Midwest. SpaceX will sue and lose due to Chevron deference

pardoned_turkey 3y ago

I'm in a rural location. Not that rural, about five minutes away from a town of 10,000 people. I have exactly three internet choices: old-school satellite (with 600 ms latency), unreliable 10 Mbit DSL for $150/month, or Starlink for $120/month. Many of my neighbors aren't as lucky and don't even get DSL. My DSL provider received hundreds of millions in government subsidies and did nothing to improve the service in the region, and brazenly lied about it to the FCC. I know that it's fashionable to criticize Elon Musk, and it's often justified, but Starlink is far more deserving of government funds than most of the grifter ISPs who actually get the subsidies.

pclmulqdq 3y ago
If you start a WISP and service your neighbors, the FCC would probably be happy to provide you a subsidy now that they have an extra $1 billion that isn't going to Starlink.
- inemesitaffia 3y ago
  That's not how this works. Under this program there's no option of another org replacing a denied org. Who's stepping up for LTD broadband for example?
  - pclmulqdq 3y ago
    There's a fixed pool of money ($16 billion), so everyone who gets some of it does replace a denied org.
    - inemesitaffia 3y ago
      You have no idea how this works. Denied money isn't redistributed. Where do people get this from? Maybe there will be a future award. But there's no rollover here.
      - pclmulqdq 3y ago

jcims 3y ago

This is dependent on the cell you're in. I've been on Starlink since Feb 2021 and dipping below 100 down is very rare. It' averages about 140 down and 20 up with about 30ms latency.

Deprecate9151 3y ago
For this grant the 100/20 needed to be consistently available in specific geographic areas. So if the cells bring down the performance averages are concentrated in those grant areas, it makes sense for them to fail to meet the program criteria while still having a product that hits those metrics elsewhere.
- inemesitaffia 3y ago
  The denial doesn't quote speeds in those areas
  - Deprecate9151 3y ago
    It doesn't, I'm just expanding on why a specific cell meeting the program specifications "usually" wouldn't really move the need for the FCC analysis.
    - inemesitaffia 3y ago
      The denial mentions national speed levels from a third party not the particular coverage areas or services delivered under RDOF