5 ms·

OK, but that was far from the only reason. From the actual decision: > While Starlink faults the Bureau for relying on the most recent available data at the ti

OK, but that was far from the only reason. From the actual decision: > While Starlink faults the Bureau for relying on the most recent available data at the time of its decision to evaluate is existing network performance, Starlink does not explain what other data source the Bureau should have used in lieu of using the most recently available data. When the Bureau's decision was made, the most recent available evidence showed that "Starlink’s performance had been declining for download speed, upload speed, and jitter test performance." In other words, it was not only failing to meet the RDOF public interest obligations, but also trending further away from them. (edited to fix formatting)

shdwbannd1234 3y ago
Amazing the arguments people make up when the obvious is well documented -- just another hoax people -- just another russian psyop -- it's all just so laughable. The us government has collapsed and lost all legitimacy and I'll be called the 'conspiracy theorist' or somen other inane response (if its even given one, likely shouted down or removed by the Mods on whatever flimsy pretext). We no longer live under the rule of law, there is no equality brfore it, nor do the gears of justice turn without bias, lady justice isnt blind. But yeah, we can all pretend and lie and make up bullshit excuses that will change on whim. Again, we have so much extensive documentation and people keep pretending it doesnt exist. Perhaps like my comment, does it exist for you?
- rideontime 3y ago
  Polite disagree.
- alwa 3y ago
  I don’t understand what you’re saying here. What is obvious and well-documented here, from your perspective? And of what do we have extensive documentation? The regulatory data at the time the decision was taken, or something in Starlink’s defense? I didn’t find the article especially clear on this point, but it sounds like Starlink says that if the decision were taken today rather than in 2022, the performance data wouldn’t look so dire, and the FCC might have more faith in their promise to launch high-performance payloads with Starship during the grant’s required timeframe, is that what you mean?
  - valianteffort 3y ago
    It's clear the government has been actively attacking Musk and his companies for any and all reasons it can find. During the past couple years of this administration the following has happened and it's just what I can recall: 1. Tesla gets no invite to whitehouse EV summit despite being the sole reason for the current EV movement 2. Tesla model 3/Y initially barred from new EV subsidies 3. SpaceX being investigated by justice department for not hiring foreigners (literally illegal due to ITAR) 4. NASA awards blue origin more than it awarded SpaceX for lunar lander despite them having zero orbital rocket experience or even a proper roadmap to orbit 5. FAA drags heels on approving starlink tests preventing progress on the requirements they say were failed to have been met today 6. Today's news about FCC revoking subsidy for the only company that actually cares to provide highspeed internet to rural Americans, which congress has appropriated funding for several times in the past two decades, and rewarded companies have failed to deliver on It's safe to say any kind of bullshit can be justified (with even more bullshit reasons), so it's hard to believe actions like this are made good faith. I'm not just going to trust criminals because they're robbing someone I don't like.
    - neuronexmachina 3y ago
      > 1. Tesla gets no invite to whitehouse EV summit despite being the sole reason for the current EV movement Why would Tesla be at a summit on union-made EVs? If you look at the actual speech Biden gave at the event, a lot of it is pretty counter to Tesla's anti-union stance: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/08/05/remarks-by-president-biden-on-strengthening-american-leadership-on-clean-cars-and-trucks/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/20...
- galaxyLogic 3y ago
  > We no longer live under the rule of law, there is no equality brfore it, Anybody else but Trump would be in prison already for what he has done (urging his followers who he knew to be armed to "go to the capital and Fight Like Hell"). So it is true that equality before the law is definitely lacking in action. Another thing that makes me agree with "there is no equality" is that when you follow the news you see things like Giuliani owes his lawyers over million dollars. So it seems you need over a million dollars to get justice. Or alternatively, you can try to avoid justice, by spending millions. Trump says he has "over $100 million in legal fees" https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4282653-trump-says-he-has-100m-in-legal-fees-amid-cascade-of-court-battles/#:~:text=Former%20President%20Trump%20said%20in,a%20cascade%20of%20court%20battles https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4282653-trump-s.... So again it seems you need $100 million to get justice, or alternatively to escape from it. How can justice that costs $100 million be fair and equitable to all?
s1artibartfast 3y ago
Is there any truth to the statement from two of the five FCC commissioners that SpaceX was not required to meet those benchmarks until 2025, and this is a political action?
- rohansingh 3y ago
  I don't feel knowledgeable enough about the expected process to comment on that. Two points of speculation though: 1. It looks like the commission believes Starlink is trending away from the targets rather than toward them, and that can't help their case. 2. It's hard for me to see how there would not be at least some political considerations here. The fact that this program exists at all is a political decision. So it's part & parcel of the playing field — which is probably why most leaders work hard to not piss off their regulators.
  - CamelCaseName 3y ago
    I think #1 is what really strikes me here. It's like standing in front of a train and not moving because you asked the conductor to stop. What happens when they reach 2025 and billions of dollars have gone down the drain? Why wait?
    - inemesitaffia 3y ago
      There's fines and no evidence SpaceX was getting billions. The award amount is public and paid monthly
      - CamelCaseName 3y ago
        Sorry, I thought the award stated was annual, reading it more closely I see that it's not.
        inemesitaffia 3y ago
        The amount everyones quoting is the full fat amount over the life of the contract. You have to show you can do most of it yourself i.e raise the money. After a %age deployment the FCC checks if you've met the deployment timeline and checks your speeds then starts paying you and keeps testing as you deploy according to the timeline. You don't get a dime upfront.
altairprime 3y ago
Please don’t use code-formatted space-indent for quotes, your paragraph looks like a sawtooth on mobile with an indent every other sentence. Instead, use > *quote*. It’ll be unindented but readable, which is an improvement over being indented but unreadable: > While Starlink …
- rohansingh 3y ago
  Thanks, struggled to find the correct formatting. Corrected it now.
why_at 3y ago
The part that makes me question the legitimacy of this decision is the fact that there are still other companies receiving the subsidy. Quote from the article: >Starlink is the only company actually solving rural broadband at scale! They should arguably dissolve the program and return funds to taxpayers, but definitely not send it (to) those who aren’t getting the job done Are these other companies meeting the targets? If not then it seems pretty arbitrary to reject just SpaceX for not doing so yet.
- turquoisevar 3y ago
  You forgot to attribute the quote to Musk, arguably the least reliable person in our lifetime.
  - why_at 3y ago
    Fair enough I guess, this could be total BS. FWIW the dissenting FCC commissioners made similar arguments. >In 2022, many RDOF recipients had deployed no service at any speed to any location at all, and they had no obligation to do so Maybe this is just more spin from people who want to turn this into another political battleground. It's not entirely clear to me, but it seems like there is room for doubt.

shdwbannd1234 3y ago

Amazing the arguments people make up when the obvious is well documented -- just another hoax people -- just another russian psyop -- it's all just so laughable. The us government has collapsed and lost all legitimacy and I'll be called the 'conspiracy theorist' or somen other inane response (if its even given one, likely shouted down or removed by the Mods on whatever flimsy pretext). We no longer live under the rule of law, there is no equality brfore it, nor do the gears of justice turn without bias, lady justice isnt blind. But yeah, we can all pretend and lie and make up bullshit excuses that will change on whim. Again, we have so much extensive documentation and people keep pretending it doesnt exist. Perhaps like my comment, does it exist for you?

rideontime 3y ago
Polite disagree.
alwa 3y ago
I don’t understand what you’re saying here. What is obvious and well-documented here, from your perspective? And of what do we have extensive documentation? The regulatory data at the time the decision was taken, or something in Starlink’s defense? I didn’t find the article especially clear on this point, but it sounds like Starlink says that if the decision were taken today rather than in 2022, the performance data wouldn’t look so dire, and the FCC might have more faith in their promise to launch high-performance payloads with Starship during the grant’s required timeframe, is that what you mean?
- valianteffort 3y ago
  It's clear the government has been actively attacking Musk and his companies for any and all reasons it can find. During the past couple years of this administration the following has happened and it's just what I can recall: 1. Tesla gets no invite to whitehouse EV summit despite being the sole reason for the current EV movement 2. Tesla model 3/Y initially barred from new EV subsidies 3. SpaceX being investigated by justice department for not hiring foreigners (literally illegal due to ITAR) 4. NASA awards blue origin more than it awarded SpaceX for lunar lander despite them having zero orbital rocket experience or even a proper roadmap to orbit 5. FAA drags heels on approving starlink tests preventing progress on the requirements they say were failed to have been met today 6. Today's news about FCC revoking subsidy for the only company that actually cares to provide highspeed internet to rural Americans, which congress has appropriated funding for several times in the past two decades, and rewarded companies have failed to deliver on It's safe to say any kind of bullshit can be justified (with even more bullshit reasons), so it's hard to believe actions like this are made good faith. I'm not just going to trust criminals because they're robbing someone I don't like.
  - neuronexmachina 3y ago
    > 1. Tesla gets no invite to whitehouse EV summit despite being the sole reason for the current EV movement Why would Tesla be at a summit on union-made EVs? If you look at the actual speech Biden gave at the event, a lot of it is pretty counter to Tesla's anti-union stance: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/08/05/remarks-by-president-biden-on-strengthening-american-leadership-on-clean-cars-and-trucks/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/20...
galaxyLogic 3y ago
> We no longer live under the rule of law, there is no equality brfore it, Anybody else but Trump would be in prison already for what he has done (urging his followers who he knew to be armed to "go to the capital and Fight Like Hell"). So it is true that equality before the law is definitely lacking in action. Another thing that makes me agree with "there is no equality" is that when you follow the news you see things like Giuliani owes his lawyers over million dollars. So it seems you need over a million dollars to get justice. Or alternatively, you can try to avoid justice, by spending millions. Trump says he has "over $100 million in legal fees" https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4282653-trump-says-he-has-100m-in-legal-fees-amid-cascade-of-court-battles/#:~:text=Former%20President%20Trump%20said%20in,a%20cascade%20of%20court%20battles https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4282653-trump-s.... So again it seems you need $100 million to get justice, or alternatively to escape from it. How can justice that costs $100 million be fair and equitable to all?

s1artibartfast 3y ago

Is there any truth to the statement from two of the five FCC commissioners that SpaceX was not required to meet those benchmarks until 2025, and this is a political action?

rohansingh 3y ago
I don't feel knowledgeable enough about the expected process to comment on that. Two points of speculation though: 1. It looks like the commission believes Starlink is trending away from the targets rather than toward them, and that can't help their case. 2. It's hard for me to see how there would not be at least some political considerations here. The fact that this program exists at all is a political decision. So it's part & parcel of the playing field — which is probably why most leaders work hard to not piss off their regulators.
- CamelCaseName 3y ago
  I think #1 is what really strikes me here. It's like standing in front of a train and not moving because you asked the conductor to stop. What happens when they reach 2025 and billions of dollars have gone down the drain? Why wait?
  - inemesitaffia 3y ago
    There's fines and no evidence SpaceX was getting billions. The award amount is public and paid monthly
    - CamelCaseName 3y ago
      Sorry, I thought the award stated was annual, reading it more closely I see that it's not.
      - inemesitaffia 3y ago
        The amount everyones quoting is the full fat amount over the life of the contract. You have to show you can do most of it yourself i.e raise the money. After a %age deployment the FCC checks if you've met the deployment timeline and checks your speeds then starts paying you and keeps testing as you deploy according to the timeline. You don't get a dime upfront.

altairprime 3y ago

Please don’t use code-formatted space-indent for quotes, your paragraph looks like a sawtooth on mobile with an indent every other sentence. Instead, use > *quote*. It’ll be unindented but readable, which is an improvement over being indented but unreadable: > While Starlink …

rohansingh 3y ago
Thanks, struggled to find the correct formatting. Corrected it now.

why_at 3y ago

The part that makes me question the legitimacy of this decision is the fact that there are still other companies receiving the subsidy. Quote from the article: >Starlink is the only company actually solving rural broadband at scale! They should arguably dissolve the program and return funds to taxpayers, but definitely not send it (to) those who aren’t getting the job done Are these other companies meeting the targets? If not then it seems pretty arbitrary to reject just SpaceX for not doing so yet.

turquoisevar 3y ago
You forgot to attribute the quote to Musk, arguably the least reliable person in our lifetime.
- why_at 3y ago
  Fair enough I guess, this could be total BS. FWIW the dissenting FCC commissioners made similar arguments. >In 2022, many RDOF recipients had deployed no service at any speed to any location at all, and they had no obligation to do so Maybe this is just more spin from people who want to turn this into another political battleground. It's not entirely clear to me, but it seems like there is room for doubt.