If the goal is to get levels of performance that Starlink cannot provide, then this makes sense?
Odd that they'd include comments about Starship in it, though. That doesn't seem like a requirement for continued development of Starlink and seems very speculative. There could be details on that aspect that I'm missing though.
An FCC commissioner indicates that the FCC is yoinking the award because it thinks SpaceX won't hit the 2025 targets, yet many other award recipients have no service and no rollout and no speeds to even measure:
> What good is an agreement to build out service by 2025 if the FCC can, on a whim, hold you to it
in 2022 instead? 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. By contrast, Starlink had half a million subscribers in June 2022
(and about two million in September 2023). The majority’s only response to this point is that those other
recipients were relying on proven technologies like fiber, while SpaceX was relying on new LEO
technology.
As far as I can tell in a cursory reading, SpaceX Starlink applied for subsidies with enumerated requirements. They cannot meet those requirements, so the subsidy is rescinded.
Seems straightforward and doesn’t seem to matter, as far as I can tell, how many other companies couldn’t meet the requirements or don’t have the hardware to meet those requirements or whatever.
Unclear why this is “blatant corruption” or “crony capitalism” and in fact seems to be based in facts. Can you explain?
I'm getting the impression that some of the competitors haven't built anything to test yet. Based upon that, using the current performance of Starlink and comparing it to the hypothetical performance of others might not be fair. If Starlink is losing an award because of supposition, that's bad.
But I must admit that I haven't read all of the history here.
I think they’re not comparing to hypothetical performance of others, but comparing it to the threshold the FCC set originally, which SpaceX decided was achievable and so applied for subsidies based on their believed ability to hit the numbers.
For starters, last year (when this initial decision was made), a total of 22 applicants defaulted (i.e., didn’t meet the requirements)[0].
Some didn’t get their funding in order, others didn’t get their ETC certification arranged in time, others didn’t provide a viable proposal, and some withdrew their bid.
SpaceX falls in the latter category.
It’s important to understand that throughout the process, viability and progress are looked at, and rightly so; we’re talking about billions of dollars in taxpayer monies, and it would be silly to only look at the deadline and go “Whelp, you didn’t make it, guess the money is gone now.” Particularly when clawing back the money would be very cumbersome with someone notorious for not paying their bills and what they owe.
There are a couple of minimum requirements; for this debate and simplicity, I’ll highlight the minimum speed, which is 25/3Mbps.
You could’ve bid to provide service at that minimum level, but you also could bid for a higher speed tier (the speeds are divided into different tiers)[1].
Bidding a higher tier comes with a higher amount of subsidies, but it also means you need to meet the requirements of that higher tier. There is no “Oh well, just give me the subsidies of the lower tier”; you either meet the requirements tied to your bid or you don’t.
SpaceX made a bid for the “Above Baseline” tier, which requires them to provide 100/20Mbps.
There are a couple of ways the FCC tries to evaluate if the applicant can comply with the FCC requirements.
For one, they look at the technology the applicant said they would use. Mature and more reliable technologies will provide a clearer picture than newer and less reliable technologies, of course. I don’t think anyone here will argue that LEO satellites can provide the same consistency and quality in experience as fiber, for example.
They also look at historical achievements, especially concerning newer technology such as LEO satellites. Most other applicants don’t use LEO satellites but instead use fiber, for example.
Whether the fiber equipment is in use in RDOR areas or not is irrelevant; if the applicant says they’ll use the same equipment they’re operating in a different region, you can pretty much expect the same performance.
Starlink’s performance has been declining, with upload already falling well below 20Mbps.
Another part they look at is the long-form applications by the applicant (i.e., their plan for achieving it all). If the strategies aren’t realistic or based on predictions and assumptions that rely too much on unlikely positive outcomes, they are not considered reliable.
Again, it’s easier to put a shovel in the dirt than it is to launch rockets, so the historical performance of laying the infrastructure is going to look different depending on the technology used.
The fact of the matter is that Starlink is still too much of a question mark in a lot of points and not performing as expected and required, coupled with customers needing to purchase a $600 dish[2] and the FCC is rightfully going to wonder if it’s all achievable or not and if they money they manage is being put to good use.
That’s why, back in August of 2022, when the original decision was made, they summed it up as such[3]:
> The Bureau has concluded its review of LTD Broadband’s (LTD) and Starlink’s long form
applications. LTD proposes to deploy gigabit fiber to 475,616 estimated locations in 11 states.64 Starlink,
relying upon a nascent LEO satellite technology and the ability to timely deploy future satellites to
manage recognized capacity constraints while maintaining broadband speeds to both RDOF and non-
RDOF customers, seeks funding to provide 100/20 Mbps low latency service to 642,925 estimated
locations in 35 states. The Bureau has determined that, based on the totality of the long-form
applications, the expansive service areas reflected in their winning bids, and their inadequate responses to
the Bureau’s follow-up questions, LTD and Starlink are not reasonably capable of complying with the
Commission’s requirements. The Commission has an obligation to protect our limited Universal Service
Funds and to avoid extensive delays in providing needed service to rural areas, including by avoiding
subsidizing risky proposals that promise faster speeds than they can deliver, and/or propose deployment
plans that are not realistic or that are predicated on aggressive assumptions and predictions. We observe
that Ookla data reported as of July 31, 2022 indicate that Starlink’s speeds have been declining from the
last quarter of 2021 to the second quarter of 2022, including upload speeds that are falling well below 20
Mbps. Accordingly, we deny LTD’s and Starlink’s long-form applications, and both are in default on all
winning bids not already announced as defaulted. Because LTD has defaulted on its remaining winning
bids, we also dismiss as moot LTD’s petition for reconsideration of the Bureau’s denial of its request for
additional time to obtain an ETC designation in Nebraska and North Dakota.
Remember that by this time, SpaceX had hitched this wagon to their Starship configuration, abandoning the Falcon[4].
By now, when the FCC was looking if they should reconsider, the Starship program wasn’t doing so hot, only reaffirming their decision of last year.
Starlink is nothing that you deploy and then you are done. When you have launched the last satellite, then the first ones launched will have reached the end of their lifespan and you essentially have to start over, deploy the entire constellation once again as the satellites reach the end of their lifespan one by one. With a lifespan of say 5 years, you will have to deploy the entire constellation once every 5 years, with 12k satellites you are looking at replacing 200 satellites each month, forever. That sounds possible without Starship but I can also imagine that being able to use Starship is necessary for the economical viability in the long run.
5 years to deorbit passively is correct, but the expected service life is in somewhat similar. Best quote i've got on hand right now is wikipedia:
> "...implement an operations plan for the orderly de-orbit of satellites nearing the end of their useful lives (roughly five to seven years) at a rate far faster than is required under international standards.
Obviously there are many unknowns in factors like hardware reliability or fuel consumption.
All the numbers I have seen were 5 to 7 years of operational lifespan but I can not find a primary source from SpaceX at the moment. I think I also read that there are plans to increase the lifespan eventually with larger satellites, deployed using Starship.
I’ve got news for you about Earth-based networking gear. You don’t just install it and forget about it forever - you replace and upgrade, almost continuously, and lifespans are frequently significantly less than five years.
Of course, any system will need maintenance. My point was that you need the capacity to do the maintenance and you have to be able to do it cost effectively. That means in the case of Starlink it might actually be important to have Starship available because only this way they have the necessary capacity or cost effectiveness to maintain the constellation while using Falcons might not be good enough. I also say might, I of course don't know, I was just addressing the question why availability of Starship might be a relevant factor.
A 1000Gbps cable laid down in the ground will be able to support 1000Gbps even 50 years from now provided that it doesn't get truncated by accident or Earthquake
It's hard to tell due to the redactions, but it seems like Starlink brought Starship into the discussion as part of the explanation of how it would have the technical capability to deliver the service.
I’m an unqualified casual observer and working from memory, but I seem to remember capacity and throughput promises related to the “Starlink 2.0” satellites, which Mr. Musk claims are “an order of magnitude better” than the current birds on unspecified measures [0], and without which Starlink couldn’t credibly deliver the promised service to the promised number of households in the promised time to earn the subsidy [1].
The new satellite designs got a bit mired in regulatory complications until December of 2022, but it turned out to be moot since they’re too big and heavy to get up to orbit without Starship’s lift capacity and Starship isn’t there yet (and might not be within the period the subsidy contemplated). After the decision to cancel the subsidy (which is on appeal here) was taken back in 2022, Starlink seem to have rejiggered the 2.0 satellites into a “2.0-mini” configuration suitable for launch via Falcon 9 [2].
Apparently they would like for the FCC to reconsider the subsidy decision in light of them engineering around the Starship dependency?
They came up with V2 Mini satellites that can fit on Falcon 9. The original V2 can only be launched on Starship. They can launch a lot more V1.5, 48-56, than V2 Mini, 22, on Falcon 9.
I'd think it would be because SpaceX probably argued that the trajectory with Startship launching 10s of thousands of satellites that it would meet the program requirements.
The reason Starship is brought up is because all of this hinges on SpaceX’s explanation on how they’re going to achieve the requirements of their bid.
SpaceX has stated they’re going to use Starship for this, going as far as stating early last year that they were exclusively going to use Starship.
So obviously, when the FCC is going to weigh if SpaceX is going to be able to meet the requirements of their bid, they’re going to look at the plan presented to them by SpaceX.
In the FCC’s defense, they apparently asked SpaceX questions regarding concerns they had, but SpaceX didn’t answer.
I feel like it's a fair decision, they had certain criteria. Even so, more broadband competition in rural areas would be better than subsidizing the incumbents.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>If the goal is to get levels of performance that Starlink cannot provide, then this makes sense?
no, because the only reason Starlink doesn't currently hit the metrics is due to them having so many users joining. They could hit the metrics by temporarily halting signups, cutting off users, or delaying the Pentagon's massive deployment project.
Or Musk could cut off Ukraine's capacity, which the US military admits is consuming hundreds of millions in Starlink capacity that could be allocated to US consumers to speed up their internet
>U.S. defense officials had previously estimated that the annual cost for Starlink in Ukraine, which Musk mostly had been donating, will be hundreds of millions of dollars.
> no, because the only reason Starlink doesn't currently hit the metrics is due to them having so many users joining. They could hit the metrics by temporarily halting signups, cutting off users, or delaying the Pentagon's massive deployment project.
I admittedly don't know much about this process, but with a billion dollars on the line, why wouldn't they have presented these options? It's not like this came out of nowhere, Starlink knew that they were not meeting their obligations and was given a chance to present their case.
I don't know, it just seems like it would be pretty easy to halt signups for a month, show that speeds increased drastically as my launches got ahead of my signups, and then explain to the FCC why this would be the normal state of affairs at some point in the future. Or, don't even actually halt signups, just make a convincing case about why halting signups would drastically increase speeds, and by 2025 you plan to do whatever you need to do to hit that 100/20 metric, but right now you're trying to do the most good for the most people, which means more signups and lower speeds.
For a billion dollars, these all seem like easy & obvious arguments to make if they were at all viable.
Anyway, I think that if Starlink can prove that they're making progress towards their commitment, they become eligible for the subsidy again, so if halting signups is really a viable strategy and they really care about the billion dollars then it seems like they should do that.
> Or Musk could cut off Ukraine's capacity, which the US military admits is consuming hundreds of millions in Starlink capacity that could be allocated to US consumers to speed up their internet
That doesn’t sound right. Satellites over Ukraine cannot be reached anywhere from the US and they also wouldn’t use the same gateways. So I could see the use of starlink in Ukraine possibly slowing service in Europe. But I cannot see how it would affect customers in the US.
> Or Musk could cut off Ukraine's capacity, which the US military admits is consuming hundreds of millions in Starlink capacity that could be allocated to US consumers to speed up their internet
Satellites in LEO over Ukraine can't provide service to the US. (and because of the way orbits work a LEO satellite that spends time over the US will also spend time over Ukraine)
Internet bandwidth in America and Ukraine are completely separate. Starlink is mostly bent-pipe, sending signals to station in view of the satellite. Over remote areas, the satellites need to talk to each other to relay signals. But my understanding is that goes to the closest ground station.
Its nearest ground station bounced off nearest satellite, or some inter-satellite laser links to make some hops, then to the user. It's optimized to be shortest route, just like routers with the wired internet you're using now: if you stream a movie, that request goes to in a short path from the server to you. You streaming doesn't slow down someone in China, because the data never approaches any equipment in China. Same with Starlink. Their data never approaches any starlink satellites in the US. When they get the whole grid laser link working, then it might, but it will still approach being optimal, with ground stations used as needed.
Ground vs laser is a latency thing, more than a bandwidth thing. No need to stream Netflix with low latency.
Wikipedia has some numbers [1] according to which they passed 2M users in September 2023 and are growing pretty consistently by about 100k users per month since mid 2022.
What Pentagon deployment project? I can't find any news stories about military rolling out Starlink. The only news is US paying for Ukraine's access; cutting off Ukraine would not be good for SpaceX. The military doesn't need Starlink with all their communications satellites. They are looking at it for polar use where Starlink has better coverage.
Are you talking about the SDA Starshield constellation? That isn't launching yet, the contract is for development. Starshield has nothing to do with Starlink except using the same platform and taking up launch slots.
I like how you didn't mention that Starlink could solve capacity problems by launching more satellites.
Starshield has nothing to with Starlink business. The only thing that might affect it is the military wants to launch lots of Starshield-based satellites and that keeps SpaceX from launching Starlink satellites. But then SpaceX would get paid lots of money for the launches. The military hasn't agreed to launch constellation; my suspicion is that they are waiting for Starship.
> Starshield has nothing to with Starlink business.
Yes it does. See [0]:
> SpaceX is providing a best effort and global subscription for various land, maritime, stationary and mobility platforms and users... The task order for Starshield services is provided by the Starlink satellite constellation but is differentiated from the commercial Starlink service based on unique Department of Defense terms and conditions that are not found in commercial service contracts.
Translating the bureaucratese, the US military is buying access to the existing Starlink constellation under the umbrella of "Starshield". They have a special contract and no doubt lots of additional paperwork and oversight of Starlink operations.
I can understand your confusion, because there's also SDA's plan to build its own in-space communications backbone, for which SpaceX has been contracted, and SpaceX's plan (under Starshield) to build custom satellites on a Starlink bus to host defense payloads, so it's easy to get the impression that there will be the civilian Starlink and military Starshield constellations and they'll be entirely independent.
But that's not the case, and it would be really dumb if it were. The Starlink constellation's sheer size provides an immense amount of resiliency and reserve bandwidth that is of great military benefit, and that's been funded by commercial customers. Just like how the DoD no doubt tunnels its secure networks over the civilian internet rather than laying its own transoceanic cables etc., there's no reason for it not to make use of the existing Starlink constellation and many reasons to.
Odd that they'd include comments about Starship in it, though. That doesn't seem like a requirement for continued development of Starlink and seems very speculative. There could be details on that aspect that I'm missing though.