https://twitter.com/BrendanCarrFCC/status/1562433655578193921QuoteThe FCC’s abrupt decision to reverse an $885 million infrastructure award to Elon Musk’s Starlink is concerning.For one, the decision is without legal justification.For another, it will leave rural Americans waiting on the wrong side of the digital divide.My statement:
The FCC’s abrupt decision to reverse an $885 million infrastructure award to Elon Musk’s Starlink is concerning.For one, the decision is without legal justification.For another, it will leave rural Americans waiting on the wrong side of the digital divide.My statement:
The thing is it will not impact starlink deployment at all, in fact the strongest argument against starlink subsidies is the network is getting built at the same rate with or without the money. that is not to say there might or might not be funny business involved in the decision, but to argue it will impact access to starlink is questionable at best.
Agreed it won't impact starlink deployment. And I don't know how RDOF works, but was any of the money set aside for low income folks to get subsidies, as in this program: https://www.fcc.gov/acp Or was the money 100% for infrastructure?If the ACP program would have gotten this money for some folks to get discounts on starlink, this decision certainly impacts people.
Update: SpaceX filed a request to the FCC, asking to appeal the FCC's RDOF decision and saying the denial issued last month "is flawed as a matter of both law and policy."https://fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/status/detail/confirmation/20220909251827409SpaceX implying the FCC's turnaround on RDOF subsidies is an "improper attempt" under President Biden's administration "to undo" a decision made during former President Trump's administration, saying "it is hard not to see it" that way.
FCC REAFFIRMS DECISION TO REJECT STARLINK APPLICATIONFOR NEARLY $900 MILLION IN SUBSIDIESApplicant Failed to Meet Burden for Rural Digital Opportunity FundWASHINGTON, December 12, 2023—The Federal Communications Commission todayreaffirmed the Wireline Bureau’s prior decision to reject the long-form application of Starlink toreceive public support through the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund program, based on theapplicant’s failure to meet the program requirements....
Looks like the appeal was rejected:QuoteFCC REAFFIRMS DECISION TO REJECT STARLINK APPLICATIONFOR NEARLY $900 MILLION IN SUBSIDIESApplicant Failed to Meet Burden for Rural Digital Opportunity FundWASHINGTON, December 12, 2023—The Federal Communications Commission todayreaffirmed the Wireline Bureau’s prior decision to reject the long-form application of Starlink toreceive public support through the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund program, based on theapplicant’s failure to meet the program requirements....https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-reaffirms-rejection-nearly-900-million-subsidy-starlinkRuling (pdf) is here:https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-105A1.pdf
[Precedents]Among other things, the Bureau asked Starlink to explain why its network performance was below the required minimum speeds of 100/20 Mbps [redacted + context note: A Public Notice announcing that Starlink was in default was released concurrently] After reviewing all of the information submitted by Starlink, the Bureau ultimately concluded that Starlink had not shown that it was reasonably capable of fulfilling RDOF’s requirements to deploy a network of the scope, scale, and size required to serve the 642,925 model locations in 35 states for which it was the winning bidder. [Latest resolution]the Bureau followed Commission guidance and correctly concluded that Starlink is not reasonably capable of offering the required high-speed, low-latency service throughout the areas where it won auction support [...] by approving Starlink’s short-form application, the Bureau concluded that, based on the high-level information required in the short-form application, Starlink was reasonably capable of offering, at some level, the required service in at least one relevant area in each of the states in which it was approved to bid [...] the long-form application review [instead] determined whether the applicant could provide that service “associated with its winning bids,” i.e., in each of the areas where it ultimately won supportThe most recent available evidence showed that "Starlink 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. [...] Unlike fiber and other technologies currently in use, Starlink did not point to examples where its technology was providing service at the required level in the United States.Starlink recorded a median download speed of 64.54 Mbps in Q3 2023, a marginal decline quarter-on-quarter, but still an increase over the 53.00 Mbps recorded in Q3 2022. Even if the performance had improved though, that would still not demonstrate an ability to meet RDOF's performance standards, and it also does not show how Starlink would meet its RDOF obligations to a significantly larger customer base.
Short version:- Funding required providing uplink and downlink speeds above a certain threshold.- Starlink could provide these speeds, but only by limiting subscribers per cell - fixed bandwidth per satellite, fixed number of satellites visible per cell, subdivide too much and you drop below that threshold per subscriber.- Starlink had the choice to either go for the funding and cap subscriber numbers within the US, or keep subscribers uncapped and lose out on funding due to not meeting speed requirements.- Starlink chose not to cap subscribers, thus could not guarantee the minimum speeds required for fund eligibility.Whether that was the right choice is up to Starlink's accountants (i.e. whether the funds lost out on are more or less than the subscription fees lost out on by capping subscribers until more satellites can be rolled out), but they can't have their cake and eat it when it comes to bandwidth-per-sat vs. bandwidth-per-subscriber.
In other words, the government requirements would have prevented people from getting service instead of helping them.
Quote from: Nomadd on 12/13/2023 12:59 pm In other words, the government requirements would have prevented people from getting service instead of helping them.Damned if you do, dammed if you don't. Set very low (100mbps down 30 mbps up IIRC) minimum service requirements, be accused of setting requirements too high, don't set minimum service requirements and be accused of GEO SATCOM/dialup/GSM providers receiving funds for doing little to nothing. Sadly, regulatory capture means that proposing an actual solution (funding of last-mile link installation, and mandating Local Loop Unbundling) which would allow actual direct competition, would disrupt the current commercial monopoly model that US ISPs operate under, so is a non-starter without regulatory reform.
Quote from: edzieba on 12/13/2023 04:08 pmQuote from: Nomadd on 12/13/2023 12:59 pm In other words, the government requirements would have prevented people from getting service instead of helping them.Damned if you do, dammed if you don't. Set very low (100mbps down 30 mbps up IIRC) minimum service requirements, be accused of setting requirements too high, don't set minimum service requirements and be accused of GEO SATCOM/dialup/GSM providers receiving funds for doing little to nothing. Sadly, regulatory capture means that proposing an actual solution (funding of last-mile link installation, and mandating Local Loop Unbundling) which would allow actual direct competition, would disrupt the current commercial monopoly model that US ISPs operate under, so is a non-starter without regulatory reform.The requirements were 100/20, and that is not "very low" when you consider that the vast majority of the areas Starlink bid on have zero providers offering service meeting the old 25/3 FCC standard. Starlink, even if it isn't quite at 100/20 on average yet, is still a massive upgrade.
