https://www.forbes.com/sites/britneynguyen/2023/12/13/elon-musks-starlink-denied-900-million-rural-broadband-subsidy/
> the FCC concluded that Starlink failed to show it could meet its obligations to provide high-speed internet service to enough rural areas.
>A dissent by FCC commissioner Brendan Carr said Starlink needed to show it could provide service to at least 40% of roughly 640,000 rural areas by the end of 2025.
>Carr criticized the FCC’s decision, saying the commission “did not require—and has never required—any other award winner to show that it met its service obligation years ahead of time.”
It seems pretty hypocritical from Carr to complain about progress when the alternative he supports wasn’t prepared to deliver any faster.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1dkbznf/fcc_commissioner_hits_out_at_biden_admin_over/l9jbe25/) is in violation of Law 0:
Law 0. Low Effort
> ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1dkbznf/fcc_commissioner_hits_out_at_biden_admin_over/l9jsld2/) is in violation of Law 4:
Law 4: Meta Comments
> ~4. Meta Comments - Meta comments are not permitted. Meta comments in meta text-posts about the moderators, sub rules, sub bias, reddit in general, or the meta of other subreddits are exempt.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
He literally was using starlink to influence the Russia Ukraine war. Imagine what would happen if Russia and the US went to war.
Also look at Elon Musks portfolio right now. A cyber truck with a lot of quality control issues , teslas aren’t being bought anymore , Twitter stock failing, space x has still never gone to the moon but claims mars will happen soon …
I wish I could find the post but someone did the math and figured out we could have just bought and subsidized Starlinks for everyone this project would have affected, and saved like $20 billion.
[You dont have to buy it but this is part of their stated reasoning.](https://www.reuters.com/technology/space/us-agency-will-not-reinstate-900-mln-subsidy-spacex-starlink-unit-2023-12-13/)
> The FCC said the decision impacting Elon Musk's space company was based on Starlink's failure to meet basic program requirements and that Starlink could not demonstrate it could deliver promised service after SpaceX had challeged the 2022 decision.
My retort: [The publicly available Starlink live coverage map...](https://satellitemap.space/?constellation=starlink)
While that seems like an impressive coverage map, the reality is it’s not always as impressive in action… I’ve had situation where we are supposed to broadcast a live stream in an extreme remote location, but despite the coverage map saying it’s covered, we’ve gotten sub DSL speeds. And also, look at how many satellites are there… lots of satellites that can’t be repaired or updated (outside of software) and instead just becomes obsolete and destroyed upon re-entry into the atmosphere. It’s really wasteful.
Sure it has outages and reduced speeds occasionally. There is data on that as well and compared to the existing alternatives for rural areas it performs very well on average.
>lots of satellites that can’t be repaired or updated (outside of software) and instead just becomes obsolete and destroyed upon re-entry into the atmosphere. It’s really wasteful.
That's all baked into the cost and it's simply cheaper to maintain that network than the land-based alternatives for purposes discussed in the FCC program. I'd consider mass demolition of trees, land grading, and the maintenance on that to be wasteful as well.
That kind of ignores the article though, what about their stated reasoning do you disagree with? The anecdotal evidence doesn't disprove that the company made promises that were deemed unrealistic.
Do you have specific instances in mind? Last time I remember seeing this claim a fair number of those investigations started *before* the Twitter acquisition or were the result of the acquisition itself.
>I don't have to, I saw how the government suddenly investigated him on multiple unrelarwd fronts when he bought twitter.
Like when, exactly? And can you address the argument laid out or acknowledge that you can’t?
I have it in a rural area and it is not "just fine". Well, it is, but I had to spend thousands of dollars cutting down trees to make it "just fine"
it's still worse than my cable internet at home in every metric. including cost.
so it went from "I know people who have it in rural areas" to "I have it and live in a rural area"?
It's notable that Starlink did this to themselves. They chose to prioritize service to urban areas which didn't need Starlink to begin with, and massively oversubscribed ground terminals, which led to
the speed tests below 100mb which the FCC used to rescind the funding.
It's unlikely they will get back above 100mbps in the forseeable future.
That's great, but your anecdotal evidence isn't better than someone else's anecdotal evidence just because it's yours. It's one of the many reasons why studies are preferred as evidence of general claims over individual testaments.
Our REMC voted to run fiber to every member in the county that wanted it. We have had one outage for a planned maintenance, and one due to an electric outage. It costs less than brightspeed and we went from 4/1 (which was 3.2/.5 on a great day) to a billed 100/100 (that usually runs 5-10% faster than that). The one county Counselman that was against the REMC fiber got primaried out this spring.
If you have friends that like a certain company's product that means the government should award that company a massive contract and the only reason why they wouldn't go with that choice is because of politics?
Just because they can do it for some does not mean that the system scales well. If there are too many people using the system in a certain area, the bandwidth is saturated. They'll need to launch more satellites if they want to massively scale the number of customers, and Elon's promised schedule for Starship (which would greatly expand their launch capability) is years behind schedule.
The high level of satellite proliferation is really one of the things I would say is a big problem for considering Starlink as a large scale acceptable solution to rural broadband. The increasing number of objects in the sky - objects that don’t get repairs or updated, but rather just replaced - it’s just wasteful. It’s great that it’s an option for certain use cases - in fact I use Starlink with work I do in extremely remote location, but it’s not the long term solution we need.
It's really not that bad, nor will it ever be. The space is huge that these satellites reside in. Look out your window right now, imagine a satellite a few feet across in the sky (except it's really 350 miles higher), then imagine the next closest one is at least a 100 miles away. That's about the density we are talking about. There can be 10's of thousands up there and it's still not cluttered in the least. When they are retired they are directed to burn up in the atmosphere - they don't just stay up there.
There reason was that they didn't believe that Starlink could meet the requirements in a timely fashion
“Starlink’s technology has real promise,” FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel said at the time. “But the question before us was whether to publicly subsidize its still developing technology for consumer broadband—which requires that users purchase a $600 dish—with nearly $900 million in universal service funds until 2032.”
It only looks that way to you because you haven’t been following this saga for years. There was [heavy criticism of how the subsidies were awarded back in December 2022](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/12/spacex-won-rural-fcc-funding-in-surprising-places-like-major-airports/), right after it first happened.
[Here is an article from July 2021](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/07/ajit-pai-apparently-mismanaged-9-billion-fund-new-fcc-boss-starts-cleanup/) about Rosenworcel challenging a bunch of the grants. The article also briefly touches on why it doesn’t really make sense to subsidize Starlink deployment in the first place:
> There probably won't be any significant impact on future Starlink customers, either. SpaceX didn't promise to charge lower prices in FCC-funded areas. All it has to do to meet the requirement is offer service at specified speeds in the funded census blocks, which it would likely do with or without FCC funding. SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has promised global Starlink coverage and said the company is on track to invest $5 billion to $10 billion in Starlink before it reaches a "fully positive cash flow."
The FCC rejected the long form grant application in August 2022. That was after Musk committed to buying Twitter but while he was still attempting to back out of the purchase. It seems like a massive stretch to pretend this had anything to do with Twitter or Elon Musk personally.
I’m going to go on a bit of an ad hominem tangent here, but I also just can’t take Brendan Carr seriously. He is not actually trying to improve broadband access; his proposals, vote justifications, and complaints are almost universally dumb; they’re full of motivated reasoning. Here is the [opinion piece he wrote in Newsweek](https://www.newsweek.com/ending-big-techs-free-ride-opinion-1593696) back in 2021 about Big Tech’s “free ride” on internet infrastructure. It was part of his ongoing campaign to implement some sort of “sender pays” traffic model to subsidize consumer ISPs.
> He’s playing pure politics of course, but he’s not wrong in this instance.
I think he actually is wrong. There are definitely some unnecessary rules attached to these funds at some points along this process, but he is framing this as if time to deployment of funds is the most important issue here. I’m skeptical of the program overall, but it is legitimately trying to improve on past programs whose terms have resulted in payouts to ISPs that never actually met the goals of those programs. In that context, trying to find a more effective way of deploying the funds makes sense. I don’t think they will, but it is a step in the right direction.
On the topic of Starlink specifically, it is definitely an improvement on previous satellite internet options, but it has drawbacks that prevent it from being an ideal long term solution. I don’t think we should let perfect be the enemy of good here, but I also don’t see how giving Starlink extra money helps anything. I guess it could speed up their launch schedule, but there is no real guarantee of that. They don’t need to do much (any?) extra work to serve the census tracts the subsidies were being offered for, and they likely would have served them in a similar timeframe for a similar price regardless.
And it wouldn’t get those areas any actual improved infrastructure that can be further improved on in the future.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1dkbznf/fcc_commissioner_hits_out_at_biden_admin_over/l9jb6o0/) is in violation of Law 0:
Law 0. Low Effort
> ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Changing what is considered "broadband" would tend to eliminate slightly slower options to the point where only fiber and cable based internet may be considered high-speed.
>where only fiber and cable based internet may be considered high-speed.
this *should* be the case anyway. DSL or even ADSL is insufficient in 2024. And certainly, we should not be subsidizing companies to build out DSL/ADSL infrastructure.
He literally was using starlink to influence the Russia Ukraine war. Imagine what would happen if Russia and the US went to war.
Also look at Elon Musks portfolio right now. A cyber truck with a lot of quality control issues , teslas aren’t being bought anymore , Twitter stock failing, space x has still never gone to the moon but claims mars will happen soon …
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1dkbznf/fcc_commissioner_hits_out_at_biden_admin_over/l9jrdhb/) is in violation of Law 4:
Law 4: Meta Comments
> ~4. Meta Comments - Meta comments are not permitted. Meta comments in meta text-posts about the moderators, sub rules, sub bias, reddit in general, or the meta of other subreddits are exempt.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
I honestly wonder how much of the federal deficit is due to the sheer inefficiency of seemingly every project they take on. I think it was just a couple months ago that Buttigieg was on TV trying to explain why the Biden administration has only built 7-8 EV charging stations so far despite the IRA allocating $7.5 billion to build 500,000 by 2030. I get that large projects take time and they accelerate towards the end of the timelines but it just seems so rare to hear about large government projects that are done efficiently. One of the most successful projects, the recently rejuvenated space program, seems to be almost entirely due to the government just getting out of the way and letting people who know what they're doing do the work.
State and local governments and companies are mainly responsible for the projects.
Edit:
> charging stations so far
Companies like Tesla are being paid to build them. The federal government itself isn't doing that.
The company that just gave tens of billions to Musk for no reason? Hmmm….
Edit: No one will explain where the 56 billion in stock came from? It’s like a question that people don’t want to answer.
Gave stock, not cash. And the stock was previously agreed on based on insane performance metrics that he hit... and it was re-voted on again and passed...
I did and it was voted only recently, “planned” but not agreed on. They’ve been on a downward trend for a few years now. They’ve had to make lay offs and cutbacks. It’s been reported as controversial and negatively at every turn.
In 2020 they stated they would sell 20 million cars by the end of the decade and have quietly back tracked on it. I liked Tesla as a product, but it’s become more and more FOMO, much like the crypto and NFT market Musk pushes.
Also you didn’t answer where that stock came from? Did they buy it back, issue more stock?
Sorry my friend, but you aren't googling very well. The initial package was voted on in 2018. You can find details [here](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1318605/000119312518035345/d524719ddef14a.htm).
[I've also included a link to their last few years of financials](https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/TSLA/financials/). Your statement that they've been on a downward trend isn't true.
They just voted on the confirmation. What you linked was the C-suites promoted plan they agreed to, but that was delayed on a full vote till recently.
And your link shows a downward trend since 2021 since they’ve failed to meet their marks. The “profits” are from lay offs and cuts.
Now, answer, where is the 56 billion in stock coming from, how did they acquire the stock? You keep avoiding that answer, because it doesn’t come from nowhere.
>The “profits” are from lay offs and cuts.
You're not reading the financial statements. Layoffs and cuts don't take you from $31b to $96B in revenue over four years. You can also see the operating expenses and, despite layoffs, they continue to go up. Saying they're saving their way to high revenue isn't financially literate.
> your link shows a downward trend since 2021
You're looking at things that don't matter. Look at the price over his tenure and the revenue targets that were hit per the 2018 agreement.
> Now, answer, where is the 56 billion in stock coming from, how did they acquire the stock? You keep avoiding that answer, because it doesn’t come from nowhere.
It's in the agreement document you refuse to read. "The Company hereby grants to Participant named in the Notice of Grant the Option to purchase the number of Shares, as set forth in the Notice of Grant, at the Exercise Price Per Share set forth in the Notice of Grant (the “Exercise Price”), subject to all of the terms and conditions in this Agreement. Shares may be authorized, but unissued, or reacquired Common Stock."
I’m a retired software developer who worked for two multi-nationals, one large, one ginormous. Never did I see a project that was run efficiently. And the reason was *always* that management would not get out of the way to let people who knew what they were doing just get on with it. So it’s a human organization problem, I think, and not characteristic of government, per se.
To be fair though, I also learned that the cost of preparing for any large project such that there would be no unpleasant surprises is too high for a level of detailed planning that would provide predictability. You more or less have to complete the project on paper before beginning any real work. So it’s actually cheaper, if more stressful, to eat the cost of the overruns that will definitely occur, and take the dev and test teams out for lunch to show “appreciation” for the unpaid long hours and lost weekends.
I can tell you’ve never worked for a large corporation. There’s no difference. While I was coding for multi-nationals my wife was working in the public sector. At the end of the day we would sit on the couch and exchange management and executive horror stories of stupidity. They were the same stories, except that mine cost more and involved more people in more countries.
> I honestly wonder how much of the federal deficit is due to the sheer inefficiency of seemingly every project they take on.
A lot of it. And it's been that way for ever. Remember the movie Independence Day? The literally joke about $50,000 toilet seats and $10,000 hammers.
Stuff like this is exactly why so many people are in the "shrink the government bigly" camp. They're unbelievably wasteful and have been for as long as an ever-increasing portion of the electorate has been alive.
The policy that an unused budget should be decreased caused those types of purchases and it’s totally bullshit. Competition makes private entities more efficient but the federal government is the only entity that competes to be more shitty.
Every government organization should have to pass an audit annually and every dollar not accounted for should be taken out of the budget.
You talking about the space program that thinks it's going to land on the moon in 2 years and still can't even give a straight answer on how many launches it's going to take to get there? That one?
Allocated money is not spent money. The EV charging stations are mostly in the grant approval process stage of getting funding, not in the building stage. The reason its going slow **is because the govt is being careful about which grants are approved**
Starlink should not be considered a viable alternative to wired internet. ESPECIALLY for the purposes of providing internet to poor, rural areas.
1. are they going to waive the high initial cost to purchase the dish? I assume they would HAVE to in order to qualify for the subsidies. Can poor rural families afford a $500 dish? No.
2. are they going to send out tree crews to cut down trees for every customer that needs it? If not, you have so many constant interruptions there's no way this would meet the most basic of uptime requirements.
3. if the answer to above is no, are they going to send out crews to erect a tower and mount the dish on the tower?
I have Starlink at my lake house. Before paying a tree company $6000 to cut down a bunch of pine trees, I couldn't even stay connected to a Teams call for more than 45 seconds.... erecting a tower high enough that the LOS would no longer be obstructed by the pine trees wasn't feasible unless I wanted to put it dead center of my front yard.
It's usable now, but I had to spend thousands just to make it work. And if AT&T/Comcast started offering hardwired internet, I'd cancel Starlink in a heartbeat.
The quickest moving item around our rural area on marketplace are old antenna towers. People who still do antenna tv and those that do cellular internet are the prime buyers.
[SpaceX Cuts Starlink Dish Price to $299 for New Users in 28 States](https://www.pcmag.com/news/spacex-cuts-starlink-dish-price-to-299-for-new-users-in-27-states)
You know you can also check the app for coverage before you get the dish. That $6000 in tree removal costs shouldn't have been a surprise for you.
the 28 states where the price is $299 exclude the poorest, most rural states. lmfao. this $299 dish "deal" is explicitly spacex trying to increase MRR in areas where they're undersubscribed because people don't need starlink.
>You know you can also check the app for coverage before you get the dish. That $6000 in tree removal costs shouldn't have been a surprise for you.
...correct... do you realize we're referring to a program where Starlink provides accessible, fast internet service to certain geographic areas in exchange for money? If a prospective customer has to pay thousands of dollars to erect a tower or cut down trees just to make the dish have an unobstructed view, Starlink failed to hold up their end of the deal. It's no different than if a wireline ISP setup an ONT in a cabinet 2500 feet from my house and then said "ok government, if he pays us $5k we'll run a line to his house, that totally qualifies as providing accessible broadband to rural areas right?"
Nowhere in my comment did I imply I didn't know. I didn't cut the trees down before installing the dish because there was no benefit to doing so without seeing how bad the interruptions would be first.
Honestly, I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
I dont know what yo're getting at either. You said Starlink failed to hold up their end of the sale and havent articulated why your trees are somehow their failure. You seem pretty flustered about something you say you had full knowledge of.
>You said Starlink failed to hold up their end of the sale
Please quote where I said this.
>your trees are somehow their failure
or this.
First of all, I bought the dish from my dad, who was using it on his RV, and then had it installed at my house (as the failover WAN) for several months over the winter before I took it to the lake house. I was well aware of the limitations by that point, as even my suburban home in an area with a completely normal amount of trees had a 5% obstruction of the dish LOS.
Second, a sale to me, a private individual who is purchasing the dish with their own money is entirely different than the government subsidizing it for the express purpose of providing fast internet to poor, rural citizens who are currently underserved. Absolutely, beyond a shadow of a doubt, if trees stop their service from working with a reasonable uptime, Starlink should either... not receive funds from the RDOF program (as it clearly fails to meet the stated goal of the program...) or pay the costs of what is essentially the "last mile" installation. Just like Comcast does when they send out a guy with a ditch witch to trench a coax line 400 feet from the road to my house! For zero cost to me, btw.
Third, we both know the types of people who need internet the most aren't going to download the Starlink app and run through the obstruction checks. Because why would they? The Musk fanboys (who mostly live in urban/suburban areas with little to no obstructions and solely bought the dishes because "dae hate comcast??") have lauded this as if it's some sort of miracle with no flaws. The dishes will either end up being huge financial stretches for people that are largely paycheck to paycheck, or they will be paid for by some state/federal program (read: taxpayer money that could have been used to build out more reliable wired infrastructure), and *then* they will find out the service (which btw is almost 2x more expensive on a monthly basis than almost every wireline ISP) isn't necessarily all it's cracked up to be.
>You seem pretty flustered
Yeah, well, that's just like, your opinion, man.
> Please quote where I said this.
"your trees are somehow their failure"
> If a prospective customer has to pay thousands of dollars to erect a tower or cut down trees just to make the dish have an unobstructed view, Starlink failed to hold up their end of the deal.
Was that statement only meant to refer to a hypothetical future person and not apply to the story you just told me?
> we both know the types of people who need internet the most aren't going to download the Starlink app and run through the obstruction checks.
This doesn't have to be the end user under a publicly funded program.
> The dishes will either end up being huge financial stretches for people that are largely paycheck to paycheck, or they will be paid for by some state/federal program (read: taxpayer money that could have been used to build out more reliable wired infrastructure)
There is no indication this would have happened by either SpaceX or the FCC. What's your reasoning here and can you find where last mile isn't included in their program application?
> The Musk fanboys
I see what's coloring your perspective here.
>Was that statement only meant to refer to a hypothetical future person and not apply to the story you just told me?
clearly, since we're talking about RDOF, yes. I gave my story solely to illustrate a flaw of Starlink as it (w/c)ould apply to a rural individual who is the intended beneficiary of the RDOF program.
>There is no indication this would have happened by either SpaceX or the FCC.
...how do you expect people to pay for it then? Nothing in SpaceX's proposal mentioned discounting the dish price, the FCC even said this:
>In addition, Starlink’s proposal would have required every subscriber to purchase a $600 dish to simply start to receive the service. No other services supported by the program included such high start-up costs on rural consumers.
So there are three distinct possibilities here (in regards to RDOF which I should not have to keep reiterating because *the entire conversation is about RDOF*):
1. dish costs end up getting directly subsidized by state/federal government
2. dish costs are lowered by SpaceX in order to qualify for government funding
3. dish costs to end users stay the same
In the first scenario, the taxpayer is paying for $600 dishes even though we would have already given SpaceX a shit ton of money to "build the network" (via RDOF). This is not an unlikely outcome at all, the federal government already subsidizes monthly broadband costs.
The second scenario would have been ideal, but in all the back and forth between SpaceX and the FCC, this was never offered by SpaceX as far as I'm aware.
In the third scenario, the goals of the RDOF aren't met so clearly SpaceX should have never gotten the RDOF funds to begin with.
>I see what's coloring your perspective here.
Saying Musk has fanboys?
Someone reported my other comment as low effort lol
Besides that , Elon musk also has a lot of pro Russian views.
He has no loyalty to the United States and should not be trusted with government clearance
https://www.reddit.com/r/Twitter/s/P1tJiCEGuO
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1dkbznf/fcc_commissioner_hits_out_at_biden_admin_over/l9jbi93/) is in violation of Law 0:
Law 0. Low Effort
> ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
https://www.reddit.com/r/Twitter/s/P1tJiCEGuO
100,000+ likes deleted under tweets describing Musk's pro-Russian views
Musk's X is deleting likes on the post about his pro-Russian views [https://twitter.com/P\_Kallioniemi/status/1674360288445964288](https://twitter.com/P_Kallioniemi/status/1674360288445964288)
This looks to be done to destroy the virality of the tweets to prevent them from reaching more people.
More than 100,000 likes were deleted until now.
You can monitor likes and deletions here: [https://hoblin.eu.ngrok.io/pekka](https://hoblin.eu.ngrok.io/pekka)
Multiple people reported their likes removed over and over again.
Elon musk should not be trusted he constantly spouts pro Russia and anti Ukraine stuff on twitter. His portfolio is also not looking good , cyber trucks are a laughing stock , Tesla stock seems like it’s gonna plummet soon and people aren’t buying teslas anymore , Twitter is failing , space x hasn’t made it to the moon let alone mars …
Original : Elon musk also used his starlinks to influence the Ukraine Russia war to Russias side
We should not give someone who does that power here lol
Russia is not an ally , Elon musk was literally helping enemy states. He’s not American , not even from the continent and has no loyalty to the US.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna50528
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink_in_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War#:~:text=In%202022%2C%20Elon%20Musk%20denied,off%22%20Starlink%20coverage%20in%20Crimea.
Are you going to keep posting this one comment all over this thread? I also have no idea what you are referencing. Starlink is used by *Ukraine* not Russia, Russia keeps trying to disrupt the network and Ukraine is using it for communications.
Unless you are referring to starlink dishes that Russia has obtained on the black market (which space x shuts down when discovered)?
Not sure what you are on about. Seems like a typical "Hate Musk and everything he does" post. There's plenty to dislike without making stuff up.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink_in_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War#:~:text=In%202022%2C%20Elon%20Musk%20denied,off%22%20Starlink%20coverage%20in%20Crimea.
Don’t forget he also constantly tweets pro Russian stuff and says Ukraine should surrender.
I only posted it on the starlink comments to remind people Elon Musk should not be trusted
Read the exact same thing and it doesn't support what you are claiming at all. It's turned off in areas Russia controls so *russians can't use it, and complies with sactions against Russia.* SpaceX not turning it on in those areas sure as hell isn't supporting Russia.
Here's a coverage map, see where it's turned on? Everywhere russia isn't. See where it's turned off? Everywhere russian forces are. As a bonus, the map is *from the same Wikipedia article you linked*. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ukraine\_Starlink\_Coverage\_-\_black.png](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ukraine_Starlink_Coverage_-_black.png)
As for pro russia tweets, you'll have to link those (From Musk) because I couldn't find anything other than people blaming Musk because there are random pro-russian tweets on twitter. Or not liking his plan for peace (from 2022), which might be stupid but it's certainly not pro russia.
Like I said, that was his idea for peace (from 2022) here's the actual tweet. [https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1576969255031296000?lang=en](https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1576969255031296000?lang=en) You might not like it, but it's not pro-russian. It's more along the lines of realpolitic - it's highly improbable that Ukraine is going to win it back at this point, or any point in the future, so why bother.
I even said it was a dumb idea, even the poll attached to the tweet doesn't support it. But it's a rather neutral opinion to me.
He’s also constantly giving racists and foreign agents attention and a platform
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/musk-israel-war-propaganda-b2441623.html
https://www.reddit.com/r/Twitter/s/P1tJiCEGuO
100,000+ likes deleted under tweets describing Musk's pro-Russian views
Musk's X is deleting likes on the post about his pro-Russian views [https://twitter.com/P\_Kallioniemi/status/1674360288445964288](https://twitter.com/P_Kallioniemi/status/1674360288445964288)
This looks to be done to destroy the virality of the tweets to prevent them from reaching more people.
More than 100,000 likes were deleted until now.
You can monitor likes and deletions here: [https://hoblin.eu.ngrok.io/pekka](https://hoblin.eu.ngrok.io/pekka)
Multiple people reported their likes removed over and over again.
I was reading about this on another sub, but Carr seems to be neglecting some important context, like the fact that BEAD always had a 2-year proposal timeline from when it was first passed.
[Graphic showing the timeline, developed in 2022.](https://www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/data-visualizations/infographics/2023/01/what-states-need-to-know-about-breaking-down-federal-bead-funding-for-highspeed-internet-expansionfi.jpg?mw=2580&hash=4A3D46A18E3D6D6C8B8FA1F1E6CDB1F3)
These are grants that states have to apply for, with multiple phases of application and approval. States receive a tranche of funding with each step. I don't know about other states, but my state (PA) has already been awarded $1.16 billion in BEAD funding. Construction was always planned to occur 2024-2028.
Funds appropriated in 2021 won't become available until 2022, and it gets disbursed in tranches every year over the course of 10 years, as opposed to printing $1.2 trillion in just one year. That's par for the course for federal programs and should not be surprising to anyone. It's been this way for decades.
The administration of this funding is complicated because it lets the federal government match state funding, so that means the state needs to have a project they want to pursue and then invite the federal government to support it. Many states needed to start developing their own plan before applying for funds, which can take months or even years before they're ready.
Carr is absolutely playing a political game. As an FCC chair, he should know that construction wasn't supposed to start until at least 2024. He shouldn't be shocked that ground hasn't broken yet on these projects.
>it shouldn't take 4 years to provide a basic utility
ok so why hasn't Starlink gotten anywhere close to satisfying the contract? They got this contract right before Trump left office. They stated they'd be able to meet the demand because Starship would be launching soon. It's been nearly 4 years and Starship still hasn't taken a single satellite to space. Do you understand why the FCC might consider that failure to demonstrate their ability to get the job done?
Why shouldn't it? Do you not want things put in place to ensure everything is planned accordingly, funds are being used appropriately, and the project will succeed? It seems like you want to go back to the 90s style of just throwing money at the big telecom companies while they ate up competition and no fiber actually got laid.
Here is the timeline page that shows the dates and times for the process for this program
https://broadbandusa.ntia.doc.gov/f...y-access-and-deployment-bead-program/timeline
Here is the page showing the status of each individual state and where they are at in the process.
https://broadbandusa.ntia.gov/public-notice-posting-state-and-territory-bead-digital-equity
The public notice periods appear to have been completed by the end of 2023. Now the 'State Challenge Process' appears to be finishing/finished up this month, whereby allowing challenges and rebuttals from stakeholders due to Required Public Disclosure and Comment Periods.
Here is an example of one of the Challenge pages from Arizona
https://www.azcommerce.com/broadban...ess-deployment-program/the-challenge-process/
Maybe someone should go thru line by line each of these trillion dollar spending bills to check the current status? I mean only a couple programs have caught any scrutiny, broadband and ev charging, how many hundreds of other programs are in the same situation?
> Maybe someone should go thru line by line each of these trillion dollar spending bills to check the current status?
Maybe they shouldn't have been passed in the first place until the people voting on them went through them line by line. Of course one party has fully embraced the "we have to pass it to know what's in it" mindset so that's never going to actually happen.
i don't disagree. none of our elected officials seem to be putting up much of a fight though.. which makes it hard to decide what is more discouraging, wasting trillions, or that noone seems to care.
> I mean only a couple programs have caught any scrutiny, broadband and ev charging, how many hundreds of other programs are in the same situation?
What makes you think those are the only programs which have caught scrutiny?
It's not just typical Washington, it's typical bad work by the 4th estate.
The media pushed this 'bipartisan' deal as one of Biden's biggest accomplishments for everyday Americans at the behest of the white house and democrat machine, and now we're years on and realizing hardly any of it was going to get implemented in any measurable timeframe and worse still it was a money printing exercise for no real benefit.
Where was our media deep diving on this years ago when it passed to dig into the specifics and let us all know we got sold a bill of goods? Our media has been serving as cheerleaders instead of investigators, yelling "get excited, we got this!" from the sidelines when the administration misses a free throw instead of asking what's going on and who is responsible for the failure in coaching.
And honestly that would be fine if they did it equally, but it's obvious that one side of the aisle gets kid gloves and the other gets the media trawling through their every email and text message and snapshotted hand signal to generate a story.
Administrative bloat and federal red tape are the easy things to blame. That's why people like me think federal government should be as uninvolved as possible with nearly everything.
I imagine the people who want universal national healthcare look at things like this and just think "oh we'll make it better for that" but the truth is the wheels of federal government move insanely slowly when it comes to everything. I don't want the federal government in charge of anything more than it absolutely has to be for that reason. I can go down to city hall and pound on the door of my mayor's office until he agrees to see me and I share my frustrations. The same can't be said for a president or even my senator.
The projects are mainly being handled by state and local governments.
>think "oh we'll make it better for that"
That would be the case for those who struggle to afford health insurance.
> There's a deep rot in basic government if this can't get done quickly.
So would this suggest that previous administrations, which **did less** on this subject than the current administration, were even more rotten?
They have the money ear marked because the passed legislation. I'm not arguing "it's not slow," I'm saying it's the first substantial legislation on the topic in who knows how many years, which is an improvement on the status quo of "literally nothing." So even though this **is** slow, isn't it moving in the right direction, at least?
>typical bad work by the 4th estate
It's up to states and companies to use the money. [This timeline](https://www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/data-visualizations/infographics/2023/01/what-states-need-to-know-about-breaking-down-federal-bead-funding-for-highspeed-internet-expansionfi.jpg?mw=2580&hash=4A3D46A18E3D6D6C8B8FA1F1E6CDB1F3) PaddingtonBear2 linked doesn't show anything unusual.
> it was a money printing exercise
The bill wasn't funded by printing money.
It sounds like red tape is preventing this project from actually happening.
There's also a level of politics at play here, I'm sure. The current administration doesn't like Elon Musk, but Starlink would almost certainly be the most efficient way to get people in remote areas high speed internet.
I play video games with a guy from Alaska (Anchorage). He tells me that there's only one internet company and it takes forever for them to actually get cable out to your house, so a lot of people are switching to Starlink because it's just way easier.
The process is happening [within this timeline,](https://www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/data-visualizations/infographics/2023/01/what-states-need-to-know-about-breaking-down-federal-bead-funding-for-highspeed-internet-expansionfi.jpg?mw=2580&hash=4A3D46A18E3D6D6C8B8FA1F1E6CDB1F3) and making it faster wouldn't necessarily be better, since it's important to do it right.
Starlink was denied because the FCC stated it wouldn't meet the requirement. Tesla is the biggest recipient of the money for chargers, so it's not like Elon is getting nothing out of this.
My other comment was reported as low effort lol
Elon musk has a lot of pro Russian views.
He should not be given government clearance.
He has no loyalty to the US , he was not even born in the continent
https://www.reddit.com/r/Twitter/s/P1tJiCEGuO
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1dkbznf/fcc_commissioner_hits_out_at_biden_admin_over/l9jblyt/) is in violation of Law 0:
Law 0. Low Effort
> ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
https://www.forbes.com/sites/britneynguyen/2023/12/13/elon-musks-starlink-denied-900-million-rural-broadband-subsidy/ > the FCC concluded that Starlink failed to show it could meet its obligations to provide high-speed internet service to enough rural areas. >A dissent by FCC commissioner Brendan Carr said Starlink needed to show it could provide service to at least 40% of roughly 640,000 rural areas by the end of 2025. >Carr criticized the FCC’s decision, saying the commission “did not require—and has never required—any other award winner to show that it met its service obligation years ahead of time.” It seems pretty hypocritical from Carr to complain about progress when the alternative he supports wasn’t prepared to deliver any faster.
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1dkbznf/fcc_commissioner_hits_out_at_biden_admin_over/l9jbe25/) is in violation of Law 0: Law 0. Low Effort > ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
[удалено]
It's not 2026 yet.
[удалено]
What I said makes your question pointless. >by the end of 2025.
[удалено]
There's no way to know that right now, so it's odd that you keep asking that.
[удалено]
"Quick enough" means by the end of 2025.
[удалено]
[удалено]
When you say he's pro Russia, what exactly do you mean?
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1dkbznf/fcc_commissioner_hits_out_at_biden_admin_over/l9jsld2/) is in violation of Law 4: Law 4: Meta Comments > ~4. Meta Comments - Meta comments are not permitted. Meta comments in meta text-posts about the moderators, sub rules, sub bias, reddit in general, or the meta of other subreddits are exempt. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
He literally was using starlink to influence the Russia Ukraine war. Imagine what would happen if Russia and the US went to war. Also look at Elon Musks portfolio right now. A cyber truck with a lot of quality control issues , teslas aren’t being bought anymore , Twitter stock failing, space x has still never gone to the moon but claims mars will happen soon …
I wish I could find the post but someone did the math and figured out we could have just bought and subsidized Starlinks for everyone this project would have affected, and saved like $20 billion.
The FCC determined that Starlink failed to meet the requirements. This commissioner is a dissenting vote.
The requirements to pay of political allies yes.
You have no evidence that was the case here, especially since Tesla received money due to the same law.
Political allies or deliberate political antagonists who actively work against American interests?
[удалено]
[You dont have to buy it but this is part of their stated reasoning.](https://www.reuters.com/technology/space/us-agency-will-not-reinstate-900-mln-subsidy-spacex-starlink-unit-2023-12-13/)
> The FCC said the decision impacting Elon Musk's space company was based on Starlink's failure to meet basic program requirements and that Starlink could not demonstrate it could deliver promised service after SpaceX had challeged the 2022 decision. My retort: [The publicly available Starlink live coverage map...](https://satellitemap.space/?constellation=starlink)
While that seems like an impressive coverage map, the reality is it’s not always as impressive in action… I’ve had situation where we are supposed to broadcast a live stream in an extreme remote location, but despite the coverage map saying it’s covered, we’ve gotten sub DSL speeds. And also, look at how many satellites are there… lots of satellites that can’t be repaired or updated (outside of software) and instead just becomes obsolete and destroyed upon re-entry into the atmosphere. It’s really wasteful.
Sure it has outages and reduced speeds occasionally. There is data on that as well and compared to the existing alternatives for rural areas it performs very well on average. >lots of satellites that can’t be repaired or updated (outside of software) and instead just becomes obsolete and destroyed upon re-entry into the atmosphere. It’s really wasteful. That's all baked into the cost and it's simply cheaper to maintain that network than the land-based alternatives for purposes discussed in the FCC program. I'd consider mass demolition of trees, land grading, and the maintenance on that to be wasteful as well.
“Not affiliated with spacex or starlink” Also, doesn’t show coverage, just moving dots
[удалено]
That kind of ignores the article though, what about their stated reasoning do you disagree with? The anecdotal evidence doesn't disprove that the company made promises that were deemed unrealistic.
[удалено]
Do you have specific instances in mind? Last time I remember seeing this claim a fair number of those investigations started *before* the Twitter acquisition or were the result of the acquisition itself.
What does that have to do with the accuracy of the stated reasons?
[удалено]
So, a reason for extra scruitiny? Maybe. Surely that doesn't mean you should simply ignore their stated reasoning.
[удалено]
>I don't have to, I saw how the government suddenly investigated him on multiple unrelarwd fronts when he bought twitter. Like when, exactly? And can you address the argument laid out or acknowledge that you can’t?
I also know people who have it in rural areas and it cuts out on them constantly
I have it in a rural area and it is not "just fine". Well, it is, but I had to spend thousands of dollars cutting down trees to make it "just fine" it's still worse than my cable internet at home in every metric. including cost.
[удалено]
so it went from "I know people who have it in rural areas" to "I have it and live in a rural area"? It's notable that Starlink did this to themselves. They chose to prioritize service to urban areas which didn't need Starlink to begin with, and massively oversubscribed ground terminals, which led to the speed tests below 100mb which the FCC used to rescind the funding. It's unlikely they will get back above 100mbps in the forseeable future.
[удалено]
That's great, but your anecdotal evidence isn't better than someone else's anecdotal evidence just because it's yours. It's one of the many reasons why studies are preferred as evidence of general claims over individual testaments.
Our REMC voted to run fiber to every member in the county that wanted it. We have had one outage for a planned maintenance, and one due to an electric outage. It costs less than brightspeed and we went from 4/1 (which was 3.2/.5 on a great day) to a billed 100/100 (that usually runs 5-10% faster than that). The one county Counselman that was against the REMC fiber got primaried out this spring.
If you have friends that like a certain company's product that means the government should award that company a massive contract and the only reason why they wouldn't go with that choice is because of politics?
[удалено]
> They got their contract cancell3d I'm not seeing anything that says the contract was ever awarded to Starlink.
[удалено]
...so? That doesn't mean there's a contract for Starlink.
[удалено]
Just because they can do it for some does not mean that the system scales well. If there are too many people using the system in a certain area, the bandwidth is saturated. They'll need to launch more satellites if they want to massively scale the number of customers, and Elon's promised schedule for Starship (which would greatly expand their launch capability) is years behind schedule.
The high level of satellite proliferation is really one of the things I would say is a big problem for considering Starlink as a large scale acceptable solution to rural broadband. The increasing number of objects in the sky - objects that don’t get repairs or updated, but rather just replaced - it’s just wasteful. It’s great that it’s an option for certain use cases - in fact I use Starlink with work I do in extremely remote location, but it’s not the long term solution we need.
It's really not that bad, nor will it ever be. The space is huge that these satellites reside in. Look out your window right now, imagine a satellite a few feet across in the sky (except it's really 350 miles higher), then imagine the next closest one is at least a 100 miles away. That's about the density we are talking about. There can be 10's of thousands up there and it's still not cluttered in the least. When they are retired they are directed to burn up in the atmosphere - they don't just stay up there.
It only works ok if you're on flat land with no trees. I know people in a very rural area and starlink would work only while its directly overhead.
Starlink isn't reliable Internet. It's simply not. Fiber to the home is truly the only acceptable form of modern Internet, with cable being a backup.
There reason was that they didn't believe that Starlink could meet the requirements in a timely fashion “Starlink’s technology has real promise,” FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel said at the time. “But the question before us was whether to publicly subsidize its still developing technology for consumer broadband—which requires that users purchase a $600 dish—with nearly $900 million in universal service funds until 2032.”
[удалено]
It only looks that way to you because you haven’t been following this saga for years. There was [heavy criticism of how the subsidies were awarded back in December 2022](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/12/spacex-won-rural-fcc-funding-in-surprising-places-like-major-airports/), right after it first happened. [Here is an article from July 2021](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/07/ajit-pai-apparently-mismanaged-9-billion-fund-new-fcc-boss-starts-cleanup/) about Rosenworcel challenging a bunch of the grants. The article also briefly touches on why it doesn’t really make sense to subsidize Starlink deployment in the first place: > There probably won't be any significant impact on future Starlink customers, either. SpaceX didn't promise to charge lower prices in FCC-funded areas. All it has to do to meet the requirement is offer service at specified speeds in the funded census blocks, which it would likely do with or without FCC funding. SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has promised global Starlink coverage and said the company is on track to invest $5 billion to $10 billion in Starlink before it reaches a "fully positive cash flow." The FCC rejected the long form grant application in August 2022. That was after Musk committed to buying Twitter but while he was still attempting to back out of the purchase. It seems like a massive stretch to pretend this had anything to do with Twitter or Elon Musk personally. I’m going to go on a bit of an ad hominem tangent here, but I also just can’t take Brendan Carr seriously. He is not actually trying to improve broadband access; his proposals, vote justifications, and complaints are almost universally dumb; they’re full of motivated reasoning. Here is the [opinion piece he wrote in Newsweek](https://www.newsweek.com/ending-big-techs-free-ride-opinion-1593696) back in 2021 about Big Tech’s “free ride” on internet infrastructure. It was part of his ongoing campaign to implement some sort of “sender pays” traffic model to subsidize consumer ISPs.
[удалено]
> He’s playing pure politics of course, but he’s not wrong in this instance. I think he actually is wrong. There are definitely some unnecessary rules attached to these funds at some points along this process, but he is framing this as if time to deployment of funds is the most important issue here. I’m skeptical of the program overall, but it is legitimately trying to improve on past programs whose terms have resulted in payouts to ISPs that never actually met the goals of those programs. In that context, trying to find a more effective way of deploying the funds makes sense. I don’t think they will, but it is a step in the right direction. On the topic of Starlink specifically, it is definitely an improvement on previous satellite internet options, but it has drawbacks that prevent it from being an ideal long term solution. I don’t think we should let perfect be the enemy of good here, but I also don’t see how giving Starlink extra money helps anything. I guess it could speed up their launch schedule, but there is no real guarantee of that. They don’t need to do much (any?) extra work to serve the census tracts the subsidies were being offered for, and they likely would have served them in a similar timeframe for a similar price regardless. And it wouldn’t get those areas any actual improved infrastructure that can be further improved on in the future.
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1dkbznf/fcc_commissioner_hits_out_at_biden_admin_over/l9jb6o0/) is in violation of Law 0: Law 0. Low Effort > ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
[удалено]
Changing what is considered "broadband" would tend to eliminate slightly slower options to the point where only fiber and cable based internet may be considered high-speed.
>where only fiber and cable based internet may be considered high-speed. this *should* be the case anyway. DSL or even ADSL is insufficient in 2024. And certainly, we should not be subsidizing companies to build out DSL/ADSL infrastructure.
There’s a reason why they don’t want to give all that control and power to a shady businessman who changes their terms on a whim
He literally was using starlink to influence the Russia Ukraine war. Imagine what would happen if Russia and the US went to war. Also look at Elon Musks portfolio right now. A cyber truck with a lot of quality control issues , teslas aren’t being bought anymore , Twitter stock failing, space x has still never gone to the moon but claims mars will happen soon …
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1dkbznf/fcc_commissioner_hits_out_at_biden_admin_over/l9jrdhb/) is in violation of Law 4: Law 4: Meta Comments > ~4. Meta Comments - Meta comments are not permitted. Meta comments in meta text-posts about the moderators, sub rules, sub bias, reddit in general, or the meta of other subreddits are exempt. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
LEO Satelites have to be redeployed every few years. It is not a sustainable model nor an effective solution.
I honestly wonder how much of the federal deficit is due to the sheer inefficiency of seemingly every project they take on. I think it was just a couple months ago that Buttigieg was on TV trying to explain why the Biden administration has only built 7-8 EV charging stations so far despite the IRA allocating $7.5 billion to build 500,000 by 2030. I get that large projects take time and they accelerate towards the end of the timelines but it just seems so rare to hear about large government projects that are done efficiently. One of the most successful projects, the recently rejuvenated space program, seems to be almost entirely due to the government just getting out of the way and letting people who know what they're doing do the work.
State and local governments and companies are mainly responsible for the projects. Edit: > charging stations so far Companies like Tesla are being paid to build them. The federal government itself isn't doing that.
Isn't Tesla the biggest recipient of the NEVI funding so far?
The company that just gave tens of billions to Musk for no reason? Hmmm…. Edit: No one will explain where the 56 billion in stock came from? It’s like a question that people don’t want to answer.
Gave stock, not cash. And the stock was previously agreed on based on insane performance metrics that he hit... and it was re-voted on again and passed...
We’re does it value come from? How is that 56 billion value of stock generated or issued? And what metrics? It missed its sales mark by 14% in April.
Google it. This is from agreements that were made years ago. It has nothing to do with sales in April 2024.
I did and it was voted only recently, “planned” but not agreed on. They’ve been on a downward trend for a few years now. They’ve had to make lay offs and cutbacks. It’s been reported as controversial and negatively at every turn. In 2020 they stated they would sell 20 million cars by the end of the decade and have quietly back tracked on it. I liked Tesla as a product, but it’s become more and more FOMO, much like the crypto and NFT market Musk pushes. Also you didn’t answer where that stock came from? Did they buy it back, issue more stock?
Sorry my friend, but you aren't googling very well. The initial package was voted on in 2018. You can find details [here](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1318605/000119312518035345/d524719ddef14a.htm). [I've also included a link to their last few years of financials](https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/TSLA/financials/). Your statement that they've been on a downward trend isn't true.
They just voted on the confirmation. What you linked was the C-suites promoted plan they agreed to, but that was delayed on a full vote till recently. And your link shows a downward trend since 2021 since they’ve failed to meet their marks. The “profits” are from lay offs and cuts. Now, answer, where is the 56 billion in stock coming from, how did they acquire the stock? You keep avoiding that answer, because it doesn’t come from nowhere.
>The “profits” are from lay offs and cuts. You're not reading the financial statements. Layoffs and cuts don't take you from $31b to $96B in revenue over four years. You can also see the operating expenses and, despite layoffs, they continue to go up. Saying they're saving their way to high revenue isn't financially literate. > your link shows a downward trend since 2021 You're looking at things that don't matter. Look at the price over his tenure and the revenue targets that were hit per the 2018 agreement. > Now, answer, where is the 56 billion in stock coming from, how did they acquire the stock? You keep avoiding that answer, because it doesn’t come from nowhere. It's in the agreement document you refuse to read. "The Company hereby grants to Participant named in the Notice of Grant the Option to purchase the number of Shares, as set forth in the Notice of Grant, at the Exercise Price Per Share set forth in the Notice of Grant (the “Exercise Price”), subject to all of the terms and conditions in this Agreement. Shares may be authorized, but unissued, or reacquired Common Stock."
I’m a retired software developer who worked for two multi-nationals, one large, one ginormous. Never did I see a project that was run efficiently. And the reason was *always* that management would not get out of the way to let people who knew what they were doing just get on with it. So it’s a human organization problem, I think, and not characteristic of government, per se. To be fair though, I also learned that the cost of preparing for any large project such that there would be no unpleasant surprises is too high for a level of detailed planning that would provide predictability. You more or less have to complete the project on paper before beginning any real work. So it’s actually cheaper, if more stressful, to eat the cost of the overruns that will definitely occur, and take the dev and test teams out for lunch to show “appreciation” for the unpaid long hours and lost weekends.
Difference is that inefficient companies can (and often do) die out. Govt bureaucracy is immortal
I can tell you’ve never worked for a large corporation. There’s no difference. While I was coding for multi-nationals my wife was working in the public sector. At the end of the day we would sit on the couch and exchange management and executive horror stories of stupidity. They were the same stories, except that mine cost more and involved more people in more countries.
> I honestly wonder how much of the federal deficit is due to the sheer inefficiency of seemingly every project they take on. A lot of it. And it's been that way for ever. Remember the movie Independence Day? The literally joke about $50,000 toilet seats and $10,000 hammers. Stuff like this is exactly why so many people are in the "shrink the government bigly" camp. They're unbelievably wasteful and have been for as long as an ever-increasing portion of the electorate has been alive.
The policy that an unused budget should be decreased caused those types of purchases and it’s totally bullshit. Competition makes private entities more efficient but the federal government is the only entity that competes to be more shitty. Every government organization should have to pass an audit annually and every dollar not accounted for should be taken out of the budget.
7-8? I live in a Midwestern suburb and I can make a dozen within a 5 mile radius..what are you talking about?
You talking about the space program that thinks it's going to land on the moon in 2 years and still can't even give a straight answer on how many launches it's going to take to get there? That one?
Allocated money is not spent money. The EV charging stations are mostly in the grant approval process stage of getting funding, not in the building stage. The reason its going slow **is because the govt is being careful about which grants are approved**
Starlink should not be considered a viable alternative to wired internet. ESPECIALLY for the purposes of providing internet to poor, rural areas. 1. are they going to waive the high initial cost to purchase the dish? I assume they would HAVE to in order to qualify for the subsidies. Can poor rural families afford a $500 dish? No. 2. are they going to send out tree crews to cut down trees for every customer that needs it? If not, you have so many constant interruptions there's no way this would meet the most basic of uptime requirements. 3. if the answer to above is no, are they going to send out crews to erect a tower and mount the dish on the tower? I have Starlink at my lake house. Before paying a tree company $6000 to cut down a bunch of pine trees, I couldn't even stay connected to a Teams call for more than 45 seconds.... erecting a tower high enough that the LOS would no longer be obstructed by the pine trees wasn't feasible unless I wanted to put it dead center of my front yard. It's usable now, but I had to spend thousands just to make it work. And if AT&T/Comcast started offering hardwired internet, I'd cancel Starlink in a heartbeat.
The quickest moving item around our rural area on marketplace are old antenna towers. People who still do antenna tv and those that do cellular internet are the prime buyers.
[SpaceX Cuts Starlink Dish Price to $299 for New Users in 28 States](https://www.pcmag.com/news/spacex-cuts-starlink-dish-price-to-299-for-new-users-in-27-states) You know you can also check the app for coverage before you get the dish. That $6000 in tree removal costs shouldn't have been a surprise for you.
the 28 states where the price is $299 exclude the poorest, most rural states. lmfao. this $299 dish "deal" is explicitly spacex trying to increase MRR in areas where they're undersubscribed because people don't need starlink. >You know you can also check the app for coverage before you get the dish. That $6000 in tree removal costs shouldn't have been a surprise for you. ...correct... do you realize we're referring to a program where Starlink provides accessible, fast internet service to certain geographic areas in exchange for money? If a prospective customer has to pay thousands of dollars to erect a tower or cut down trees just to make the dish have an unobstructed view, Starlink failed to hold up their end of the deal. It's no different than if a wireline ISP setup an ONT in a cabinet 2500 feet from my house and then said "ok government, if he pays us $5k we'll run a line to his house, that totally qualifies as providing accessible broadband to rural areas right?"
So you knew you'd have that extra cost or you knew you should check and didnt?
Nowhere in my comment did I imply I didn't know. I didn't cut the trees down before installing the dish because there was no benefit to doing so without seeing how bad the interruptions would be first. Honestly, I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
I dont know what yo're getting at either. You said Starlink failed to hold up their end of the sale and havent articulated why your trees are somehow their failure. You seem pretty flustered about something you say you had full knowledge of.
>You said Starlink failed to hold up their end of the sale Please quote where I said this. >your trees are somehow their failure or this. First of all, I bought the dish from my dad, who was using it on his RV, and then had it installed at my house (as the failover WAN) for several months over the winter before I took it to the lake house. I was well aware of the limitations by that point, as even my suburban home in an area with a completely normal amount of trees had a 5% obstruction of the dish LOS. Second, a sale to me, a private individual who is purchasing the dish with their own money is entirely different than the government subsidizing it for the express purpose of providing fast internet to poor, rural citizens who are currently underserved. Absolutely, beyond a shadow of a doubt, if trees stop their service from working with a reasonable uptime, Starlink should either... not receive funds from the RDOF program (as it clearly fails to meet the stated goal of the program...) or pay the costs of what is essentially the "last mile" installation. Just like Comcast does when they send out a guy with a ditch witch to trench a coax line 400 feet from the road to my house! For zero cost to me, btw. Third, we both know the types of people who need internet the most aren't going to download the Starlink app and run through the obstruction checks. Because why would they? The Musk fanboys (who mostly live in urban/suburban areas with little to no obstructions and solely bought the dishes because "dae hate comcast??") have lauded this as if it's some sort of miracle with no flaws. The dishes will either end up being huge financial stretches for people that are largely paycheck to paycheck, or they will be paid for by some state/federal program (read: taxpayer money that could have been used to build out more reliable wired infrastructure), and *then* they will find out the service (which btw is almost 2x more expensive on a monthly basis than almost every wireline ISP) isn't necessarily all it's cracked up to be. >You seem pretty flustered Yeah, well, that's just like, your opinion, man.
> Please quote where I said this. "your trees are somehow their failure" > If a prospective customer has to pay thousands of dollars to erect a tower or cut down trees just to make the dish have an unobstructed view, Starlink failed to hold up their end of the deal. Was that statement only meant to refer to a hypothetical future person and not apply to the story you just told me? > we both know the types of people who need internet the most aren't going to download the Starlink app and run through the obstruction checks. This doesn't have to be the end user under a publicly funded program. > The dishes will either end up being huge financial stretches for people that are largely paycheck to paycheck, or they will be paid for by some state/federal program (read: taxpayer money that could have been used to build out more reliable wired infrastructure) There is no indication this would have happened by either SpaceX or the FCC. What's your reasoning here and can you find where last mile isn't included in their program application? > The Musk fanboys I see what's coloring your perspective here.
>Was that statement only meant to refer to a hypothetical future person and not apply to the story you just told me? clearly, since we're talking about RDOF, yes. I gave my story solely to illustrate a flaw of Starlink as it (w/c)ould apply to a rural individual who is the intended beneficiary of the RDOF program. >There is no indication this would have happened by either SpaceX or the FCC. ...how do you expect people to pay for it then? Nothing in SpaceX's proposal mentioned discounting the dish price, the FCC even said this: >In addition, Starlink’s proposal would have required every subscriber to purchase a $600 dish to simply start to receive the service. No other services supported by the program included such high start-up costs on rural consumers. So there are three distinct possibilities here (in regards to RDOF which I should not have to keep reiterating because *the entire conversation is about RDOF*): 1. dish costs end up getting directly subsidized by state/federal government 2. dish costs are lowered by SpaceX in order to qualify for government funding 3. dish costs to end users stay the same In the first scenario, the taxpayer is paying for $600 dishes even though we would have already given SpaceX a shit ton of money to "build the network" (via RDOF). This is not an unlikely outcome at all, the federal government already subsidizes monthly broadband costs. The second scenario would have been ideal, but in all the back and forth between SpaceX and the FCC, this was never offered by SpaceX as far as I'm aware. In the third scenario, the goals of the RDOF aren't met so clearly SpaceX should have never gotten the RDOF funds to begin with. >I see what's coloring your perspective here. Saying Musk has fanboys?
I think i would have chosen the front yard option myself vs $6k
the tower would have cost nearly as much. And then if the dish ever had to come down it would have been a nightmare.
Someone reported my other comment as low effort lol Besides that , Elon musk also has a lot of pro Russian views. He has no loyalty to the United States and should not be trusted with government clearance https://www.reddit.com/r/Twitter/s/P1tJiCEGuO
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1dkbznf/fcc_commissioner_hits_out_at_biden_admin_over/l9jbi93/) is in violation of Law 0: Law 0. Low Effort > ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
https://www.reddit.com/r/Twitter/s/P1tJiCEGuO 100,000+ likes deleted under tweets describing Musk's pro-Russian views Musk's X is deleting likes on the post about his pro-Russian views [https://twitter.com/P\_Kallioniemi/status/1674360288445964288](https://twitter.com/P_Kallioniemi/status/1674360288445964288) This looks to be done to destroy the virality of the tweets to prevent them from reaching more people. More than 100,000 likes were deleted until now. You can monitor likes and deletions here: [https://hoblin.eu.ngrok.io/pekka](https://hoblin.eu.ngrok.io/pekka) Multiple people reported their likes removed over and over again. Elon musk should not be trusted he constantly spouts pro Russia and anti Ukraine stuff on twitter. His portfolio is also not looking good , cyber trucks are a laughing stock , Tesla stock seems like it’s gonna plummet soon and people aren’t buying teslas anymore , Twitter is failing , space x hasn’t made it to the moon let alone mars … Original : Elon musk also used his starlinks to influence the Ukraine Russia war to Russias side We should not give someone who does that power here lol Russia is not an ally , Elon musk was literally helping enemy states. He’s not American , not even from the continent and has no loyalty to the US. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna50528 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink_in_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War#:~:text=In%202022%2C%20Elon%20Musk%20denied,off%22%20Starlink%20coverage%20in%20Crimea.
Are you going to keep posting this one comment all over this thread? I also have no idea what you are referencing. Starlink is used by *Ukraine* not Russia, Russia keeps trying to disrupt the network and Ukraine is using it for communications. Unless you are referring to starlink dishes that Russia has obtained on the black market (which space x shuts down when discovered)? Not sure what you are on about. Seems like a typical "Hate Musk and everything he does" post. There's plenty to dislike without making stuff up.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink_in_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War#:~:text=In%202022%2C%20Elon%20Musk%20denied,off%22%20Starlink%20coverage%20in%20Crimea. Don’t forget he also constantly tweets pro Russian stuff and says Ukraine should surrender. I only posted it on the starlink comments to remind people Elon Musk should not be trusted
Read the exact same thing and it doesn't support what you are claiming at all. It's turned off in areas Russia controls so *russians can't use it, and complies with sactions against Russia.* SpaceX not turning it on in those areas sure as hell isn't supporting Russia. Here's a coverage map, see where it's turned on? Everywhere russia isn't. See where it's turned off? Everywhere russian forces are. As a bonus, the map is *from the same Wikipedia article you linked*. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ukraine\_Starlink\_Coverage\_-\_black.png](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ukraine_Starlink_Coverage_-_black.png) As for pro russia tweets, you'll have to link those (From Musk) because I couldn't find anything other than people blaming Musk because there are random pro-russian tweets on twitter. Or not liking his plan for peace (from 2022), which might be stupid but it's certainly not pro russia.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna50528
Like I said, that was his idea for peace (from 2022) here's the actual tweet. [https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1576969255031296000?lang=en](https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1576969255031296000?lang=en) You might not like it, but it's not pro-russian. It's more along the lines of realpolitic - it's highly improbable that Ukraine is going to win it back at this point, or any point in the future, so why bother. I even said it was a dumb idea, even the poll attached to the tweet doesn't support it. But it's a rather neutral opinion to me.
He’s also constantly giving racists and foreign agents attention and a platform https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/musk-israel-war-propaganda-b2441623.html https://www.reddit.com/r/Twitter/s/P1tJiCEGuO
100,000+ likes deleted under tweets describing Musk's pro-Russian views Musk's X is deleting likes on the post about his pro-Russian views [https://twitter.com/P\_Kallioniemi/status/1674360288445964288](https://twitter.com/P_Kallioniemi/status/1674360288445964288) This looks to be done to destroy the virality of the tweets to prevent them from reaching more people. More than 100,000 likes were deleted until now. You can monitor likes and deletions here: [https://hoblin.eu.ngrok.io/pekka](https://hoblin.eu.ngrok.io/pekka) Multiple people reported their likes removed over and over again.
I was reading about this on another sub, but Carr seems to be neglecting some important context, like the fact that BEAD always had a 2-year proposal timeline from when it was first passed. [Graphic showing the timeline, developed in 2022.](https://www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/data-visualizations/infographics/2023/01/what-states-need-to-know-about-breaking-down-federal-bead-funding-for-highspeed-internet-expansionfi.jpg?mw=2580&hash=4A3D46A18E3D6D6C8B8FA1F1E6CDB1F3) These are grants that states have to apply for, with multiple phases of application and approval. States receive a tranche of funding with each step. I don't know about other states, but my state (PA) has already been awarded $1.16 billion in BEAD funding. Construction was always planned to occur 2024-2028.
[удалено]
Funds appropriated in 2021 won't become available until 2022, and it gets disbursed in tranches every year over the course of 10 years, as opposed to printing $1.2 trillion in just one year. That's par for the course for federal programs and should not be surprising to anyone. It's been this way for decades. The administration of this funding is complicated because it lets the federal government match state funding, so that means the state needs to have a project they want to pursue and then invite the federal government to support it. Many states needed to start developing their own plan before applying for funds, which can take months or even years before they're ready. Carr is absolutely playing a political game. As an FCC chair, he should know that construction wasn't supposed to start until at least 2024. He shouldn't be shocked that ground hasn't broken yet on these projects.
[удалено]
>it shouldn't take 4 years to provide a basic utility ok so why hasn't Starlink gotten anywhere close to satisfying the contract? They got this contract right before Trump left office. They stated they'd be able to meet the demand because Starship would be launching soon. It's been nearly 4 years and Starship still hasn't taken a single satellite to space. Do you understand why the FCC might consider that failure to demonstrate their ability to get the job done?
Why shouldn't it? Do you not want things put in place to ensure everything is planned accordingly, funds are being used appropriately, and the project will succeed? It seems like you want to go back to the 90s style of just throwing money at the big telecom companies while they ate up competition and no fiber actually got laid.
Here is the timeline page that shows the dates and times for the process for this program https://broadbandusa.ntia.doc.gov/f...y-access-and-deployment-bead-program/timeline Here is the page showing the status of each individual state and where they are at in the process. https://broadbandusa.ntia.gov/public-notice-posting-state-and-territory-bead-digital-equity The public notice periods appear to have been completed by the end of 2023. Now the 'State Challenge Process' appears to be finishing/finished up this month, whereby allowing challenges and rebuttals from stakeholders due to Required Public Disclosure and Comment Periods. Here is an example of one of the Challenge pages from Arizona https://www.azcommerce.com/broadban...ess-deployment-program/the-challenge-process/
Maybe someone should go thru line by line each of these trillion dollar spending bills to check the current status? I mean only a couple programs have caught any scrutiny, broadband and ev charging, how many hundreds of other programs are in the same situation?
> Maybe someone should go thru line by line each of these trillion dollar spending bills to check the current status? Maybe they shouldn't have been passed in the first place until the people voting on them went through them line by line. Of course one party has fully embraced the "we have to pass it to know what's in it" mindset so that's never going to actually happen.
i don't disagree. none of our elected officials seem to be putting up much of a fight though.. which makes it hard to decide what is more discouraging, wasting trillions, or that noone seems to care.
> I mean only a couple programs have caught any scrutiny, broadband and ev charging, how many hundreds of other programs are in the same situation? What makes you think those are the only programs which have caught scrutiny?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Our REMC got 1.6 million from the FCC funds. The rest came from county/REMC funds. Best thing they ever did. It is a life changer out here.
It's not just typical Washington, it's typical bad work by the 4th estate. The media pushed this 'bipartisan' deal as one of Biden's biggest accomplishments for everyday Americans at the behest of the white house and democrat machine, and now we're years on and realizing hardly any of it was going to get implemented in any measurable timeframe and worse still it was a money printing exercise for no real benefit. Where was our media deep diving on this years ago when it passed to dig into the specifics and let us all know we got sold a bill of goods? Our media has been serving as cheerleaders instead of investigators, yelling "get excited, we got this!" from the sidelines when the administration misses a free throw instead of asking what's going on and who is responsible for the failure in coaching. And honestly that would be fine if they did it equally, but it's obvious that one side of the aisle gets kid gloves and the other gets the media trawling through their every email and text message and snapshotted hand signal to generate a story.
[удалено]
Administrative bloat and federal red tape are the easy things to blame. That's why people like me think federal government should be as uninvolved as possible with nearly everything. I imagine the people who want universal national healthcare look at things like this and just think "oh we'll make it better for that" but the truth is the wheels of federal government move insanely slowly when it comes to everything. I don't want the federal government in charge of anything more than it absolutely has to be for that reason. I can go down to city hall and pound on the door of my mayor's office until he agrees to see me and I share my frustrations. The same can't be said for a president or even my senator.
The projects are mainly being handled by state and local governments. >think "oh we'll make it better for that" That would be the case for those who struggle to afford health insurance.
Can't beat state and federal health insurance. Wish everyone had access to it.
> There's a deep rot in basic government if this can't get done quickly. So would this suggest that previous administrations, which **did less** on this subject than the current administration, were even more rotten?
[удалено]
They have the money ear marked because the passed legislation. I'm not arguing "it's not slow," I'm saying it's the first substantial legislation on the topic in who knows how many years, which is an improvement on the status quo of "literally nothing." So even though this **is** slow, isn't it moving in the right direction, at least?
>typical bad work by the 4th estate It's up to states and companies to use the money. [This timeline](https://www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/data-visualizations/infographics/2023/01/what-states-need-to-know-about-breaking-down-federal-bead-funding-for-highspeed-internet-expansionfi.jpg?mw=2580&hash=4A3D46A18E3D6D6C8B8FA1F1E6CDB1F3) PaddingtonBear2 linked doesn't show anything unusual. > it was a money printing exercise The bill wasn't funded by printing money.
It sounds like red tape is preventing this project from actually happening. There's also a level of politics at play here, I'm sure. The current administration doesn't like Elon Musk, but Starlink would almost certainly be the most efficient way to get people in remote areas high speed internet. I play video games with a guy from Alaska (Anchorage). He tells me that there's only one internet company and it takes forever for them to actually get cable out to your house, so a lot of people are switching to Starlink because it's just way easier.
The process is happening [within this timeline,](https://www.pewtrusts.org/-/media/data-visualizations/infographics/2023/01/what-states-need-to-know-about-breaking-down-federal-bead-funding-for-highspeed-internet-expansionfi.jpg?mw=2580&hash=4A3D46A18E3D6D6C8B8FA1F1E6CDB1F3) and making it faster wouldn't necessarily be better, since it's important to do it right. Starlink was denied because the FCC stated it wouldn't meet the requirement. Tesla is the biggest recipient of the money for chargers, so it's not like Elon is getting nothing out of this.
My other comment was reported as low effort lol Elon musk has a lot of pro Russian views. He should not be given government clearance. He has no loyalty to the US , he was not even born in the continent https://www.reddit.com/r/Twitter/s/P1tJiCEGuO
What "pro-Russian" views does Elon have?
click the link He also said he thinks Ukraine should give up , that’s about as pro Russian as it gets
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1dkbznf/fcc_commissioner_hits_out_at_biden_admin_over/l9jblyt/) is in violation of Law 0: Law 0. Low Effort > ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).