We cannot afford to subsidize ventures that are not delivering the promised speeds or are not likely to meet program requirements.
And how many times have the terrestrial providers been allowed to get away with this shit?
Love or hate Elon Musk, I think it's pretty clear this is a political attack rather than a reasoned decision. It's clear enough just from the comments that Starlink has brought decent internet service to many rural residents who did not have access.
If you look at Starlink's map the only places in America that aren't on waiting lists are in the almost totally unpopulated deserts and plains, and this is because they're already oversubscribed everywhere else in rural America. Appalachians? No Starlink for you!
The service is limited by how many people are using it within a satellite's beam size (something like 10 square miles). What they need is better satellites, but this money isn't for R&D it's to get rural people broadband. Also any money given to Starlink doesn't specifically help rural areas; if they use it to put up more satellites the benefit goes to the whole world not rural Americans.
In contrast, if the government gives $x dollars to build 5g towers in some rural area then specifically those people get fast internet with proven technology. They're not paying Seattle slackers to invent new laser interlinks, they're paying to lay fiber and raise towers that'll reliably deliver gigabit for decades to come.
So really this is a political attack AND a reasoned decision. The unreasoned part is letting others get away with taking the money and running.
5G is limited by the same constraints of how many people are using it within a tower's size. Depending on the frequencies used the size is even smaller. 3700mhz C-Band could provide quite a few people and might do gigabit to them, but it only tends to go a mile or two from a tower. More traditional cellular frequencies like the 700 and 800 mhz bands can travel much further, but with current tech don't have the bandwidth to do a gigabit to a single user. If you're in extreme rural with only a few people per square mile, it would probably be cheaper to just build the fiber to their house and cut the 5G tower off entirely. The cost of building a 5G C-Band tower that covers 3 people in that square mile would be much greater than just building that fiber.
I've worked on government-sponsored fiber projects before, and really only the sketchy companies that steal the money and deliver a barely working product are the only ones that work those projects. It's too much hassle for no reward for the telecom giants. Really if the thought is it must be subsidized, the network builders should be the rural co-ops, as those seem to be the most successful at building working networks.
I've worked on the regulatory side of some of these rural broadband projects paid through the FCC's Connect America Fund and the way that these smaller operations seem to structure their operations is that they have a phone company that goes hat in hand to the government and asks for money to connect rural areas with phone service using fiber. The fiber is expensed through the regulated phone company so it receives the government grants. Then, the affiliate ISP uses the fiber to offer broadband (in addition to the phone company offering phone service) at something like $75/mo for gigabit fiber and because they're mostly piggybacking off of the phone company's fiber, the ISP revenue is nearly pure profit. The phone company exists mainly as a means to access the government funding and can even operate as a loss leader for the overall operation.
The government funding is for "up to gigabit" meaning it excludes paying for 10 gbs fiber to some politically-connected wealthy rancher - they only get subsidized 1 gbs, boo-hoo.
If you're in extreme rural with only a few people per square mile, it would probably be cheaper to just build the fiber to their house
Putting up towers has knock-on benefits. People just driving through or visiting, workers, new developments all automatically get mobile internet. Outsiders getting internet while in the rural areas is a benefit to the local economy.
Starlink with no LTE coverage is worse than just having LTE. Your car breaks down and you're not going to care about that 5 ms faster ping time.
But I thought high speed internet was supposed to be a human right? WHY IS THE FCC TAKING AWAY OUR HUMAN RIGHTS?! IF THE NET NEUTRALITY REPEAL HADN'T KILLED ME THIS WOULD!
And how many times have the terrestrial providers been allowed to get away with this shit?
Love or hate Elon Musk, I think it's pretty clear this is a political attack rather than a reasoned decision. It's clear enough just from the comments that Starlink has brought decent internet service to many rural residents who did not have access.
If you look at Starlink's map the only places in America that aren't on waiting lists are in the almost totally unpopulated deserts and plains, and this is because they're already oversubscribed everywhere else in rural America. Appalachians? No Starlink for you!
The service is limited by how many people are using it within a satellite's beam size (something like 10 square miles). What they need is better satellites, but this money isn't for R&D it's to get rural people broadband. Also any money given to Starlink doesn't specifically help rural areas; if they use it to put up more satellites the benefit goes to the whole world not rural Americans.
In contrast, if the government gives $x dollars to build 5g towers in some rural area then specifically those people get fast internet with proven technology. They're not paying Seattle slackers to invent new laser interlinks, they're paying to lay fiber and raise towers that'll reliably deliver gigabit for decades to come.
So really this is a political attack AND a reasoned decision. The unreasoned part is letting others get away with taking the money and running.
A reasonable response? Oh, wait, this isn't retarddit.
5G is limited by the same constraints of how many people are using it within a tower's size. Depending on the frequencies used the size is even smaller. 3700mhz C-Band could provide quite a few people and might do gigabit to them, but it only tends to go a mile or two from a tower. More traditional cellular frequencies like the 700 and 800 mhz bands can travel much further, but with current tech don't have the bandwidth to do a gigabit to a single user. If you're in extreme rural with only a few people per square mile, it would probably be cheaper to just build the fiber to their house and cut the 5G tower off entirely. The cost of building a 5G C-Band tower that covers 3 people in that square mile would be much greater than just building that fiber.
I've worked on government-sponsored fiber projects before, and really only the sketchy companies that steal the money and deliver a barely working product are the only ones that work those projects. It's too much hassle for no reward for the telecom giants. Really if the thought is it must be subsidized, the network builders should be the rural co-ops, as those seem to be the most successful at building working networks.
I've worked on the regulatory side of some of these rural broadband projects paid through the FCC's Connect America Fund and the way that these smaller operations seem to structure their operations is that they have a phone company that goes hat in hand to the government and asks for money to connect rural areas with phone service using fiber. The fiber is expensed through the regulated phone company so it receives the government grants. Then, the affiliate ISP uses the fiber to offer broadband (in addition to the phone company offering phone service) at something like $75/mo for gigabit fiber and because they're mostly piggybacking off of the phone company's fiber, the ISP revenue is nearly pure profit. The phone company exists mainly as a means to access the government funding and can even operate as a loss leader for the overall operation.
The government funding is for "up to gigabit" meaning it excludes paying for 10 gbs fiber to some politically-connected wealthy rancher - they only get subsidized 1 gbs, boo-hoo.
Putting up towers has knock-on benefits. People just driving through or visiting, workers, new developments all automatically get mobile internet. Outsiders getting internet while in the rural areas is a benefit to the local economy.
Starlink with no LTE coverage is worse than just having LTE. Your car breaks down and you're not going to care about that 5 ms faster ping time.
So you're saying StarLink actually meets the requirements that the FCC laid down?
But I thought high speed internet was supposed to be a human right? WHY IS THE FCC TAKING AWAY OUR HUMAN RIGHTS?! IF THE NET NEUTRALITY REPEAL HADN'T KILLED ME THIS WOULD!
He also had the audacity to ask his workers to work while he paid them to work.