SpaceX blasts FCC as it refuses to reinstate Starlink’s $886 million grant::FCC doubts ability to provide high-speed, low-latency service in all grant areas.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    7611 months ago

    Funny how the FCC decided starlink is incapable of doing this, but was happy enough to pay all the other ISPs who are still incapable of doing it after decades of payments

    • @daltotron
      link
      English
      1211 months ago

      God I hate how our options are between shit and shit like every time. I just want RC cola internet, instead of pepsi and coke, is that too much to ask? I want kirkland signature internet, that’s what I want.

      • @uid0gid0
        link
        English
        511 months ago

        I would buy Kirkland signature internet in a heartbeat, all their stuff is so good.

    • @Rapidcreek
      link
      English
      111 months ago

      Which other ISPs? Do you mean the BOCs & RBOCs?

        • @Rapidcreek
          link
          English
          -5
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          They pulled wire for miles to service rural areas and are maintaining a network to service rural customers. The BOCs are why there are RUS funds

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            3111 months ago

            They were paid to provide broadband services to the rural areas. As millions of people living in the rural areas can attest, the majority of their promises were not fulfilled.

            • @Rapidcreek
              link
              English
              -2611 months ago

              No. They were paid to provide services, which is what they did/do. The rural customers pay no more than urban customers but use a hell of a lot lot more infrastructure. Broadband is now a service that can be used for RUS, that’s all.

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    13
                    edit-2
                    11 months ago

                    I have friends who live within a handful of miles of DC with ZERO wired infrastructure. Fortunately that part of the US is pretty flat, and an LTE provider decided to cover the area.

                    Mind, they’re about 1 mile from a major highway, so it’s not like they’re in the back woods.

                    The cable company was paid to build to that area 40 years ago, but never did it.

                    I agree building out wired infrastructure seems to make the most sense, as it’s pretty robust, and we’re often finding new ways to increase effective bandwidth (even on good old telephone wires). But it’s a bit of chicken and egg, like any network infrastructure (water, sewer, roads, bridges, etc).

                    Edit: Keep in mind over 60% of the US population resides on the East Coast, between Boston and Georgia. So building infrastructure there is high bang for the buck.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                1711 months ago

                RUS

                Just so we’re clear, the discussion here is not about RUS, but the Rural Broadband Initiative. ISPs were paid billions to bring broadband services to the countryside. They took the money and did nothing with it.

                • @Rapidcreek
                  link
                  English
                  -1511 months ago

                  Rural Utility Service is the government body where the initiative exists. Hard to bring a true broadband to rural areas. For any decent customer penetration you need radio. IDK, but I think 5G qualifies if there isn’t a range problem.

                  • @HerrBeter
                    link
                    English
                    211 months ago

                    Sweden got fiber to small communities and towns 20 years ago