The requirements they failed was meeting 100mbps down and 20 up. They were measured at 90/9.<p>Starlink meets the intent of fast internet, if not their arbitrary line. Everyone I know who has one loves it.<p><a href="https://spacenews.com/fcc-commissioner-criticizes-starlinks-900-million-subsidy-rejection/" rel="nofollow">https://spacenews.com/fcc-commissioner-criticizes-starlinks-...</a>
The FCC is quoted in the article as indicating Starlink would require rural customers to purchase a $600 dish to start service. That's fine, but what the heck do they need $900M for if they're not subsidizing that equipment cost? Their satellites will be flying overhead anyway. Normally when the federal government throws gobs of money at internet providers it's in the name of building out physical infrastructure. (on some occasions it even gets built) Here... it's for what?<p>> House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer, a Republican, asked the FCC in a letter Monday to turn over documents by Oct. 21 on the decision. The committee seeks to ensure the FCC "followed established processes and is not improperly using the regulatory process for political purposes."<p>There's a potential for comedy here, at least. James Comer, for people who aren't familiar, makes the Alaskan senator who once compared the internet to "a series of tubes" look like Isaac Newton by comparison.
Who will insure that this panel is "following established processes and not improperly using the regulatory process for political purposes" in order to appease one large donor?
The original intention of these rural internet subsidies was to build rural infastructure. It's historically similar to rural electrification in the 1930s and 1940s. Starlink provides this service without local infastructure, and below the speed guideline. Making an exception for them would be a violation of public trust.