[mason55]

> Because if you use the service you know it is capable of that and more today.

The numbers show otherwise and the FCC made it clear that Starlink presented no numbers to the contrary. This isn't even a case of the FCC's numbers saying one thing and Starlink's numbers saying another.

I totally believe that some places give you consistent 100/20 speeds, but aggregate numbers don't show that and Starlink made no attempt to argue otherwise.

[pmorici]

Today your speed tier is based on what you pay. If you pay for the priority or business tier service you absolutely get over 100Mbps consistently, a lot more. If you pay for the basic service tier then yeah you might only get 3-4x DSL speeds which is still phenomenal for the purpose being discussed here.

[altairprime]

If your basic service tier is lower than 100/20, you would be disqualified for the subsidy.

[pmorici]

That's not how it works, they just need to offer a service tier that provides a service with the required minimums by a particular date, it is obviously possible unless you are blinded by revenge politics.

[altairprime]

I see. I've misunderstood the broadband auctions, and have reviewed https://www.fcc.gov/auction/904 to determine more correctly what's going on here.

All, please disregard my comment and refer instead to this top comment instead:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38628276

[enraged_camel]

The question isnt whether it is phenomenal. The question is if Starlink is meeting the obligations outlined in the grant, and if so, why they didn’t bother to dispute the numbers FCC showed.