[marcusverus]

> They are not able to meet the constraints written out in the law.

Which constraints were they not able to meet? Brendan Carr, an FCC Commissioner, has publicly claimed that Starlink clearly met the traditional constraints, but that the FCC invented a new standard and claimed that Starlink failed to meet that. [0]

> Are you saying we should ignore the law as it was written and give them the hand out anyway?

It depends. Did the FCC apply their standard in a consistent way? And is it normal practice for them to revoke the contract of every partner for the mere possibility of their missing a deadline? If the answer to both questions is 'Yes', then this action is proper. If not, then it is not only improper, but would appear to be an act of blatant political corruption, aimed at someone who is clearly considered to be an enemy of the administration.

The selective enforcement of the law is the very definition of corruption.

[0] https://twitter.com/BrendanCarrFCC/status/173469670679577812...

[ceruleanseas]

Starlink was not the only provider that was excluded from the subsidy. Giving public money away to a service provider that cannot provide the service as described in the law is the definition of corruption. You can see the details that led to the commission making its decision here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-105A1.pdf