[alephnan]

> yet many other award recipients have no service and no rollout and no speeds to even measure:

Unfortunately, most of the public won’t know or care about this blatant corruption and crony capitalism

The revolving door between regulators and industry keeps on turning

[constantly]

As far as I can tell in a cursory reading, SpaceX Starlink applied for subsidies with enumerated requirements. They cannot meet those requirements, so the subsidy is rescinded.

Seems straightforward and doesn’t seem to matter, as far as I can tell, how many other companies couldn’t meet the requirements or don’t have the hardware to meet those requirements or whatever.

Unclear why this is “blatant corruption” or “crony capitalism” and in fact seems to be based in facts. Can you explain?

[_ea1k]

I'm getting the impression that some of the competitors haven't built anything to test yet. Based upon that, using the current performance of Starlink and comparing it to the hypothetical performance of others might not be fair. If Starlink is losing an award because of supposition, that's bad.

But I must admit that I haven't read all of the history here.

[constantly]

I think they’re not comparing to hypothetical performance of others, but comparing it to the threshold the FCC set originally, which SpaceX decided was achievable and so applied for subsidies based on their believed ability to hit the numbers.

[_ea1k]

But... those thresholds do not apply yet. They aren't being held to the same standards as others.