sky_blu t1_j24xqee wrote
I know someone who works in counter terrorism for the US and they were saying the government is actually a really big supporter of starlink because it provides people over seas with a much more trustworthy connection back to us. Just an interesting angle on starlink I didn't hear before
FeedMeACat t1_j25fagg wrote
I am curious how long ago they said that. The gov announced plans to build their own after Musks stunt.
robtbo t1_j28dj75 wrote
What stunt?? The asking for help in paying for providing internet to war torn countries and battle zones?
Starlink already has operations within the US military. They can just pay spacex , no need to reinvent the wheel.
sky_blu t1_j25j9jk wrote
I think it was some time mid October?
Edit: to be unnecessary exact I went back and looked, it was oct 7th
pwnasaurus11 t1_j272m2c wrote
What “stunt” are you talking about?
williamscastle t1_j278pbf wrote
Him wanting to be paid for providing a service like every other contractor in the world
Jaker788 t1_j28gfeo wrote
They were supposed to get paid, but the contract fell through. SpaceX was fighting to get properly paid, and the DOD also wanted to as well. There were issues that had to be ironed out.
But also the government is very much happy to take Starlink over their own constellation. SpaceX even created the Starshield network for high security and private comm
Tricky_Invite8680 t1_j26x3s1 wrote
the government doesn't build that shot, they just write specs for someone else to build it.
iamda5h t1_j27r34t wrote
They’ve been planning a network like this for the military for years, and already have gen 1 up and running with limited coverage.
UniversalMomentum t1_j25uumf wrote
I think that will wind up being one of it's more profitable uses because I don't see how it's beating landlines or even cellular long term. It sounds impressive, but it doesn't actually have a lot of subscribers which suggests real demand might be kind of low since it's generally more expensive than cable and less flexible than cellular so people have to be in the ever more rare areas that don't have cable internet AND where people want to pay for cellular phones AND satellite internet while most people without cable will settle on cellular only.
To me it will be hard to find a lot of profit in the model because it's complex and cable and cellular keep expanding, but for mission critical stuff in remote areas it could easily be the best option.. it's just that's kind of a low volume market for that amount of work.
[deleted] t1_j2752pd wrote
[removed]
more_beans_mrtaggart t1_j28j3u4 wrote
I had starlink for a bit, then 5G reached my area and that was the end of that.
Starlink is slow, and occasionally quick. It was never quick when I needed it to be.
Bdrax23 t1_j29x4y4 wrote
Well yeah...it's not fully operational yet. Fixed wireless is gonna be better as long as you have line of sight. My best effort is always fast enough. And we can't get cell service here so it works best for us
MudSling3r42069 t1_j250ryl wrote
Other than the fact the ceo is eccentric and leads trust issues when it comes to contracts fast out blacking out Ukraine was questionable.
toastedcrumpets t1_j25g5n2 wrote
There were two parts to that Ukraine blacking out story. First was that they were charging for starlink after providing free initial access (terminals were bought by someone else). To be fair, this was clearly stated at the beginning, is normal capitalism, and the only reason the change was painful was because the service was so useful. This should have been a simple case of starlink's CEO saying someone has to pick up the tab but they'd offer it at cost, and it should have been a PR win.
The second was that starlink is blacked out in any areas under russian control, or being contested by Russia. This included the front lines for Ukraine which was a point of complaint. This is something outside starlink's control, embargoes against tech support of Russia are clear. You can bet the US government/military is telling starlink exactly when and where to enable it's service. For example, Starlink is active in Iran precisely to support US interests thanks to special exception even though this is illegal due to the overall sanctions in place.
All of this could have been handled by a competent PR department, but it's not something Elons companies have, deliberately so.
sky_blu t1_j2541s2 wrote
My assumptions are either
The public's idea of starlinks's involvement is Ukraine is not accurate (could be many reasons why)
My friends division has some very specific niche benefits from starlink that don't apply to Ukraine.
FeedMeACat t1_j25f0hs wrote
This is why the gov announced plans to build their own. Elon tried to price gouge when the service was critical and the military doesn't like that. They pay an extended helping hand back in contracts down the line. That is how they do things.
MightyMoonwalker t1_j25xwxn wrote
If the government builds their own, Elon Musk will still be the one getting rich building it and maintaining it. You think the owner of the only tech that could launch thousands of sattelites is bummed at the prospect of the government wanting to build something that requires thousands of sattelites?
AwesomeLowlander t1_j26ejh8 wrote
Looking at what the US govt spends in their space and military budgets... You really think they'll save any money by doing it themselves?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments