Starlink blocks access to specific countries that it doesn't have approval to work in, so I presume they'll just be blocked while the totalitarian regimes are in power.
[1]: https://www.itweb.co.za/article/icasa-takes-note-of-illegal-...
Isn't that's how Ukraine got fucked. Sent their submarine drones towards Crimea but as soon they crossed the "border" they lost signal. They tried to contact Musk and the rest is history...
Maybe more interesting is the question why they need Starlink at all? Why are they dealing with a private for profit company when the US military could provide them with satellite communications?
The problem is that the consequences of accidentally providing service to Russia, a country that is both sanctioned by the US (so Starlink would face headache-inducing legal problems in the US) and is conducting an offensive invasion (which matters because it's against Starlink policy), are considered far too high for the Pentagon to approve it without the use of hexagon geofencing. This hexagon geofencing means it's not as useful for crossing over the Russia-Ukraine front line. It is updated frequently to reflect the situation on the ground, but they can only provide service to a hexagon if all of that land has been taken back from Russia, so it will never quite satisfy how fast Ukrainian soldiers would prefer the geo-fencing to update.
It's likely that Starlink wants to refine this geofencing to be useful for Ukraine's cross-border counteroffensives, or to use some other measures to ensure the captured equipment and signals are not useful for Russia, but as long as the US Government says no, it won't happen.
---
^1: There was some usage of the service before it was properly approved, which was around the time Elon Musk was publicly saying Starlink wouldn't support counteroffensives and blocked off access in Crimea. But this is history now as Starlink is obligated by the Pentagon to support Ukraine, Musk's opinions do not appear to be guiding Starlink's current policies. Unfortunately this series of events has spawned some really confused news articles, angry Ukrainian soldiers on social media, and various partisan nonsense... the publicity and drama of it all pretty much overshadowed what actually ended up happening, which could have been much more interesting to investigate by anyone who is pro- or anti-ukraine, or pro- or anti-Musk -- or just anyone who is interested in how these military contracts work.
Most users use 4G
Every battlefield company in Ukraine has at least two.
enlighten yourself a bit on recent Crimea history:
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/why-did-russia-give...
Mariupol had starlink, it doesn't today. Can you guess why?
https://theconversation.com/the-manipulation-of-the-american...
If I were in charge, I'd try to get licensed and be able to collect money from customers there.
I wonder what will happen now that every phone will become a sat phone.
Governments that don't want that will disallow the sale of such phones inside their country unless the manufacturer disables the satellite features for customers there.
Sure, some will get through via illegal imports, but largely this will be effective.
At that point, you could only request that phone manufacturers retroactively provide firmware updates that ban these networks, or maybe make it hard to get SIMs allowed to connect to them (but then there's eSIMs too).
I think in practice we'll see a combination of these countries applying legal/economical pressure on the operators and jamming, with larger/less isolated countries leaning on the former, and the others on the latter.
Hypothetically, in the event of a war or similar unrest, the US could use satellite cell 'towers' to give an entire country limited connectivity with old devices people have stashed away in some drawer or closet without otherwise active cell plans, which are therefore off the local government's radar. People could be coerced to turn over the phones the government knows about but still retain some connectivity.
India routinely does total communications blackouts, so the satellite phone ban is unsurprising, in that context.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20701204 ("India Shut Down Kashmir’s Internet Access")
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10126931 ("India turned off mobile internet for 63M citizens amid protests in Ahmedabad")
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25972620 ("India protests: Internet cut to hunger-striking farmers in Delhi")
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%932021_Jammu_and_Ka... ("2019–2021 Jammu and Kashmir lockdown")
If you don't have enough things to worry about: the US has exactly the same legal powers—in fact they're national security powers the President can invoke unilaterally,
https://techcrunch.com/2020/10/22/representatives-propose-bi... ("Representatives propose bill limiting presidential internet ‘kill switch’")
I'm not in the US so I don't worry about that. But the US doesn't seem to actually use it as India does.
And besides I have other communications options if that would happen.
Also: https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/64974/why-are-sat...
I've had this idea on my mind for quite a while now, because some time ago I heard something about Starlink painting their satellites black, which reminded me of the "it's hotter in a black car" thing.
That's usually how governments control businesspeople.
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/07/1...
https://conservancy.umn.edu/handle/11299/171701
https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/toxic-secrets-the...)
Sounds like standard live and learn tech development, like nuclear.
I could see such a regulation be implemented for new phones (Apple's Globalstar functionality is already deactivated in software based on geolocation in non-supported countries and maybe even in hardware for models sold in some regions), but it won't help with existing devices.
Another avenue would be restricting access to SIMs capable of logging on to these networks. SIMs have supported mutual authentication since (I believe) 3G, so it's not possible for a satellite 4G service to provide "unilateral roaming".
China's BeiDou would have to probably be approved through a treaty since it's run by their military, it's not going to happen. I've been told by someone who used to work at space force that beidou can be used to track users, but that's bullshit with how our receivers use it. Here's a US gov report on the matter, if it's receive only (no messaging component) tracking isn't going to happen https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/Research/Staff%20Re...
Finally, the way at least Qualcomm receivers work is they will only lock to GPS first and then mix in the other constellations (at least while in CONUS).
Also, is there any hope for "authenticated GPS" to prevent spoofing? Is that even technically possible for non-secret codes like C/A or L5?
Those who are, at least for now, within good graces are of course exempted. Those who are systematically repressed can be systematically, specifically, and/or arbitrarily detained, investigated, and/or prosecuted, as suits political needs.
And the fact that the actions are based on at least nominal basis in law and procedure means that the practice is defensible both to those tasked with enacting it and with the institutions and general public. Even tyrants find that power is best and most readily exerted through cooperating and existing channels.
A prime example: On a highway leading from Chechnya to Dagestan there is a traffic light. It is always red. https://en.rattibha.com/thread/1595456040677556226
That said the only people who will be able to afford the dish and service will likely be people who are in bed with the government or vise-versa...
It's not that hard if you're really committed and can accept chasing up offenders after-the-fact.
Countries that consider banning Tesla due to Starlink, would be effectively holding back their EV market.
But it is effective in most other countries where they operate