Similar to what has been happening recently with the FCC's rural broadband program - where Starlink, in my view, is likely being punished by the government for Musk's outspokenness.
To many parties concerned about very high availability, (geo)politics are ultimately just another source of risk, and I think it's fair to say that Elon isn't known for being a de-risking factor, political or otherwise.
For example, what happens to Starlink when SpaceX, for whatever reason, decides to rededicate its launch capacity to other projects? Cheap launch capacity is the lifeblood of the Starlink constellation (the satellites are designed to be replaced much more frequently than other LEO competitors' such as Iridium or Globalstar).
As a government other than the US, are you sure your contracts that might compel SpaceX to deliver that launch capacity (assuming you managed to get them in the first place) are ironclad? Do you have the deep pockets and political will for an inter-jurisdictional lawsuit?
Just betting a few chips on a competitor, even if they're less viable than Starlink, just seems like prudent risk mitigation (and I say that as a fan of what Starlink is doing!)
Yes, competition is good.
> Elon isn't known for being a de-risking factor, political or otherwise.
The government should not be awarding contracts because it 'de-risks' them politically. They should be writing better contracts for the specific thing they want.
Speech-conditioned funding is clearly afoul of the 1st amendment and related precedent, even if you dress it up in 'de-risking' language. And, as a society, we have to be very wary of how we run contract processes because this is one of the easiest ways for corruption to get its foot in the door.
> As a government other than the US
I've clearly been speaking from the perspective of the US this whole time (and the US clearly does have the pockets). Most other countries don't even really have free speech protections like the US does, so their problems are deeper.
> SpaceX, for whatever reason, decides to rededicate its launch capacity to other projects?
Violation of contract? Most of these competitors are using SpaceX launch capacity as well - given that it is 90% of all launch capacity globally.
Lawsuits take time and money, and I think having a slightly higher-orbit LEO constellation under independent operational control could provide a fallback that many governments and commercial customers would be willing to pay good money for.
> Most of these competitors are likely using SpaceX launch capacity as well
That's a fair point, but there are ultimately alternatives, even if they might be non-competitive in terms of cost right now. It'd ultimately only be a backup, after all.
> Speech-conditioned funding is clearly afoul of the 1st amendment and related precedent
I was thinking primarily non-US government customers, so the first amendment has no bearing there. I'm pretty sure that the DOD has better ways to compel Elon to not shut off Starlink than e.g. the EU or an Asian government, so to them, that redundancy is probably less valuable.
This matters for the US because of the strong free speech protections here. Most EU countries & most Asian countries do not have similar strength of protections.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/08/28/elon-musks-sha...
The US government never had a contract with Starlink for Ukraine war usage. It does not seem to me like a reasonable expectation that a civilian company provide services for conducting a foreign war - nor that they be punished in unrelated contracts for refusing to do so.
Companies are permissibly allowed to be run by actors with political interests. By contrast, the government should not be making contracting decisions for political/speech reasons.
To me it is clear that we are returning to the politics of the 20th century (ie. flexing regulatory arms to punish speech/actions we don't like). It makes sense - we really only had a brief respite from that from the 90s until ~2016 or so.
It's far more than just "outspokenness"
I agree that for governmental decision making his behavior hasn't reached a level I think it can or should affect the process. That said, I'm not sure the process should be completely devoid of past regulatory or legal compliance issues, but I don't know how those could be applied evenly, and in the absence of a good framework for that I agree they shouldn't be considered.
I would be personally pissed as a rural broadband user if machinations about a conflict in Eastern Europe was the reason I was getting subpar telecom service in Tennessee.
> Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title18/par...
Blocking or unexpectedly rug-pulling a US-funded military strike against someone that the US is sanctioning certainly counts as "aid" to an "enemy".
So, he should be looking at 5 years + a $10,000 fine or get the death penalty.
Either way, I'm hoping we won't have to deal with a presidential run from him in the future ("... obama, kenya, ... something, something...")
Your criteria for accusing someone of treason is ridiculous and I am thankful you are not in charge of our government.