I don't think general vibes and challenges with winning billion dollar government contracts suffices as evidence for: "I guarantee the existing Verizon contract was not the result of a fair competition."
I don't think general vibes and challenges with winning billion dollar government contracts suffices as evidence for: "I guarantee the existing Verizon contract was not the result of a fair competition."
And sure, we don’t know this change is corrupt. We do know that there is a very clear conflict of interest though, so people are reasonably demanding more transparency.
“Conflict of interest” is not the same as “corrupt.” A person can have conflicted interests and still make totally valid, non-corrupt decisions. Even making a self-beneficial decision while having conflicted interests isn’t necessarily corrupt/bad.
“Conflict of interest” refers to the interests themselves, which are very obviously unambiguously conflicted here.
Government interests: spend as little money as possible for capability X
Starlink interests: capture as much money as possible for capability X
That’s a conflict regardless of what decision anyone makes and whether it was the right one.
Seems extremely wishful to think this particular contract isn’t being reviewed by someone with SpaceX equity (I.e. someone who is conflicted) alongside every other contract, but… ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
1: https://fedscoop.com/faa-aviation-safety-system-doge-notam/