Hacker News Reader

Comment by wateralien | Hacker News Reader

Is the read-between-the-lines part here that Elon / SpaceX is too aligned with the USA government and their aspirations to take over Greenland to be trusted with their comms infra?

View on HN

That's clearly what the author of that article want to say, but the truth is that Greenland has a centralized access (people go through the national provider to get access, and said provider uses others' solutions in the backend), while Starlink offer was for a direct to consumer system; they were simply not answering to the criterias requested.

This is pretty much exactly correct. This comment should be pinned to the top of this whole thread, because it does nobody any good when "alternative facts" are valued more highly than a boring truth.

But then this article would be buried and the gears of the internet wouldn't continue to spin.

We all know at this point that rage == clicks == ad revenue.

Except this is one of the few sites not operating by this principle.

(The only ads here are YC startup job offers)

It still operates, just stops at the ads=money part.

not really. this still push ads. they are just limited to "native ads format" (i.e. look like content to evade ad blockers) and only advertise yc companies and jobs.

The "uses others solutions" bit is for satellite alone when it comes to Tusass. They own and run all other types of telecom service in Greenland whether fiber, cellular, microwave, or marine radio.

> (...) while Starlink (...) were simply not answering to the criterias requested.

If you read the article, that's not exactly the arguments pointed out by neither Tusass nor Greenland's politicians.

Cited from the article:

> Binzer said it was not about which company was better, but about trust and long-term cooperation. Tusass already works with Eutelsat and knows their systems well.

> Some Greenlandic politicians have warned that the country must keep control of its telecom infrastructure.

> They fear that opening the market to foreign providers could threaten national security. For now, Tusass remains the sole provider of telecommunications in Greenland.

The citations from the article are clear on how national security concerns were a key argument to not go with Starlink.

That's quite explicit in the last section of the article, ending with `Greenland’s communication systems must stay under Greenlandic control.`

You do not want to depend on infrastructure that might cease to work because the people running the infrastructure behave in an erratic, random and impulsive manner. This is a bigger risk than alignment with the policies of any government.

I mean, I think that's obvious. Ukraine obviously wouldn't contract anything essential from Russia, same goes for Denmark/Greenland and the US. You don't threaten countries you want to do business with.

It's also not very "between the lines" at all, the article finishes with:

> Binzer said the company will keep an open mind for future partnerships, but the priority remains clear. Greenland’s communication systems must stay under Greenlandic control.

Sovereignty is more important than ever, and governments are catching up to this fact.

Either way, trunks will use a network that is not under sovereign control. So sovereignty here means access must exclusively be through the locally controlled monopoly. Foreign powers will still have the ability to shut down or manipulate traffic, which is hardly sovereignty at all.

This reads to me as letting perfect be the enemy of better.

The biggest problem with Starlink's proposed solution would be that it would have been B2C - people in Greenland would talk to other people in Greenland through Starlink's satellites. That would put communication inside Greenland at the whims of another foreign power, which is a whole different level of loss of sovereignty than getting communication with the rest of the world cut off.

> Foreign powers will still have the ability to shut down or manipulate traffic, which is hardly sovereignty at all.

Apparently, some partners/"friends" are more likely to take military action against you than others.

If you're considering sovereignty and you have a choice between one partner who've said "I'll protect you" and another that said "Well, we'll never rule out military action against you", working together with one of those are obviously better for your sovereignty than the other.

> Ukraine obviously wouldn't contract anything essential from Russia

West-Ukraine wouldn't. East-Ukraine ... not so sure.

East-Ukraine? The regions that had 90% vote to be annexed by Russia?

When an invader has a gun against your head, how would you vote?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_annexation_referendums_in...

"West-Ukraine"

why you acting like ukraine is already lose its territory???? the war is still going on

there is no winner yet

I’m pretty sure no one from Butcha (east Ukraine) will ever buy from Russia again.

aren't the Greenlanders rather open minded about that acquisition? Denmark didn't treat them particularly good.

Totally. It's the same as how people feel about Canada taking over the US. The current admin is such an abomination it would be best that Canada takes control. They are very nice people. Nicest ones some would say. Imagine how nice it would be to have some stability again. All the Americans I've spoken to agree on it.

Many people are saying it. Unfortunately the small minority of nasty people opposed to it are using violence to stifle free debate.

They're not. https://www.reuters.com/world/poll-shows-85-greenlanders-do-...

No, Greenlanders are working towards independence and gaining independence from the US seems much less likely than from Denmark. Additionally Greenlanders aren't looking with admiration at how the US has treated other indigenous peoples.

Are you a Greenlander? Or are you from mainland Denmark?

I am from mainland Denmark, but have visited Greenland and a have number of native Greenlander friends.

Whatever gave you that idea? Those who are opposed to Greenland being part of Denmark tend to be pro-independence, and opposition to the US taking over is even greater. Many accept the status-quo because Greenland's economy depends greatly on money flowing in from the government.

USA has and has had military bases on Greenland, once established despite opposition from native Greenlanders. Several of these are ecological disasters. There are valleys full of rusting oil drums and machinery. There are fears of there being radioactive waste hidden under the ice, expected to leak sooner or later.

That Denmark had approved some of these bases has fuelled sentiment against Denmark and the US in the first place.

They hate it. Only Greenlanders positive about it are criminals and clowns, that are literally being payed to do so.

What lead you to believe that? Like, ol' minihands did claim that, but he claims a lot of things.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jan/28/85-of-greenlan...

> But a new survey by pollster Verian, commissioned by the Danish paper Berlingske, showed only 6% of Greenlanders are in favour of becoming part of the US, with 9% undecided.

6%, for practical purposes, means 0%; whenever you have a poll with a clearly insane option, about 4-5% of people will choose it, due to a combination of mistakes and trolling.

About half of Greenlanders support independence (in a concrete sense; far more than that in an abstract sense), but that's rather different to becoming part of the US.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com