Hacker News Reader

Comment by maelito | Hacker News Reader

I think the title has to be read as "Greenland does not take the Starlink option despite it being the only internet satellite brand that the english speaking world talks about". Hence the "ditch". But you're right, it's a bad title.

View on HN

Reality seems to be closer to: "After talks with Starlink and Eutelsat, Greenland went with Eutelsat because of trust and long-term cooperation". But with such title people wouldn't need to click the link to read the full article.

That's a diplomatic way of saying "Starlink seems better but we trust the owner as far as we can throw em".

Neither the fact that starlink seems better not that they do not trust Musk is necessary true.

In business, especially on the government side, incumbency plays a very big role. Just knowing whom to call in case of issues and how soon they respond may account for all the trust needed to renew. My 2c.

True.

But this year is also the year all European companies and governments learned the hard way they need to ditch US providers, and actually started working on it.

Blackmail from your provider is not great for business relations. Let’s not pretend otherwise.

This is all good, and as an American citizen I cheer any attempt by Europe (China, Japan, anti-China SEA players or anyone else) to provide an alternative: of tech, of weapons procurement, of social model, of political setup or of anything else. The world needs more competition.

But this article has nothing to do with the above, or with views of Musk. As others said, this request was for centralized access and SpaceX responded with a B2C proposal. It would have been rejected just as quickly even if it came from another company unaffiliated with the US.

> That's a diplomatic way of saying "Starlink seems better but we trust the owner as far as we can throw em".

The obvious aspect is that Starlink is a US company owned by a US oligarch with deep ties to the ruling regime, which is repeatedly threatening Greenland with invasion and annexation.

Relying on that service provider for communication would be outright stupid.

> That's a diplomatic way of saying "Starlink seems better but we trust the owner as far as we can throw em".

Oracle could offer a company a better product/service, but would you really trust them?

Isn’t ‘trust’ part of what you pay for with any product or service?

This is quite close to the "ditched at the altar" use of ditched.

But you can only read it that way after reading the whole article. It’s a known fact that a very high percentage of people read the title without clicking on it, therefpre this is pure misinformation spreading and should be removed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com