Starlink demands grant money from states even when residents don’t buy service

SpaceX won't make specific promises on Starlink network capacity or subscribers.

See full article...

 

[Shiunbird]

It is important to remember that the US is really large, geographically, and these programs largely exist for areas that have almost no Internet options due to isolation.

I am not sure I buy this argument anymore. We are starting to believe what the carriers tell us.

Firstly, I don't think there's a place in the US where people would struggle to get connected to the electric grid, and that required some serious wiring across long distances. What is the problem now?

Secondly, in my equally large home country of Brazil (I think Brazil is larger than the US if you take Alaska out), my father has a small rural plot of 50.000m2 (and all the neighbours plots are also 50.000m2), far from the nearest city, and, guess what? There's fiber! I am not aware that it is a rule across the country, but I believe it's way more common than in the US.

He got Starlink for redundancy, because power outages are a thing there, but hey... it's a way poorer country.

And even if you compare to Europe, central France, northern Nordics and central Spain are also sparsely populated, and they get decent connectivity as well.

So I blame it on C-level folks making 10.000 what a field technician would make, keeping running "costs" high, which doesn't leave any pocket change for investments. And the US is a way wealthier country.

 

[TVPaulD]

Shit like this is why when I see people say shit like "SpaceX is good for humanity" or "SpaceX and Starlink are moving humanity forward" I can't decide whether I should laugh or recoil in horror.

SpaceX dominance in launches is a problem that other players, particularly non-US players, need to be confronting yesterday. They are not a benevolent organisation - and that's not just Musk specifically being an asshole. Anyone out there who thinks SpaceX are your friends, you're wrong. It's a corporation just like all the rest.

They're not your cool geeky friends who are going to Mars. That company is not going to Mars unless someone pays them a fat wad of cash to do it. They're in this for the money. They intend to monopolise the only bits of space that actually make sense in capitalism and the world as we know it today: government contracts and telecommunications.

This Trump47 version of BEAD fiasco is a confluence of the two and this is SpaceX showing their true colours as a result. You should not be rooting for them in any context. They are out to screw you with your pants on.

I think programs like these lead to highly inefficient rent seeking behavior no matter what companies, personalities, or technologies are involved. Starlink is exactly the right tech to serve those customers for whom terrestial fiber is the most uneconomical (remote, low density) so a free market should be able to sort this out. But the subsidies existed long before SpaceX and they will exist long after. If money must be allocated inefficiently I'd rather it go to SpaceX to help drive humanity towards being a multiplanetsry civilization than to any terrestrial ISP.

Oh look, case in point.

 

[NeutrinoSunset]

Republicans changing the rules so they can give tax payers money to their friends.

Nothing new here.

 

[Zizy]

Hm, so their proposal is that Starlink shouldn't have to reserve any capacity for these people, yet they should get the money even if people do not want their service, because they can't be responsible for whether people subscribe or not?

I could agree allowing them to keep money if they reserved capacity and people don't want to subscribe - they did have costs, like fiber companies get paid for dark fiber. OR that they don't reserve capacity and instead allocate capacity as required by however many people subscribe; with fixed amount of money granted per subscriber.

But both together? That's crazy: "We won't do anything except count the money".

 

[MilanKraft]

SpaceX can go fuck their hat.

JD recommends they fuck their corporate lounge couches instead.

 

[Printzer]

Ignoring the fartwaffle at the top of the Starlink head office, this reads like the usual legal bafflegab generated whenever a company is trying to get government business. They will both ask for the moon, and either eventually negotiate to a reasonable compromise of one or both will walk away.

I'm not sure why anybody would expect Starlink to act any different from any other ISP. Corpos gonna corpo.

(This posted from the land of stupidly expensive internet and cell service.)

 

[MilanKraft]

Here I used to think Comcast/Xfinity were the worst ISP on the planet.

Things have evolved. You can think of it like this:

"Comcast / Xfinity remains a shady ISP with unethical billing practices, but is still better than Starlink on a variety of levels...

...in the same way George W. Bush remains someone who was a shady president with various unethical practices, but was still far better than Trump on a variety of levels."


AND... there are many useful parallels as well, like the modern-day evil CEO version...

"Tim Cook remains a disingenuous, boot-licking, sack of shit CEO, but is still better than Elon Musk on a variety of levels."

...or the LLM version...

"ChatGPT remains a poorly tested, potentially addictive, brainless chatbot, but is still better than "maximally porn-seeking with a hint of master race" Grok on a variety of levels."


I could be wrong but I maintain once again, misanthropic is the way....

 

[Qyygle]

I am not sure I buy this argument anymore. We are starting to believe what the carriers tell us.

Firstly, I don't think there's a place in the US where people would struggle to get connected to the electric grid, and that required some serious wiring across long distances. What is the problem now?

Secondly, in my equally large home country of Brazil (I think Brazil is larger than the US if you take Alaska out), my father has a small rural plot of 50.000m2 (and all the neighbours plots are also 50.000m2), far from the nearest city, and, guess what? There's fiber! I am not aware that it is a rule across the country, but I believe it's way more common than in the US.

He got Starlink for redundancy, because power outages are a thing there, but hey... it's a way poorer country.

And even if you compare to Europe, central France, northern Nordics and central Spain are also sparsely populated, and they get decent connectivity as well.

So I blame it on C-level folks making 10.000 what a field technician would make, keeping running "costs" high, which doesn't leave any pocket change for investments. And the US is a way wealthier country.

This exactly. We run water lines, electric, sewer, you name it. The Only reason we don't have fiber too after Years and Billions of dollars of already awarded government grants is...
Greed

 

[carldjennings]

Tim Curry approves.

Honestly, I was picturing more of a Buzz Lightyear.. To Xfinity and beyond!

 

[ktmglen]

As a European with broadband prices in the $15-$40 monthly range (across multiple providers and technologies; low end being 100Mbps+ unless you only have access to fixed unlimited 5G) - is the $80 per month competitive? It seems too much to be a “special price” for low income households; but since I am not from there, I have trouble figuring that out.

As in, if you take away the subsidy argument - would it even be affordable?

Our municipal fiber provider's digital inclusion program's 1 Gbps symmetric tier is $20/month for qualified households. Otherwise 1 Gbps symmetric is $70/month, 2 Gbps symmetric is $100/month, and 10 Gbps symmetric is $200/month.

So, no, an $80 low-income 100/20 Mbps tier is not competitive and is not reasonable.

https://fcconnexion.com/digital-inclusion-program/

 

[J-Be]

"SpaceX said it will be obvious if it does not provide sufficient service, and thus the states should not seek additional performance testing beyond what’s included in the NTIA guidelines. “If sufficient capacity was not reserved, performance testing will reveal insufficient quality of service, and this deficiency will be transparent to the state. Developing a separate, indirect measurement of the reservation itself is infeasible and unnecessary,” SpaceX said."

We can easily flip that argument around and it's just as valid. If Starlink really has no concerns with satisfying the performance requirements, why would they preemptively argue they shouldn't be independently audited?

"JusT cOmPly and yOu HavE noTHinG tO WorRy aBout" right?

 

[carldjennings]

No. I can get 1GB fiber with actual employees that install hardware and repair problems quickly for $80. Total. Without any "taxes and fees" tacked on top.

This is being installed in my neighborhood this week. Seriously considering it.

 

[moddrift]

I guess it will never stop amazing me when multibillionaires whine about paying prevailing wages to laborers. My jaw still (still!) drops a little every time.

 

[ktmglen]

I am not sure I buy this argument anymore. We are starting to believe what the carriers tell us.

Firstly, I don't think there's a place in the US where people would struggle to get connected to the electric grid, and that required some serious wiring across long distances. What is the problem now?

Secondly, in my equally large home country of Brazil (I think Brazil is larger than the US if you take Alaska out), my father has a small rural plot of 50.000m2 (and all the neighbours plots are also 50.000m2), far from the nearest city, and, guess what? There's fiber! I am not aware that it is a rule across the country, but I believe it's way more common than in the US.

He got Starlink for redundancy, because power outages are a thing there, but hey... it's a way poorer country.

And even if you compare to Europe, central France, northern Nordics and central Spain are also sparsely populated, and they get decent connectivity as well.

So I blame it on C-level folks making 10.000 what a field technician would make, keeping running "costs" high, which doesn't leave any pocket change for investments. And the US is a way wealthier country.

North Dakota is one of our least population-dense states. 95+% of people have at least 100/20 Mbps connectivity there. 2/3 of the state has fiber. The difference is the big telephone companies decided North Dakota wasn't worth the expense and left the state. That left rural co-op telephone companies to fill the gap.

Those rural co-ops listened to their customers and installed fiber everywhere decades ago. The big cities in North Dakota got stuck with cable from the cable providers. As a result, rural areas got fiber, cities got cable, and it's one of the better connected states despite its low population density.

So, no, it's not geography that limits fiber in the US. It's an unwillingness by the big companies to make capital investments due to the lack of competition, and in the lack of competition, a lack of regulation to force them to make investments.

 

[rocket_llama]

I live miles from the White House and don't have access to wired broadband. Even after my Virginia county blows through their BEAD and VATI money there is still a non zero chance that I won't have FTTH because the criteria for "everyone" turns up to be "up to 90% of unserved".

The company (All Points Broadband) has blown through a significant portion of their grants and have hooked up exactly 0 customers, was supposed to be done in 2024, then 2025, and currently end of 2026...

This whole ask by Starlink is ridiculous but without them I'd be using LTE hotspots still.

 

[ERIFNOMI]

As a European with broadband prices in the $15-$40 monthly range (across multiple providers and technologies; low end being 100Mbps+ unless you only have access to fixed unlimited 5G) - is the $80 per month competitive? It seems too much to be a “special price” for low income households; but since I am not from there, I have trouble figuring that out.

As in, if you take away the subsidy argument - would it even be affordable?

$80 for normal service? Sure, that's a pretty "normal" price. For low-income, subsidized, slower service? No, that's ridiculous.

I think the base rate for my 2Gb/1Gb service is $80.

 

[azazel1024]

Except for maybe some far flung locations, that grant money should only be available for fiber deployment and the backbone should be owned by a quasi-governmental non-profit organization. If it wasn’t too costly to run water, power, and/or telephone lines or would have run in the past then it’s not to costly for fiber. Every other medium pales in comparison for reliability, speed and maintenance.

Pretty much. If the property is or could be hooked up to electric, then it should have fiber run to it also.

If it cannot be hooked up to electric, then I see this being an exemption area where starlink is resonable.

As for the grant money, I see no problem with providing it per subscriber. Not as a bulk grant. After all, with no infrastructure to deploy, why would Starlink need a bulk grant? This isn't like a wired provider where it might cost them $1000 to run fiber to one customer, and $48,000 to another several miles from the nearest infrastructure. Hardware plus maybe a small subsidy for the service itself and call it a day (to actual subscribers)

 

[jlredford]

It sure didn't take long for Starlink to get to its enshittification phase. Usually you lock in a big customer base before you start screwing them over, and then screwing over the businesses that rely on them, but Starlink is going straight to the screwing over of the state agencies. Well, it's the 2020s, and monopolies move fast these days.

 

[neophiliac]

Commerce is often described as an exchange of value; usually "I give you money and you give me something I want."

How should we label "give me money" without the right to expect the balancing "something I want"? How about robbery?

 

[steveftoth]

If they are getting any federal money then we should all have access as our tax dollars are paying for this. There should be multiple tiers (free/cheap/business/etc) but the idea that we are giving them airwave space in the em spectrum and now have to subsidize them? Fuck that.

 

[hwertz]

I'm fine with BEAD being technology neutral. But subsidies when 'buldout' in an area costs 0, no speed guarantees, no price break for low income people ($80 a month? what a joke), and no requirements for employee treatment or insurance? (If they truly have no applicable emplioyees, they dont need an exemption.). Yeah, and I'd like a million dollars.

 

[graylshaped]

"Good day"? : )

 

[dadude]

$80 a month? There is your reason that they want to be paid even if they don't get the contracts - nobody who needs this has the $1k a year to pay for it. It's basically, pay us but we don't serve your needs kind of deal. A Musk company, no surprise grifting off the least fortunate and old.

 

[mattlindn]

Go ahead, SpaceX fans: defend this.


edit: "I can't, but here's a butthurt downvote!"

Sure, I'll give it a go.

Starlink is already by far the best service for rural communities and is immediately accessible to anyone who wants it. SpaceX meanwhile would incur a lot of extra costs complying with the regulatory requirements of BEAD so it needs to be worth it for them to comply with those requirements. SpaceX is basically proposing terms saying "we don't actually need this, but if you actually want to go through with it here are our terms". I think they'd actually prefer the state governments walk away.

 

[Red Knight]

"And if you don't give SpaceX this unconditional handout, you will be stranded on this rock, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where you and your descendants are condemned to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the Sun blows up!

But SpaceX loves you. SpaceX loves you, and they need money!"

(With apologies to George Carlin)

I do not love SpaceX, I love the metacognitive entities that have created thousands of years of culture and history. I want our story, and if we create AGI/ASI, the story of the new metacognitive lifeforms that we create, to expand beyond this planet so that we can collectively carry on towards solving every mystery in reality that can be solved. We need the resources of entire solar systems, even entire galaxies, to be able to run ever larger experiments and give birth to even more advanced metacognitive entities to continue to pursue the path we placed ourselves on when we left behind superstition and adopted the scientific method. If God is real we don't meet them here on Earth with the limited resources available to us. The Earth is a cradle and if we do not leave it we will go extinct here and the flickering flame of metacognition will be extinguished, possibly forever!

Given that framework, I support funneling money towards every single government, corporation, and individual that assists in expanding our footprint beyond the Earth. Sure it would be better to pay directly but if the only way to get money is via bullshit subsidies then I'm fine with it. We all know SLS is a bullshit rocket program but it keeps money flowing towards the technology that actually matters and I'd rather have that than no space program at all.

Also, not for nothing, but Starlink is a revelation. I have an off-grid cabin in Vermont deep in the woods, miles from the nearest telephone pole, and with Starlink I can go to my cabin and take a conference call in the morning, then chop some wood, then write some code, then hike around my property, then approve some PRs, etc. etc. This lifestyle is near optimal for me and is impossible without Starlink so even if you don't care about the manifest destiny part of my argument its still a valuable service as-is.

for most of starlink's customers in the states, fiber is only 'uneconomical' insofar as that is defined by unrestrained parasite-capitalist companies. and where fiber is truly impractical, cell data or other more specialized terrestrial wireless would work. in a sensible regulatory environment, satellite should only be attractive to the most off-grid and far-flung locations, or whoever wants the most disaster resilience possible.

From your word choice I believe we have radically different political philosophies that will make effective communication difficult. But yes Starlink is best for a cabin in the middle of the woods and worst for urban or even suburban areas. These subsidies are bad all around but if they must exist I would prefer SpaceX get the money than Verizon because I think SpaceX helps the future of humanity more than Verizon.

There's a different line item in the budget for that, silly wabbit.

Nice try, though.

I think calling me a silly wabbit is really disrespectful in the sense that it is patronizing to refer to a grown man in such a way and so I would ask to be treated as an equal as I am treating you. That said, I totally agree funding SpaceX via internet access subsidies IS totally dumb and we shouldn't be doing it. Double NASA's budget, kill SLS, and spread the money around to every company doing real work in Space (so not just SpaceX) and I'm a happy man. But sadly that's not how politics works. If BS subsidies are how SpaceX gets money then it is what it is. I don't see congress bending over to shutdown SLS and reallocate those funds to Starship, New Glenn, new spacesuits, the various commercial LEO programs, etc. etc....

Shit like this is why when I see people say shit like "SpaceX is good for humanity" or "SpaceX and Starlink are moving humanity forward" I can't decide whether I should laugh or recoil in horror.

SpaceX dominance in launches is a problem that other players, particularly non-US players, need to be confronting yesterday. They are not a benevolent organisation - and that's not just Musk specifically being an asshole. Anyone out there who thinks SpaceX are your friends, you're wrong. It's a corporation just like all the rest.

They're not your cool geeky friends who are going to Mars. That company is not going to Mars unless someone pays them a fat wad of cash to do it. They're in this for the money. They intend to monopolise the only bits of space that actually make sense in capitalism and the world as we know it today: government contracts and telecommunications.

I have actual real life friend and family who worked at or with SpaceX and they are, in fact, my cool geeky friends. Tens of thousands of the most talented engineers you will ever know have worked there or work there and that company has effectively seeded dozens of startups chock full of geeky folks that are pushing the boundaries of human exploration in space. SpaceX was historically described as a Mars Cult masquerading as a company and that DNA is still there. SpaceX didn't build Starlink to fleece the world of money, they built Starlink because it was the only way Elon could see to generate enough free cashflow to fund his Mars program since no one on Earth was going to do it directly. If we reject every company led by an asshole we reject basically all human progress in the past 200 years.

As for the whole Euro vs USA thing, the fact that European bureaucracy couldn't manage a cheap rocket program if it was handed to them is an indictment of your governments' decision making, not ours! Arianespace owned the commercial market and they completely fumbled reusable rocketry. The UK decided to Brexit instead of working to improve the European model and none of that can be laid at the feet of Trump or SpaceX. I don't think the UK has a large enough economy to grow its own SpaceX competitor and for many reasons besides this I have always supported a United States of Europe. In my mind Brexit was a TERRIBLE idea as the UK is barely a great power on its own - your GDP is 1/10th that of the US and 1/5th China's - and if we're going into a multipolar world I don't think four Vanguard submarines and one aircraft carrier at sea are enough to intimidate China or the US. The best check on a guy like Trump or a guy like Xi at the helm of a superpower is to be part of an organization that is too big and too united to be intimidated. So I fervently hope that the UK rejoins the EU one day in a new federal system with a real empowered executive and that that organization joins the USA as a partner in exploring space. I also hope for mideast peace, for Russia to collapse and for Ukraine to recover all its land, and for King Arthur to finally return to save England...!

 

[graylshaped]

Sure, I'll give it a go.

Starlink is already by far the best service for rural communities and is immediately accessible to anyone who wants it. SpaceX meanwhile would incur a lot of extra costs complying with the regulatory requirements of BEAD so it needs to be worth it for them to comply with those requirements. SpaceX is basically proposing terms saying "we don't actually need this, but if you actually want to go through with it here are our terms". I think they'd actually prefer the state governments walk away.

If SpaceX doesn't need this, then they could, you know, not take the money.

Duh.

 

[stormcrash]

I do not love SpaceX, I love the metacognitive entities that have created thousands of years of culture and history. I want our story, and if we create AGI/ASI, the story of the new metacognitive lifeforms that we create, to expand beyond this planet so that we can collectively carry on towards solving every mystery in reality that can be solved. We need the resources of entire solar systems, even entire galaxies, to be able to run ever larger experiments and give birth to even more advanced metacognitive entities to continue to pursue the path we placed ourselves on when we left behind superstition and adopted the scientific method. If God is real we don't meet them here on Earth with the limited resources available to us. The Earth is a cradle and if we do not leave it we will go extinct here and the flickering flame of metacognition will be extinguished, possibly forever!

Given that framework, I support funneling money towards every single government, corporation, and individual that assists in expanding our footprint beyond the Earth. Sure it would be better to pay directly but if the only way to get money is via bullshit subsidies then I'm fine with it. We all know SLS is a bullshit rocket program but it keeps money flowing towards the technology that actually matters and I'd rather have that than no space program at all.

Also, not for nothing, but Starlink is a revelation. I have an off-grid cabin in Vermont deep in the woods, miles from the nearest telephone pole, and with Starlink I can go to my cabin and take a conference call in the morning, then chop some wood, then write some code, then hike around my property, then approve some PRs, etc. etc. This lifestyle is near optimal for me and is impossible without Starlink so even if you don't care about the manifest destiny part of my argument its still a valuable service as-is.


From your word choice I believe we have radically different political philosophies that will make effective communication difficult. But yes Starlink is best for a cabin in the middle of the woods and worst for urban or even suburban areas. These subsidies are bad all around but if they must exist I would prefer SpaceX get the money than Verizon because I think SpaceX helps the future of humanity more than Verizon.



I think calling me a silly wabbit is really disrespectful in the sense that it is patronizing to refer to a grown man in such a way and so I would ask to be treated as an equal as I am treating you. That said, I totally agree funding SpaceX via internet access subsidies IS totally dumb and we shouldn't be doing it. Double NASA's budget, kill SLS, and spread the money around to every company doing real work in Space (so not just SpaceX) and I'm a happy man. But sadly that's not how politics works. If BS subsidies are how SpaceX gets money then it is what it is. I don't see congress bending over to shutdown SLS and reallocate those funds to Starship, New Glenn, new spacesuits, the various commercial LEO programs, etc. etc....



I have actual real life friend and family who worked at or with SpaceX and they are, in fact, my cool geeky friends. Tens of thousands of the most talented engineers you will ever know have worked there or work there and that company has effectively seeded dozens of startups chock full of geeky folks that are pushing the boundaries of human exploration in space. SpaceX was historically described as a Mars Cult masquerading as a company and that DNA is still there. SpaceX didn't build Starlink to fleece the world of money, they built Starlink because it was the only way Elon could see to generate enough free cashflow to fund his Mars program since no one on Earth was going to do it directly. If we reject every company led by an asshole we reject basically all human progress in the past 200 years.

As for the whole Euro vs USA thing, the fact that European bureaucracy couldn't manage a cheap rocket program if it was handed to them is an indictment of your governments' decision making, not ours! Arianespace owned the commercial market and they completely fumbled reusable rocketry. The UK decided to Brexit instead of working to improve the European model and none of that can be laid at the feet of Trump or SpaceX. I don't think the UK has a large enough economy to grow its own SpaceX competitor and for many reasons besides this I have always supported a United States of Europe. In my mind Brexit was a TERRIBLE idea as the UK is barely a great power on its own - your GDP is 1/10th that of the US and 1/5th China's - and if we're going into a multipolar world I don't think four Vanguard submarines and one aircraft carrier at sea are enough to intimidate China or the US. The best check on a guy like Trump or a guy like Xi at the helm of a superpower is to be part of an organization that is too big and too united to be intimidated. So I fervently hope that the UK rejoins the EU one day in a new federal system with a real empowered executive and that that organization joins the USA as a partner in exploring space. I also hope for mideast peace, for Russia to collapse and for Ukraine to recover all its land, and for King Arthur to finally return to save England...!

Cool story, they still willingly work for a nazi and the ends don't justify the means. I mean just listen to yourself. "metacognitive lifeforms"? That's your priority? Space is cool but what you're expecting is nothing but a sci fi nerd pipe dream. If any of it is coming true it's literal centuries or even millennia away and SpaceX does literally nothing to accelerate or change that.

SpaceX can implode burning dropping off a cliff for all I care at this point because Fuck Elon. It's not worth the destruction of our society for it to exist. And just because your friends are "cool" or "geeky" doesn't justify their or your priorities or justify continuing to support a fascist lunatic like Musk

 

[stk5]

Here I used to think Comcast/Xfinity were the worst ISP on the planet.

<bad Yogi Berra impression> I think they call that competition inaction

 

[Red Knight]

Cool story, they still willingly work for a nazi and the ends don't justify the means. I mean just listen to yourself. "metacognitive lifeforms"? That's your priority? Space is cool but what you're expecting is nothing but a sci fi nerd pipe dream. If any of it is coming true it's literal centuries or even millennia away and SpaceX does literally nothing to accelerate or change that.

SpaceX can implode burning dropping off a cliff for all I care at this point because Fuck Elon. It's not worth the destruction of our society for it to exist. And just because your friends are "cool" or "geeky" doesn't justify their or your priorities or justify continuing to support a fascist lunatic like Musk

We deeply disagree on many points. As a (philosophical) conservative I believe that humanity is inherently flawed so I automatically assume all our leaders are likewise flawed, even prone to great evil. The miracle for me is that we achieve any lasting or complex work of Good at all. Elon's the nazi of today but there will always be flawed or even evil people running the world and if we cannot have progress until humanity solves all of its flaws we will absolutely never, ever, ever leave the planet. So I can look pass A LOT.

I'm the guy who always says that the US was justified in given a literal Nazi (Warner Von Braun) a prominent job at the head of our rocket program because he got us to the moon. Given that, you're probably not going to succeed in moving my opinion about Elon. In other words, Elon can do more wrong on this planet than he already has before the total weight of all his wrongs lead me to say that we should shutdown SpaceX if that's what it takes to stop him. But also, I support removing Elon from SpaceX and putting its leadership in other hands if that's what maximizes our probability of getting humans to Mars - so don't mistake me for a fanboy, I just want to see the tools we have be best used to achieve the objectives I care most about.

I also think that SpaceX is not in the path of destroying our society; the threads of populism and anti-intellectualism predate Trump and Elon and exist in many countries without those gentlemen. I don't think money for SpaceX leads to the decay of western civilization; if I thought it did then yes I would also agree we should support shutting down the firm.

 

[stormcrash]

We deeply disagree on many points. As a (philosophical) conservative I believe that humanity is inherently flawed so I automatically assume all our leaders are likewise flawed, even prone to great evil. The miracle for me is that we achieve any lasting or complex work of Good at all. Elon's the nazi of today but there will always be flawed or even evil people running the world and if we cannot have progress until humanity solves all of its flaws we will absolutely never, ever, ever leave the planet. So I can look pass A LOT.

I'm the guy who always says that the US was justified in given a literal Nazi (Warner Von Braun) a prominent job at the head of our rocket program because he got us to the moon. Given that, you're probably not going to succeed in moving my opinion about Elon. In other words, Elon can do more wrong on this planet than he already has before the total weight of all his wrongs lead me to say that we should shutdown SpaceX if that's what it takes to stop him. But also, I support removing Elon from SpaceX and putting its leadership in other hands if that's what maximizes our probability of getting humans to Mars - so don't mistake me for a fanboy, I just want to see the tools we have be best used to achieve the objectives I care most about.

I also think that SpaceX is not in the path of destroying our society; the threads of populism and anti-intellectualism predate Trump and Elon and exist in many countries without those gentlemen. I don't think money for SpaceX leads to the decay of western civilization; if I thought it did then yes I would also agree we should support shutting down the firm.

If we're that flawed as you seem to thing then if we go extinct it will be by our own hand and deserved, and going interstellar or interplanetary would be undeserved and a blight upon the universe.

Got it, you have no problem with nazis and fascism so long as your petty sci fi wet dream becomes reality. You and your "good nerd" buddies need to go outside, touch grass, and get back in touch with reality, because the isolated bubble you're in is disturbingly warped in how it views priorities, human nature, and the dignity of the person and of good.

That fact that you're okay with great evil, with oppression, exploitation, inequality, all to "achieve the objectives [you] care most about" is deeply disturbing, because those objectives are neither important or worthy of such sacrifice. The fact that a mountain of bodies being sacrificed to achieve petty goals is deeply self centered and deeply disturbing. You are not the main character on this planet, and other people's lives are not expendable fodder for your own gain.

Do you not see the great irony here? You claim "populism" is the destructive force, yet you're totally okay with the actors that are feeding funding and exploiting that for their own gain and to make others miserable to feed their own egos.

Fuck Mars, fuck SpaceX, Fuck Musk. Mars and SpaceX aren't going to save you from the misery that Musk, Trump, and the uber wealthy are actively unleashing on this planet. They don't care about you or your goals, they aren't going to put you in power with them, and they sure as fuck aren't going to make your petty self centered delusional goals a reality

 

[stk5]

Maybe SpaceX wants that subsidy so it can help the other, money-bleeding Xs keep going: Musk's SpaceX in merger talks with xAI ahead of planned IPO, source says I'm sure harnessing all of the agitator and CSAM revenge porn bots will get humanity to Mars and bring peace to the universe

 

[ArsLongaVitaBrevis_4321]

So… inquiring minds want to know:

If I buy a Starlink terminal and subscription for the express purpose of supporting and performing (lawful) ANTI-fascist activities . . . am i then still an anti-facist?, OR, am I a fascist (for, effectively?, supporting or subsidizing Elon’s Nazi behavior)?

And, just, to be clear, my question (or maybe quandary), is actually something that I’m genuinely pondering (as opposed to: a humorous? hypothetical)…

 

[graylshaped]

I'm the guy who always says that the US was justified in given a literal Nazi (Warner Von Braun) a prominent job at the head of our rocket program because he got us to the moon. Given that, you're probably not going to succeed in moving my opinion about Elon.

Put Elon in a lab instead of at one of the world's largest podiums and you might be on to something.

You wouldn't be, because Elon isn't an inventor or a scientist. What he does do is write checks--and too often ones so written with his mouth he has no intention of honoring. Sometimes he hires good people who are effective. Sometimes he hires Big Balls.

 

[MrQRO]

"SpaceX sends list of demands to US states giving broadband grants to Starlink"

You know corporations have gotten too big when they can make demands to states.

Yeah, I'm noticing a frightful trend lately with just about everything. We've gotten to the point that these A-Hole Corps feel they are simply owed money from us for just existing! We don't actually need to provide a good, or service, any TOS, any contract, or any end product. Just Pay US! We are your corporate overlords, and SO indispensable, we just require tribute from ALL!

 

[tRexx]

It sounds like heads we win, tails we win more.

 

[Wernher von Grün]

Space Karen demands...

Really?

 

[Komarov]

Commerce is often described as an exchange of value; usually "I give you money and you give me something I want."

How should we label "give me money" without the right to expect the balancing "something I want"? How about robbery?

Disrupting innovation.

 

[Red Knight]

If we're that flawed as you seem to thing then if we go extinct it will be by our own hand and deserved, and going interstellar or interplanetary would be undeserved and a blight upon the universe.

I think our choice is to grow with our flaws or die here with them. If we are the only life in the galaxy there is nothing for us to blight by our expansion, unlike what Europe did to many locations elsewhere on Earth. Growth gives us more opportunities to solve our flaws. Every additional university, research center, mine extracting minerals from the earth, every new brain is an opportunity to sample reality more and test more hypothesizes predicting the nature of that reality. To fail to grow, in my mind, is to accept an inevitable turn back towards the Dark Ages.

Got it, you have no problem with nazis and fascism so long as your petty sci fi wet dream becomes reality. You and your "good nerd" buddies need to go outside, touch grass, and get back in touch with reality, because the isolated bubble you're in is disturbingly warped in how it views priorities, human nature, and the dignity of the person and of good.

I have many problems with nazis and fascism. I've voted against Trump in both primaries and general elections every time since 2016. But if you look around in your room at the clothes on your body, the tech on your desk, the very lumber in the walls of the building you're sitting in, how much of it was put there by an owner who believed things or spent their money on things that were almost certainly heinous? If the standard is we can't endorse any company run by bad people we have to go back to living in the state of nature and I can't follow you that far. I support embracing the good from flawed companies and people while simultaneously working to improve the flaws in that slow gradual process that has defined humanity's long climb out from barbarism.

Do you not see the great irony here? You claim "populism" is the destructive force, yet you're totally okay with the actors that are feeding funding and exploiting that for their own gain and to make others miserable to feed their own egos.

Fuck Mars, fuck SpaceX, Fuck Musk. Mars and SpaceX aren't going to save you from the misery that Musk, Trump, and the uber wealthy are actively unleashing on this planet. They don't care about you or your goals, they aren't going to put you in power with them, and they sure as fuck aren't going to make your petty self centered delusional goals a reality

I agree that Trump is no good and that Musk shouldn't be allowed to run a publicly traded company, but I do not agree that SpaceX should be told to f--- off.

To the degree that my goals are delusional and self-centered, all I can say is that I assume this is how all humans are and maybe this is part of the core reason why I am philosophically conservative and you are, presumably, philosophically liberal.

No matter, I hope you and I both continue to share in the bounties that human artifice have created and that we can both pursue our own conceptions of the good life without oppression or fear. And you have my full support in opposing anyone who would interfere with your Life, Liberty, or Property without the due course of Law.

 

[PhillyJimi]

$80 is more than I pay for my 1gig google fiber internet, and that even include 1tb cloud storage.

But do you live out in the sticks? I mean is that really an apples to apples comparison?

Putting whatever feelings you have to Musk to the side just for the sake of examining the raw facts. What other reasonable options are there if you live in a very remote area?
I get the desire to want to guarantee certain performance levels are met but I also know that the devil is in the details. Sometimes it seems like to me, if the performance dips just below the advertised rates, there are kickers that trigger where they don't have to pay anything at all for the service. Sounds reasonable but it also isn't reasonable to game the system with unrealistic demands designed to have a party fail.

We all have to understand there are billions at stake here and dirty pool isn't beyond any of the parties playing in this high stakes game. Especially when everyone is trying to be 1st in line. It is much easier to capture market share when you're the only game in town. Converting from existing customers is much more difficult and a lot less profitable.

 

[stormcrash]

I think our choice is to grow with our flaws or die here with them. If we are the only life in the galaxy there is nothing for us to blight by our expansion, unlike what Europe did to many locations elsewhere on Earth. Growth gives us more opportunities to solve our flaws. Every additional university, research center, mine extracting minerals from the earth, every new brain is an opportunity to sample reality more and test more hypothesizes predicting the nature of that reality. To fail to grow, in my mind, is to accept an inevitable turn back towards the Dark Ages.


I have many problems with nazis and fascism. I've voted against Trump in both primaries and general elections every time since 2016. But if you look around in your room at the clothes on your body, the tech on your desk, the very lumber in the walls of the building you're sitting in, how much of it was put there by an owner who believed things or spent their money on things that were almost certainly heinous? If the standard is we can't endorse any company run by bad people we have to go back to living in the state of nature and I can't follow you that far. I support embracing the good from flawed companies and people while simultaneously working to improve the flaws in that slow gradual process that has defined humanity's long climb out from barbarism.


I agree that Trump is no good and that Musk shouldn't be allowed to run a publicly traded company, but I do not agree that SpaceX should be told to f--- off.

To the degree that my goals are delusional and self-centered, all I can say is that I assume this is how all humans are and maybe this is part of the core reason why I am philosophically conservative and you are, presumably, philosophically liberal.

No matter, I hope you and I both continue to share in the bounties that human artifice have created and that we can both pursue our own conceptions of the good life without oppression or fear. And you have my full support in opposing anyone who would interfere with your Life, Liberty, or Property without the due course of Law.

And pray tell what exactly are you conserving with your "philosophical conservatism"? What toes that even mean? It certainly isn't human dignity. Your view of humanity and your fellow humans is shockingly dark at best and sociopathic at worst. You aren't "conserving" anything, you're demanding that new stuff be done on the sacrifice of others. You certainly aren't even conservative in the religious sense, since then you would view human dignity and human life as having intrinsic self worth given by God rather than only in the conditional and transactional value of what a person can do for you. If this is how you and your "nerd friends" think then you're disturbingly out of touch.

Your defense of "well I didn't vote for fascism" isn't' the defense you think it is since you outright state your perfectly fine with it as long as it furthers your own goals. Everything is relative to it's service to you. Such moral relativism is not a "conservative" view in the least. You aren't looking to improve flaws but to exploit them and amplify them for personal gain.

If we can't "get into space" without doing it on a mountain of bodies then we don't deserve it. Period. And what exactly is so pressing about getting to space to even try to justify it? Nothing. We have plenty of resources on this planet, we're not in grave danger of extinction here. And if we screw up so badly that we are then it's our own damn fault. We have plenty of room to grow without "going interplanetary" being the only or best option.

And sod off with the strawman of "oh you're setting the bar too high about big bad mean ceos", the bar here is rampant exploitation and killing people Musk has killed people with his actions like gutting USAID, his companies have been found guilty multiple times of being hostile work places, his companies have covered for him on sexual assault, found guilty of sexual and racial discrimination, abused workers with things like abrupt demands to cancel time off etc. He has made the world a more dangerous deadly racist place by his actions. That's not "typical ceo is an asshole" stuff.