Starlink relies on local downlinks (the laser link traffic is of course limited) so they probably just don't have the capacity in those regions. Or lack the permission to offer the service. Many countries forbid most satellite equipment, even big ones like India.
One satellite wouldn't "ruin LEO for everybody" and even if enough were shot down to cause a problem it would be a short-lived problem because most of the debris would decay within a few years. Furthermore, "ruin" is relative, "Kessler syndrome" doesn't mean instant satellite death, it results in an increased attrition rate which can be addressed by simply launching more of the highest value satellites and leaving the others on the ground until the situation clears up in a few years. SpaceX is in a good position to do this since they can replace satellites in LEO very cheaply.
Also, the countries most likely to do something this stupid are the ones the US government is giving him permission to defy, particularly Iran or Russia. If something happens, it will be more on the US government than SpaceX.
Why would it be one satellite? Many countries consider LEO sovereign airspace. And there would be international cover from countries like China and Russia.
If potting sats becomes normalised it ceases to be something that can be privately financed.
I responded to "Until one of them shoots down ONE OF his satellites and ruins LEO for everybody." And furthermore, the rest of my comment covers a scenario where many satellites are hit instead of just one.
I didn't say "ruin forever". "Elon-exclusive for a couple of years" honestly sounds bad enough.
There's not only Starlink in LEO. Some of the existing constellations there are safety-of-life relevant (e.g. Iridium for polar flights or shipping routes), and Iridium doesn't have a stockpile of spares sitting on launchpads for an "Elon poked the bear one too many times" scenario.
> Some of the existing constellations there are safety-of-life relevant (e.g. Iridium for polar flights or shipping routes), and Iridium doesn't have a stockpile of spares sitting on launchpads for an "Elon poked the bear one too many times" scenario.
Iridium is only useful in safety-of-life because it's too expensive for anything else. If SpaceX were that bad at creating a market for satellites no one would be trying to shoot their satellites down.
Until he decides he wants to offer the service above-board to residents of those countries and their regulators decide that, because he's been shirking their laws for years, they won't allow him to import/sell his devices legally.
His other businesses will most likely get sanctioned, employees associated with them will conveniently get searched and detained on trumped up charges whenever they visit said countries. It's very difficult because Musk's businesses are hardware businesses, and with hardware there is a supply chain involved.
It's not difficult for a state level entity to create problems for his businesses.
That was in the context of hostile nations, like Russia or Iran or Cuba, where Starlink has no chance of being allowed.
Everywhere else it makes much more sense to get permission to operate (vs. trying some pirate operation where Starlink is treated like a contraband that needs to be illegally imported into the country, the payments must happen stealthily, you get no support etc.).
A single Starlink could service bandwidth to a whole lot of people through local wired connections - which is a serious disruption to the existing industrial complex-government power structure; is what comes to my mind first.
Until there's consolidation and it's no longer local but national or multi-national, or global companies like Blackrock et al who own controlling shares and board member positions to steer the companies how they choose.
But there is a good point and pattern to notice here, that further consolidation into a global companies providing internet access put resources and power into even fewer hands, but now that power is no longer being held by potentially authoritarian politicians and their Gestapo.
The solution for that means requiring multiple satellite internet providers, and people paying attention always to prevent a critical mass or majority of them from capture by bad actors - which we know happened with MSM consolidation, as well as more recently with social media platforms all illegally colluding with the US government - exposed due to Elon buying Twitter-X and releasing the Twitter Files.
But what point were you trying to make? That Starlink is bad for local economies because people are paying a non-local company?
> Why do they give a damn if people are subscribing in the US and using their product in Africa?
A government gets to decide what their citizens can have.
Think about it the other way around.
Let's say there is a brand new vehicle for sale in China with no airbags, no abs, no emissions controls of any kind, etc.
People in the US are absolutely NOT allowed to purchase that because the government of the US have decided it goes against the public interest (safety, pollution, etc.).
Just because one country thinks people should be able to conceal carry handguns, that doesn't mean other countries have to allow it.
Then it is up to the local government to confiscate their starlink hardware. There is no reason for starlink to respect every single legal jurisdiction's rules. They only need to deal with wherever they connect to ISPs.
What is an African country going to do about enforcing anything to do with starlink other than confiscate hardware within their borders? Whine to the UN that someone is competing with their local telecom?
Do Africans deserve less enforcement of things their government has not approved than people in other parts of the world?
Would you be OK if some country started making high-current electrical devices that were not approved and then just forcefully sold them in your country, even though regulations prohibited it?
I am not belittling them. Just recognizing the fact they have no power to enforce anything on starlink.
It's not about what they "deserve". It is about what is physically possible.
I would love it if pirate internet via satellite that cannot be controlled by any government became a common thing in the US (and everywhere in the world). Unfortunately the US does have the enforcement capability to tell starlink what to do.
Other people have mentioned the legal/sanctions reasons.
But also, from a business point of view, maximum profit might mean offering a $100 a month service for residential users, a $1000 a month service for billionaires' yachts, a $5000 a month service for private jets, and a $100,000 a month service for defence industry applications.
Charging more for use away from home, based on GPS data, could be very profitable. Especially as you need GPS tracking to beam the signals to the right place anyway.
You must have read a different article, because "starlink doesn't like it" is the only justification or explanation the article offers for their stance. And that is neither a valid justification nor an explanation.