[wkat4242]

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.

[bradley13]

"Or lack the permission to offer the service."

Musk once said that, in that case, the country's leaders could "shake their fists impotently at the sky". Which is imho the right answer.

[lxgr]

Until one of them shoots down one of his satellites and ruins LEO for everybody.

Space as a shared resource (as opposed to e.g. airspace) only works if countries (and corporations) respect each others sovereignty.

[CamperBob2]

How is Musk responsible for what amounts to a terroristic atrocity committed by an evil regime?

[lxgr]

What government are you talking about? That of Botswana, Ghana, or South Africa?

[talldayo]

Because people like me pay for his service, and if his service stops working we'll stop paying for it.

[CamperBob2]

Because people like me pay for his service, and if his service stops working we'll stop paying for it.

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense, so I'm probably missing your point. Can you clarify?

[talldayo]

I am a Starlink customer. I don't love or hate Musk particularly, but when he makes bold claims that foreign leaders are helpless to stop LEO internet I hope he's ready to back that up. In light of recent developments[0] I don't think it's appropriate to assume all adversaries are helpless, and terrorism or not I'd assume Russia feels they have casus belli on Starlink after Musk's clashes with Russian governance and cooperation with NATO allies.

[0] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/pentagon-official-warns-r...

[lupusreal]

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.

[JumpCrisscross]

> One satellite wouldn't "ruin LEO for everybody"

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.

[lupusreal]

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.

[JumpCrisscross]

The precedent is set once one is shot down. At that moment, SpaceX loses control over Starlink because it becomes clear its decisions carry military implications for America as a whole. (Nobody will expropriate it. But laws would need to be passed to ensure Bezos going on a bender won’t start WWIII.)

[lxgr]

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.

[robertlagrant]

> 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.

[greenish_shores]

Not to nitpick, but polar flights can (and do, as a back-up, sometimes not only) use HF comms (which do not rely on a line-of-sight, as the waves are long enough to "bounce" off the ionosphere). It's slow (~300bps if transmitting data?), sometimes (but rarely) can have latency up to 15 minutes (interference from the Sun and others stars breaking/jamming comms for some short time, along other phenomenons), but it works. Even 15 years ago not every commercial airplane had satcom link installed, and even now, HF is the only thing which is required when flying away from VHF range. But anyway satcom is just more convenient usually (as long as it is available and it works).

On the other hand, I also think that some *ground* safety systems will rely on satellite data links as a back-up, as well.

[lxgr]

Yes, but does that make it any less useful for safety-of-life, especially given that Starlink is not even a viable alternative for that application yet?

[aaronblohowiak]

Iridium is 140 miles further away from earth than starlink, though..

[lxgr]

I could imagine that in a head-on intercept of an Iridium satellite, some of the debris might make it into higher or lower orbital shell, but to be fair I don't know how realistic that actually is.

[InitialLastName]

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.

[Onavo]

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.

[kjksf]

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.).

[wkat4242]

That's all nice and well for the sat segment. The downlink station and customer premise equipment is a wholly different story of course.

[cubefox]

This would likely mean Starlink dishes imported from the US would get confiscated at customs.

[loceng]

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.

[Angostura]

> existing industrial complex-government power structure

Or local businesses as they are sometimes known

[loceng]

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?

[Angostura]

> But what point were you trying to make? That Starlink is bad for local economies because people are paying a non-local company?

It's certainly a good way to suppress local infrastructure development, yes

[ranger_danger]

> Many countries forbid most satellite equipment, even big ones like India.

Do you have a source for this?

[wkat4242]

Here for example: https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/64974/why-are-sat...

Inmarsat is the only exception for phones.