[janice1999]

You're making those assertions with no absolutely no data though. In a sane, non-corrupt system a trusted third party with recognised industry experience would assess the contract, what has been agreed to and what been delivered and make an evaluation based on the cost, risk, timetables etc. None of that happened here. It's just naked corruption.

[profile53]

The existing system is already corrupt so I don’t think that hypothetical is helpful here. The process by which contracts are awarded is already unfair and biased towards certain players with the right connections to get a contract written in a way that only they can fulfill.

It’s possible, although I have not verified, that the contract was written in such a way that Verizon was the only qualified applicant because of lobbying.

[jesterson]

What you are talking about is a pure theory and never exist in real world. Start with trusted 3rd party - trusted by who?

Starlink technologically can provide better connectivity in terms of speed and reliability compared to Verizon (can doesn’t mean it will of course). So there is some credibility to the decision.

But of course populace prefer to focus on flamboyant personalities instead of “based on cost, risk, timetables” ain’t it?

[omnivore]

Procurement rules exist for a reason, letting one guy funnel business to his company using the President's power is a huge risk to the nation-state.

[rbanffy]

Imagine if he decides to disconnect all in-flight airliners just because he’s high?