[ExI] The Starlink-Ukraine Scandal, Phase 2

[Stuart LaForge]

On 2026-10-23 05:09, Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat wrote:
> This is less a case of justifying taking Starlink away from Musk, as
> of not having this service rely on just one private provider:
> Starshield really should be implemented through more than just
> Starlink, in case one service provider (such as Starlink) goes down
> for whatever reason.
> 
> The Internet is supposed to interpret censorship as damage and route
> around it - and it does, when properly implemented.
> 
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2026 at 7:32 AM John Clark via extropy-chat
> <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>> 
>> The case for taking Starlink away from Musk gets even stronger

I don't like either idea. I don't think the U.S.A. should set a 
precedent by nationalizing a private business, but I don't like the idea 
of a bunch of competing constellations of satellites competing for the 
same market. I am worried that Kessler syndrome could trap us, or even 
AI, planet side. Also as is Starlink is already messing up terrestrial 
astronomy by being so big, I don't think multiple redundant copies of it 
would be a good idea.

I am not saying that the government should let Musk keep a monopoly, but 
maybe they should do something like partition the satellite network into 
multiple companies incorporated in multiple states or something kind of 
like they did with AT&T back in 1984. I am ok with multiple space launch 
companies and additional satellites in orbit, but maybe the government 
should lease out specific orbits the way the FCC leases out RF/MW 
frequencies on the EM spectrum?

Stuart LaForge