Gotcha. So fascism it is then. How's that working out for y'all? Lmao

Your comment doesn't make sense. You say the US never nationalized and in the next sentence you say that they have. Remember after the 2008 collapse when the automotive industry was nationalized for a while and the government made a profit? Maybe you need to check your own ignorance.

Tankie your ass. You don't have to have a shitty dictatorship to have nationalized services. Clearly you don't know as much as you think you do.

From what I understand the Ukrainians never had control of the nukes, they didn't actually have the launch codes to use them.

Regardless, having global access to the internet is great. Ask the people living in remote areas of the Amazon, no chance for them to get fiber, or Africa, or remote islands, or ships/airplanes.

If youre speaking of rural America not needing starlink because fiber is a thing, then you should broaden your horizons

Thanks for murdering a perfectly good bit.

We now live in a world controlled by Sociopathic Oligarchs who can afford to create government level technology.

People have lived in that world for most/all of human history. Assuming you come from the west, you're coming from a place where for the last couple of hundred years it's been more cost effective to just buy the government instead. Is that better? Maybe, it's a little more stable. I dunno if it's good though.

You don’t nationalise a company (SpaceX) just because the existing government owned company (NASA) is significantly worse. What do you think would happen to SpaceX if they did nationalise it? Lol. It would go to hell, like NASA.

The government should not be responsible for things like this. The government should provide services for necessities for human rights and general standards of living, but they shouldn’t take over successful companies just because they couldn’t do it themselves.

SpaceX and starlink have had very little success the last few years? What have you been smoking?!

If not Musk should be forced from his roles in these companies. You cannot be a defense contractor and do ketamine.

Most countries have public options for services and private alternatives as either competitors, backups, or complimentary pieces. It's very rare for countries to completely nationalize sectors, and it's especially rare for them to national that many sectors.

Yeah, we're not going to nationalize the entire economy because that's really stupid. Our tax dollars reach every nook and carny of the economy, but that's fine. Tax dollars are meant to be used in a way that makes the country operate safely, smoothly, and reliably. A lot of this is done by putting the money back into the economy in the form of subsidies, welfare, wages, and government contracts. It's fine for the government to pay a business to provide as long as the business is offering fair market prices and they're delivering an acceptable product or service. The tax money that goes into such a business doesn't just go to the shareholders, it also goes to everybody else as well.

That being said, shareholders can be scumbags, I'm with you there. If they are clearly conducting unethical behavior or illegal behavior then they should be immediately cut off. This includes things like delivering unacceptable products and services by cutting too many corners or committing fraud to take more tax money than they should or trying to scheme to monopolize and so on. These types of shareholders should've receive bailouts or awarded government contracts, they should be thrown in jail. But we shouldn't nationalize the economy because some shareholders are crooks.

Gotcha. So fascism it is then. How’s that working out for y’all? Lmao

This is going to be shocking for you, but there's more to politics than fascism and marxism

Your comment doesn’t make sense. You say the US never nationalized and in the next sentence you say that they have.

My point was that the US never nationalized any sector permanently for the sake of making it public. It also temporarily nationalized portions of some sectors to stabilize them before making them private again.

And the international customers, what about them? The ground stations, POPs, and terminals in other countries, hmmmm?

The precedent that will set and the implications... No... We should not do this.

Tankies live in alternate reality where they think that nationalization is extremely common and is a magical solution to all of societies problems... even though this view is entirely delusional.

For example, only 3 countries have nationalized the entire ISP industry, and those are Cuba, Turkmenistan, and North Korea. All three of which are horrid tyrannical dictatorships with horrible internet. We should NOT be like them. Even when it comes to health insurance, except for 3 countries I just mentioned, every single country allows private health insurance, even if their system is public. Clearly nationalization is not what you think it is.

Yeah, if they want to make satellites last longer, they could go a bit higher in their orbits. The option is there.

Please. They only exist because of government funding. If NASA had as many rockets explode as SpaceX has, people like you would be screaming about the waste of taxpayer dollars.

Also, it's only a matter of time before starlink satellites crash into each other and start a chain reaction. You can kiss space travel goodbye after that.

I think that's a complicated question. It's both yes and no. Yes, we should nationalize them. No, nationalizing them should not be by tRump. That sets the precedent, or at least reinforces, the concept that the architecture of industry can be nationalized as payback for petty political squabbling. They should be nationalized, however, because fElon has proven himself to be unstable, reckless, petty, and a risk to the nation.

Just because something is a “utility” it doesn’t mean that the government should own and run it lol.

That would also make latency worse and the signal weaker.

Would the small ground starlink dish be able to reach higher orbits? I guess if the satellite is going to stay up longer you could afford to make it's antennas a bit bigger to mitigate that.

But they specifically don't want to do that because ensuring a 5 year service life means you are required to continue buying more satellites from them every 5 years. Literally burning resources into nothingness just to pursue a predatory subscription model.

It also helps their case that LEO has much lower latency than mid or high orbit but I refuse to believe that that is their primary driving concern behind this and not the former.