Boy should you watch extortion on live TV from yesterday. I have heard that a president was unsuccessfully impeached for exact same thing a few years back.
You can admire SpaceX's innovation and dislike Verizon while still being concerned that this is a land grab by Musk.
We are talking about the FENS contract here that was awarded after a competitive bid process in 2023. Verizon and their partners (eg Saab aerospace) beat out HarrisL3, Raytheon, and some others.
If Musk is asserting that the contract was improperly awarded, then there are very well established processes to appeal. (And such appeals would also stop work on the project pending resolution.)
However what I see instead is that he is simply instructing the FAA to cancel the deal and use Starlink/SpaceX instead. That is at best murky and at worst corrupt.
As for Musk's companies' ability to execute on the details of the contract, knowing how to make cellphone calls via a satellite is a million miles away from knowing how to migrate a massive, and safety critical, telecommunications infrastructure from 2000s-era tech to 2024.
Chestertons fence and strict budgetary discipline are both needed, and one cannot ignore the first, claim the second, but hope to get by on hubris.
It is partially talent (of Musk certainly and the team he has assembled), and partially altruism (they could just charge 50% less instead of 90% less). Also the government made virtually no attempt at competition - it had to be dragged to this outcome.
As for conflict of interest - I guarantee the existing Verizon contract was not the result of a fair competition. No one would look to Verizon of all companies for any kind of modernization. At least this way we get a competent company working on this problem.
> the government made virtually no attempt at competition
> I guarantee the existing Verizon contract was not the result of a fair competition.
Do you have evidence for these claims? Legitimately curious. Government contracting is often very broken but you state this with a pretty extreme degree of confidence even in light of this.
The attempt at competition was about options for launch capability. The US government was happy to sustain the prior situation of a few overpriced stagnant prime contractors for a long time - same with defense. It was hard to impossible for anyone else to enter that space and get attention (let alone money) from those making decisions.
Regarding bidding. It is incredibly common for these decisions to be made in a way that rewards friends, family members, donors. The law requires a competitive process but it is often corrupted and only gives the appearance of a working process. The appeals are very expensive and time consuming so a lot of the time, it’s just not worth it. There’s not much you can do unless you’re a large company with lots of money.
Oh sorry I'm not talking about SpaceX launches. I'm asking about the FAA/Verizon situation.
I don't think general vibes and challenges with winning billion dollar government contracts suffices as evidence for: "I guarantee the existing Verizon contract was not the result of a fair competition."
Nor is there sufficient evidence to claim the new administration is doing anything corrupt. They could just be taking the appropriate emergency measures. Or not. But it seems like different standards for evidence are being applied to different sides.
Okay so you actually cannot “guarantee” the prior contract’s award process was bad.
And sure, we don’t know this change is corrupt. We do know that there is a very clear conflict of interest though, so people are reasonably demanding more transparency.
No, there is no clear conflict of interest. You have no idea who exactly is making what decision or why. Stay consistent. Don’t back off your threshold for evidence now.
Yes, there very obviously IS a conflict of interest.
“Conflict of interest” is not the same as “corrupt.” A person can have conflicted interests and still make totally valid, non-corrupt decisions. Even making a self-beneficial decision while having conflicted interests isn’t necessarily corrupt/bad.
“Conflict of interest” refers to the interests themselves, which are very obviously unambiguously conflicted here.
Government interests: spend as little money as possible for capability X
Starlink interests: capture as much money as possible for capability X
That’s a conflict regardless of what decision anyone makes and whether it was the right one.
I mean… I guess you’re welcome to simply have faith that this particular contract is not being fiddled with by the same people (a slew of SpaceX’ers) as literally every other contract in the federal government despite those exact people entering FAA just a few days ago [1] but uh… I would bet money on it.
Seems extremely wishful to think this particular contract isn’t being reviewed by someone with SpaceX equity (I.e. someone who is conflicted) alongside every other contract, but… ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
My main concern is Verizon was moving from point to point copper to ip over fiber (for midsize and larger airports). Starlink is ip based, but is much much easier to interfere with its operation. We've seen successful jamming happening in Ukraine.
I don't mind the idea that starlink would be useful for a ton of smaller airports that the fiber buildout would be extremely costly for what they provide, but the idea that JFK shouldn't use hard lines terrifying.
Your arguments is maybe the deal was corrupt so why does it matter if the new deal is 100% corrupt because there was an unrelated deal made that was competitive in the past.
It does not matter at all if they do a good job or a bad job, it's naked corruption that enriches someone for purely corrupt reasons. Then he has more money to corrupt government.
It's a contract for a glorified enterprise network with a massive amount of red tape, what exactly would be SpaceXs irreplaceable specialized knowledge here?
Last one to praise Verizon but this sounds exactly like the mindnumbingly boring stuff they do.
The original might have been corrupted, but this new thing is absolutely, definitely corrupt and they're not even trying to hide it, FFS.
Starlink has already tried to play politics in the Ukraine invasion. So, how long before they start playing politics with US internet? If they've done it once, it's way easier the second time and, let's face it, their ultimate boss is already in the bag for it.
At this point it feels like a fault in anti competitive laws. Both that a ruling party can award contracts to each other and that important infrastructure can be under control of a single individual, and one extremely volatile too. To me the most likely outcome is Wordpress/WPEngine like dramas, only on a larger scale.
If the Republicans in Congress actually honored their oaths to the Constitution over their cowardly loyalty to party, they would impeach. However, they are complicit in the dismantling of America.
This needed to be stopped on Day 2 of Trump's first term when he shat on the Emoluments Clause. At this point it's clear that we have ceased to have a justice system that reigns in the powerful.
For the most part you have exactly the same levers to pull at people in the United States, sans voting in elections, but most Americans don’t even do that, and some specific things that require a physical presence, like protesting at the White House specifically.
Setting aside that you can do things about this and effect change, caring about something isn’t the same as being able to affect that thing, so your reasoning “people outside the US don’t care because they can’t do anything about it” is a bit off.
You can prepare for negative second-order effects. Perhaps not every individual article is helpful for that but it’s hard to say they are not in aggregate.
But it is unclear how. America is now Russian ally and a danger/bully to other countries. So, America making itself more corrupt and consequently likely weaker or less performing may turn out either way for others.
Musk becoming richer and even more powerful is bad result tho.
Obviously riches in all countries are influencing politics. But Musk is next (probably never seen before) level. The guys with golden Kalashnikovs look like kids compared to him. Will Musk be the next president?
Unreal how naked corruption is now.
Unreal how quickly this topic was flagged.
Almost like some people don't want to see the truth about tech-led or tech-supported corruption coming out.
HN is a bunch of wankers now.
Boy should you watch extortion on live TV from yesterday. I have heard that a president was unsuccessfully impeached for exact same thing a few years back.
I never thought I’d be on Verizon’s side
Between this and cheering on the pharmaceutical companies against RFK, I feel like a version of myself from an alternate reality.
I will always side against a neo-Nazi sympathizer, regardless.
[flagged]
You can admire SpaceX's innovation and dislike Verizon while still being concerned that this is a land grab by Musk.
We are talking about the FENS contract here that was awarded after a competitive bid process in 2023. Verizon and their partners (eg Saab aerospace) beat out HarrisL3, Raytheon, and some others.
https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/safety-ops-regulation...
If Musk is asserting that the contract was improperly awarded, then there are very well established processes to appeal. (And such appeals would also stop work on the project pending resolution.)
However what I see instead is that he is simply instructing the FAA to cancel the deal and use Starlink/SpaceX instead. That is at best murky and at worst corrupt.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/lawmakers-question-musk-inf...
As for Musk's companies' ability to execute on the details of the contract, knowing how to make cellphone calls via a satellite is a million miles away from knowing how to migrate a massive, and safety critical, telecommunications infrastructure from 2000s-era tech to 2024.
Chestertons fence and strict budgetary discipline are both needed, and one cannot ignore the first, claim the second, but hope to get by on hubris.
> who is saving the government over 90% on launch costs
Which is a result of the government attempting to get more competition in the space. It's not some altruism by Musk.
Taking away existing contracts and assigning them to a conflict of interest is how you lose competition.
It is partially talent (of Musk certainly and the team he has assembled), and partially altruism (they could just charge 50% less instead of 90% less). Also the government made virtually no attempt at competition - it had to be dragged to this outcome.
As for conflict of interest - I guarantee the existing Verizon contract was not the result of a fair competition. No one would look to Verizon of all companies for any kind of modernization. At least this way we get a competent company working on this problem.
> the government made virtually no attempt at competition
> I guarantee the existing Verizon contract was not the result of a fair competition.
Do you have evidence for these claims? Legitimately curious. Government contracting is often very broken but you state this with a pretty extreme degree of confidence even in light of this.
The attempt at competition was about options for launch capability. The US government was happy to sustain the prior situation of a few overpriced stagnant prime contractors for a long time - same with defense. It was hard to impossible for anyone else to enter that space and get attention (let alone money) from those making decisions.
Regarding bidding. It is incredibly common for these decisions to be made in a way that rewards friends, family members, donors. The law requires a competitive process but it is often corrupted and only gives the appearance of a working process. The appeals are very expensive and time consuming so a lot of the time, it’s just not worth it. There’s not much you can do unless you’re a large company with lots of money.
Oh sorry I'm not talking about SpaceX launches. I'm asking about the FAA/Verizon situation.
I don't think general vibes and challenges with winning billion dollar government contracts suffices as evidence for: "I guarantee the existing Verizon contract was not the result of a fair competition."
Nor is there sufficient evidence to claim the new administration is doing anything corrupt. They could just be taking the appropriate emergency measures. Or not. But it seems like different standards for evidence are being applied to different sides.
Okay so you actually cannot “guarantee” the prior contract’s award process was bad.
And sure, we don’t know this change is corrupt. We do know that there is a very clear conflict of interest though, so people are reasonably demanding more transparency.
No, there is no clear conflict of interest. You have no idea who exactly is making what decision or why. Stay consistent. Don’t back off your threshold for evidence now.
Yes, there very obviously IS a conflict of interest.
“Conflict of interest” is not the same as “corrupt.” A person can have conflicted interests and still make totally valid, non-corrupt decisions. Even making a self-beneficial decision while having conflicted interests isn’t necessarily corrupt/bad.
“Conflict of interest” refers to the interests themselves, which are very obviously unambiguously conflicted here.
Government interests: spend as little money as possible for capability X
Starlink interests: capture as much money as possible for capability X
That’s a conflict regardless of what decision anyone makes and whether it was the right one.
Who is “person”? As I said, you have no idea who exactly is making what decision or why. There may very well be zero conflict of interest.
I mean… I guess you’re welcome to simply have faith that this particular contract is not being fiddled with by the same people (a slew of SpaceX’ers) as literally every other contract in the federal government despite those exact people entering FAA just a few days ago [1] but uh… I would bet money on it.
Seems extremely wishful to think this particular contract isn’t being reviewed by someone with SpaceX equity (I.e. someone who is conflicted) alongside every other contract, but… ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
1: https://fedscoop.com/faa-aviation-safety-system-doge-notam/
My main concern is Verizon was moving from point to point copper to ip over fiber (for midsize and larger airports). Starlink is ip based, but is much much easier to interfere with its operation. We've seen successful jamming happening in Ukraine.
I don't mind the idea that starlink would be useful for a ton of smaller airports that the fiber buildout would be extremely costly for what they provide, but the idea that JFK shouldn't use hard lines terrifying.
What do you mean "it's not clear if anyone else even had a shot at this contract previously?" It was competitively awarded.
Your arguments is maybe the deal was corrupt so why does it matter if the new deal is 100% corrupt because there was an unrelated deal made that was competitive in the past.
It does not matter at all if they do a good job or a bad job, it's naked corruption that enriches someone for purely corrupt reasons. Then he has more money to corrupt government.
It's a contract for a glorified enterprise network with a massive amount of red tape, what exactly would be SpaceXs irreplaceable specialized knowledge here?
Last one to praise Verizon but this sounds exactly like the mindnumbingly boring stuff they do.
The original might have been corrupted, but this new thing is absolutely, definitely corrupt and they're not even trying to hide it, FFS.
Starlink has already tried to play politics in the Ukraine invasion. So, how long before they start playing politics with US internet? If they've done it once, it's way easier the second time and, let's face it, their ultimate boss is already in the bag for it.
[flagged]
https://archive.ph/2025.02.28-022251/https://www.washingtonp...
Previous:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43193268 (3 comments)
At this point it feels like a fault in anti competitive laws. Both that a ruling party can award contracts to each other and that important infrastructure can be under control of a single individual, and one extremely volatile too. To me the most likely outcome is Wordpress/WPEngine like dramas, only on a larger scale.
If the Republicans in Congress actually honored their oaths to the Constitution over their cowardly loyalty to party, they would impeach. However, they are complicit in the dismantling of America.
This needed to be stopped on Day 2 of Trump's first term when he shat on the Emoluments Clause. At this point it's clear that we have ceased to have a justice system that reigns in the powerful.
FAA is close to cancel $2.4 Billion Contract with Verizon and replace it with a contract with SpaceX.
[dupe] Discussions: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43201750
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43205435
Aaaand flagged.
[flagged]
If you don’t care because you’re outside the US, you’re a fool. All of this will affect you.
Yes, but we can't do anything about it can we?
For the most part you have exactly the same levers to pull at people in the United States, sans voting in elections, but most Americans don’t even do that, and some specific things that require a physical presence, like protesting at the White House specifically.
Setting aside that you can do things about this and effect change, caring about something isn’t the same as being able to affect that thing, so your reasoning “people outside the US don’t care because they can’t do anything about it” is a bit off.
You can prepare for negative second-order effects. Perhaps not every individual article is helpful for that but it’s hard to say they are not in aggregate.
How?
But it is unclear how. America is now Russian ally and a danger/bully to other countries. So, America making itself more corrupt and consequently likely weaker or less performing may turn out either way for others.
Musk becoming richer and even more powerful is bad result tho.
Obviously riches in all countries are influencing politics. But Musk is next (probably never seen before) level. The guys with golden Kalashnikovs look like kids compared to him. Will Musk be the next president?
Well, as they say: _shit rolls down hill_
Let us know how ignorance works out for you?
[dead]
Can one be considered ignorant if this turns out to be objectivly good thing?
Rather than considering that of the person, consider it of the belief.