Earlier quoted context omitted.
>That sounds like an absolute distopian nightmare and the last person on earth that I want to be running this service is Elon Musk. Given that Musk was the only person with the ambition, capital, and ability to deliver such a project, you're basically saying that you'd rather have Starlink not exist at all than to have Musk in charge. >it's an incredible feat - and yet I still think it's a travesty that it's allowed…
>> you're basically saying that you'd rather have Starlink not exist at all than to have Musk in charge No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying having Musk in charge makes it distopian, but even without him at the helm I'd rather it didn't exist. >>Confirmed: You'd rather have every Starlink customer go dark than have someone you've been told to dislike provide those customers with a service they willingly sign up…
But that good shouldn't to serve millions of people with something they need.
You rather have it totally unused instead at all.
> I'd have the exact same complaint about any competing constallation, and in fact I am going to have it because Amazon is building a competing service themselves.
I have bad news for you because there are about 10 other major constellation in development and those are only the ones that are a public.
Not a single country has put major effort into stopping it.
Pretty much every country agrees that this space should be used to serve the needs of its people.