Starlink to roll out direct-to-cell services in Ukraine - CNA

Even ignoring the track record of Starlink, he's also buddy buddy with Putin.

Because at the start of the war in ukraine a journalist eventually reported that Musk turned off access to starlink to thwart an attack on the Sevestapole port.

Except that didn't happen, they were never on in Russian controlled territory, and the journalist retracted the statement.

People are still hung up on that though.

This was also when the US Department of Defense was not yet involved and SpaceX was doing this for free, out of pocket, with strict rules about not using starlink as a weapon, because it's a civilian tool, and being used as a weapon would contravene US law and put starlink at risk of falling under ITAR or some other law which would be VERY bad for SpaceX.

Shortly after that, the DoD went into contract with SpaceX and now they deal with all that and it's no longer a risk to SpaceX so they can use it as a weapon now.

Then, it was reported that Russia was getting dishes from 3rd parties (smuggling them in) and that again was proof that Musk was supporting Russia. Except it's not an easy problem to solve, and even the DoD said it was complicated and would be an ongoing game of cat and mouse to prevent.

Edit: I like how hours after I made this reply, someone above is again claiming Musk shut down Starlink to stop the attack, and in the article they link it even talks about what I wrote in this post saying that the claim was retracted. I can't tell if that person didn't read the article and took the first link he found... or doesn't understand the difference between turning something that was on to the off state (action), and simply not turning something that was off, on. (inaction)

Guess you forgot about the time he shut down Starlink to stop a Ukrainian assault? -> link to snopes article

Second-hand experience from many years ago when Starlink first rolled out: my friend has a cabin in the Appalachians, outside any cell service, so Starlink sounds great for that. However, Starlink site says there is "no coverage" for that area. Yes, somehow, no coverage for a satellite service. The nearest area with coverage was a town with already-decent 4G. And most large US cities had coverage too. So our inside "conspiracy theory" was that Starlink resells 5G/4G modems for hipsters.

Have no idea if the situation changed since then.

but starlink is revolutionary

it's really not though it's mid at best.

A megastructure filling space with trash, a project that in paper looks like either impossible to complete or a total waste of energy, time and pollution to solve a problem we don't have* and leaving this new net of satellites on the hands of a psycopath.

I really like the idea of starlink, but those are the cons I can think off.

*connectivity is solved by adding cables. What's the cost (money, energy, pollution + life) of a cable crossing the Atlantic vs the cost of a satellite?

Inb4, I'm not siding with anyone, just trying to make the discussion roll.