3 ms·

It isn't about the serving, it is about the ability to take images. Countries are really picky about such things but have trouble controlling in a lot of cases

It isn't about the serving, it is about the ability to take images. Countries are really picky about such things but have trouble controlling in a lot of cases because they have no mechanism to stop it. Allowing RF in / out of there areas of control gives them that mechanism.

ncmncm 5y ago
You are confused. At present, anybody with money can loft a satellite, and anybody with money can buy pictures from it, with no need to ask anybody's permission. With Starlink terminals, local governments could make the right to place them depend on agreement not to deliver local pictures to those terminals. Since SpaceX controls both terminals and satellites, that would be trivial to implement. A government might even try to demand that SpaceX not deliver local pictures to anybody else, either. SpaceX might instead choose not to place terminals in such a country, thereby generating local opposition to those pols. But none of this could interfere with delivering other pictures to terminals not so governed, even right across the border. Anyway, any such pictures would have much lower resolution than the ones already being sold today. So, the only places that would complain and maybe interfere would be those whose pols are equally confused. I do not claim there are no such pols.
- detaro 5y ago
  > At present, anybody with money can loft a satellite, and anybody with money can buy pictures from it, with no need to ask anybody's permission. Minor nit: You need to ask permission of the country responsible for your space operations, if it chooses to regulate that. E.g. in the US, NOAA needs to sign off on any US-operated imaging. But generally doesn't care what the photographed countries think of it, although one could in principle imagine restrictions where the US feels it touches national security. (This was in the press a while back when SpaceX wasn't allowed to publish live feeds from one of their launches, because the right permits weren't in place)

ncmncm 5y ago

You are confused. At present, anybody with money can loft a satellite, and anybody with money can buy pictures from it, with no need to ask anybody's permission. With Starlink terminals, local governments could make the right to place them depend on agreement not to deliver local pictures to those terminals. Since SpaceX controls both terminals and satellites, that would be trivial to implement. A government might even try to demand that SpaceX not deliver local pictures to anybody else, either. SpaceX might instead choose not to place terminals in such a country, thereby generating local opposition to those pols. But none of this could interfere with delivering other pictures to terminals not so governed, even right across the border. Anyway, any such pictures would have much lower resolution than the ones already being sold today. So, the only places that would complain and maybe interfere would be those whose pols are equally confused. I do not claim there are no such pols.

detaro 5y ago
> At present, anybody with money can loft a satellite, and anybody with money can buy pictures from it, with no need to ask anybody's permission. Minor nit: You need to ask permission of the country responsible for your space operations, if it chooses to regulate that. E.g. in the US, NOAA needs to sign off on any US-operated imaging. But generally doesn't care what the photographed countries think of it, although one could in principle imagine restrictions where the US feels it touches national security. (This was in the press a while back when SpaceX wasn't allowed to publish live feeds from one of their launches, because the right permits weren't in place)