5 ms·

> interesting to see SpaceX launching a direct competitor to Starlink. Interesting, but entirely expected. They'd be investigated in a heartbeat if they didn't

> interesting to see SpaceX launching a direct competitor to Starlink. Interesting, but entirely expected. They'd be investigated in a heartbeat if they didn't.

NotEvil 5y ago
I don't think so. That's not anti-competive. Its like intel refusing to make amd chips on intel fabs. Perfectly logical
- bpye 5y ago
  I think that only works when there is other capacity available. If Intel was suddenly the only fab available to western companies but they refused to fab AMD chips I suspect that would result in intervention.
  - j_walter 5y ago
    Not so sure. AMD is always free to build a fab to make their own chips. It's perfectly reasonable to refuse to serve a direct competitor...or offer the service at a huge expense that would make it unreasonable for the competitor.
    - simonh 5y ago
      There is extensive legal precedent, and numerous outright laws in many jurisdictions restraining anticompetitive practices such as this.
    - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
      'AMD is always free to build a fab to make their own chips.' By that logic there us no limits on a monopoly abusing its power, after all you are always free to create your own water supply company, electric distribution company, etc.
- ericmay 5y ago
  I get what you're saying, but SpaceX is a bit more public/private than Intel, and likely the government would be upset and better fund competitors if SpaceX was monopolizing launch capabilities. Their strategy (at least for now, as I would understand it) is to be neutral for launching cargo/services/etc. - likely OneWeb is paying more to deploy than SpaceX pays itself internally for Starlink deployments as well.
  - Teever 5y ago
    You're saying that SpaceX, a privately owned company that has some contracts with different parts of the US gov't would find themselves in trouble with the government if they refused to launch satellites from a foreign owned company? And you're saying that the government would go out of their way to fund alternatives to SpaceX because of this? That seems a bit implausible.
    - eganist 5y ago
      "foreign-owned" in this case is still the UK i.e the closest ally we have today. So I don't think you'll see the same sort of American protectionism you might see with e.g a Chinese competitor. Therefore... yeah, nothing's stopping the DoJ (guessing the FTC would make the referral?) from pushing an antitrust matter. But I certainly can't say for sure; I'm not a lawyer.
      - Teever 5y ago
        Where's the law that says that an American business must sell their product or service to a foreign company?
        eganist 5y ago
        > Where's the law that says that an American business must sell their product or service to a foreign company? As I understand it, it's covered by the various antitrust laws in the United States. And it's not so much a "foreign company" thing so much as it's an unfair advantage for any one company thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law Again, not a lawyer. But my lay reading would say that it would feel comparable to the action the feds took against Microsoft for trying to stifle Netscape. But I'm sure there are far better analogues.
- cromka 5y ago
  Is SpaceX a subsidiary of Starlink? Cause if not then it's not that logical to me...
  - detaro 5y ago
    Starlink is not a separate company, it's a product of SpaceX.
- simonh 5y ago
  Intel doesn’t sell fab services, so it’s not an issue. However if you offer and advertise a service at a listed price (as SpaceX does), you can’t always refuse to provide that service to specific potential clients just because it serves your commercial interests. It very much depends on the specifics of the service and market competitive situation.
  - bcrl 5y ago
    This is factually incorrect. Intel has in the past and is currently trying to sell and expand their foundry services. They just happen to have done a horrible job of it so far and have repeatedly lost foundry customers (like Achronix) as a result.
manholio 5y ago
SpaceX is an american company that is subject to the Sherman act, which deals with domestic and interstate commerce. OneWeb is an international competitor based in UK that has no standing to make a complaint under the Sherman act. No similar antitrust provision or treaty exists in international commerce; charges against a monopoly must be brought within a certain national jurisdiction, SpaceX does not have partners or subsidiaries that offer launch services outside the US.
- simonh 5y ago
  I’m sure Oneweb will have a US subsidiary and offer service to US customers through it. They manufacture their satellites in the US. There’s no way they wouldn’t have standing.
  - manholio 5y ago
    But that subsidiary would need to build and operate a satellite constellation, not simply distribute internet services or act as a purchasing agent of a foreign competitor.
newaccount2021 5y ago
US DoD and NASA now have effectively SPOF reliance on SpaceX...they aren't going to be "investigated" for anything
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- HWR_14 5y ago
  I don't see why the government contracts would act as a shield for SpaceX. It's not like being forced to carry a competitor is going to make them unable to carry the government's rockets.
tomc1985 5y ago
Stone Brewing does distribution for a lot of smaller local breweries I'd like to think that cutthroat competition is not the only way of doing business
- HWR_14 5y ago
  In the beer space, Sam Adams used both their massive purchasing power and stockpile to provide hops to small brewers during a shortage.
  - tomc1985 5y ago
    Funny, I think I recall someone at Stone citing that story, specifically as a model for their own corporate behavior, when I was on a tour of one of their breweries.

> interesting to see SpaceX launching a direct competitor to Starlink. Interesting, but entirely expected. They'd be investigated in a heartbeat if they didn't.

NotEvil 5y ago

I don't think so. That's not anti-competive. Its like intel refusing to make amd chips on intel fabs. Perfectly logical

bpye 5y ago
I think that only works when there is other capacity available. If Intel was suddenly the only fab available to western companies but they refused to fab AMD chips I suspect that would result in intervention.
- j_walter 5y ago
  Not so sure. AMD is always free to build a fab to make their own chips. It's perfectly reasonable to refuse to serve a direct competitor...or offer the service at a huge expense that would make it unreasonable for the competitor.
  - simonh 5y ago
    There is extensive legal precedent, and numerous outright laws in many jurisdictions restraining anticompetitive practices such as this.
  - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    'AMD is always free to build a fab to make their own chips.' By that logic there us no limits on a monopoly abusing its power, after all you are always free to create your own water supply company, electric distribution company, etc.
ericmay 5y ago
I get what you're saying, but SpaceX is a bit more public/private than Intel, and likely the government would be upset and better fund competitors if SpaceX was monopolizing launch capabilities. Their strategy (at least for now, as I would understand it) is to be neutral for launching cargo/services/etc. - likely OneWeb is paying more to deploy than SpaceX pays itself internally for Starlink deployments as well.
- Teever 5y ago
  You're saying that SpaceX, a privately owned company that has some contracts with different parts of the US gov't would find themselves in trouble with the government if they refused to launch satellites from a foreign owned company? And you're saying that the government would go out of their way to fund alternatives to SpaceX because of this? That seems a bit implausible.
  - eganist 5y ago
    "foreign-owned" in this case is still the UK i.e the closest ally we have today. So I don't think you'll see the same sort of American protectionism you might see with e.g a Chinese competitor. Therefore... yeah, nothing's stopping the DoJ (guessing the FTC would make the referral?) from pushing an antitrust matter. But I certainly can't say for sure; I'm not a lawyer.
    - Teever 5y ago
      Where's the law that says that an American business must sell their product or service to a foreign company?
      - eganist 5y ago
        > Where's the law that says that an American business must sell their product or service to a foreign company? As I understand it, it's covered by the various antitrust laws in the United States. And it's not so much a "foreign company" thing so much as it's an unfair advantage for any one company thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law Again, not a lawyer. But my lay reading would say that it would feel comparable to the action the feds took against Microsoft for trying to stifle Netscape. But I'm sure there are far better analogues.
cromka 5y ago
Is SpaceX a subsidiary of Starlink? Cause if not then it's not that logical to me...
- detaro 5y ago
  Starlink is not a separate company, it's a product of SpaceX.
simonh 5y ago
Intel doesn’t sell fab services, so it’s not an issue. However if you offer and advertise a service at a listed price (as SpaceX does), you can’t always refuse to provide that service to specific potential clients just because it serves your commercial interests. It very much depends on the specifics of the service and market competitive situation.
- bcrl 5y ago
  This is factually incorrect. Intel has in the past and is currently trying to sell and expand their foundry services. They just happen to have done a horrible job of it so far and have repeatedly lost foundry customers (like Achronix) as a result.

manholio 5y ago

SpaceX is an american company that is subject to the Sherman act, which deals with domestic and interstate commerce. OneWeb is an international competitor based in UK that has no standing to make a complaint under the Sherman act. No similar antitrust provision or treaty exists in international commerce; charges against a monopoly must be brought within a certain national jurisdiction, SpaceX does not have partners or subsidiaries that offer launch services outside the US.

simonh 5y ago
I’m sure Oneweb will have a US subsidiary and offer service to US customers through it. They manufacture their satellites in the US. There’s no way they wouldn’t have standing.
- manholio 5y ago
  But that subsidiary would need to build and operate a satellite constellation, not simply distribute internet services or act as a purchasing agent of a foreign competitor.

newaccount2021 5y ago

US DoD and NASA now have effectively SPOF reliance on SpaceX...they aren't going to be "investigated" for anything

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
HWR_14 5y ago
I don't see why the government contracts would act as a shield for SpaceX. It's not like being forced to carry a competitor is going to make them unable to carry the government's rockets.

tomc1985 5y ago

Stone Brewing does distribution for a lot of smaller local breweries I'd like to think that cutthroat competition is not the only way of doing business

HWR_14 5y ago
In the beer space, Sam Adams used both their massive purchasing power and stockpile to provide hops to small brewers during a shortage.
- tomc1985 5y ago
  Funny, I think I recall someone at Stone citing that story, specifically as a model for their own corporate behavior, when I was on a tour of one of their breweries.