4 ms·

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.
    - simonh 5y ago
      Foreign owned maybe, but the satellites are manufactured in the US. There are US commercial interests at stake in Oneweb, and the services it intends to offer to US clients too.
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.

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.
  - simonh 5y ago
    Foreign owned maybe, but the satellites are manufactured in the US. There are US commercial interests at stake in Oneweb, and the services it intends to offer to US clients too.

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.