5 ms·

There isn't much evidence apart from Musk's statements that they were getting the service for free. Third parties were definitely paying for terminals and serv

There isn't much evidence apart from Musk's statements that they were getting the service for free. Third parties were definitely paying for terminals and services.

InTheArena 3y ago
This is untrue. I am not sure where you get it from - but you can go look at the twitter comments (before Elon owned twitter) from the government and NGOs, and take a look at current statements from people in-theater. (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/09/zelenskiy-aide-takes-aim-at-curbs-on-ukraine-use-of-starlink-to-pilot-drones-elon-musk#:~:text=Shortly%20after%20the%20start%20of,%2C”%20Musk%20said%20in%20reply https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/09/zelenskiy-aide....) Elon got cold feet when the Russians started threading Starlink with targeting with ASAT weapons, and when the Ukrainians (despite agreements) used starlink to remotely guide UAVs in Russia. Now that the UAVs are hitting Russia without starlink, and the Russians have backed off of threading to wipe out all American Satellites (which almost certainly lead to a nuclear confrontation since it would also blind detection systems), its less of a issue.
- foobarqux 3y ago
  The source for your statements is Musk. As I said in other comments I'm talking about on net. If you charge 10x for 100 terminals and give 10 away for free you are not donating anything. If you look at actual reporting the revenue Musk is receiving from Ukraine service is enormous, hundreds of millions a year. https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/13/politics/elon-musk-spacex-starlink-ukraine/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/13/politics/elon-musk-spacex-sta...
  - AYBABTME 3y ago
    CNN isn't a particularly trustworthy or neutral news outlet on the matters relating to Musk (or anyone perceived to be aligned with not-their-favoured-opinions).
    - AYBABTME 3y ago
      For downvoters, consider that CNN is as neutral and trustworthy as Fox News. You should be aware of how manipulative both sides of the media decorum is. This is a massive problem in the US.
      - iakh 3y ago
        Right. "both sides" have engaged in $787MM worth of fake news.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
  - signatoremo 3y ago
    Apply your own advice and use common sense. Let’s suppose the CNN’s article is non biased and accurate: SpaceX sent a letter to the Pentagon saying it can no longer continue to fund the Starlink service as it has. The letter also requested that the Pentagon take over funding for Ukraine’s government and military use of Starlink, which SpaceX claims would cost more than $120 million for the rest of the year and could cost close to $400 million for the next 12 months That was an official, non public letter to the DOD. It said SpaceX had been funding Ukraine’s use of Starlink. Do you think they could lie to the Pentagon about who paid for the service? The Russia’s invasion is the best advertising for Starlink for military use. Nobody in their right mind want to piss off their primary and potentially most lucrative customer. You keep saying SpaceX charged 10x of the normal price. That’s BS. You definitely don’t know how much it costs to serve those terminals. > If you look at actual reporting the revenue Musk is receiving from Ukraine service is enormous, hundreds of millions a year. The actual reporting that you cited did not say that. The war has only been over a year, and if the letter above was sent in September 2022 SpaceX couldn’t possibly get paid until at least November, likely much later if the news about the contract only comes out now. It has the potential of bringing hundreds of millions annual revenue, which the contract in question makes it more of a reality.
- George83728 3y ago
  Musk "got cold feet" when Ukraine started using Starlink to create long-range weapon systems that could in principle strike targets deep in Russia. The US Government has thus far refrained from giving such weapon systems to Ukraine, or made them promise not to use weapons that could in that way. So in this regard, Starlink and the US government are aligned in not wanting to overtly enable such an escalation. Probably the US government are the ones who made this apparent decision from Starlink.
dotnet00 3y ago
I agree that third parties have been paying for terminals and services (I pointed out the 1300 terminals which were being paid for by the UK), but there seems to be a reasonable amount of info out there confirming that the majority is donated by SpaceX. A lot of it is just buried in misleading reporting from the usual manipulative sources. For example, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/08/us-quietly-paying-millions-send-starlink-terminals-ukraine-contrary-spacexs-claims/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/08/us-quietl... highlights that the US has paid millions for Starlink terminals 'contrary to SpaceX's claims', while burying that SpaceX had donated 3670 terminals with free service for 3 months, compared to 1500 terminals purchased by USAID. Then we have the first half of CNN's manipulative reporting (https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/13/politics/elon-musk-spacex-starlink-ukraine https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/13/politics/elon-musk-spacex-sta...), where, after setting the tone to bias readers against SpaceX by citing outages and 'having to request Starlink services to be turned on in liberated areas' (conveniently skipping over the explanation that that's necessary to avoid Russia using the terminals), they sneak in a few lines about how 70% of the service costs were being borne by SpaceX. Both also reference an "85% of terminals partially paid for by entities like the US and Poland", but that doesn't fit with the numbers, since the 3670 donated is greater than 15% of the 20k total terminals which had been sent by then, implying that 'partially paid' includes things like transportation costs, masking the true numbers regarding the costs of the terminals themselves (which obviously wouldn't be necessary if the number wasn't unfavorable to the narrative they were attempting to push).
- foobarqux 3y ago
  It's not the number of terminals that is relevant it is the total $. If the buyer pays $100m and receives 100 terminals with retail price $5m there is zero charity, it doesn't matter if you label 99 terminals as "donated" except for PR purposes. > ... 70% of the service costs were being borne by SpaceX. That's Musk's completely made up number for the price of the service ($4500/month). By that logic he could have said it was $10000/month and therefore been "donating" even more. That price 1. isn't the cost of providing the service; 2. isn't the retail price of the service, 3. isn't a reasonable mark up on the retail price.
trident5000 3y ago
"apart from Musk's statements" So the CEO of the company?
- foobarqux 3y ago
  A person who has a long history of lying, far beyond that of the average CEO, whose statements should already be viewed with skepticism.
  - bboygravity 3y ago
    Example of lies that are not "missed deadlines" needed? 1 example will do.
    - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
      his $420 a share debacle [0] [0] - https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2018-226 https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2018-226
    - foobarqux 3y ago
      Claiming that the emerald mine doesn't exist (he himself said it existed in an old interview in Forbes or Fortune, his father said it existed). Claiming he held his baby in arms as it died. His ex-wife said it was her. You also have the technically-true but so misleading as to be a lie: He said workers could have Juneteenth off at the time before it was an official holiday. What he left out was that you had to take one of your personal days and get permission from your supervisor. Just like any other time off. He said that workers didn't have to come in to work if they were afraid of Covid on Joe Rogan. What he failed to say was that they would fired. And can you never call a product a lie for any amount of lateness? If it takes 100 years that wasn't a lie? The fancy solar shingles demoed before the Solar City acquisition don't exist and won't in any time frame anybody cares about, if ever.
    - jstarfish 3y ago
      Pedo guy.

There isn't much evidence apart from Musk's statements that they were getting the service for free. Third parties were definitely paying for terminals and services.

InTheArena 3y ago

This is untrue. I am not sure where you get it from - but you can go look at the twitter comments (before Elon owned twitter) from the government and NGOs, and take a look at current statements from people in-theater. (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/09/zelenskiy-aide-takes-aim-at-curbs-on-ukraine-use-of-starlink-to-pilot-drones-elon-musk#:~:text=Shortly%20after%20the%20start%20of,%2C”%20Musk%20said%20in%20reply https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/09/zelenskiy-aide....) Elon got cold feet when the Russians started threading Starlink with targeting with ASAT weapons, and when the Ukrainians (despite agreements) used starlink to remotely guide UAVs in Russia. Now that the UAVs are hitting Russia without starlink, and the Russians have backed off of threading to wipe out all American Satellites (which almost certainly lead to a nuclear confrontation since it would also blind detection systems), its less of a issue.

foobarqux 3y ago
The source for your statements is Musk. As I said in other comments I'm talking about on net. If you charge 10x for 100 terminals and give 10 away for free you are not donating anything. If you look at actual reporting the revenue Musk is receiving from Ukraine service is enormous, hundreds of millions a year. https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/13/politics/elon-musk-spacex-starlink-ukraine/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/13/politics/elon-musk-spacex-sta...
- AYBABTME 3y ago
  CNN isn't a particularly trustworthy or neutral news outlet on the matters relating to Musk (or anyone perceived to be aligned with not-their-favoured-opinions).
  - AYBABTME 3y ago
    For downvoters, consider that CNN is as neutral and trustworthy as Fox News. You should be aware of how manipulative both sides of the media decorum is. This is a massive problem in the US.
    - iakh 3y ago
      Right. "both sides" have engaged in $787MM worth of fake news.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
- signatoremo 3y ago
  Apply your own advice and use common sense. Let’s suppose the CNN’s article is non biased and accurate: SpaceX sent a letter to the Pentagon saying it can no longer continue to fund the Starlink service as it has. The letter also requested that the Pentagon take over funding for Ukraine’s government and military use of Starlink, which SpaceX claims would cost more than $120 million for the rest of the year and could cost close to $400 million for the next 12 months That was an official, non public letter to the DOD. It said SpaceX had been funding Ukraine’s use of Starlink. Do you think they could lie to the Pentagon about who paid for the service? The Russia’s invasion is the best advertising for Starlink for military use. Nobody in their right mind want to piss off their primary and potentially most lucrative customer. You keep saying SpaceX charged 10x of the normal price. That’s BS. You definitely don’t know how much it costs to serve those terminals. > If you look at actual reporting the revenue Musk is receiving from Ukraine service is enormous, hundreds of millions a year. The actual reporting that you cited did not say that. The war has only been over a year, and if the letter above was sent in September 2022 SpaceX couldn’t possibly get paid until at least November, likely much later if the news about the contract only comes out now. It has the potential of bringing hundreds of millions annual revenue, which the contract in question makes it more of a reality.
George83728 3y ago
Musk "got cold feet" when Ukraine started using Starlink to create long-range weapon systems that could in principle strike targets deep in Russia. The US Government has thus far refrained from giving such weapon systems to Ukraine, or made them promise not to use weapons that could in that way. So in this regard, Starlink and the US government are aligned in not wanting to overtly enable such an escalation. Probably the US government are the ones who made this apparent decision from Starlink.

dotnet00 3y ago

I agree that third parties have been paying for terminals and services (I pointed out the 1300 terminals which were being paid for by the UK), but there seems to be a reasonable amount of info out there confirming that the majority is donated by SpaceX. A lot of it is just buried in misleading reporting from the usual manipulative sources. For example, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/08/us-quietly-paying-millions-send-starlink-terminals-ukraine-contrary-spacexs-claims/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/08/us-quietl... highlights that the US has paid millions for Starlink terminals 'contrary to SpaceX's claims', while burying that SpaceX had donated 3670 terminals with free service for 3 months, compared to 1500 terminals purchased by USAID. Then we have the first half of CNN's manipulative reporting (https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/13/politics/elon-musk-spacex-starlink-ukraine https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/13/politics/elon-musk-spacex-sta...), where, after setting the tone to bias readers against SpaceX by citing outages and 'having to request Starlink services to be turned on in liberated areas' (conveniently skipping over the explanation that that's necessary to avoid Russia using the terminals), they sneak in a few lines about how 70% of the service costs were being borne by SpaceX. Both also reference an "85% of terminals partially paid for by entities like the US and Poland", but that doesn't fit with the numbers, since the 3670 donated is greater than 15% of the 20k total terminals which had been sent by then, implying that 'partially paid' includes things like transportation costs, masking the true numbers regarding the costs of the terminals themselves (which obviously wouldn't be necessary if the number wasn't unfavorable to the narrative they were attempting to push).

foobarqux 3y ago
It's not the number of terminals that is relevant it is the total $. If the buyer pays $100m and receives 100 terminals with retail price $5m there is zero charity, it doesn't matter if you label 99 terminals as "donated" except for PR purposes. > ... 70% of the service costs were being borne by SpaceX. That's Musk's completely made up number for the price of the service ($4500/month). By that logic he could have said it was $10000/month and therefore been "donating" even more. That price 1. isn't the cost of providing the service; 2. isn't the retail price of the service, 3. isn't a reasonable mark up on the retail price.

trident5000 3y ago

"apart from Musk's statements" So the CEO of the company?

foobarqux 3y ago
A person who has a long history of lying, far beyond that of the average CEO, whose statements should already be viewed with skepticism.
- bboygravity 3y ago
  Example of lies that are not "missed deadlines" needed? 1 example will do.
  - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
    his $420 a share debacle [0] [0] - https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2018-226 https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2018-226
  - foobarqux 3y ago
    Claiming that the emerald mine doesn't exist (he himself said it existed in an old interview in Forbes or Fortune, his father said it existed). Claiming he held his baby in arms as it died. His ex-wife said it was her. You also have the technically-true but so misleading as to be a lie: He said workers could have Juneteenth off at the time before it was an official holiday. What he left out was that you had to take one of your personal days and get permission from your supervisor. Just like any other time off. He said that workers didn't have to come in to work if they were afraid of Covid on Joe Rogan. What he failed to say was that they would fired. And can you never call a product a lie for any amount of lateness? If it takes 100 years that wasn't a lie? The fancy solar shingles demoed before the Solar City acquisition don't exist and won't in any time frame anybody cares about, if ever.
  - jstarfish 3y ago
    Pedo guy.