5 ms·

I'm grateful that I don't need a license to operate a Starlink dish here in Starlink's home country, yet.

sneak 2y ago
A license is definitely required to operate Starlink, just not by you. They tried not servicing Crimea due to an unwillingness to get involved in the war, and the DoD quickly made them toe the geopolitical line. (They are also a huge customer of a military-only service called Starshield, also run by SpaceX/Starlink, which either runs separately on the same Starlink satellites, or is dedicated Starshield satellites with very similar technology.) This is the same USG that issues the launch licenses for the entire rest of the business via the FAA, so, like Apple/China, they have little option if they don’t want to be dead in the water. If the USG wants your dish off, it will be off. No license revocation is required, just a phone call.
- ivewonyoung 2y ago
  > They tried not servicing Crimea due to an unwillingness to get involved in the war, and the DoD quickly made them toe the geopolitical line I am confused, it's illegal for Starlink to prove access to Russia and Russian occupied areas like Crimea because of US sanctions. So essentially the opposite of what you're claiming.
  - sneak 2y ago
    In short, the Ukrainians (with whom it is indeed legal to do business) wanted to use Starlink as c&c for drone strikes in occupied Crimea. It was off, per sanctions (and other reasons) as you note. SpaceX was opposed to turning it back on, presumably wishing to stay out of the geopolitical calculus of the war. They do have a rather lot to lose if war extends to space. The DoD overruled them, either via requirements for Starshield, or by just laying down the law. Starlink (or perhaps Starshield, same difference) works (for Ukrainian operations) in Crimea now, last I heard.
    - inemesitaffia 2y ago
      They overruled them by paying money.
    - ivewonyoung 2y ago
      A few clarifications and corrections: > wanted to use Starlink as c&c for drone strikes in occupied Crimea They sent a last second request after realizing Starlink wasn't on in Crimea. Essentially asking SpaceX to violate US law and sanctions. > SpaceX was opposed to turning it back on You cannot turn something back on if it was never on in the first place. I see this phrasing everywhere, it's so strange. I guess people say it because it makes it sound like Musk turned off Starlink in order to scupper the Ukrainian attack on the Russian Navy, which is not true. And others keep repeating it because they don't know better. > The DoD overruled them, either via requirements for Starshield, or by just laying down the law The law is that SpaceX cannot violate US sanctions. If the US Gov later exempted SpaceX from sanctions and then instructed them to turn on Starlink in Crimea, how is that "laying down the law"? The initial request didn't come from the US gov, it came from Ukraine.
      - sneak 2y ago
        It is illegal to do business with entities in Crimea. It’s not illegal to offer Starlink to Ukrainian entities operating there. The sanctions are a red herring, they have nothing to do with this.
- delichon 2y ago
  Apparently in the US you require the "requisite character qualifications to be and remain a Commission (Amateur Radio) licensee." https://www.arrl.org/news/fcc-upholds-decision-to-revoke-amateur-license-of-convicted-indiana-ham https://www.arrl.org/news/fcc-upholds-decision-to-revoke-ama... Starlink's character qualification is whether you pay their bill.
  - tjohns 2y ago
    Starlink itself is the FCC license holder, not you as a private user. This means that Starlink is the one that needs to stay in the good graces of the government, and inherits the obligation to monitor the activities of their users. I guarantee you if you're using Starlink to commit crimes, they're going to drop you as a customer.
    - axus 2y ago
      They haven't dropped me yet!

A license is definitely required to operate Starlink, just not by you. They tried not servicing Crimea due to an unwillingness to get involved in the war, and the DoD quickly made them toe the geopolitical line. (They are also a huge customer of a military-only service called Starshield, also run by SpaceX/Starlink, which either runs separately on the same Starlink satellites, or is dedicated Starshield satellites with very similar technology.) This is the same USG that issues the launch licenses for the entire rest of the business via the FAA, so, like Apple/China, they have little option if they don’t want to be dead in the water. If the USG wants your dish off, it will be off. No license revocation is required, just a phone call.

ivewonyoung 2y ago
> They tried not servicing Crimea due to an unwillingness to get involved in the war, and the DoD quickly made them toe the geopolitical line I am confused, it's illegal for Starlink to prove access to Russia and Russian occupied areas like Crimea because of US sanctions. So essentially the opposite of what you're claiming.
- sneak 2y ago
  In short, the Ukrainians (with whom it is indeed legal to do business) wanted to use Starlink as c&c for drone strikes in occupied Crimea. It was off, per sanctions (and other reasons) as you note. SpaceX was opposed to turning it back on, presumably wishing to stay out of the geopolitical calculus of the war. They do have a rather lot to lose if war extends to space. The DoD overruled them, either via requirements for Starshield, or by just laying down the law. Starlink (or perhaps Starshield, same difference) works (for Ukrainian operations) in Crimea now, last I heard.
  - inemesitaffia 2y ago
    They overruled them by paying money.
  - ivewonyoung 2y ago
    A few clarifications and corrections: > wanted to use Starlink as c&c for drone strikes in occupied Crimea They sent a last second request after realizing Starlink wasn't on in Crimea. Essentially asking SpaceX to violate US law and sanctions. > SpaceX was opposed to turning it back on You cannot turn something back on if it was never on in the first place. I see this phrasing everywhere, it's so strange. I guess people say it because it makes it sound like Musk turned off Starlink in order to scupper the Ukrainian attack on the Russian Navy, which is not true. And others keep repeating it because they don't know better. > The DoD overruled them, either via requirements for Starshield, or by just laying down the law The law is that SpaceX cannot violate US sanctions. If the US Gov later exempted SpaceX from sanctions and then instructed them to turn on Starlink in Crimea, how is that "laying down the law"? The initial request didn't come from the US gov, it came from Ukraine.
    - sneak 2y ago
      It is illegal to do business with entities in Crimea. It’s not illegal to offer Starlink to Ukrainian entities operating there. The sanctions are a red herring, they have nothing to do with this.
delichon 2y ago
Apparently in the US you require the "requisite character qualifications to be and remain a Commission (Amateur Radio) licensee." https://www.arrl.org/news/fcc-upholds-decision-to-revoke-amateur-license-of-convicted-indiana-ham https://www.arrl.org/news/fcc-upholds-decision-to-revoke-ama... Starlink's character qualification is whether you pay their bill.
- tjohns 2y ago
  Starlink itself is the FCC license holder, not you as a private user. This means that Starlink is the one that needs to stay in the good graces of the government, and inherits the obligation to monitor the activities of their users. I guarantee you if you're using Starlink to commit crimes, they're going to drop you as a customer.
  - axus 2y ago
    They haven't dropped me yet!