4 ms·

I never thought I’d be on Verizon’s side

by namuol 2y ago

magneticstain 2y ago
Between this and cheering on the pharmaceutical companies against RFK, I feel like a version of myself from an alternate reality.
- drivingmenuts 2y ago
  I will always side against a neo-Nazi sympathizer, regardless.
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
[flagged]
- Larrikin 2y ago
  Your arguments is maybe the deal was corrupt so why does it matter if the new deal is 100% corrupt because there was an unrelated deal made that was competitive in the past. It does not matter at all if they do a good job or a bad job, it's naked corruption that enriches someone for purely corrupt reasons. Then he has more money to corrupt government.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  What do you mean "it's not clear if anyone else even had a shot at this contract previously?" It was competitively awarded.
- lesuorac 2y ago
  > who is saving the government over 90% on launch costs Which is a result of the government attempting to get more competition in the space. It's not some altruism by Musk. Taking away existing contracts and assigning them to a conflict of interest is how you lose competition.
  - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
    It is partially talent (of Musk certainly and the team he has assembled), and partially altruism (they could just charge 50% less instead of 90% less). Also the government made virtually no attempt at competition - it had to be dragged to this outcome. As for conflict of interest - I guarantee the existing Verizon contract was not the result of a fair competition. No one would look to Verizon of all companies for any kind of modernization. At least this way we get a competent company working on this problem.
    - llamaimperative 2y ago
      > the government made virtually no attempt at competition > I guarantee the existing Verizon contract was not the result of a fair competition. Do you have evidence for these claims? Legitimately curious. Government contracting is often very broken but you state this with a pretty extreme degree of confidence even in light of this.
      - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
        The attempt at competition was about options for launch capability. The US government was happy to sustain the prior situation of a few overpriced stagnant prime contractors for a long time - same with defense. It was hard to impossible for anyone else to enter that space and get attention (let alone money) from those making decisions. Regarding bidding. It is incredibly common for these decisions to be made in a way that rewards friends, family members, donors. The law requires a competitive process but it is often corrupted and only gives the appearance of a working process. The appeals are very expensive and time consuming so a lot of the time, it’s just not worth it. There’s not much you can do unless you’re a large company with lots of money.
        llamaimperative 2y ago
        Oh sorry I'm not talking about SpaceX launches. I'm asking about the FAA/Verizon situation. I don't think general vibes and challenges with winning billion dollar government contracts suffices as evidence for: "I guarantee the existing Verizon contract was not the result of a fair competition."
- Henchman21 2y ago
  [flagged]
- stefan_ 2y ago
  It's a contract for a glorified enterprise network with a massive amount of red tape, what exactly would be SpaceXs irreplaceable specialized knowledge here? Last one to praise Verizon but this sounds exactly like the mindnumbingly boring stuff they do.
- kjellsbells 2y ago
  You can admire SpaceX's innovation and dislike Verizon while still being concerned that this is a land grab by Musk. We are talking about the FENS contract here that was awarded after a competitive bid process in 2023. Verizon and their partners (eg Saab aerospace) beat out HarrisL3, Raytheon, and some others. https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/safety-ops-regulation/verizon-bests-l3harris-win-next-faa-networking-backbone https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/safety-ops-regulation... If Musk is asserting that the contract was improperly awarded, then there are very well established processes to appeal. (And such appeals would also stop work on the project pending resolution.) However what I see instead is that he is simply instructing the FAA to cancel the deal and use Starlink/SpaceX instead. That is at best murky and at worst corrupt. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/lawmakers-question-musk-influence-over-verizon-faa-contract-2025-02-28/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/lawmakers-question-musk-inf... As for Musk's companies' ability to execute on the details of the contract, knowing how to make cellphone calls via a satellite is a million miles away from knowing how to migrate a massive, and safety critical, telecommunications infrastructure from 2000s-era tech to 2024. Chestertons fence and strict budgetary discipline are both needed, and one cannot ignore the first, claim the second, but hope to get by on hubris.
  - inemesitaffia 2y ago
    FENS isn't going anywhere
- drivingmenuts 2y ago
  The original might have been corrupted, but this new thing is absolutely, definitely corrupt and they're not even trying to hide it, FFS. Starlink has already tried to play politics in the Ukraine invasion. So, how long before they start playing politics with US internet? If they've done it once, it's way easier the second time and, let's face it, their ultimate boss is already in the bag for it.
  - inemesitaffia 2y ago
    Play politics? By refusing to do work unless fully paid?
- unsnap_biceps 2y ago
  My main concern is Verizon was moving from point to point copper to ip over fiber (for midsize and larger airports). Starlink is ip based, but is much much easier to interfere with its operation. We've seen successful jamming happening in Ukraine. I don't mind the idea that starlink would be useful for a ton of smaller airports that the fiber buildout would be extremely costly for what they provide, but the idea that JFK shouldn't use hard lines terrifying.
  - inemesitaffia 2y ago
    Nothing is happening to Verizon

I never thought I’d be on Verizon’s side

by namuol 2y ago

I never thought I’d be on Verizon’s side

Between this and cheering on the pharmaceutical companies against RFK, I feel like a version of myself from an alternate reality.

drivingmenuts 2y ago
I will always side against a neo-Nazi sympathizer, regardless.

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago

[flagged]

Larrikin 2y ago
Your arguments is maybe the deal was corrupt so why does it matter if the new deal is 100% corrupt because there was an unrelated deal made that was competitive in the past. It does not matter at all if they do a good job or a bad job, it's naked corruption that enriches someone for purely corrupt reasons. Then he has more money to corrupt government.
llamaimperative 2y ago
What do you mean "it's not clear if anyone else even had a shot at this contract previously?" It was competitively awarded.
lesuorac 2y ago
> who is saving the government over 90% on launch costs Which is a result of the government attempting to get more competition in the space. It's not some altruism by Musk. Taking away existing contracts and assigning them to a conflict of interest is how you lose competition.
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  It is partially talent (of Musk certainly and the team he has assembled), and partially altruism (they could just charge 50% less instead of 90% less). Also the government made virtually no attempt at competition - it had to be dragged to this outcome. As for conflict of interest - I guarantee the existing Verizon contract was not the result of a fair competition. No one would look to Verizon of all companies for any kind of modernization. At least this way we get a competent company working on this problem.
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    > the government made virtually no attempt at competition > I guarantee the existing Verizon contract was not the result of a fair competition. Do you have evidence for these claims? Legitimately curious. Government contracting is often very broken but you state this with a pretty extreme degree of confidence even in light of this.
    - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
      The attempt at competition was about options for launch capability. The US government was happy to sustain the prior situation of a few overpriced stagnant prime contractors for a long time - same with defense. It was hard to impossible for anyone else to enter that space and get attention (let alone money) from those making decisions. Regarding bidding. It is incredibly common for these decisions to be made in a way that rewards friends, family members, donors. The law requires a competitive process but it is often corrupted and only gives the appearance of a working process. The appeals are very expensive and time consuming so a lot of the time, it’s just not worth it. There’s not much you can do unless you’re a large company with lots of money.
      - llamaimperative 2y ago
        Oh sorry I'm not talking about SpaceX launches. I'm asking about the FAA/Verizon situation. I don't think general vibes and challenges with winning billion dollar government contracts suffices as evidence for: "I guarantee the existing Verizon contract was not the result of a fair competition."
Henchman21 2y ago
[flagged]
stefan_ 2y ago
It's a contract for a glorified enterprise network with a massive amount of red tape, what exactly would be SpaceXs irreplaceable specialized knowledge here? Last one to praise Verizon but this sounds exactly like the mindnumbingly boring stuff they do.
kjellsbells 2y ago
You can admire SpaceX's innovation and dislike Verizon while still being concerned that this is a land grab by Musk. We are talking about the FENS contract here that was awarded after a competitive bid process in 2023. Verizon and their partners (eg Saab aerospace) beat out HarrisL3, Raytheon, and some others. https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/safety-ops-regulation/verizon-bests-l3harris-win-next-faa-networking-backbone https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/safety-ops-regulation... If Musk is asserting that the contract was improperly awarded, then there are very well established processes to appeal. (And such appeals would also stop work on the project pending resolution.) However what I see instead is that he is simply instructing the FAA to cancel the deal and use Starlink/SpaceX instead. That is at best murky and at worst corrupt. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/lawmakers-question-musk-influence-over-verizon-faa-contract-2025-02-28/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/lawmakers-question-musk-inf... As for Musk's companies' ability to execute on the details of the contract, knowing how to make cellphone calls via a satellite is a million miles away from knowing how to migrate a massive, and safety critical, telecommunications infrastructure from 2000s-era tech to 2024. Chestertons fence and strict budgetary discipline are both needed, and one cannot ignore the first, claim the second, but hope to get by on hubris.
- inemesitaffia 2y ago
  FENS isn't going anywhere
drivingmenuts 2y ago
The original might have been corrupted, but this new thing is absolutely, definitely corrupt and they're not even trying to hide it, FFS. Starlink has already tried to play politics in the Ukraine invasion. So, how long before they start playing politics with US internet? If they've done it once, it's way easier the second time and, let's face it, their ultimate boss is already in the bag for it.
- inemesitaffia 2y ago
  Play politics? By refusing to do work unless fully paid?
unsnap_biceps 2y ago
My main concern is Verizon was moving from point to point copper to ip over fiber (for midsize and larger airports). Starlink is ip based, but is much much easier to interfere with its operation. We've seen successful jamming happening in Ukraine. I don't mind the idea that starlink would be useful for a ton of smaller airports that the fiber buildout would be extremely costly for what they provide, but the idea that JFK shouldn't use hard lines terrifying.
- inemesitaffia 2y ago
  Nothing is happening to Verizon