[ad_1]
A selfless act of techno-utopianism earlier this year, the widespread deployment of Starlink terminals in Ukraine, has exacerbated disagreements between SpaceX and governments over who should fund this unprecedented aid campaign. Some expect Elon Musk – one of the world’s richest men – to spend, while others say he has the world’s richest military. Both Elon Musk said that now Starlink will continue to provide Ukraine for free
UpdateMusk tweeted that Starlink, at least for the time being, will continue to “freely support the government of Ukraine.” This will keep the service safe for now but obviously not a long-term solution.
The effort began in late February, just days after Russia invaded Ukraine. Musk said Starlink terminals are “on the way” but gave few details. Many took this minimal, rather promotional approach to mean what it clearly implied: SpaceX was offering the terminals itself for free or with some understanding of their purchase.
The latter turned out to be the case, with the US Agency for International Development paying additional costs to some, Polish and other European governments, as well as various militaries and non-governmental organizations contributing to transportation, installation and monthly expenses. Fees for the service itself. USAID described the “various stakeholders” who were providing the first wave of nearly $15 million at the time.
But the costs weren’t just one-time. Musk recently tweeted that 25,000 terminals have been deployed in Ukraine, 5 times the original load — thousands have been destroyed in the fighting and more are needed. The connection costs $4,500 per month for the highest level of service. Going by the estimates cited by CNN, that adds up to $75 million a month in ongoing costs.
Some doubt the wisdom of relying on this new and unproven technology on the battlefield, but reports from the nation’s military suggest it has been very helpful. The reality is that the capability was accepted in the spirit it was offered and used to its full potential, but the length and scope of the war meant that the situation around Starlink had grown beyond its original scope.
It’s true that SpaceX cannot be fully responsible for the tens of millions in costs, free service, or lost revenue (but the money must be disclosed). But playing the victim isn’t good either: they came into this open-eyed with the intention of providing an expensive and necessary service in a war-torn country with no plans to cover the costs.
On the other hand, governments also come into this. They could not expect SpaceX to cover the cost of hardware and software themselves, or if they did, they should have gotten it in writing. But if they fund some of it, does that mean they’re on the hook for it all?
Meanwhile, the Ukrainian military has come to rely on its service, and they are right to say that no one should write an IOU to whomever — or the soldiers defending their country will be in direct and immediate danger.
This 3-way conflict has no easy solution, so let’s start with what we know interests To make it happen: Starlink connections in Ukraine must continue at a fixed price, not forever. Any other outcome is very dangerous for everyone involved.
So the internet stays on. Who pays? If SpaceX wants anyone to take the claim seriously, it needs to play ball, and that means transparency on actual costs and fees. It goes without saying that Musk needs to stop his paranoid and narcissistic reaction—there’s too much at stake to slip into his normal self-confidence.
Taxpayers in a dozen countries have already paid for it and in any case it could continue for months, if not years. What are the actual costs? $4,500 per terminal for access seems exorbitant, for one thing—that’s the retail price for early adopters, not the wholesale price for government partners in life-saving operations. The Pentagon may not be a paragon of savings, but charging full price in this case isn’t fair. (Not to mention, it’s probably the best public relations the company can get when trying to increase demand for its real consumer service. Money can’t buy that kind of exposure.)
Governments must be selective and strict about what can and cannot be provided as part of the aid package. The Ukrainian authorities would no doubt like it if every available Starlink terminal was sent to the country the next day, but that is impossible, other forms of aid are impossible, such as some very expensive or heavy military assets. to save.
The cost of supporting Ukraine’s defense is huge, and the US is giving billions to the cause. How much of that money is allocated to Starlink communications? Pick a number and start negotiating. Is it $10 million a month? 20 million dollars? What are those costs based on, and how are they tracked?
SpaceX can take that sum and provide an agreed upon level of service and hardware. As much as everyone appreciates the quick move back in February, a few hurried phone calls and “we can make this happen” conversations aren’t going to be the long-term plan to cover hundreds of thousands of dollars in increased deployment costs. Millions of dollars and many Ukrainian lives.
Like any deal, it leaves everyone a little happier — but leaves no one disconnected, torn, or dead. This complex and difficult situation is the result of insufficient preparation and communication of the stakeholders who are constantly changing. What is needed from SpaceX and its government partners is not finger-pointing, but transparency and commitment.
[ad_2]
Source link
