It certainly is better to know that you can not actually rely on Starlink for emergency services access in the long-term vs discovering it the moment you actually need it.
You’re missing the point. Musk has a track record of offering services to remove competitors and then reneging on that once it’s no longer necessary. (Similar to the hyperloop: the whole purpose was to divert funding from public transit programs not produce anything actually useful)
Adopting a “free” starlink service that later becomes $$$ only once there’s no alternative is overtly worse than the current state.
The "free" Starlink service is calling 911. It is expected that mobile provider offers 911 service to everyone.
Starlink, in partnership with T-Mobile and others, will be offering service with messages and voice but no data. I don't think pricing has been announced, or if going to be add-on or free extra. My guess is that it will be cheap cause it isn't much demand, the emergency is the important part.
Also, there are multiple companies working on LTE from satellites. They are at disadvantage cause can't piggyback on lots of low satellite. But might be able to work with fewer, higher satellite. They might be able to partner with other providers.
> The "free" Starlink service is calling 911. It is expected that mobile provider offers 911 service to everyone
What?
No one is saying "they'll charge for 911" they're saying - the satellite connection is what costs money. The concern is that they're offering that connection for free now, because it means to be competitive, every other service must provide that service for free. How are they going to do that when the service costs money? They cannot - so spacex leverages its income from other industries (and government subsidies) to fund a service below operating costs until the competitors are gone. At that point they can introduce pricing, and there is no alternative or competition, so they can charge much more than the actual cost.
This is not a new or novel concept, and is a historically common anticompetitive practice.
Given Musk's prior behavior, it is sensible to assume any claims or promises are at best misleading, and it is not unreasonable to assume intentional malice.
"The world" didn't "rely" on SpaceX to build this. SpaceX built this service on their own initiative and with their own funding and now they're giving away its most life critical function for free (unlike incumbent satphone companies who have always charged for 911 service). Plenty of competitors are working to replicate Starlink, including private companies, governments, and militaries. SpaceX is even launching some of the satellites for them. It's hardly SpaceX's fault that everyone else is so far behind.
On Ukraine, SpaceX asked the US DoD to fund the substantial costs which is eminently reasonable given the criticality of Starlink to the war effort and the billions upon billions in contracts other US defense contractors were getting to support the war. SpaceX never shut off Ukraine's service despite misinformation to the contrary.
As for Elon, he canceled one customer's $100k car order 8 years ago and because of that you believe he would leave people to die when they need emergency help?
Once something "free" is offered, it often pushes out paid or costly options. And it's not uncommon that this leads to a severe decline in quality. We've seen it in print media, social networks, streaming services, and many other industries. For example, we no longer have popular high-quality almanacs, and high-quality magazines at a premium price are nearly extinct. We now have a lot of "free" garbage online instead. Similarly, social networks, which are free to use, have upset the social fabric and displaced genuine deep relationships which cost money and effort to maintain. And what percentage of movies these days release on high-bitrate media? Most of us don't have access to film without blocky compression.
It's pretty clear Elon didn't think this through. There are very large risks (on the scale of his AI fears). If this service becomes widespread, regional and national governments may no longer mandate that certain areas are provided cell services for by telecoms. Or if there are faults in that system, they may delay repairs. This is all well and good while SpaceX continues to operate, but what if it goes bankrupt and the world has moved on? How many will die?
Or what if Elon has another tech bro moment and decides some region doesn't deserve this service? We know he has sometimes acted very unjustly to others, including making a decision in the Ukrainian conflict to not provide service[0]. He may be right or wrong on that decision, I won't judge. But it is clear he is inserting himself into situations he has no expertise in, and is known for casting harsh rushed judgements[1].
I think he should do it — it's quite heroic what he wants to do, but he needs to think about the consequences. Maybe the calls should always be available, but there should be a fee associated with them later, so that a cheaper local option remains relevant? I don't have the answers but I think 15 minutes of thinking surfaces so many concerns that it really does demand an impact study rather than one man making a tweet/xit.
And we haven't even spoken about potential misuse.
> Once something "free" is offered, it often pushes out paid or costly options
You could say the exact same thing about the long-standing policy of providing free 911 service via terrestrial cell towers. And it still wouldn't make any sense because the revenue potential of 911 service is absolutely miniscule compared to the total size of the telecom market. Giving away 911 service isn't pushing anyone out of the telecom business. Despite being life critical, 911 service is incidental to a good overall telecom service and it makes perfect sense to make it free.
> This is all well and good while SpaceX continues to operate, but what if it goes bankrupt and the world has moved on?
There is zero chance that the Starlink network would be abandoned and stop working if SpaceX went bankrupt. Look up Iridium and Globalstar to see what would actually happen.
> Or what if Elon has another tech bro moment and decides some region doesn't deserve this service anymore?
Again, people are delusional to think that he would leave people to die on a whim. I get that he acts rashly and there's a real billionare=evil meme floating around out there right now, not to mention the politics stuff, but nothing he has ever done is even remotely close to the behavior people are postulating here.
Starlink Leo satellites are not the same as geosynchronous satellites. geosync satellites are very high up and will more or less stay there indefinitely. Starlink sats will decay from their orbit and burn up in the atmosphere after about 5 years. which means if you aren't constantly launching new sats all the time, the network will quickly degrade and completely fail within five years. in other words, there is way more than a zero percent chance that starlink is not a financially viable product long term.
> Giving away 911 service isn't pushing anyone out of the telecom business.
Irrelevant. My claim was about a free service replacing a paid one. 911 service in the US is paid for by states and local governments, and telecoms must provide it to operate. Having a free option would create a disincentive to keep the status quo, and the paid service may be less upkept.
> There is zero chance that the Starlink network would be abandoned and stop working if SpaceX went bankrupt
Seems exceptionally naive. “Zero chance” alone is naive, there is substantial probability. But even if the satellites were kept in orbit by another owner, why would they continue to provide a free service at a cost? Even that question may be irrelevant, because non-profitable efforts would be ended by most restructurings.
> Again, people are delusional to think that he would leave people to die on a whim
Tesla’s exaggerated FSD claims are directly responsible for people’s deaths, including the Walter Huang case, where this negligence was established as a cause by plaintiff’s lawyers.
You seem confused. SpaceX will provide the same free access to the same government 911 (or other local emergency system) that terrestrial carriers do. SpaceX incurs practically no incremental cost here. Starlink can't replace cell towers for normal phone coverage, so this is not replacing anything other than maybe Apple's far inferior SOS feature.
The Walter Huang case didn't "establish" anything because it didn't go to trial. It's a pretty wild stretch to blame his death on Musk. And even if one believed that they should still be able to see how making misleading statements that unintentionally contribute to one person's accident would not be remotely comparable to intentionally ignoring thousands upon thousands of people desperately calling for urgently needed help.
Elon has a history of cancelling orders for Teslas if people criticise him.
I feel like Starlink isn't the sort of company the world should rely on for a safety critical service, free or not.