Can Mongolia tax SpaceX? What about Chad?
Or is this just some American corporation doing whatever it wants, to hell with the consequences for the rest of the world?
Oh... but we're bringing internet to the world! Just buy this $2,000 USD base unit and subscribe for $100 USD monthly so that your Yurt in the middle of no-where-ville has high-speed internet... What? You have no shoes and only one pair of clothes? Just buy new ones on Amazon and get next day delivery!
--
Bringing internet to the world is a noble goal, particularly if it's not brought to the world by the likes of Facebook, Google or Amazon with their clear ulterior motives. Unlocking access to the world's knowledge is critical for the future of all people... but we shouldn't achieve that goal through force, which is what is happening now with these massive multi-thousand satellite constellations against the protest of nations and people alike. The whole "get over it" attitude is staggeringly in bad taste.
I also highly doubt these mega-constellations + launch costs are cheaper than putting up PTP and PTMP radio dishes in regions that desire the internet. We can push multiple gigabits through these dishes now for backhaul "lines" and there's been great organizations installing these systems throughout Africa and other places for more than two decades. These folks just need more funding... but radio dishes aren't sexy - instead we're putting these satellites up in space where they impact every human being on the planet, instead of just those who are using them.
So the question should be - how can an American corporation deprive other countries of accessible view of the sky for profit and get away with it? Because it might be accessible by everyone eventually? That's frankly not good enough. Elon Musk isn't doing this as a charity, but even if it was it still wouldn't be acceptable.
Your solution to simply deprive rural communities/poor countries of internet access is a non-starter. What you're ignoring is that the positive externalities of the tech vastly, vastly outweigh the negative (and supposedly fixable) externalities. Not to mention it's a take that's rather selfish since you're not the one that pays the price of banning this tech.
Because when the rich western countries have launched lots and lots of satellits then poor countries do of course have the right to launch just as many, with no further caution than we use today at launch and positioning, when it's their turn to shine on the night shy.
I'm sure my opinion of Starlink is clear..
The main problem that I have here is that the uniformity of a full Starlink setup means the entire earth is covered in it, and literally no one else except for Americans has any say in it. That's what's absolutely not cool in my opinion.
Even if I grant you that it's not going to be about supplying internet to poorer countries, this reason alone is sufficient. Depriving rural communities of internet over such a small negative externality is a non-starter.
> literally no one else except for Americans has any say in it
Poland emits significant amounts of carbon pollution, which impacts me, and I have no say in it.
Some negative externalities in the global commons is inevitable. You, personally, are contributing to that. Your weather and GPS satellites are contributing to it.
The solution therefore can't be a puritanical "I will not allow any global externalities whatsoever.". It's an impractical non-starter and a rule that nobody anywhere follows nor should they try to follow it.
[citation needed]
