This is where the Netflix/AWS analogy is a good one.
The critical point is: AWS makes more money from people not-Netflix than Amazon Video makes.
Consequently, AWS screwing with Netflix for the benefit of Amazon Video risks the entire not-Netflix AWS customer base, who would no longer consider Amazon as neutral of a party and thus trim their AWS spend.
And these optics last for decades.
Which is why most companies in these scenarios have serious firewalls between those parts of the conglomerate. No sense killing the golden goose because some VP wants a bonus.
If AST (or Amazon Video in the analogy) can compete with Starlink (or Netflix) on even terms, then more power to them. If not? Then that's their problem: rest of the company isn't going to bail them out.
https://aws.amazon.com/solutions/case-studies/innovators/net...
"Turns out we can't give you our preferred rate because you compete with Amazon Video" would be equally short-term-effective / long-term-suicide.
They talked about taking SpaceX to WTO before. But that's it. Talk. The reality is that they know they would lose horrible if anybody ever analyzed how 'fair' the markets actually are.
> SpaceX is already functionally a monopoly at 92%
That's a questionable look at numbers. A lot of that is SpaceX own launches, not competitive. Different other parts are DoD and NASA that have a 2 provider minimum already.
For commercial payloads you have other companies coming online soon. Costumes have orders, currently Vulcane, New Glenn, Terran R, Ariane 6, Neutron all have a book of future orders already secured.
They've got a big price advantage, but if they start pulling anti-competitive stuff like disfavoring launches by a competitor, that's going to get them a lot of attention.
It's entirely possible for there to be more money in providing launch services to AST even if it kills off Starlink, IF it grows the market enough.
Netflix takes the world by storm, grows quickly, and becomes reliant on AWS. Amazon enters the video streaming market as a much weaker competitor and builds upon their own tooling.
In this scenario, I presume Amazon is making more money from Netflix using their service than they are from running their own streaming service. Their first goal is to not disrupt the money they make from Netflix and their second goal is to create a competitor. Later, if the math says that hardening their contracts to the detriment of Netflix would allow them to capture such market share as to recoup the investment with their own streaming service, they would do so, but as they're late to the party that is not the case.
In the Starlink scenario, it's the other way around. Starlink is already dominating the market using their own, SpaceX tooling. The incumbent, AST SpaceMobile, is allowed to use SpaceX rockets. It's not hard for SpaceX to disrupt AST SpaceMobile's operations without hurting SpaceX's bottom line as there's a backlog of launch demand to replace AST SpaceMobile. If the math says that AST SpaceMobile is likely to begin encroaching on Starlink then they deny a contract, replace it with the next person in line, and don't bat an eye.
The order in which things occurred between the companies means there aren't these deeply entangled, mutual benefits that allow competitors to coexist.