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

I will always side against a neo-Nazi sympathizer, regardless.

Why would you be on their side? It’s not clear if anyone else even had a shot at this contract previously. It’s bizarre to give a modernization contract to one of the least innovative companies around. People are overreacting because of their hatred towards Musk, but I would much rather have SpaceX - who is saving the government over 90% on launch costs - to build a modern software and hardware system. Plus they have expertise in FAA regulations and telecom (Starlink) already.

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...

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-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.

FENS isn't going anywhere

> 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.

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.

> 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.

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.

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."

Nor is there sufficient evidence to claim the new administration is doing anything corrupt. They could just be taking the appropriate emergency measures. Or not. But it seems like different standards for evidence are being applied to different sides.

Okay so you actually cannot “guarantee” the prior contract’s award process was bad.

And sure, we don’t know this change is corrupt. We do know that there is a very clear conflict of interest though, so people are reasonably demanding more transparency.

No, there is no clear conflict of interest. You have no idea who exactly is making what decision or why. Stay consistent. Don’t back off your threshold for evidence now.

Yes, there very obviously IS a conflict of interest.

“Conflict of interest” is not the same as “corrupt.” A person can have conflicted interests and still make totally valid, non-corrupt decisions. Even making a self-beneficial decision while having conflicted interests isn’t necessarily corrupt/bad.

“Conflict of interest” refers to the interests themselves, which are very obviously unambiguously conflicted here.

Government interests: spend as little money as possible for capability X

Starlink interests: capture as much money as possible for capability X

That’s a conflict regardless of what decision anyone makes and whether it was the right one.

Who is “person”? As I said, you have no idea who exactly is making what decision or why. There may very well be zero conflict of interest.

I mean… I guess you’re welcome to simply have faith that this particular contract is not being fiddled with by the same people (a slew of SpaceX’ers) as literally every other contract in the federal government despite those exact people entering FAA just a few days ago [1] but uh… I would bet money on it.

Would you like to bet? If this contract is reviewed by someone with SpaceX equity, I win, and if it’s not, you win?

1: https://fedscoop.com/faa-aviation-safety-system-doge-notam/

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.

Nothing is happening to Verizon

What do you mean "it's not clear if anyone else even had a shot at this contract previously?" It was competitively awarded.

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.

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.

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.

Play politics? By refusing to do work unless fully paid?

People are reacting very normally to an unelected billionaire just doing whatever the fuck his Ketamine addiction wants today. Why are you covering for Elon Musk? Boot lick much?