Re: So what do you think about the scuttlebutt of Musk interfering in Ukraine?

[Michael Thomas]

On 9/14/23 6:34 AM, Dave Taht wrote:
This is one of those threads where I do think folk would benefit from 
hearing from the horses' mouths. In a recent bio of musk published 
this past week, the author claimed that starlink withdrew service over 
crimea based on the knowledge it was going to be used for a surprise 
attack. Starlink - and that author - now state that ( 
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1700345943105638636 )


The onus is meaningfully different if I refused to act upon a request 
from Ukraine vs. made a deliberate change to Starlink to thwart 
Ukraine. At no point did I or anyone at SpaceX promise coverage over 
Crimea. Moreover, our terms of service clearly prohibit Starlink for 
offensive military action, as we are a civilian system, so they were 
again asking for something that was expressly prohibited. SpaceX is 
building Starshield for the US government, which is similar to, but 
much smaller than Starlink, as it will not have to handle millions of 
users. That system will be owned and controlled by the US government.

Quote
Walter Isaacson
@WalterIsaacson
·
Sep 8
To clarify on the Starlink issue: the Ukrainians THOUGHT coverage was 
enabled all the way to Crimea, but it was not. They asked Musk to 
enable it for their drone sub attack on the Russian fleet. Musk did 
not enable it, because he thought, probably correctly, that would 
cause a…Show more 



Furthermore, Musk stated yesterday that had the request come from the 
us government, he would have complied.


I will refrain from editorializing.


I guess this is a lesson on diversity which every military should pay 
attention to. I had forgotten about other wireless options that Bill 
pointed out, though I'm not sure if geostationary latency would fit 
their requirements. But is trying to reclaim your territory "offensive" 
after being invaded? How would other providers interpret that? Or maybe 
this is just a unicorn.


Mike

Re: So what do you think about the scuttlebutt of Musk interfering in Ukraine?

[Michael Thomas]

On 9/14/23 9:26 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:

*nods* likely plenty of similar examples by less polarizing people.


Then lets hear them? It certainly seems like an  operational issue if 
this starts to become common. How is it dealt with if at all beyond 
diversity which is hard to come by with LEO systems?



Mike

Re: So what do you think about the scuttlebutt of Musk interfering in Ukraine?

[Mike Hammett]

*nods* likely plenty of similar examples by less polarizing people. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

- Original Message -

From: "Randy Bush"  
To: "NANOG mailing list"  
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2023 10:15:04 AM 
Subject: Re: So what do you think about the scuttlebutt of Musk interfering in 
Ukraine? 

perhaps this is not a nanog operational topic 

Re: So what do you think about the scuttlebutt of Musk interfering in Ukraine?

[Randy Bush]

perhaps this is not a nanog operational topic 

Re: So what do you think about the scuttlebutt of Musk interfering in Ukraine?

[Tom Beecher]

Mr. Isaacson's tweet (or X , or whatever the hell it is now ) is
essentially saying Russia invading Ukraine was *not* a major war, but
Ukraine attacking back to defend itself would be. Exceptionally dumb
comment.

I also find it exceptionally rich that Musk uses their 'Terms of Service'
as a shield to justify an action, while at the same time openly ignoring
obligations on contracts his company signed with vendors and now former
employees. He sure does love to have it both ways.

On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 9:36 AM Dave Taht  wrote:

> This is one of those threads where I do think folk would benefit from
> hearing from the horses' mouths. In a recent bio of musk published this
> past week, the author claimed that starlink withdrew service over crimea
> based on the knowledge it was going to be used for a surprise attack.
> Starlink - and that author - now state that (
> https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1700345943105638636 )
>
> The onus is meaningfully different if I refused to act upon a request from
> Ukraine vs. made a deliberate change to Starlink to thwart Ukraine. At no
> point did I or anyone at SpaceX promise coverage over Crimea. Moreover, our
> terms of service clearly prohibit Starlink for offensive military action,
> as we are a civilian system, so they were again asking for something that
> was expressly prohibited. SpaceX is building Starshield for the US
> government, which is similar to, but much smaller than Starlink, as it will
> not have to handle millions of users. That system will be owned and
> controlled by the US government.
> Quote
> Walter Isaacson
> @WalterIsaacson
> ·
> Sep 8
> To clarify on the Starlink issue: the Ukrainians THOUGHT coverage was
> enabled all the way to Crimea, but it was not. They asked Musk to enable it
> for their drone sub attack on the Russian fleet. Musk did not enable it,
> because he thought, probably correctly, that would cause a… Show more
> 
>
> Furthermore, Musk stated yesterday that had the request come from the us
> government, he would have complied.
>
> I will refrain from editorializing.
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 5:56 AM Aaron de Bruyn via NANOG 
> wrote:
>
>> Starlink isn't a monopoly. Ukraine could have guided their munitions with
>> Iridium or another satellite Internet system.
>>
>>
>> Don't forget GLONASS. 😉
>>
>> On Thu Sep 14, 2023, 03:10 AM GMT, William Herrin  wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 5:47 PM Michael Thomas  wrote:
>>
>> Doesn't this bump up against common carrier protections?
>>
>>
>> Hi Michael,
>>
>> Internet providers aren't common carriers. If they were, it'd be
>> unlawful to stop your customers from sending email spam that was
>> merely offensive rather than illegal. It's also why Internet providers
>> aren't required to follow network neutrality. Internet providers gain
>> their immunity through section 230 and the DMCA instead.
>>
>> Common carrier status typically applies to shipping companies and
>> basic telephone service. Part of the mess with unwanted phone calls is
>> that the caller has to break the law (e.g. by calling a number on the
>> do-not-call list) before the phone company is allowed to act against
>> them.
>>
>> I sure don't
>> want my utilities weaponizing their monopoly status to the whims of any
>> random narcissist billionaire.
>>
>>
>> Starlink isn't a monopoly. Ukraine could have guided their munitions
>> with Iridium or another satellite Internet system.
>>
>> That said, volunteering services to the military of a nation at war
>> and then pulling the rug out from under them is so classless, one
>> wonders if Musk isn't trying to build a communist utopia.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Bill Herrin
>>
>>
>> --
>> William Herrin
>> b...@herrin.us
>> https://bill.herrin.us/
>>
>>
>
> --
> Oct 30:
> https://netdevconf.info/0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-bof.html
> Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos
>

Re: So what do you think about the scuttlebutt of Musk interfering in Ukraine?

[Dave Taht]

This is one of those threads where I do think folk would benefit from
hearing from the horses' mouths. In a recent bio of musk published this
past week, the author claimed that starlink withdrew service over crimea
based on the knowledge it was going to be used for a surprise attack.
Starlink - and that author - now state that (
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1700345943105638636 )

The onus is meaningfully different if I refused to act upon a request from
Ukraine vs. made a deliberate change to Starlink to thwart Ukraine. At no
point did I or anyone at SpaceX promise coverage over Crimea. Moreover, our
terms of service clearly prohibit Starlink for offensive military action,
as we are a civilian system, so they were again asking for something that
was expressly prohibited. SpaceX is building Starshield for the US
government, which is similar to, but much smaller than Starlink, as it will
not have to handle millions of users. That system will be owned and
controlled by the US government.
Quote
Walter Isaacson
@WalterIsaacson
·
Sep 8
To clarify on the Starlink issue: the Ukrainians THOUGHT coverage was
enabled all the way to Crimea, but it was not. They asked Musk to enable it
for their drone sub attack on the Russian fleet. Musk did not enable it,
because he thought, probably correctly, that would cause a… Show more


Furthermore, Musk stated yesterday that had the request come from the us
government, he would have complied.

I will refrain from editorializing.


On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 5:56 AM Aaron de Bruyn via NANOG 
wrote:

> Starlink isn't a monopoly. Ukraine could have guided their munitions with
> Iridium or another satellite Internet system.
>
>
> Don't forget GLONASS. 😉
>
> On Thu Sep 14, 2023, 03:10 AM GMT, William Herrin  wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 5:47 PM Michael Thomas  wrote:
>
> Doesn't this bump up against common carrier protections?
>
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> Internet providers aren't common carriers. If they were, it'd be
> unlawful to stop your customers from sending email spam that was
> merely offensive rather than illegal. It's also why Internet providers
> aren't required to follow network neutrality. Internet providers gain
> their immunity through section 230 and the DMCA instead.
>
> Common carrier status typically applies to shipping companies and
> basic telephone service. Part of the mess with unwanted phone calls is
> that the caller has to break the law (e.g. by calling a number on the
> do-not-call list) before the phone company is allowed to act against
> them.
>
> I sure don't
> want my utilities weaponizing their monopoly status to the whims of any
> random narcissist billionaire.
>
>
> Starlink isn't a monopoly. Ukraine could have guided their munitions
> with Iridium or another satellite Internet system.
>
> That said, volunteering services to the military of a nation at war
> and then pulling the rug out from under them is so classless, one
> wonders if Musk isn't trying to build a communist utopia.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
> --
> William Herrin
> b...@herrin.us
> https://bill.herrin.us/
>
>

-- 
Oct 30: https://netdevconf.info/0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-bof.html
Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos

Re: So what do you think about the scuttlebutt of Musk interfering in Ukraine?

[Aaron de Bruyn via NANOG]

> Starlink isn't a monopoly. Ukraine could have guided their munitions with 
> Iridium or another satellite Internet system.

Don't forget GLONASS. 😉

On Thu Sep 14, 2023, 03:10 AM GMT, William Herrin  wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 5:47 PM Michael Thomas  wrote:
>> Doesn't this bump up against common carrier protections?
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> Internet providers aren't common carriers. If they were, it'd be
> unlawful to stop your customers from sending email spam that was
> merely offensive rather than illegal. It's also why Internet providers
> aren't required to follow network neutrality. Internet providers gain
> their immunity through section 230 and the DMCA instead.
>
> Common carrier status typically applies to shipping companies and
> basic telephone service. Part of the mess with unwanted phone calls is
> that the caller has to break the law (e.g. by calling a number on the
> do-not-call list) before the phone company is allowed to act against
> them.
>> I sure don't
>> want my utilities weaponizing their monopoly status to the whims of any
>> random narcissist billionaire.
>
> Starlink isn't a monopoly. Ukraine could have guided their munitions
> with Iridium or another satellite Internet system.
>
> That said, volunteering services to the military of a nation at war
> and then pulling the rug out from under them is so classless, one
> wonders if Musk isn't trying to build a communist utopia.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
> --
> William Herrin
> b...@herrin.us
> https://bill.herrin.us/

Re: So what do you think about the scuttlebutt of Musk interfering in Ukraine?

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

I have a feeling he’s fired far too much of his legal and compliance team to 
realise

--srs

From: NANOG  on behalf of Michael 
Thomas 
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2023 6:17:17 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org 
Subject: So what do you think about the scuttlebutt of Musk interfering in 
Ukraine?

Doesn't this bump up against common carrier protections? I sure don't
want my utilities weaponizing their monopoly status to the whims of any
random narcissist billionaire.

Mike

Re: So what do you think about the scuttlebutt of Musk interfering in Ukraine?

[William Herrin]

On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 5:47 PM Michael Thomas  wrote:
> Doesn't this bump up against common carrier protections?

Hi Michael,

Internet providers aren't common carriers. If they were, it'd be
unlawful to stop your customers from sending email spam that was
merely offensive rather than illegal. It's also why Internet providers
aren't required to follow network neutrality. Internet providers gain
their immunity through section 230 and the DMCA instead.

Common carrier status typically applies to shipping companies and
basic telephone service. Part of the mess with unwanted phone calls is
that the caller has to break the law (e.g. by calling a number on the
do-not-call list) before the phone company is allowed to act against
them.

> I sure don't
> want my utilities weaponizing their monopoly status to the whims of any
> random narcissist billionaire.

Starlink isn't a monopoly. Ukraine could have guided their munitions
with Iridium or another satellite Internet system.

That said, volunteering services to the military of a nation at war
and then pulling the rug out from under them is so classless, one
wonders if Musk isn't trying to build a communist utopia.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/

Re: OT So what do you think about the scuttlebutt of Musk interfering in Ukraine?

[Bryan Fields]

On 9/13/23 8:47 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:

utilities weaponizing their monopoly status to the whims of any
random narcissist billionaire


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDC3LYfHRGg

Basically this?

--
Bryan Fields

727-409-1194 - Voice
http://bryanfields.net

So what do you think about the scuttlebutt of Musk interfering in Ukraine?

[Michael Thomas]

Doesn't this bump up against common carrier protections? I sure don't 
want my utilities weaponizing their monopoly status to the whims of any 
random narcissist billionaire.


Mike