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
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
On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 5:47 PM Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> 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 bill@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/
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 <mailto:bill@herrin.us> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 5:47 PM Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> 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 bill@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/
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 <https://twitter.com/WalterIsaacson/status/1700342242290901361> 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 <nanog@nanog.org> 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 <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 5:47 PM Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> 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 bill@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/
-- Oct 30: https://netdevconf.info/0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-bof.html Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos
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 <dave.taht@gmail.com> 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 <https://twitter.com/WalterIsaacson/status/1700342242290901361>
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 <nanog@nanog.org> 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 <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 5:47 PM Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> 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 bill@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/
-- Oct 30: https://netdevconf.info/0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-bof.html Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos
*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" <randy@psg.com> To: "NANOG mailing list" <nanog@nanog.org> 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
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
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 <https://twitter.com/WalterIsaacson/status/1700342242290901361>
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
I have a feeling he’s fired far too much of his legal and compliance team to realise --srs ________________________________ From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+ops.lists=gmail.com@nanog.org> on behalf of Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2023 6:17:17 AM To: nanog@nanog.org <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
participants (9)
-
Aaron de Bruyn -
Bryan Fields -
Dave Taht -
Michael Thomas -
Mike Hammett -
Randy Bush -
Suresh Ramasubramanian -
Tom Beecher -
William Herrin