> <i>More than seven months into the war, it’s hard to overstate the impact Starlink has had in Ukraine. The government in Kyiv, Ukrainian troops as well and NGOs and civilians have relied on the nimble, compact and easy-to-use units created by SpaceX. It’s not only used for voice and electronic communication but to help fly drones and send back video to correct artillery fire.</i><p>Putting aside the costs, I'm curious how Musk reconciles giving critical support to the Ukrainian military with his apparent conviction that Russian victory is inevitable. If he truly believes that the threat of nuclear war increases the longer that Ukraine successfully defends itself, then it seems Musk would be keen a way to withdraw Starlink services from Ukraine.
I desperately want to know what exactly is the difference between the $60 per month for retail customers, $500 per month "Premium" (that Ukraine apparently requested) for businesses, the $4,500 Starlink is giving them, and the $5,000 maritime version.
$4,500/month is a bit less than Starlink maritime at $5,000/month. I can't imagine it's cheap to provide the support needed for a warzone. There aren't any similar services with public numbers to compare this cost to that are in an active warzone.
> The far more expensive part, however, is the ongoing connectivity. SpaceX says it has paid for about 70% of the service provided to Ukraine and claims to have offered that highest level – $4,500 a month – to all terminals in Ukraine despite the majority only having signed on for the cheaper $500 per month service.<p>Dang, SpaceX is taking them to the cleaners.
That Musk wants the US military to foot the upcoming cost of the Ukraine Russia war is entirely reasonable.<p>What’s unacceptable is that it’s discussed by him on Twitter and with his 108 million followers.<p>How can he be trusted with any more govt contracts if he is a blabbermouth?
Seems like this is a drop in the buckert for the military $$ we're sending and they are definitely getting a lot of bang for the buck, I wonder if the DOD is dumb enough to let this program die out?
Call me conspiratorial, but I do find it weird that first there were these 'peace plans' from Musk, than reports of Starlink problems in Ukraine, then claims about the conversations with Putin (that Musk denied), followed now by the request for money from the Pentagon by Musk, otherwise he'll have to stop operating Starlink over Ukraine.<p>Maybe there is no connection between all these events, but I'm a bit sceptical of that.
So SpaceX cannot continue to maintain the zero-marginal-cost service for the terminals they sold to Ukraine (and funded by USG) at 5x retail? And now they’re attempting to extort the USG (who, by the way, is also their primary customer)?<p>I’m not a socialist, but SpaceX should be nationalized now. The capabilities that it provides cannot remain in the hands of its current majority owner. I’m happy to see it re-privatized, in the very near future, with ownership sold to more responsible, and less flighty, stewardship.
Sounds more of a case of not realizing that spacex was supposed to negotiate with internet providers instead of taking the first value they offered.<p>Reminds me of ISPs harassing netflix to pay extra in addition to the prices they charged their consumers<p><a href="https://www.theverge.com/2014/3/24/5541916/netflix-deal-with-the-devil-why-reed-hastings-violated-his-principles" rel="nofollow">https://www.theverge.com/2014/3/24/5541916/netflix-deal-with...</a><p>Assumably something similar is happening to SpaceX's offering