How do you guarantee that Starlink doesn't turn to crap if you don't nationalize it?
Its a silly question. Governments have successfully operated various telecommunication systems for a long time.
Lots of modern telecommunications and sat tech comes out of the government.
But this will depend on each countries experience. I think one can make a solid argument that the denationalization of telco systems in the 90s was a mistake.
Same goes for the breakup of AT&T. The better option would have been to just nationalize the baby bells. And make AT&T focus on long distance competition and the technology. Maybe also nationalize Bell Labs and keep it operating financed from a the income of the Baby Bells.
Because what actually happened is that these Baby Bells simply got massive monopolies, made gigantic profits and were then able to do lots of other infrastructure plays and then mostly glob back together.
> take it "because its so vital to national security".
I think for that you don't need to take it. If you take (forced sale) it, it would be because you want to provide universal access subsidized without lining Musk pockets even more. But you would need a real long term vision for this to be worth it.
> Furthermore why can't someone just copy them? Drop a ton of money on poaching their engineers and just copy whatever the government needs?
Because the system is already built and working, why spend the capital on building the same thing again.
For me some kind of open access law would make more then nationalization. But the suggestion to nationalize isn't crazy.
I just can’t fathom the logic here. You say that you don’t want to line Musk’s pockets, but seizing SpaceX/Starlink would cost a trillion dollars or more and all of that money would go to Elon Musk! The government would have to issue a trillion dollars of bonds, agreeing to pay interest on them for decades, and then hand all of the money over to Elon Musk who then doesn’t have to pay that interest.
You’re deluding yourself to think that it’s even feasible. And it’s also a bad idea just on general principles.
I agree that the breakup of AT&T was a mistake though.
> You’re conflating “buying” with “seizing.”
if a government just seizes a multi trillion corporation, that government has just signed its economic death warrant. no one will ever trust it again and everyone will start examining jumping ship options.
it will actually lose more economic value the very next day than the value of the corporation it seized. probably in just the bond market alone.
and this even ignores the court challenges that will follow and likely undo the action but not the damage.
in the echochambers like reddit and bluesky.
I call it the toaster fucker problem. Man wakes up in 1980, tells his friends “I want to fuck a toaster” Friends quite rightly berate and laugh at him, guy deals with it, maybe gets some therapy and goes on a bit better adjusted.
Guy in 2021 tells his friends that he wants to fuck a toaster, gets laughed at, immediately jumps on facebook and finds “Toaster Fucker Support group” where he reads that he’s actually oppressed and he needs to cut out everyone around him and should only listen to his fellow toaster fuckers.
Please do not put me into the same group, I never mentioned seizing.
And the government should have that assets so it can use it how it wants, subsidise it, deploy it for military reasons, restrict it and soo n.
Yes, Musk would make a lot of money in a one time payment, but he would lose control over the asset and not continue to profit of new subsidies and other ways the government might want to use it.
And it wouldn't cost 'a trillion'.
> agreeing to pay interest on them for decades
Starlink returns are higher then the interest on bonds.
So you are essentially returning future profits to the government.
The government can raise the capital and buy the assets, just like google or amazon could. The logic is the exact same.
> Elon Musk who then doesn’t have to pay that interest.
Not sure what you are talking about.
Musk would have to pay income and capital gains tax, so government would get it pretty cheap.
> You’re deluding yourself to think that it’s even feasible.
Government have nationalised much bigger infrastructure before. Even the US government let alone many others.
Seems like you have a case of US recency bias.