The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is reportedly on the verge of terminating its $2.4 billion contract with Verizon in favor of Elon Musks’ Starlink to upgrade to upgrade the communication system that supports the nation’s air traffic control network.
Kaching!!! Calls Verizon’s system a failure while conveniently offering Starlink as the fix. 
Just as long as there’s no conflict of interest…
“I was thinkin’ about what a friend had said and hopin’ it wa a lie.” “Look at mother nature on the run in the nineteen seventies” except that we’re now in the twenty twenties. Accountability: the new canary du jour in the mine. Where is Neil Young when we needed him the most? Again!
Even if Starlink turns out to be the best technical solution, the way this is unfolding reeks of political and financial entanglements. At the very least, the FAA needs to ensure a fair and transparent process before making such a major shift.
Will the justifications for the decision ever see the light of day?
“Something is happening here but you don’t know what it is. Do you Mr Jones?” “It’s a Hard Rain Gonna Fall.” Well I can tell you Mr Jones. You ignored it. You broke it. Now you own it Mr Jones. The hard rain’s now a fallin’. Bob Dylan prophesied it.
Could it be that Musk didn’t just beat Verizon, he rigged the game before the whistle blew? If Verizon’s system was really failing, the FAA should have been the one making that call, not a billionaire donor with a product to sell. Instead, Musk publicly trashes Verizon, just as Starlink conveniently gets floated as the replacement. Add in his $280M donation to Trump, and this isn’t about better technology, it’s about buying influence. This is corporate capture in action: the rain falls, and the people selling the storm make a fortune. Just sayin’!
Kleptocracy Inc.
This is shameful and quite incredible to watch it play out in plain sight.
Federal contracts don’t work that way. The FAA can terminate a contract but the federal laws are very strict and clear about how that process works, and the FAA cannot “give” a contract to any business without full and open competition, with exceptions only for emergencies or if only one source responds to the government’s request for a bid on a contract.
Let me coin a wartime version of Hanlon’s razor: Never attribute to greed that which can be adequately explained by adversarial takeover of vital security (not safety) infrastructure.
Wow. The conspiracy theorist are out! This has been a consideration way before Musk was involved in the Trump administration. As an operator in Alaska and in the lower 48, the communication capabilities in many places are horrible. Looking at Alaska, there has been AT&T, GCI, Hughes Net, etc, all pretty much failures. This is why Starlink is used all over the place up there because it’s simple to set up and it works! If it makes Elon money, so be it. If there’s a better system to replace or supplement the Verizon system other than Starlink, then let’s look at that but so far, there isn’t.
I was perplexed when this story broke. Why is the FAA using a wireless phone company for communications? Is it an Alaska thing in austere environments with no land lines available for hard line communications? I guess Atlantic City could be austere to this Southern boy but I have to assume somebody had existing data communications in New Jersey. I’m sure Verizon is huge and has a backbone for communications I’m not familiar with, but is this about wireless connectivity? And if so, why is wireless connectivity a thing in New Jersey? Is it a redundant solution should land lines go down? I could understand that need in ATC world, but having the backup be flakey isn’t exactly the same thing as what was reported as an impending failure in the ATC system.
I have to say having used Starlink, if it is about wireless connectivity, there is nothing out there like Starlink. It smokes any other solution I’ve looked at and works flawlessly for a fraction of the cost.
Not a conspiracy theory, but a direct conflict of interest. Since when is it permissible for someone serving in the government to benefit from one of their holdings being awarded a multi-billion dollar contract? There will undoubtedly be legal challenges on this, if this comes to fruition. Hard to conceive of a better, textbook example of full-blown corruption.
Normally you would be correct, but neither can all of these agencies just fire people like they have been directed to, yet here we are. There’s no reason to think this administration wouldn’t terminate Verizon’s contract and give it to starlink for “emergency” purposes.
Classic example of Oligarchs at work. You donate big money to the leadership and you get massive contracts and funding. We’re firmly on our way to be just like Russia.
It’s heartening to see that most of the comments so far are about this being a very clear conflict of interest.
Anytime someone comes in and says “X is broken, and I can sell you the fix”, it makes me question their motives. Maybe Verizon really is bungling this and Starlink is the fix, but I want an outside group with no financial stake in either company or political axe to grind to first prove that is the case. I know, that’s a tall order these days, but an attempt at least needs to be made.
Oh. Like when someone who is a junior senator, become president, for 2 terms and comes out a multi millionaire. You mean like that? Like when someone who is an average Joe, goes to Washington on a salary of $174k like a senator and creates a net worth of 8 figures? You mean like that?
Bogus comparison. Not even a close equivalent.