Elon Musk-controlled satellite internet provider Starlink has told Brazil’s telecom regulator Anatel it will not comply with a court order to block social media platform X in the country until its local accounts are unfrozen.

Anatel confirmed the information to Reuters on Monday after its head Carlos Baigorri told Globo TV it had received a note from Starlink, which has more than 200,000 customers in Brazil, and passed it onto Brazil’s top court.

Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes last week ordered all telecom providers in the country to shut down X, which is also owned by billionaire Musk, for lacking a legal representative in Brazil.

The move also led to the freezing of Starlink’s bank accounts in Brazil. Starlink is a unit of Musk-led rocket company SpaceX. The billionaire responded to the account block by calling Moraes a “dictator.”

    • @lolcatnip@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      3816 days ago

      His life experiences? Having that much money and power really fucks with someone’s perceptions of the world.

    • Makhno
      link
      fedilink
      English
      3816 days ago

      Why does the weird one think that he should have more power than a government?

      Because he quite literally does in a lot of cases. When is he ever punished?

    • @kralk@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      2616 days ago

      I’m scared of the day Amazon realises they actually do have more power than the government.

    • @FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1716 days ago

      Because obviously the benevolent billionaire will do so much more good to the world than an evil government specifically elected by the will of the people. (/s)

    • @Woht24@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      616 days ago

      He absolutely shouldn’t, but isn’t this just a dick swinging contest by both Brazil and Musk?

      I haven’t been following it but banning an entire website because they don’t have a ‘legal representative’ in your country sounds bizarre.

      • @SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        2116 days ago

        Twitter did have an office in Brazil (with legal representation) but after refusing to implement court ordered bans, the court fined them. Elon Musk threw a temper tantrum and shut down the Brazil office and eliminated his legal representation in Brazil.

        Note that Musk will implement bans when requested by authoritarians, just for some reason he draws the line when it’s a court order in a democratic country.

        Anyway the situation where Twitter doesn’t have legal representation is a situation Elon Musk created. Basically “I fired my lawyers so there’s nothing you can do against me now! Checkmate!” So Brazil says “fine, I guess we’re banning Twitter then…”

        So Space Karen thinks the the law doesn’t apply to him and it’s going to cost him a lot of money. Again.

      • JohnEdwa
        link
        fedilink
        English
        17
        edit-2
        16 days ago

        It is when the law says that for a company to operate in Brazil it has to have an appointed legal representative, and you close down your offices and refuse to re-appoint one when the judge demands you to.
        Musk entered a “No pants no service” restaurant, took his pants off, was told to put them back on and refused, and is now surprised he gets no service.

        • @sczlbutt@lemmy.pubsub.fun
          link
          fedilink
          English
          116 days ago

          Shut down the offices and evacuated employees when threatened with arrest. There’s a whole lot more to this story…

          • @ZeroHora@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            215 days ago

            That’s what Musk tells, the reality the legal representative alone could be arrested because Musk don’t want to pay the fines, the employees just lost their jobs because Musk don’t want to spend 0.00001% of his wealth.

          • JohnEdwa
            link
            fedilink
            English
            115 days ago

            I mean, yes, when you are the legal representative for a company, that is what might happen when the company breaks the local laws and refuses to comply with court orders. That’s kinda the whole point.

        • @Woht24@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          116 days ago

          I don’t know what you thought I said to begin your comment with ‘it is’, because if you’re agreeing it’s a dick swinging contest, then the rest of your comment seems strange.

          Anyway, fair enough - like I said, I have not been following it.

      • @fine_sandy_bottom@lemmy.federate.cc
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1116 days ago

        I think that’s a bit reductive.

        It’s fair enough to expect a large company to have a rep to attend court if they want to do business in your country.

        If they refuse then it becomes a “rule of law” situation - even if it’s a dumb law, you can’t have a multinational disregard the court’s instructions.

      • @Lautaro@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        515 days ago

        It was banned because they refused to comply with anti-hate speech policies. According to musk, moderating his platform would be “political persecution” against those poor nazis.

    • ms.lane
      link
      fedilink
      English
      416 days ago

      I’m on side with Elon and Radio Caroline in this issue.

      He’s not broadcasting from inside Brazil’s borders, so the regulators can get stuffed.

      • @Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        616 days ago

        On 3 March 1968, the radio ships Mi Amigo and Caroline were boarded and seized before the day’s broadcasting began. They were towed to Amsterdam by a salvage company to secure unpaid bills for servicing by the Dutch tender company Wijsmuller Transport.[6] Caroline was broken up for scrap in 1972.[21]

        Looks like being in an international area doesn’t actually make you immune to consequences. If Brazil doesn’t want something broadcasting then the only way to keep them from shutting it down is to broadcast from inside a national area. If push comes to shove they can ban Starlink too, confiscate any receivers they can find, and even shoot down the satellites.

        • ms.lane
          link
          fedilink
          English
          115 days ago

          shoot down the satellites.

          I guess enjoy immediate war from the US?

            • ms.lane
              link
              fedilink
              English
              115 days ago

              Lets assume they’re not carrying DOD data (they are), do you really think the US will sit back and let some third world-

              1. Destroy US Commercial property

              2. Start a Kessler Storm

              Without consequence? US destroyed Iran’s navy over a single shipping vessel…

              • @Maggoty@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                415 days ago

                The DoD is not depending on starlink in South America. And dropping a few satellites is not going to create a Kessler effect. And Operation Praying Mantis was because they attacked a US Navy Frigate.

                Are you done being dramatic?

                • ms.lane
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  315 days ago

                  I’m not sure you understand how Starlink works, it’s not geostationary like you’re implying.

        • @NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1
          edit-2
          16 days ago

          The satellites may be carrying starshields on them which are national security modules with the DoD. Shooting down the wrong satellite would be attacking US national defense infrastructure.

          Nevermind starshields are whole DoD satellites.

          I think when I read this, I replaced starshield with starlink

          the ability to put a wide variety of instruments on the Starshield satellite bus

        • @Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          115 days ago

          There are 6350 Starlink satellites in orbit. Dude launches 60 of them at a time, has FCC permission for 12,000, and plans to launch another 30,000.

          Brazil has about 12. They can threaten to shoot down Starlink satellites, but they lack the capacity to actually do it.

          • @Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            315 days ago

            That’s not how that works? It’s a missile. And they wouldn’t be trying to shoot down the entire system. Just enforce the ban in their own country. Odds are Starlink folds pretty quickly when they start losing assets.

            • @Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              315 days ago

              With what weapon system is Brazil going to pose a debilitating threat to a constellation of 6000 satellites?

              “Shoot them down” is well outside the scope of Brazil’s military capability.

              • @Maggoty@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                115 days ago

                Fighter jets and missiles. And before you go, oh no fighter jets don’t go that high! Their missiles can go that high with a flying start. Everything after that is just targeting. This is 40 year old technology and it’s available for sale.

                And again. There are not 6000 satellites servicing Brazil, nor would they need to hit nearly that many before Starlink caved.

                There is a serious lack of appreciation for the power and wealth countries command in this comment section. Brazil has an order of magnitude more wealth to use than Starlink.

                • @Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  1
                  edit-2
                  15 days ago

                  Fighter jets and missiles. And before you go, oh no fighter jets don’t go that high! Their missiles can go that high with a flying start

                  Please elaborate. There are a lot of fighter jets and a lot of missile systems. Please show me one capable of even guiding itself outside the atmosphere. Please show me one capable of causing significant impact to Starlink operations over Brazil.

                  The missiles typically carried on fighters generally have some kind of rocket motor that burns out in seconds, and utilize aerodynamic fins to maneuver itself to the target. While such missiles are theoretically capable of achieving the altitudes you’re talking about, they become unguided once they lose sufficient atmosphere to maneuver.

                  Very few missiles actually have an anti-satellite capability. Nothing in Brazil’s arsenal has ever been demonstrated to have such an capacity.

                  I’ll give you a hint: the total anti-satellite capability of the entire planet could shoot down maybe 50, and would take weeks to replenish. Starlink would replace its losses in one launch.

                  There are not 6000 satellites servicing Brazil,

                  These aren’t geosynchronous satellites. They don’t sit still in the sky. They don’t each serve a specific region on earth. They each complete an orbit every 90 minutes. Each and every satellite in the constellation passes over some part of Brazil multiple times a day, providing service to that area as it does. Yes, there are, indeed, 6000+ satellites servicing Brazil. Pick the right one, and you might be able to interrupt service in some part of Brazil for a few minutes a day, until the constellation adjusts itself to compensate.

                • @Sleepkever@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  115 days ago

                  I’m sorry. How do you expect a jet flying to get even close enough to a satellite to accelerate a missile to it?

                  Highest ever flow fixed wing “aircraft” is SpaceShipOne with rocket engines. Well above what a typical fighter jet might do: 112km height at 910m/s And a typical rocket will go what? Mach 2 or 3? So let’s say Mach 4 at 112 km, which is 1096 m/s

                  A typical Starlink orbit is either around 340km height or more typical 550km at either 7726 m/s or 7613 m/s at the different heights.

                  That gives a minimum distance traveled of at least 228km and a speed gap of 6630 m/s or 23868 km/h that the missile still needs to close.

                  There are probably ways that Brazil could try and destroy satellites if they want to. But launching missiles from (rocket powered) jets definitely isn’t one of them.

      • @gressen@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        515 days ago

        The ground antennas that enable the service totally broadcast from inside Brazil.

        • ms.lane
          link
          fedilink
          English
          115 days ago

          They can disable them, they can jam them too.

          • @gressen@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            3
            edit-2
            15 days ago

            I think the next logical step for Brazil is to revoke a license to operate in that spectrum, rendering all user terminals illegal.

  • @norimee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    16316 days ago

    He really thinks he is above the law.

    Why can’t musk get stranded in space like these astronauts at ISS. We would all be better off.

    • peopleproblems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      25
      edit-2
      15 days ago

      I mean to be fair, Starlink is a satellite network.

      Edit: this is a shitty Dad joke for those that are taking my comment seriously.

      Most of you don’t deserve your humor license if you have one

        • peopleproblems
          link
          fedilink
          English
          13
          edit-2
          15 days ago

          No I mean it’s literally a satellite network. It’s in orbit.

          It’s above the law. Literally.

          Edit: a lot of people whooshing this. How? It’s so fucking simple.

          Orbit = Space. Brazil = Earth.

          Space altitude > Brazil Altitude.

          Orbit is literally above guys. Like come the fuck on. It’s a funny joke.

            • peopleproblems
              link
              fedilink
              English
              215 days ago

              Yes. There is. Orbit is a higher altitude than Brazil. Don’t play dumb.

              • AwesomeLowlander
                link
                fedilink
                English
                215 days ago

                We get the joke. You were being downvoted for your egregious misuse of the word ‘literal’

                • peopleproblems
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  3
                  edit-2
                  15 days ago

                  It’s not misuse. Come on. You can’t fucking honestly convince me that satellites orbit lower than Brazil.

                  Literal: Conforming or limited to the simplest, nonfigurative, or most obvious meaning of a word or words.

                  Above: On high; overhead.

      • @norimee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        715 days ago

        Yeah, and they can do in space whatever they want (probably). But if they want to operate on earth providing a service within a country, they have to abide by the law of this country or stay out of it.

        It’s like American Internet companies have to follow EU law if they want to operate in the EU, even if the company itself or their servers are in the US. GDPR privacy laws is a good example.

    • @jaemo@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      415 days ago

      He’s good for absolutely nothing in this world. The only true altruistic path for him would be euthanasia and donating his water to the tribe.

    • @Soup@lemmy.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      215 days ago

      Well, technically… he is- until proven otherwise. But so far, it hasn’t happened.

      • @norimee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        2
        edit-2
        15 days ago

        Innocent until proven otherwise?

        I think you get something mixed up here. Innocence is not the same as being above the law. Innocence means you didn’t do anything outside the law.

        And it’s a fact, that Starlink and X defied orders of the Supreme Court. I wonder what you think must be proven here?

        • @Soup@lemmy.cafe
          link
          fedilink
          English
          415 days ago

          I think you got something mixed up here. I never said he was innocent. I said he is above the law until proven otherwise. The guy hasn’t suffered a consequence for a single action.

          Until he does- he IS above the law.

          • @norimee@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            315 days ago

            This is literally a thead about how brazil is blocking X and froze starlinks accounts and assets.

            • @Soup@lemmy.cafe
              link
              fedilink
              English
              115 days ago

              And my comment was in response to something different. You’re free to move along unless you can show that you’re authorized to police the comments in this thread.

              • @norimee@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                415 days ago

                For fucks sake, YOU replied directly to MY comment.

                Please move on yourself, if you don’t want replies from people you talked at

                • @Soup@lemmy.cafe
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  115 days ago

                  Right. My comment was in response to something YOU said about his accountability. Brazil is slapping his wrist. Nothing more.

                  This is NOT him facing consequences. This is not accountability.

                  How about you spend more time trying to understand what people are saying, and less time being butthurt because you think they’re disagreeing with you.

    • @acosmichippo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      78
      edit-2
      16 days ago

      the problem is starlink is actually a good thing, providing decent internet access to places that can’t get it otherwise. I think the thing to target is the clear collusion going on between companies in ostensibly unrelated industries to pressure a government into reversing a penalty on one of them.

      • @MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        8416 days ago

        I think the thing to target is the clear collusion going on between companies in ostensibly unrelated industries to pressure a government into reversing a penalty on one of them.

        Specifically because they are controlled by the same asshat. This is the same exact type of shit he does with stock manipulation and why he was eventually forced to buy Twitter. All his wealth has been generated by cheating and exploitation. I hope Brazil drops the hammer.

        • @Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          516 days ago

          Compounding fines would be a nice touch. Then send in the lawyers to actually break the money free.

      • Todd Bonzalez
        link
        fedilink
        English
        5316 days ago

        Starlink is a ridiculous centralized solution to what should be solved by upgrading fiber networks.

        It’s a bandaid with limited usefulness after maybe a decade. Basically an exercise in generating space junk.

        • @Womble@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          4316 days ago

          In a lot of cases I would agree with you, but laying fiber optic cable through the Amazon in order to connect remote settlements is not feasible, starlink really does have a good use case there.

          • @halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            2316 days ago

            And ocean communication.

            It’s amazingly clear none of these people have ever tried to use any of the existing Geostationary satellite data networks.

            They are slow as shit. Not just by modern standards, by any standards. HughesNet is one of the remaining satellite Internet providers.

            $50/mo gives you 50Mbps speeds, 100GB of “Priority Data”, whatever the fuck that is (probably your 50Mbps data, then it slows). And that price is only for a year, then it is $75/mo. They also love to tout a 30ms latency somehow, but that’s just a damned lie. Latency for a Geostationary satellite is around 500ms, or roughly the speed of light because that’s physics. So I have no idea where they think they’re getting 30ms, unless that’s only the additional latency they’re claiming AFTER it bounces off the satellite and reaches the ground to be routed to the internet on their end.

            • @A1kmm@lemmy.amxl.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              916 days ago

              Starlink is a constellation of low-earth orbit (LEO) satellites, not geostationary satellites. That means that the ground station (i.e. subscriber equipment) talks to one satellite as it comes into view, and over time that satellite moves across the sky, and they switch to another satellite. This means the latency is highly variable as the distance changes, but at its lowest is much lower than a geostationary satellite since it is far closer.

              • Redjard
                link
                fedilink
                English
                815 days ago

                I think they were talking about HughesNet the entire time. With the pricing, datacaps, and the latency lies. HughesNet does use geostationary satellites and has 600ms latency according to Wikipedia.

              • @chiliedogg@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                1516 days ago

                Because cruise ships are the only thing not on the mainland. Certainly no cargo ships, research vessels, island nations, or anything else.

                • @yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  216 days ago

                  Ships should suffice with a 100 kB/s connection which already existed before Starlink. You don’t usually need to send tons of data.

                  Additionally, Starlink is currently only offered to a single island nation without submarine fibre-optic cable, the Easter Islands. Although they may get submarine fibre somewhere after 2026 anyways because that is when a new cable will be laid closeby.

              • @halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                416 days ago

                Those speeds would be under ideal conditions, like sitting on land on a clear day with no weather.

                It’s not about the raw speed honestly, but the machine latency and stability of the signal. Traditional GEO satellites need a pretty steady platform to maintain connection. The mobile capable dishes are usually less capable than fixed position ones because they need to be less directional to maintain a signal while moving. But in say rougher seas, the movement will be vastly different than a boat just sitting on a lake.

                Starlink can compensate for this better because it’s designed to utilize multiple lower satellites simultaneously in view and a more omni-directional dish, alongside a signal that only needs to go to LEO. The difference between LEO and GEO or its is absolutely massive. The Starlink satellite constellation operates between 1/30 and 1/105 the distance of traditional GEO satellites. This means a latency of 25-35ms since they are so much lower. Lower latency will mean lower packet loss from instability which means higher throughout.

                For a real world use case, look at the SpaceX landing ships. They originally used traditional GEO satellites for those video streams, and the motion and vibration from the rocket getting near caused total signal loss. Often signal loss for a white a while after the lending was over because the ship was still moving too much. After they switched to Starlink, I think I can remember maybe twice at the beginning where the signal cut for a second or so, and once they had a few launches to provide more consistent coverage and satellite redundancy, I can’t even remember the last time we lost a signal during a landing.

                Real time video streams are essentially the worst use case for traditional satellite communication, and the differences between the network types of night and day.

          • Todd Bonzalez
            link
            fedilink
            English
            316 days ago

            Upgrade what? There is no fiber cross crossing Brazil

            Congratulations on answering your own question. Now calm down.

      • @NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        49
        edit-2
        16 days ago

        Putting up tens of thousands of extra objects into orbit that we now have to track and worry about collisions with other satellites is not a good thing.

        • enkers
          link
          fedilink
          English
          22
          edit-2
          16 days ago

          Not to mention that their orbits degrades over time so they have to be continually replenished. That comes at a huge cost which is highly subsidized by US tax payers.

          • partial_accumen
            link
            fedilink
            English
            26
            edit-2
            16 days ago

            That comes at a huge cost which is highly subsidized by US tax payers.

            Hang on. Which subsidy are you saying Starlink is getting that is highly subsidized by US taxpayers? Starlink got rejected for the $900m broadband subsidy.

            Note for clarity: Musk is an asshat.

            • enkers
              link
              fedilink
              English
              19
              edit-2
              16 days ago

              That was indeed what I was thinking of. I didn’t realize it was rejected. My bad, and thanks for the letting me know!

              • partial_accumen
                link
                fedilink
                English
                216 days ago

                The rockets that launch those satellites were developed using tax dollars.

                Are you referring to the NASA contracts for Dragon cargo delivery flights to the ISS?

        • @De_Narm@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1616 days ago

          Also, each satelite that burns up upon re-entry isn’t just gone - it still introduces vaporized materials into the upper atmosphere.

          Iirc they are harming the ozone layer.

      • @Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1216 days ago

        Can it be a good thing while it’s controlled by someone so clearly looking to exploit it’s influence for personal gain?

      • @Bridger@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        2016 days ago

        Starlink’s bank accounts are frozen. Musk loves money more than providing service. I doubt he’ll provide the service for free.

      • @Moonrise2473@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        English
        416 days ago

        Need to ship receivers to customers and those could be seized at customs if they’re illegal radio equipment.

        Then, new customers would need a VPN to sign up, and old customers might have trouble renewing with local payment methods

  • ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝
    link
    fedilink
    English
    7315 days ago

    The comments here are weird TBH. No, Brazil will not start shooting down satellites. It can just simply outlaw and sanction Starlink, stop anyone from paying Starlink for their internet subscription, and have peeps go around and confiscate ground stations.

    Also, they can just go and ask the US to help enforce their ruling, telling them “do you want to be friends with us or Musky boi?”

    • plz1
      link
      fedilink
      English
      2115 days ago

      That’s a really good point. Starlink can ignore this order, but the courts can order banks to stop processing payments to them. Pretty sure Starlink isn’t going to “protest” this at the cost of profits.

      Of rourse Starlink could then go be further shady by taking payments in Bitcoin to get around it. It’s an interesting arms race to follow.

      • ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1715 days ago

        Brazil is well within its rights to sanction Starlink and prosecute people for evading said sanctions, and have people pay fines and go to prison for buying Starlink with Bitcoin.

        Just like the US does with Iran and Cuba.

          • @Vilian@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            915 days ago

            Because it’s very easy to track bitcoin?, that argument about bitcoin being untraceable is so funny, like it’s literally in bitcoin protocol to log every single transaction, and people need to convert money to bitcoin, easy to track there too

            • @linearchaos@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              115 days ago

              So tell me, where does the government link the person to the coin? I do a cash trade to buy Bitcoin, who logs it’s me and puts my name on the wallet for the government to track me down?

              • @YourNetworkIsHaunted
                link
                English
                415 days ago

                The exchange where you traded BTC for USD, which had to comply with AML and KYC laws in order to have access to the US banking system in the first place.

                Like, it’s theoretically possible to work with perfect operational security and never ever link your Bitcoin address to the real world, but doing so basically precludes you from doing anything in the real world with it, including buying crypto in the first place.

              • @Vilian@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                215 days ago

                You need to pay a bank or something to trade your money to bitcoin, the bank only need to log what bitcoin it send to you or your wallet, the thing is, bitcoin isn’t anonymous it was never made to be, something like monero would be better, but you still need to trade your money for the crypto

                • @linearchaos@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  114 days ago

                  Anyone can send anyone with a wallet bitcoin. There are services that do anonymous trades, the feeds don’t look great.

                  Thing is, it doesn’t have to be bitcoin to be opaque to the banks, there are dozens of payment services that don’t clearly state the end provider. just doing paypal is enough to hide it from an occasional glance.

          • @Squizzy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            315 days ago

            They need a dish to operate, check for dishes and fine people for breaking trading laws by dealing with a company that has been sanctioned.

            • @linearchaos@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              215 days ago

              Just because the dish exist doesn’t mean it’s still being used. You have to do a blanket ban on having the dish at all. And even then they’re kind of tiny and easy to camouflage. You’d probably have to make the enforcement penalty scary enough to dissuade them. Or pay neighbors to rat each other out

    • @irotsoma@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1315 days ago

      Unfortunately, the US is now fully reliant on SpaceX for access to space now that they decided to rely on corporate spacecraft rather than building our own and Boeing has proven themselves unreliable since that change was made, and now that they finally have a craft they ended up stranding astronauts on the space station until SpaceX can rescue them due to defects. Plus we can’t use Russia like we did after the shuttle program ended but corporate space travel wasn’t there yet. And SpaceX isn’t publicly traded to where it might be possible that enough investors could pressure Musk to cave.

      So I doubt anything will come of it. Brazil will rattle their sabers. Musk will stand his ground, and the US will stay on Musk’s side while pretending as much as possible to be staying out of it.

      • ✺roguetrick✺
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1415 days ago

        Haha, that sort of dependency can be just as dangerous for a company as it is for the state. You start fucking around like that and antitrust and defense production act start knocking.

        • ✺roguetrick✺
          link
          fedilink
          English
          915 days ago

          Don’t have to. Defense production act allows them to legally direct the company without owning it.

      • @werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        415 days ago

        No 737 has ever leaked helium. So why did the Star liner leak helium? Why couldn’t it just pop an emergency exit hatch mid flight like standard procedure? Why? Why? So many questions!

  • @Foni@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    6616 days ago

    I wonder what would happen if a Brazilian company failed to comply with a US court order.

  • @mhague@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    3316 days ago

    When Republicans decide to have 4th of July at this judge’s house then I’ll believe he’s a dictator.

  • @Chessmasterrex@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    3116 days ago

    I predict that nations will simply start blowing up satellites in space, creating a shroud of debris which will make space exploration nearly impossible.

    • @NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      3016 days ago

      All these LEO satellites are so low it would only cause trouble for less than 5 years. That’s part of why they are low.

      If we ever had something as dense as starlink 500km higher though that’d be a different story.

    • @InternetUser2012@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      315 days ago

      Seeing what we’ve done to this planet, it’s probably for the best. Space exploration is going to be for the rich and we know how shit they are.

      • @lolcatnip@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        615 days ago

        There’s nothing we can do to space except make it harder for ourselves to use it. And we do use it, a lot, and not just for rich people stuff.

  • @GaMEChld@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1615 days ago

    Lol, then I guess they can provide that access for free, indefinitely, all for just making sure they keep 200K (max) people in Brazil on Xitter.

  • @mvilain@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    14
    edit-2
    16 days ago

    If I worked for Starlink in Brazil, I’d be on a plane visiting friends outside the country right now. I’m sure an order to arrest EVERYONE who works for Starlink is being drafted right now.

    If Starlink is connected to any infrastructure inside Brazil, I suspect that’s about to go dark. What the Brazilian authorities need is access to Starlink’s internal admin network that controls EVERYTHING. Because Melon Husk is to stupid to pipeline infrastructure for each country. I’ll bet it’s all shared at some level. I doubt local IT person would risk jail for them and their families or “extended renditioning” to extract access to those networks to shut them down.

  • Kalcifer
    link
    fedilink
    English
    6
    edit-2
    15 days ago

    As of 2024-09-03T22:10:25.545Z, Starlink is now complying with Brazil’s X ban [1].

    References
    1. “Starlink says it will block X in Brazil”. Emma Roth. The Verge. Published: 2024-09-03T22:10:25.545Z. Accessed: 2024-09-04T04:17Z. https://www.theverge.com/2024/9/3/24235204/starlink-block-x-brazil-comply-elon-musk.

      “We immediately initiated legal proceedings in the Brazilian Supreme Court explaining the gross illegality of this order and asking the Court to unfreeze our assets,” Starlink says in a post on X. “Regardless of the illegal treatment of Starlink in freezing of our assets, we are complying with the order to block access to X in Brazil.”

  • @Maggoty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    416 days ago

    That’s a brave move. Brazil could just confiscate all star links in the country. Or shoot down the satellites.

    • @viking@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1116 days ago

      Uh… And how would they do that?

      It’s not like starlink publishes a list of all their customers, and you can’t simply pick up the signal.

      And shooting down satellites in a geospatial orbit? Good luck.

      • @Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        516 days ago

        They aren’t that high up. That’s how they provide better service than Hughesnet. And yes shooting down a satellite has been possible for decades. People put them up there, they can take them down a lot easier, much smaller payload and the tech/math has been solved since the 1950’s.

        As far as banning starlink and confiscating receivers? The same way a country bans and confiscates anything.

        There’s also the possibility of compounding fines for violating the broadcast ban after they place it. This isn’t Iran, Brazil has access to the banking network to go get that money.

        • @GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          316 days ago

          And there’s the real answer. I don’t think anyone is paying for their Starlink account with a wad of cash in a back alley. They will probably give people some number of days to close their accounts and sending notices to banks and credit cards to not accept payments for Starlink from Brazilian accounts or some other means of interfering with payments. Things will likely escalate from there with fines not dissimilar to those with Twitter and other methods to deter people from using the services illegally. There may well be some political elements, as well, but I’m not sure how important Brazil is to America to make that happen.

      • @MehBlah@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        416 days ago

        You can use planes to scan for signals. Due to the wider band of the starlink units they could be detected by plane. Of course they can also be spotted on the ground.

        Geospatial? Heh, try again. They are not in Geosynchronous (the word you were grasping for) orbits. Really they are low enough they could be destroyed easier than most. The only problem is there are so many of them.

        Simple legislation baring unlicensed satellite transmitters could effectively make starlink illegal without a license. A prohibitively costly fee would create a situation that would kill the company in Brazil.