This is naked corruption. It's way worse than just stealing the contract, it essentially means Starlink will get a free antenna on every airplane in the country (at taxpayer expense?) and will then have the airlines as captive customers. Musk is going to make way more than $2bn out of this.
I'm gonna say this every time this comes up: These people should be in PRISON. They are criminals. If we care about law and order, we must remove them immediately from office. End of story. I am sick and tired of apologists for these people, if you believe they are conducting themselves legally, you do not believe in our Republic, you are complicit, you are a traitor to our country and to the American project. We will find you with our pitchforks, it is only a matter of time.
Don't forget the 44 billion USD he paid to control one of the world's largest vehicles for dissemination of information, transforming it into a superspreader of disinformation and propaganda.
Obligation to have a starlink terminal on the plane to enable communication with the radio tower. This comes with the added bonus of enabling Elon to sell Starlink internet in-flight.
Prescribed users will get access to net and non-users will get forked as per-usual. But with an Elon branded fork instead.
I also expect he's eager to make it proprietary. That way it would then force all other airlines that route through the USA to have a Starlink terminals too.
I use a mini in-flight. I welcome anything to bring the price down (currently $250/mo for 50 GB)
However, this "fix" not being put out for bid is ridiculous. That's not how competition and the market works. This feels like African-style "whatchu gonna do about it" big man corruption.
You'll forgive a significantly large body of people for not being willing to trust a man who has "also claimed" a ton of things that have turned out to not be true.
Let's not pretend like every president and congressperson has the same track record for corruption and hypocrisy. I don't need to "suddenly give a shit about integrity, capability, or neutrality" to wonder why a particular president lets a billionare give unhired people access to treasury data, lie about "read-only access", redirect earmarked contracts to the billionaire's companies, and pretend that Elon Musk does not have anything to do with DOGE or firing decisions, or to question why certain legislators are telling citizens that "nobody should bellyache" about the unconstitutional actions committed by DOGE and Elon Musk with Trump's permission.
Going forward I think we can assume that conflict of interest doesn't exist anymore. No DEI but they'll replace it with nepotism and full on corruption.
The genius move by Trump is doing full on corruption out in the open leaves people confused. Full corruption, foreign brides/influence, blatant political favors are the norm now. I remember when the MAGAs complained about Hilary's emails and Hunter on the board of some company. Now we have a full on corruption out in the open and no one gives a shit.
This is the true secret of American government, though. We do everything that every other corrupt government does, except we've managed to legalize it.
Is the "Moving fast and breaking things" attitude commonly associated with these types of companies compatible with ATC?
While I acknowledge their success in space, a LOT of guardrails/regulation were placed upon them to assure safe progress. Now they're both running the regulatory agency while also providing the end-product, which may mean faster progress but less safety overall.
Air travel is, generally, safe. The US has an issue with low staffing levels in ATC, and while automated systems have helped, the workload is still too high. It will likely be years before a Starlink product would come online, so staffing levels need to be addressed in the near-term.
Not to mention the early model was built on govt contracts because the govt was the only institution capable of shouldering the risk of an unproven space vendor.
Not saying that’s a bad thing, just that the success of SpaceX and the govt were tightly coupled.
Elon is exactly the person to want to rewrite things from scratch and break shit. Hopefully, a drop in air travel due to safety fears leads to the workload decreasing, thereby allowing these forced system upgrades to happen with less harm.
Even with the proper contract awarding process, corruption is widespread.
Decisions made at lunches and then the contract award process skewed to award the correct person, at some insane markup over real market prices for the same service.
The process is unfixable. Instead we should just look at a teams total cost and total achievement every year, and if the money they've spent doesn't look good value for money, we give them a bad performance review and their government career will be tricky to repair.
That is a far stronger incentive to get the most out of taxpayer money than ever stricter, yet super easy to game, anti corruption measures.
Unfortunately this doesn’t work either. Contracting is risk adverse and tries to avoid legal battles at all costs so even bad reviews often get scrubbed and edited until they look glowing.
The risk adverse nature of the govt needs to be fixed before the incentives align.
Do any governments employ a competitive approach to awarding contracts that isn't winner-take-all? If there were a way to build an ATC system utilizing both Verizon and Starlink we might get the benefits of price competition and redundancy.
Yes. The US does this with some larger programs ("systems of systems") if the components are sufficiently distinct. An aircraft? Not so much. A comms system? Absolutely, if it's not sold as one complete system. For instance, radios might be contracted to multiple vendors with the intent to drive down cost.
It's not universally done, though. It depends on how the program office(s) involved decide to run things.
EDIT: To expand. Look at space systems. The ground stations are not tied to specific space systems (though some space systems develop their own ground networks), that is a separate program from the satellites and SOCs. There is no one "space program". And even for a particular satellite system the SOC may be under a separate contract vehicle than the satellite itself.
Right, that's similar to the radio example I gave (multiple vendors so that there was no single point of failure, it mitigated risk and, in theory, reduces cost by introducing competition). What I meant by aircraft though was that for a specific aircraft, it'll be run by a specific contractor for all or nearly all its subcomponents. Though there could be exceptions. See the way that heavies (cargo, AWACS, and the like) are given multiple missions and some of the mission specific components may be separate programs rather than executed by the prime for the aircraft. But you won't have the government contract for the engine and the airframe separately.
Though you also have that done for aircraft. The F-35 was selected among several aircraft that were being developed by various contractors as the one to move forward as the JSF. This is where the lifecycle of a program comes into play. In the R&D stages you'll see multiple options quite commonly because they want to compete different vendors. Eventually it whittles down to one for things like aircraft to move forward. Though, using the JSF as an example, maybe they should select multiple. LM were the geniuses that thought you could increase software productivity by hiring more programmers and having them work in shifts.
Isn't the logical way to do that for a contractor to make a bid intending to use multiple subcontractors to provide a better service than any one contractor could provide alone?
While I don’t like the way it is handled, I’m going to be a contrarian here and say this could be a good thing. Previously, the contract was awarded to Verizon at the same price. I have more faith in SpaceX’s ability to deliver than Verizon and if starlink antennas are on every plane, aircraft internet will likely be better overall as a side effect.
Please convince me why this view is incorrect, I am open to listen.
> I have more faith in SpaceX’s ability to deliver than Verizon
Why? Verizon has been delivering top of the line cellular service for multiple decades now. Starlink is quite new on the scene and given that they’ve now captured management of the agency they’re selling to, they have no incentive to actually provide high quality service. They could do a shitty job and keep the contract, so why would they bother to do well?
Arbitrary power can achieve a lot of good things but it always ends the same way. So better WiFi on the plane but one day you find you can't get on a plane anymore because you said the wrong thing.
Isn't that already how it works? At least for specific values of "the wrong thing" - one day you find you can't get on a plane because you said "I want to blow up this plane."
But also "I am going to Colombia to bring some cocaine home." and "I am going to Washington to assassinate the president." and "The right of the people to keep and bear nuclear bombs shall not be infringed." and any number of other things that don't immediately threaten the plane's integrity.
In concerns such as this, the process matters. If we don't follow it this time, then why follow next time or the time after? Then, if this rule or that law doesn't matter, then do any of them matter?
I think people would have been more comfortable if they decided to send it out to bid again - not great since it was already awarded, but at least going back through the public process.
What’s the tradeoff between reliability/cost/performance between different infrastructure approaches? I’d assume for safety critical applications, reliability is the priority.
Can't give real answers without data on Starlink reliability (or non-consumer features), but personally as someone who depended on ATC both as small time pilot and more regularly as passenger, I'd be wary of sat radio as main backhaul.
Of course Verizon can fsck it up as well, but multiple leased fiber lines, possibly direct MPLS with guarantees on latency and bandwidth, or maybe even DWDM between major locations sounds more reliable to my instincts.
Most importantly I don't trust the hatchet job way this is done, not just on Starlink use, but the whole hatchet job with FAA.
With density of flights in USA, intra-ATC Comms are non trivial part of safety - passing flight information on structured messages rather than by hand between areas is... More than important.
You're making those assertions with no absolutely no data though. In a sane, non-corrupt system a trusted third party with recognised industry experience would assess the contract, what has been agreed to and what been delivered and make an evaluation based on the cost, risk, timetables etc. None of that happened here. It's just naked corruption.
What you are talking about is a pure theory and never exist in real world. Start with trusted 3rd party - trusted by who?
Starlink technologically can provide better connectivity in terms of speed and reliability compared to Verizon (can doesn’t mean it will of course). So there is some credibility to the decision.
But of course populace prefer to focus on flamboyant personalities instead of “based on cost, risk, timetables” ain’t it?
The concern is specifically the way it is handled, though?
So, could bad things still lead to good things? Of course. Do we generally accept "ends justifies the means"? I didn't think so?
As for downsides, I confess the five year life cycle of the satellites is of some concern to me. Seems more so of a problem the more of them you have to put up there?
Why would it be better? If you can cancel your competitors contracts and award them to yourself, the only incentive you have is to just...raise the price.
Leaving aside the corruption thing there could be a lot to be said for satellite coms for aircraft and air traffic control as air traffic is global and the only way to have a system that will work anywhere including over oceans is satellite really.
Even giving the benefit of the doubt that they would do a good job: The ends do not justify the means. That's really all it is. Pragmatically speaking, Americans simply abhor an unelected hundred-billionaire who behaves in a mean, trollish, and "hateable" manner, forcing himself into the institutions of their home country in a way that appears destructive and careless. For each individual case, whether it actually ends up improved by some metric (and whether Elon is even actively involved) is overshadowed ten-fold by the societal damage caused, the dangerous precedent created, and the fighting spirit of Americans against authoritarianism.
Yep obviously Verizon is a bloated company with zero innovation and no particular experience relevant to the FAA. Meanwhile SpaceX has experience in software, hardware, telecom, and flight. I trust them more with modernizing the FAA.
There’s also very little information on who else bid for this contract that Verizon got. How do we know it wasn’t corrupt to begin with, especially with Biden engaging in lawfare against Musk and doing bizarre things like excluding him from EV summits? The entire FAA modernization plan looks corrupt - everyone else that got contracts are random unknown companies. I bet they have ties back to some congressman.
If we think that, isn't the solution to reopen the bidding with more transparency, rather than hand it to the guy who just so happens to both be in charge of the team pushing for this and owns the company the new contract is awarded to?
Your replacing "maybe this was corrupt", with 'this is blatantly and obviously corrupt"
I can't think of anything much more corrupt than someone in government directing a government contract to a vendor they own with no process for considering other vendors. If that seems fine to you, then I don't think we'll ever agree on what corruption looks like.
If Starlink is actually "very likely to be better for taxpayers" it should have no problem going through the normal bidding process competing with other vendors.
The new administration just cut 400 jobs at the FAA [1], and now Musk will directly pocket the "savings" to "work" on some bullshit useless tech. When Musk talks "waste and bloat", he means public money that doesn't end up in his pocket.
As a result, air traffic is noticeably more dangerous, and many lost their livelihoods in these increasingly uncertain times, just to make the wealthiest man on Earth a bit more wealthy. The "Fell for it Again Award" goes to...
Not much more to say, really. There's blatant conflict of interest going on, but I guess we're way past that. Four next years is going to be a non-stop firehose of grift, good thing they won't even bother to hide it.
Here are the facts regarding the situation with Starlink, the FAA, and the Verizon contract as of February 28, 2025:
The FAA awarded Verizon a $2.4 billion contract in 2023 to upgrade its air traffic control communication system, known as the FAA Enterprise Network Services (FENS) program.
As of February 27, 2025, reports indicate the FAA is considering canceling this contract and potentially shifting the work to Starlink, a SpaceX subsidiary owned by Elon Musk.
The FAA has not finalized this decision, stating "no decisions have been made" about the Verizon contract.
Currently, the FAA is testing three Starlink terminals: one in Atlantic City, New Jersey, and two at non-safety-critical sites in Alaska.
Elon Musk has claimed the existing Verizon system (though later corrected to an L3Harris system) is failing rapidly, posing risks to air travelers, and that Starlink is providing terminals "at no cost to the taxpayer on an emergency basis." The FAA has not publicly confirmed this risk assessment.
SpaceX employees are working within FAA facilities, assisting with technology upgrades, amid a broader Trump administration effort to modernize the agency.
The process to unwind a federal contract and reassign it typically requires a competitive bidding process or justification under specific legal exceptions (e.g., national security or urgent public interest), which has not been publicly detailed in this case.
It kind of doesn't matter if this is the best choice or not. If Elon wants to occupy the position he does in the government, he needs to remove his companies from the pool of government contracts.
I like DOGE's stated objectives. I like SpaceX, and Starlink. They probably ARE a better choice than Verizon. It doesn't matter.
That being said, do I think that bankers and defense contractors and tech companies and oil execs etc have not bought their way into similarish positions of influence for the last many decades? Probably. But Elon's power at the moment feels far less bounded and far more arbitrary.
Verizon has a valid solid network when you're outside of the consumer network. In the business world, Verizon is actually pretty decent and very established. Verizon business is very different to Verizon consumer.
It does matter, imo. You don't want planes to lose communication with base. Satellite has its faults and his ISP has only been around for five years.
it seems like US govt always either 180s from the previous president, or morphs into it's last enemy, in one way or another.
Osama, Obama
Russian Oligarchy, American Oligarchy
I almost expect a Putinesque invasion of a 'threatening' nation, maybe Cuba, or somewhere around the south-east-asian sea (the so-called south-china sea), or maybe rotten Denmark if they won't give up Greenland.
I see a lot of pessimism here which makes me think Elon Musk is right when he says they are just having some fun and people lack a sense of humor. Cheer up, people! Geez. /s
In the mid 90s, I recall talking to some of the people working on the current scheme to modernize ATC. This was the 3rd or 4th attempt, and billions had already been spent.
Since then, there have been many efforts and many more billions spent. I'm sure all of these efforts went through the proper channels, etc, but all that has shown is that (a) FAA has no clue how to manage these contracts, and (b) the normal way of doing this absolutely doesn't work.
In contrast, this is how civil infrastructure used to get done in the US:
In the last 4 years Starlink signed lots of contracts with virtually every branch of the us mil (enough for them to create a special office that will handle & coordinate such purchases in the future, since everyone wanted it) and that's for simple data. On top of that they have the Starshield project, which is an "early warning" system where spx brings busses and lift, and northrop brings the sensors. On top of that they've also provided comms for both civilian and military assets in a warzone for the past 3 years.
Funny how that wasn't corruption, but now a civilian agency does it, and suddenly it is? I know the internet has this weird obsession with villains, but what the actual?! This identity politics and extreme polarisation can't be healthy. It's becoming a meme and, more importantly, it muddies the waters and makes real and warranted criticism weaker.
FFS, criticise the many silly things the man does, but spx isn't one of them.
edit: aaand, getting downvoted for facts. Yeah, the internet is in that silly phase. Taking a break.
The difference between those previous contracts and this particular move is in how he/his companies earned those contracts. If they followed standard procedures for the others but not for this one, then yes, one could argue this is corruption.
For background, RFPs are not value neutral. It is not uncommon for customers who have a preferred vendor to shape the RFP to fit in a more natural way to the preferred vendor. To use a simplified example: you want a web server vendor and only IIS and Apache exist. If you have a RFP requirement that the service runs on Linux, then you have a RFP but your requirements have pre-selected the vendor which can achieve the objectives. This is hard to catch from the outside, but focus on ultra specific requirements which seem relatively arbitrary (Linux vs. Windows isn't arbitrary, but the example is super simplified for illustrative purposes).
I am also curious about examples, but as someone from the vendor side, I'll be the first to admit that if the purchasing group has any semblance of intelligence, you can easily hide these biases. The bias only is obvious if you are in the industry and grok the subtle nuances of the capabilities.
When you want to buy something but you don't know how to get what you want you call around to the vendors. They tell you about the products they're representing, and you figure out what you like best. When you put out your solicitation you confine it to products that narrowly match the description of the actual product you want (without naming it, that would be sole source which is different). This is achieved by naming features that are patented or otherwise IP protected, therefore excluding competing products. Sometimes if you're sloppy you can get stuck with a competing product and then you've got a problem on your hands. If you're not worried about price this is a great way to get what you want. But it can mean a 20%+ cost premium, depending on the niche and how aggressive the salesman is.
This is a lot of words to miss a basic point. In those examples, the contract was sent out for bids, won by Starlink, then signed. In this case it was given to another vendor through the same process, then that contract is being cancelled and awarded (without, as far as I know, any further bidding process) to the person making decisions in the US government.
This isn't some deep or complicated point. Surely you cannot write that many coherent sentences and fail to understand the issue here, right? I can only assume you are arguing in bad faith.
> In this case it was given to another vendor through the same process, then that contract is being cancelled and awarded (without, as far as I know, any further bidding process)
No. In this case wapo (hah, no conflict of interest there) is reporting that "unnamed sources" are claiming that this is happening. Nothing has happened yet, but everyone is crying wolf, on a "people say" tangent. Yeah, and I'm the one arguing in bad faith.
Both can be true - you definitely know that the main concern here is that people feel it's a conflict of interest.
You deliberately ignore the fact that all the instances you listed were done through proper procurement processes, and so far, reporting does not suggest this one is. You then try to use it against someone here, amusingly.
It certainly may be wrong reporting!
But arguing that this is identity politics or whatever is definitely bad faith - this entire thread is full of people concerned that this is not going through the normal process, and appears to have happened after Elon complained about the existing contract, and exerted influence on the situation, despite stating (and others stating) he would not involve himself in things that are a conflict of interest.
So, in good faith, what, precisely, is your argument that this is not a clear conflict of interest?
He should have not offered an opinion, or been involved, in any way, with anything here.
That's what it means to recuse from a conflict of interest. Instead, regardless of whether the reporting about the process is wrong, he has literally offered multiple opinions and appears to be trying to exert influence. You don't need reporting for this - you can get it directly from the source - Elon himself.
You also don't even have to guess or opine what it means to have a conflict of interest or what is required in this case - FAR is pretty thorough.
Meanwhile, you are complaining that this is bad faith identity politics, and "wondering" why you are downvoted.
> So, in good faith, what, precisely, is your argument that this is not a clear conflict of interest?
The fact that spx has had 30+b worth of contracts and the us gov saved probably double that on those contracts, and that those contracts delivered, and the usgov is happy. (for context, spx doesn't bid for "cost+" contracts, it only bids for fixed price. e.g. the entire crew dragon programe was half the cost of their competitors, they've launched everything in tranche1, half of tranche2, and are still the only provider that can reliably fly to the ISS)
>despite stating (and others stating) he would not involve himself in things that are a conflict of interest.
What was his wording?
Seems a little bit of a wide net there.
I mean what if SpaceX is the ONLY way to rescue a couple of astronauts from space, but someone in government wants to give the job to Boeing, should he stay mum? And if people who work for him, who he has power over, speak out, is that Elon being corrupt?
If Verizon literally does not have the coverage footprint of Starlink, and the contract was awarded due to corruption that Elon knows about, and people will die due to accidents such as the one where the Blackhawk did not catch the audio transmission, again should he stay mum? What is the moral compass here?
There are inquiries happening now into waste, fraud, and abuse.
It's not surprising that as poorly decided contract decisions are going to come under review, some may be overturned or cancelled.
There's no evidence saying Verizon has a larger footprint than Starlink. So if it turns out Starlink has much better coverage (surprise, surprise, it does) then that's a big red flag.
This isn't some deep or complicated point.
You should not accuse bad faith and I won't assume it of you. But there is a lot of derangement right now, because a lot of people are in bubbles and consuming lies and hate. The poster you replied to was perfectly reasonable, but you showed you have no clue that there's an effort underway to discover and cancel contracts that had been awarded with corruption. Not knowing that may not be bad faith on your part, but it's on you to stay informed before accusing others of bad faith.
You are ignoring the rather obvious problem here, that this contract was only awarded to a musk company after musk began wielding great influence over every federal agency, and only after the contract had already been awarded to someone else.
And it's pure nonsense to bring up purely irrelevant bugaboos like identity politics.
I try to assume good intent, but I can't see any way your comment could be an earnest argument.
One can speak facts and still be lying by omission, maybe that’s why you’re getting downvoted. And now you just got downvoted for complaining about being downvoted.
It's a very easy trap to fall into to think of yourself as the truth-guarding underdog when you get downvoted on some social platform - remember to stay grounded.
It's sort of a nonsense opinion because it ignores: All of those things they are talking about were from a competitive bidding process that presumably followed normal procurement rules.
If this change does/did, great, no problem. If it's not, problem.
We don't know yet, no reports either way.
It's hard to believe this person doesn't know this, and it's obvious this is the main concern people in this thread have.
Ignoring this and trying to transform it into "identity" politics is ... something.
Sorry, but no.
Even if it was an arguably reasonable opinion (It's not), claiming bad faith with those that argue with it is even worse.
That should not be a point of pride. If it was a reasonable opinion, and they didn't just try to paint everyone else as arguing in bad faith, I would agree. We all can differ. Cool.
But if this particular comment is what you think "good discourse" looks like, your standards are way too low.
>Start from that price, and then figure out what service you can offer with that money.
I say this not to attack you personally, but because I can't think of any other way to describe this idea (and I do realize that this does not contribute to a high quality discussion)...
Approaching something as vital and complicated as air traffic safety by saying, "I will only take the services I can get for some completely arbitrary amount of money," is utterly fucking stupid.
Dude, $800k won't even pay for a new piston single. That's like three ATC salaries.
I don't know where you get the idea that this is enough money. It's not, it's absurdly low, and "half an on-call" to stop airplanes from crashing when your Node.js app crashes sounds more like a joke than a serious proposal.
This is naked corruption. It's way worse than just stealing the contract, it essentially means Starlink will get a free antenna on every airplane in the country (at taxpayer expense?) and will then have the airlines as captive customers. Musk is going to make way more than $2bn out of this.
I'm gonna say this every time this comes up: These people should be in PRISON. They are criminals. If we care about law and order, we must remove them immediately from office. End of story. I am sick and tired of apologists for these people, if you believe they are conducting themselves legally, you do not believe in our Republic, you are complicit, you are a traitor to our country and to the American project. We will find you with our pitchforks, it is only a matter of time.
The US government put itself up for sale. Musk bought it. Now he's reaping the rewards of his investment.
He paid $270M or something to be the de-facto President. An excellent deal.
Don't forget the 44 billion USD he paid to control one of the world's largest vehicles for dissemination of information, transforming it into a superspreader of disinformation and propaganda.
Starting to feel like Russia’s fire sale to oligarchs after the fall of the USSR.
Not to mention Starlink is further cemented as critical infrastructure and less liable to be sanctioned by future administrations.
What does "free antenna" mean here?
Obligation to have a starlink terminal on the plane to enable communication with the radio tower. This comes with the added bonus of enabling Elon to sell Starlink internet in-flight.
Prescribed users will get access to net and non-users will get forked as per-usual. But with an Elon branded fork instead.
I also expect he's eager to make it proprietary. That way it would then force all other airlines that route through the USA to have a Starlink terminals too.
I use a mini in-flight. I welcome anything to bring the price down (currently $250/mo for 50 GB)
However, this "fix" not being put out for bid is ridiculous. That's not how competition and the market works. This feels like African-style "whatchu gonna do about it" big man corruption.
Is the only hope to resolve this Verizon fighting this out in court?
Yeah, which they won't. They'll settle for half the price and walk away from.
Just another asset they don't have to manage. It's not like they're short of money.
Yeah, unfortunately the list of federal judges skews heavily towards team Trump.
[dead]
[flagged]
>He also claimed...
You'll forgive a significantly large body of people for not being willing to trust a man who has "also claimed" a ton of things that have turned out to not be true.
Ah hell, that predicate applies to every congressperson anybody here has voted for.
Let's not pretend like we as a nation suddenly give a shit about integrity, capability, or neutrality.
Let's not pretend like every president and congressperson has the same track record for corruption and hypocrisy. I don't need to "suddenly give a shit about integrity, capability, or neutrality" to wonder why a particular president lets a billionare give unhired people access to treasury data, lie about "read-only access", redirect earmarked contracts to the billionaire's companies, and pretend that Elon Musk does not have anything to do with DOGE or firing decisions, or to question why certain legislators are telling citizens that "nobody should bellyache" about the unconstitutional actions committed by DOGE and Elon Musk with Trump's permission.
Oh, wow, the SpaceX team inside the FAA actually pushed to have the contract, already awarded to Verizon, canceled and given instead to Starlink.
No attempt whatever there to avoid the obvious conflict of interest.
Going forward I think we can assume that conflict of interest doesn't exist anymore. No DEI but they'll replace it with nepotism and full on corruption.
Conflict of interest isn’t a strong enough description. This is corruption.
The genius move by Trump is doing full on corruption out in the open leaves people confused. Full corruption, foreign brides/influence, blatant political favors are the norm now. I remember when the MAGAs complained about Hilary's emails and Hunter on the board of some company. Now we have a full on corruption out in the open and no one gives a shit.
This is the true secret of American government, though. We do everything that every other corrupt government does, except we've managed to legalize it.
You used to hide it better too.
Luckily Elon said he would step away if he thought there would be conflicts of interests - nothing to see here.
Is the "Moving fast and breaking things" attitude commonly associated with these types of companies compatible with ATC?
While I acknowledge their success in space, a LOT of guardrails/regulation were placed upon them to assure safe progress. Now they're both running the regulatory agency while also providing the end-product, which may mean faster progress but less safety overall.
Air travel is, generally, safe. The US has an issue with low staffing levels in ATC, and while automated systems have helped, the workload is still too high. It will likely be years before a Starlink product would come online, so staffing levels need to be addressed in the near-term.
>While I acknowledge their success in space
Not to mention the early model was built on govt contracts because the govt was the only institution capable of shouldering the risk of an unproven space vendor.
Not saying that’s a bad thing, just that the success of SpaceX and the govt were tightly coupled.
Elon is exactly the person to want to rewrite things from scratch and break shit. Hopefully, a drop in air travel due to safety fears leads to the workload decreasing, thereby allowing these forced system upgrades to happen with less harm.
Oh, there was an RFP to award the contract? No? Then it's corruption.
Even with the proper contract awarding process, corruption is widespread.
Decisions made at lunches and then the contract award process skewed to award the correct person, at some insane markup over real market prices for the same service.
The process is unfixable. Instead we should just look at a teams total cost and total achievement every year, and if the money they've spent doesn't look good value for money, we give them a bad performance review and their government career will be tricky to repair.
That is a far stronger incentive to get the most out of taxpayer money than ever stricter, yet super easy to game, anti corruption measures.
Unfortunately this doesn’t work either. Contracting is risk adverse and tries to avoid legal battles at all costs so even bad reviews often get scrubbed and edited until they look glowing.
The risk adverse nature of the govt needs to be fixed before the incentives align.
Do any governments employ a competitive approach to awarding contracts that isn't winner-take-all? If there were a way to build an ATC system utilizing both Verizon and Starlink we might get the benefits of price competition and redundancy.
Yes. The US does this with some larger programs ("systems of systems") if the components are sufficiently distinct. An aircraft? Not so much. A comms system? Absolutely, if it's not sold as one complete system. For instance, radios might be contracted to multiple vendors with the intent to drive down cost.
It's not universally done, though. It depends on how the program office(s) involved decide to run things.
EDIT: To expand. Look at space systems. The ground stations are not tied to specific space systems (though some space systems develop their own ground networks), that is a separate program from the satellites and SOCs. There is no one "space program". And even for a particular satellite system the SOC may be under a separate contract vehicle than the satellite itself.
>An aircraft? Not so much.
NASA did this with the commercial crew program, awarding to both SpaceX and Boeing to reduce risk.
Right, that's similar to the radio example I gave (multiple vendors so that there was no single point of failure, it mitigated risk and, in theory, reduces cost by introducing competition). What I meant by aircraft though was that for a specific aircraft, it'll be run by a specific contractor for all or nearly all its subcomponents. Though there could be exceptions. See the way that heavies (cargo, AWACS, and the like) are given multiple missions and some of the mission specific components may be separate programs rather than executed by the prime for the aircraft. But you won't have the government contract for the engine and the airframe separately.
Though you also have that done for aircraft. The F-35 was selected among several aircraft that were being developed by various contractors as the one to move forward as the JSF. This is where the lifecycle of a program comes into play. In the R&D stages you'll see multiple options quite commonly because they want to compete different vendors. Eventually it whittles down to one for things like aircraft to move forward. Though, using the JSF as an example, maybe they should select multiple. LM were the geniuses that thought you could increase software productivity by hiring more programmers and having them work in shifts.
Isn't the logical way to do that for a contractor to make a bid intending to use multiple subcontractors to provide a better service than any one contractor could provide alone?
That is one way it's done, yes.
even conceding that, letting one guy decide it using executive power is problematic. And illegal
This doesn't matter. By definition, the premise "I will step aside if there's a conflict" is itself a conflict of interest.
Even with an RFP it can be corruption. The RFP can be written so that only a single specific vendor can deliver cost effectively.
Best source I've found for exactly what this is was reddit, here: https://www.reddit.com/r/ATC/comments/1izjg2m/starlinkverizo... for a system called FENS here: https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/technology/cinp/fens
While I don’t like the way it is handled, I’m going to be a contrarian here and say this could be a good thing. Previously, the contract was awarded to Verizon at the same price. I have more faith in SpaceX’s ability to deliver than Verizon and if starlink antennas are on every plane, aircraft internet will likely be better overall as a side effect.
Please convince me why this view is incorrect, I am open to listen.
> I have more faith in SpaceX’s ability to deliver than Verizon
Why? Verizon has been delivering top of the line cellular service for multiple decades now. Starlink is quite new on the scene and given that they’ve now captured management of the agency they’re selling to, they have no incentive to actually provide high quality service. They could do a shitty job and keep the contract, so why would they bother to do well?
Arbitrary power can achieve a lot of good things but it always ends the same way. So better WiFi on the plane but one day you find you can't get on a plane anymore because you said the wrong thing.
Isn't that already how it works? At least for specific values of "the wrong thing" - one day you find you can't get on a plane because you said "I want to blow up this plane."
But also "I am going to Colombia to bring some cocaine home." and "I am going to Washington to assassinate the president." and "The right of the people to keep and bear nuclear bombs shall not be infringed." and any number of other things that don't immediately threaten the plane's integrity.
From now on, if you say Trump is fat or ugly you will be permanently banned from ever flying again.
That's a pretty weak ass argument friend.
> While I don’t like the way it is handled
In concerns such as this, the process matters. If we don't follow it this time, then why follow next time or the time after? Then, if this rule or that law doesn't matter, then do any of them matter?
I think people would have been more comfortable if they decided to send it out to bid again - not great since it was already awarded, but at least going back through the public process.
This is not about communications on aircraft itself and will have no impact on aircraft internet.
However I'd rather have the backhaul between air traffic control centers done by fiber rather than by Starlink...
Not to mention the naked corruption
What’s the tradeoff between reliability/cost/performance between different infrastructure approaches? I’d assume for safety critical applications, reliability is the priority.
Can't give real answers without data on Starlink reliability (or non-consumer features), but personally as someone who depended on ATC both as small time pilot and more regularly as passenger, I'd be wary of sat radio as main backhaul.
Of course Verizon can fsck it up as well, but multiple leased fiber lines, possibly direct MPLS with guarantees on latency and bandwidth, or maybe even DWDM between major locations sounds more reliable to my instincts.
Most importantly I don't trust the hatchet job way this is done, not just on Starlink use, but the whole hatchet job with FAA.
With density of flights in USA, intra-ATC Comms are non trivial part of safety - passing flight information on structured messages rather than by hand between areas is... More than important.
You're making those assertions with no absolutely no data though. In a sane, non-corrupt system a trusted third party with recognised industry experience would assess the contract, what has been agreed to and what been delivered and make an evaluation based on the cost, risk, timetables etc. None of that happened here. It's just naked corruption.
What you are talking about is a pure theory and never exist in real world. Start with trusted 3rd party - trusted by who?
Starlink technologically can provide better connectivity in terms of speed and reliability compared to Verizon (can doesn’t mean it will of course). So there is some credibility to the decision.
But of course populace prefer to focus on flamboyant personalities instead of “based on cost, risk, timetables” ain’t it?
Procurement rules exist for a reason, letting one guy funnel business to his company using the President's power is a huge risk to the nation-state.
Imagine if he decides to disconnect all in-flight airliners just because he’s high?
The concern is specifically the way it is handled, though?
So, could bad things still lead to good things? Of course. Do we generally accept "ends justifies the means"? I didn't think so?
As for downsides, I confess the five year life cycle of the satellites is of some concern to me. Seems more so of a problem the more of them you have to put up there?
Why would it be better? If you can cancel your competitors contracts and award them to yourself, the only incentive you have is to just...raise the price.
Leaving aside the corruption thing there could be a lot to be said for satellite coms for aircraft and air traffic control as air traffic is global and the only way to have a system that will work anywhere including over oceans is satellite really.
So, standards and multiple independent implementations operated by multiple service providers.
Even giving the benefit of the doubt that they would do a good job: The ends do not justify the means. That's really all it is. Pragmatically speaking, Americans simply abhor an unelected hundred-billionaire who behaves in a mean, trollish, and "hateable" manner, forcing himself into the institutions of their home country in a way that appears destructive and careless. For each individual case, whether it actually ends up improved by some metric (and whether Elon is even actively involved) is overshadowed ten-fold by the societal damage caused, the dangerous precedent created, and the fighting spirit of Americans against authoritarianism.
It's illegal and unfair competition. We can't just throw out laws we hate all the time on the whims on an unelected guy in the White House.
SpaceX is clearly better technology, but I believe what matters is whether Verizon was fairly awarded the contract.
If the contract was made fairly and in good faith, cancelling it would be bad for contract law precedence in the new administration.
I take contract law over advancement in technology in this case.
It’s adorable we still think this administration still cares about respecting the law.
What you said could be true, but it's overshadowed by the fact that this is blatant corruption.
maybe, maybe not, but are you saying the ends justify the quite likely corrupt means?
[flagged]
Yes, do just dismiss any legitimate grievances others may have as pointless outrage. You wouldn't want to engage in wrongthink after all.
There is plenty of outrage to go around, I'll have my portion after everyone else has had their fill.
Yep obviously Verizon is a bloated company with zero innovation and no particular experience relevant to the FAA. Meanwhile SpaceX has experience in software, hardware, telecom, and flight. I trust them more with modernizing the FAA.
There’s also very little information on who else bid for this contract that Verizon got. How do we know it wasn’t corrupt to begin with, especially with Biden engaging in lawfare against Musk and doing bizarre things like excluding him from EV summits? The entire FAA modernization plan looks corrupt - everyone else that got contracts are random unknown companies. I bet they have ties back to some congressman.
> How do we know it wasn’t corrupt to begin with
If we think that, isn't the solution to reopen the bidding with more transparency, rather than hand it to the guy who just so happens to both be in charge of the team pushing for this and owns the company the new contract is awarded to?
Your replacing "maybe this was corrupt", with 'this is blatantly and obviously corrupt"
It’s not blatantly or obviously corrupt. It is very likely to be better for taxpayers.
I can't think of anything much more corrupt than someone in government directing a government contract to a vendor they own with no process for considering other vendors. If that seems fine to you, then I don't think we'll ever agree on what corruption looks like.
If Starlink is actually "very likely to be better for taxpayers" it should have no problem going through the normal bidding process competing with other vendors.
The HN headline is really misleading.
The text has a better description: "a SpaceX-led team within the FAA is reportedly recommending it go to Starlink"
Collect everything. Talks, notes, contacts, emails, copies of contracts, whatever data is possible.
Once a proper government is in place, prosecute them all.
The new administration just cut 400 jobs at the FAA [1], and now Musk will directly pocket the "savings" to "work" on some bullshit useless tech. When Musk talks "waste and bloat", he means public money that doesn't end up in his pocket.
As a result, air traffic is noticeably more dangerous, and many lost their livelihoods in these increasingly uncertain times, just to make the wealthiest man on Earth a bit more wealthy. The "Fell for it Again Award" goes to...
[1] https://apnews.com/article/faa-firings-trump-doge-safety-air...
It's actually legal for FAA to fire it's employees.
No one said it wasn't. It was not legal the way it was done.
When I commented the post said "illegally". Glad I could help :)
What was illegal about how it was done?
This quote from your link:
> FAA Administrator Sean Duffy said over the weekend that no air traffic controllers or critical safety personnel were cut.
There's more to air safety than air traffic controllers...
No your original post says "air traffic is noticably more dangerous" but that must be because of clouds of spray tan emanating from the white house?
I'm genuinely curious on what defense of this move folks can offer? Seems like one of the more blatantly corrupt moves I've seen in a long time.
Banana republic shit.
Not much more to say, really. There's blatant conflict of interest going on, but I guess we're way past that. Four next years is going to be a non-stop firehose of grift, good thing they won't even bother to hide it.
Dont worry, the Corpo Wolves will battle out in court. Us lambs have nothing to worry about.
Here are the facts regarding the situation with Starlink, the FAA, and the Verizon contract as of February 28, 2025: The FAA awarded Verizon a $2.4 billion contract in 2023 to upgrade its air traffic control communication system, known as the FAA Enterprise Network Services (FENS) program.
As of February 27, 2025, reports indicate the FAA is considering canceling this contract and potentially shifting the work to Starlink, a SpaceX subsidiary owned by Elon Musk.
The FAA has not finalized this decision, stating "no decisions have been made" about the Verizon contract.
Currently, the FAA is testing three Starlink terminals: one in Atlantic City, New Jersey, and two at non-safety-critical sites in Alaska.
Elon Musk has claimed the existing Verizon system (though later corrected to an L3Harris system) is failing rapidly, posing risks to air travelers, and that Starlink is providing terminals "at no cost to the taxpayer on an emergency basis." The FAA has not publicly confirmed this risk assessment.
SpaceX employees are working within FAA facilities, assisting with technology upgrades, amid a broader Trump administration effort to modernize the agency.
The process to unwind a federal contract and reassign it typically requires a competitive bidding process or justification under specific legal exceptions (e.g., national security or urgent public interest), which has not been publicly detailed in this case.
It's not corruption if Elon does it.
Musk is self-awarding contracts? The government has fallen.
the airplane market is juicy, but "just wait" for the US Postal Service privatizations.. that will be real money
Another Verge [dupe]:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43201750
It kind of doesn't matter if this is the best choice or not. If Elon wants to occupy the position he does in the government, he needs to remove his companies from the pool of government contracts.
I like DOGE's stated objectives. I like SpaceX, and Starlink. They probably ARE a better choice than Verizon. It doesn't matter.
That being said, do I think that bankers and defense contractors and tech companies and oil execs etc have not bought their way into similarish positions of influence for the last many decades? Probably. But Elon's power at the moment feels far less bounded and far more arbitrary.
Verizon has a valid solid network when you're outside of the consumer network. In the business world, Verizon is actually pretty decent and very established. Verizon business is very different to Verizon consumer.
It does matter, imo. You don't want planes to lose communication with base. Satellite has its faults and his ISP has only been around for five years.
lol, you guys in the US are so screwed
why did you vote for these corrupt clowns?
it seems like US govt always either 180s from the previous president, or morphs into it's last enemy, in one way or another.
Osama, Obama
Russian Oligarchy, American Oligarchy
I almost expect a Putinesque invasion of a 'threatening' nation, maybe Cuba, or somewhere around the south-east-asian sea (the so-called south-china sea), or maybe rotten Denmark if they won't give up Greenland.
And the country that you reside in has never had clowns of corruption? I doubt it.
Not on this scale. The US will be worse than Venezuela soon.
Scant few Western nations in recent times have had this level of clown show.
I see a lot of pessimism here which makes me think Elon Musk is right when he says they are just having some fun and people lack a sense of humor. Cheer up, people! Geez. /s
I don't live in the US so I don't care. Do you?
In the mid 90s, I recall talking to some of the people working on the current scheme to modernize ATC. This was the 3rd or 4th attempt, and billions had already been spent.
Since then, there have been many efforts and many more billions spent. I'm sure all of these efforts went through the proper channels, etc, but all that has shown is that (a) FAA has no clue how to manage these contracts, and (b) the normal way of doing this absolutely doesn't work.
In contrast, this is how civil infrastructure used to get done in the US:
https://www.inventionandtech.com/content/antique-machines-yo...
Elon seems to be the only person really performing at this level anymore in this space.
In the last 4 years Starlink signed lots of contracts with virtually every branch of the us mil (enough for them to create a special office that will handle & coordinate such purchases in the future, since everyone wanted it) and that's for simple data. On top of that they have the Starshield project, which is an "early warning" system where spx brings busses and lift, and northrop brings the sensors. On top of that they've also provided comms for both civilian and military assets in a warzone for the past 3 years.
Funny how that wasn't corruption, but now a civilian agency does it, and suddenly it is? I know the internet has this weird obsession with villains, but what the actual?! This identity politics and extreme polarisation can't be healthy. It's becoming a meme and, more importantly, it muddies the waters and makes real and warranted criticism weaker.
FFS, criticise the many silly things the man does, but spx isn't one of them.
edit: aaand, getting downvoted for facts. Yeah, the internet is in that silly phase. Taking a break.
The difference between those previous contracts and this particular move is in how he/his companies earned those contracts. If they followed standard procedures for the others but not for this one, then yes, one could argue this is corruption.
It takes a lot of naivety to believe that.
RFP or not, these contracts are spoken for long before anything is put on paper.
>RFP or not, these contracts are spoken for long before anything is put on paper.
Can you please provide some examples of this occurring?
For background, RFPs are not value neutral. It is not uncommon for customers who have a preferred vendor to shape the RFP to fit in a more natural way to the preferred vendor. To use a simplified example: you want a web server vendor and only IIS and Apache exist. If you have a RFP requirement that the service runs on Linux, then you have a RFP but your requirements have pre-selected the vendor which can achieve the objectives. This is hard to catch from the outside, but focus on ultra specific requirements which seem relatively arbitrary (Linux vs. Windows isn't arbitrary, but the example is super simplified for illustrative purposes).
I am also curious about examples, but as someone from the vendor side, I'll be the first to admit that if the purchasing group has any semblance of intelligence, you can easily hide these biases. The bias only is obvious if you are in the industry and grok the subtle nuances of the capabilities.
When you want to buy something but you don't know how to get what you want you call around to the vendors. They tell you about the products they're representing, and you figure out what you like best. When you put out your solicitation you confine it to products that narrowly match the description of the actual product you want (without naming it, that would be sole source which is different). This is achieved by naming features that are patented or otherwise IP protected, therefore excluding competing products. Sometimes if you're sloppy you can get stuck with a competing product and then you've got a problem on your hands. If you're not worried about price this is a great way to get what you want. But it can mean a 20%+ cost premium, depending on the niche and how aggressive the salesman is.
This is a lot of words to miss a basic point. In those examples, the contract was sent out for bids, won by Starlink, then signed. In this case it was given to another vendor through the same process, then that contract is being cancelled and awarded (without, as far as I know, any further bidding process) to the person making decisions in the US government.
This isn't some deep or complicated point. Surely you cannot write that many coherent sentences and fail to understand the issue here, right? I can only assume you are arguing in bad faith.
> In this case it was given to another vendor through the same process, then that contract is being cancelled and awarded (without, as far as I know, any further bidding process)
No. In this case wapo (hah, no conflict of interest there) is reporting that "unnamed sources" are claiming that this is happening. Nothing has happened yet, but everyone is crying wolf, on a "people say" tangent. Yeah, and I'm the one arguing in bad faith.
Both can be true - you definitely know that the main concern here is that people feel it's a conflict of interest.
You deliberately ignore the fact that all the instances you listed were done through proper procurement processes, and so far, reporting does not suggest this one is. You then try to use it against someone here, amusingly.
It certainly may be wrong reporting!
But arguing that this is identity politics or whatever is definitely bad faith - this entire thread is full of people concerned that this is not going through the normal process, and appears to have happened after Elon complained about the existing contract, and exerted influence on the situation, despite stating (and others stating) he would not involve himself in things that are a conflict of interest.
So, in good faith, what, precisely, is your argument that this is not a clear conflict of interest? He should have not offered an opinion, or been involved, in any way, with anything here.
That's what it means to recuse from a conflict of interest. Instead, regardless of whether the reporting about the process is wrong, he has literally offered multiple opinions and appears to be trying to exert influence. You don't need reporting for this - you can get it directly from the source - Elon himself.
You also don't even have to guess or opine what it means to have a conflict of interest or what is required in this case - FAR is pretty thorough.
Meanwhile, you are complaining that this is bad faith identity politics, and "wondering" why you are downvoted.
> So, in good faith, what, precisely, is your argument that this is not a clear conflict of interest?
The fact that spx has had 30+b worth of contracts and the us gov saved probably double that on those contracts, and that those contracts delivered, and the usgov is happy. (for context, spx doesn't bid for "cost+" contracts, it only bids for fixed price. e.g. the entire crew dragon programe was half the cost of their competitors, they've launched everything in tranche1, half of tranche2, and are still the only provider that can reliably fly to the ISS)
>despite stating (and others stating) he would not involve himself in things that are a conflict of interest.
What was his wording?
Seems a little bit of a wide net there.
I mean what if SpaceX is the ONLY way to rescue a couple of astronauts from space, but someone in government wants to give the job to Boeing, should he stay mum? And if people who work for him, who he has power over, speak out, is that Elon being corrupt?
If Verizon literally does not have the coverage footprint of Starlink, and the contract was awarded due to corruption that Elon knows about, and people will die due to accidents such as the one where the Blackhawk did not catch the audio transmission, again should he stay mum? What is the moral compass here?
What was his wording?
There are inquiries happening now into waste, fraud, and abuse.
It's not surprising that as poorly decided contract decisions are going to come under review, some may be overturned or cancelled.
There's no evidence saying Verizon has a larger footprint than Starlink. So if it turns out Starlink has much better coverage (surprise, surprise, it does) then that's a big red flag.
This isn't some deep or complicated point.
You should not accuse bad faith and I won't assume it of you. But there is a lot of derangement right now, because a lot of people are in bubbles and consuming lies and hate. The poster you replied to was perfectly reasonable, but you showed you have no clue that there's an effort underway to discover and cancel contracts that had been awarded with corruption. Not knowing that may not be bad faith on your part, but it's on you to stay informed before accusing others of bad faith.
You are ignoring the rather obvious problem here, that this contract was only awarded to a musk company after musk began wielding great influence over every federal agency, and only after the contract had already been awarded to someone else.
And it's pure nonsense to bring up purely irrelevant bugaboos like identity politics.
I try to assume good intent, but I can't see any way your comment could be an earnest argument.
> aaand, getting downvoted for facts
One can speak facts and still be lying by omission, maybe that’s why you’re getting downvoted. And now you just got downvoted for complaining about being downvoted.
Getting down voted for a reasonable opinion shall be worn as a badge of honor, citizen.
It's a very easy trap to fall into to think of yourself as the truth-guarding underdog when you get downvoted on some social platform - remember to stay grounded.
It's sort of a nonsense opinion because it ignores: All of those things they are talking about were from a competitive bidding process that presumably followed normal procurement rules.
If this change does/did, great, no problem. If it's not, problem.
We don't know yet, no reports either way.
It's hard to believe this person doesn't know this, and it's obvious this is the main concern people in this thread have.
Ignoring this and trying to transform it into "identity" politics is ... something.
>It's sort of a nonsense opinion
That's your opinion.
Everyone's been dragged on the internet. It should be a point of pride when it happens. It's good we can share our opinions.
Sorry, but no. Even if it was an arguably reasonable opinion (It's not), claiming bad faith with those that argue with it is even worse.
That should not be a point of pride. If it was a reasonable opinion, and they didn't just try to paint everyone else as arguing in bad faith, I would agree. We all can differ. Cool.
But if this particular comment is what you think "good discourse" looks like, your standards are way too low.
No sweat dude, it's the internet.
By the way, read your comment history. Good stuff! Keep it up
[dead]
0.8 billion people fly in the US per year.
Paying $3 per passenger for air traffic control seems insane.
The whole scheme should be costing more like 0.1 cents per passenger.
Start from that price, and then figure out what service you can offer with that money.
$800k should pay for a flight planning/replanning website made by one dev in a few months, and half an on-call rotation to man a helpline.
>Start from that price, and then figure out what service you can offer with that money.
I say this not to attack you personally, but because I can't think of any other way to describe this idea (and I do realize that this does not contribute to a high quality discussion)...
Approaching something as vital and complicated as air traffic safety by saying, "I will only take the services I can get for some completely arbitrary amount of money," is utterly fucking stupid.
I didn’t find this rude. I would prefer to not die on an airplane.
> $800k should pay for a flight planning/replanning website made by one dev in a few months, and half an on-call rotation to man a helpline.
I realize I'm piling on, but do you really believe that ATC comms just tracks flight plans? Or are you just trolling?
You shouldn't forget to add the /s to your comment, people might mistake you for a fucking idiot.
I'll be the last do defend this project but it's not like they'll spend 2.8b every single year
I would call this a zero content effort but it seems more like a negative effort intended to spark more ire and anger. Very poor contribution.
Dude, $800k won't even pay for a new piston single. That's like three ATC salaries.
I don't know where you get the idea that this is enough money. It's not, it's absurdly low, and "half an on-call" to stop airplanes from crashing when your Node.js app crashes sounds more like a joke than a serious proposal.
I'm glad clowns like you aren't in government. Oh wait...