Re: <nettime> Simon Tisdall: Trump and Putin are carrying out a pincer movement

[Michael Benson via nettime-l <nettime-l@lists.nettime.org>]

Regarding that Guardian piece, I don't deny certain parallels, certainly,
but IMO Tisdall's analogy is a bit overstrained, because the EU is hardly
in the same position as Poland was in August 1939. On the other hand, the
prospect of a fall of dominoes across the continent, not excluding the UK,
is very worrisome. The right in the UK, France and Germany are all
alarmingly popular. And that in turn could very well set the stage for some
very disturbing eventualities. So on the whole Tisdall's warning is
well-timed.

One other note on Tisdall, though. He writes that Putin will not let go of
Ukraine. But Putin hardly holds Ukraine. He holds 19%, at the cost of
hundreds to thousands of casualties daily. Meanwhile currently Ukraine is
patiently and methodically destroying Russia's refining capacity. So the
game is very fluid, and we'll see who is forced to let go of
what, eventually.

But to change the subject, did anybody notice this disturbing opinion piece
which appeared in the Washington Post yesterday? It raises the question of
whether we would rather have nominally democratic state control over the
electromagnetic spectrum -- or cede control to erratic, hard right
billionaires on ketamine?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/09/29/musk-space-x-satellites-phones-communications/

*Elon Musk’s latest power grab points in a*

*clear direction*


His SpaceX deal could fundamentally alter the relationship between a

state and its citizens.


By Tom Tugendhat


A century and a half ago, the maharajas and rajas of India argued with the
British viceroy over how

large a gun salute they should receive while British engineers were
connecting their worlds with

telegraph wires and turning their kingdoms into statelets.


This month, the British king and the American president, clothed in medals
and white tie, respectively,

met in Windsor Castle while billionaire Elon Musk quietly executed the most
consequential

infrastructure deal of the decade: SpaceX’s $17 billion acquisition of
telecom company EchoStar’s

spectrum rights.


This wasn’t just another corporate transaction — it was a power grab that
could fundamentally alter the

relationship between a state and its citizens. Unless governments recognize
the implications and evolve

in response, they risk becoming Potemkin powers.


The spectrum Musk bought enables something unprecedented: direct
satellite-to-smartphone

connectivity without *any* terrestrial infrastructure. We’re not there yet,
but the direction is clear: For

the first time, a private company will be able to provide global
communications services that bypass

national networks, government oversight and geographic boundaries. Earlier
versions of satellite phones needed line of sight to the satellite. They
required bulky terminals or modified devices. EchoStar’s spectrum, by
contrast, operates in frequencies that can penetrate

buildings and work with standard smartphone antennas. It allows direct
communication with the

billions of phones already in people’s pockets.


More critically, SpaceX now controls enough spectrum to offer
commercial-grade mobile services

globally — and the company is positioning itself to replace every other
mobile operator with a service

that operates entirely beyond national jurisdiction.


The timing is no accident. Handsets such as Apple’s iPhone 14 introduced
basic satellite messaging, but

power consumption limited it to emergencies. The iPhone 17’s improved
battery efficiency will probably

cross the threshold needed for routine satellite connectivity. When your
phone can seamlessly switch

between cell towers and satellites, it won’t be long before the base
stations become redundant, making

local licensing irrelevant. For governments, the change will be profound:
Lose control of

communications infrastructure, and you lose a fundamental tool of
governance.


Since the printing press and the telegraph, governments have controlled
communications within their

territories — licensing operators, monitoring networks and regulating
content through the physical

systems that carry information.


This control has enabled everything from wartime censorship to modern
content moderation, from

emergency broadcasts to surveillance programs.


SpaceX is breaking this model. When citizens can communicate through
networks that operate from

international space, traditional regulatory tools become obsolete.
Britain’s Online Safety Act, for

example, requires platforms to remove harmful content and cooperate with
regulators. But how do you

enforce compliance when platforms can route traffic through orbital
networks that bypass British

infrastructure entirely?


This isn’t just about communications. Companies such as Stripe and Coinbase
have already enabled

millions to bypass national banking systems through stablecoins and
cryptocurrency payments. People

can hold dollar-denominated digital assets and execute international
transfers without touching their

central bank or local financial institutions, changing the nature of
corporate structures, employment

and taxation.


Combine unrestricted communications with borderless payments, and you have
an infrastructure that

allows for what economists call “accelerated regulatory arbitrage” — the
ability to shop for the most

favorable legal environment regardless of your physical location. Why
accept your government’s speech

restrictions when satellites give you an opt-out? Why use your national
currency when you can transact

in global digital assets?The state’s traditional monopolies on information
control and monetary policy erode simultaneously.

Britain understands this dynamic better than most. In the 19th century, its
control of telegraph cables

laid along ocean floors, with stations on strategic islands, all
terminating in London, translated directly

into global dominance.


British networks gave London advance knowledge of market movements,
political developments and

military activities worldwide. British operators could delay, prioritize or
even modify messages passing

through their systems. British control of the cables meant control of
global information flows, which

meant control of markets, politics and, ultimately, empires.


Musk’s Starlink satellite network in Ukraine provides a preview of this new
dynamic. Within days of

Russia’s February 2022 full-scale invasion, SpaceX activated satellite
internet across Ukraine,

providing communications capabilities that proved crucial for military
coordination. Ukrainian forces

used Starlink to guide drone strikes, coordinate artillery and maintain
command structures, even as

ground networks were destroyed.


That’s not traditional military aid; it’s private infrastructure responding
to corporate calculations,

creating military capabilities that no government authorized or fully
controls. In future conflicts,

military effectiveness might depend less on budgets than on operators’
goodwill. Sovereignty becomes

dependent on corporate interest.


Musk’s timing exploits competitors’ weaknesses. Telecom company Globalstar,
Apple’s satellite

partner, is just starting its own buildout. AST SpaceMobile, partnered with
AT&T and Verizon, is

struggling with delays, including a missed deadline for launch of its first
satellite at the end of August.

AST is using Amazon founder Jeff Bezos’s space company, Blue Origin. (Bezos
owns The Post.)

Amazon’s Project Kuiper remains years behind, and EchoStar, previously a
major competitor, has

effectively conceded by selling to SpaceX.


This $17 billion purchase isn’t about competing in a market, it’s about
shaping the market itself. With

exclusive spectrum rights for direct-to-phone connectivity, SpaceX can
dictate terms to device

manufacturers, telecommunications companies and ultimately governments.


Consider the leverage. Need satellite connectivity for emergency services?
SpaceX sets the terms. Want

to ensure that your military has secure communications? Better maintain
good relations with Musk.

Hoping to regulate platform content? Not if the platforms route through
Starlink.


In response, states aren’t entirely powerless but, until rivals are
operational, their options are limited

and costly.They could ban satellite-enabled devices — but this would
cripple their economies and probably prove

unenforceable as devices become smaller and more integrated.


They could build competing infrastructure, such as the European Union’s
IRIS² satellite constellation.

But that is already years behind schedule and lacks commercial viability
without massive subsidies.

They could negotiate access agreements accepting subordinate status,
governing by permission of

private infrastructure owners — and accept the loss of sovereignty that
implies. Or they could develop

new regulatory frameworks to compete with other jurisdictions and attract
investment and innovation

— even though satellites are beyond the reach of territorial
enforcement. Each is a choice between sovereignty and prosperity.


This won’t end government, but it will shift the hierarchy of power.
Nations without satellites will

become what political scientists call “hollow states,” maintaining formal
authority over territory and

populations while lacking control over the infrastructure those populations
depend on.


The infrastructure owners — SpaceX, Amazon, Meta, Google — will accumulate
what amounts to

sovereign power without sovereign responsibility, making decisions that
affect millions of lives.

Algorithm changes that influence elections, network policies that enable or
restrict speech, and

platform rules that determine economic opportunities are already here.


These decisions increasingly matter more than traditional government
policies. If SpaceX decides to

restrict access to certain regions, that will shape geopolitics more
directly than diplomatic negotiations.

If payment processors change their policies, that will affect commerce more
immediately than central

bank decisions.


The question isn’t whether this transformation can be stopped, but whether
governments can evolve to

maintain meaningful control over the forces reshaping collective life.


Today’s princes in parliaments and presidencies are still arguing about
status, while SpaceX makes it

clear that the debate is no longer about controlling data but rather the
infrastructure itself. Power has

shifted to the heavens — and, unless they grasp the change, governments
will be left on the ground as

every new launch and line of code makes it harder for them to reach the
stars.

-- 
Michael Benson
*Kinetikon Pictures *
michael-benson.net
kinpix2001@gmail.com
-- 
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
# more info: https://www.nettime.org
# contact: nettime-l-owner@lists.nettime.org