Sean Cubitt via nettime-l on Thu, 2 Oct 2025 03:14:48 +0200 (CEST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
Re: <nettime> Simon Tisdall: Trump and Putin are carrying out a pincer movement |
the horrors of Starlink are not all on the surface - some are in EM’s near-monopoly on low-Earth orbit. I’ve been following indigenous skywalking groups who complain bitterly about Starlink in particular, which has “chains" of a dozen or so sattellites traversing the sky as well as the proliferation of individual ones. <https://www.theguardian.com/science/2025/sep/26/trump-rocket-launches-executive-order-threatens-stars-space-view-access-research-astronomy> [5033.jpg] Don’t look up: how Trump’s deregulation drive could obscure the stars and threaten our access to space<https://www.theguardian.com/science/2025/sep/26/trump-rocket-launches-executive-order-threatens-stars-space-view-access-research-astronomy> theguardian.com<https://www.theguardian.com/science/2025/sep/26/trump-rocket-launches-executive-order-threatens-stars-space-view-access-research-astronomy> The quantity of space junk is already exceptionally dangerous for other launches; it breaks up into micro-fragments (analogous to micro-pastics) in orbit, gradually winding their way, larger and smaller pieces, to the Earth’s surface. Musk’s ambition will separate the planet from the stars. But hey, he’ll be rich and the space-yacht class will be grabted transit. Monopoly cuts in every direction Seán Latest book: Good (aesthetic politics 2): https://www.gold.ac.uk/goldsmiths-press/publications/good/ Today's Topics: 1. Re: Simon Tisdall: Trump and Putin are carrying out a pincer movement (Brian Holmes) 2. Re: <?nettime!> Simon Tisdall: Trump and Putin are carrying out a pincer movement on Europe?s democracies. Suddenly, it all feels a bit 1939 (TG) (fwd) (David Herzog) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 08:59:52 -0500 From: Brian Holmes <bhcontinentaldrift@gmail.com> To: "<nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets" <nettime-l@lists.nettime.org> Subject: Re: <nettime> Simon Tisdall: Trump and Putin are carrying out a pincer movement Message-ID: <CANuiTgwxD3PrxM9jNhCgkDGseMY3_yoiYm8t4_herfRC4+cJAg@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Michael Benson quoted Tom Tugendhat: "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." And how about private global money? Because that too is happening under fascist cover. Just check everything unfolding around World Liberty Financial. In the same way that Musk has built his launching pads with federal contract money, the new currency regime will be backed up during its formative years by US Treasury bonds. Silicon Valley is using authoritarianism to leapfrog towards its own unaltered libertarian goals. As national societies go fascist through fear of the future, oligarchs of all stripes are setting up the conditions for a perfectly stateless science-fiction economy that battens on the remains of 20th century popular emancipation. Why bother with seasteading? The world is gonna be their oyster bed. For twenty or thirty years at least, until the oceans boil... It's increasingly difficult to see how all this will end well. On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 3:20?AM Michael Benson via nettime-l < nettime-l@lists.nettime.org> wrote: 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 IRIS? 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 ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2025 06:02:55 +0200 (CEST) From: David Herzog <dah@dah.uber.space> To: nettime list <nettime-l@lists.nettime.org> Subject: Re: <nettime> <?nettime!> Simon Tisdall: Trump and Putin are carrying out a pincer movement on Europe?s democracies. Suddenly, it all feels a bit 1939 (TG) (fwd) Message-ID: <cc517524-5ab0-a9db-4944-3d54515f9b77@dah.uber.space> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed I was asked by my friend and journalist to forward this comment on the Guardian's comment: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 21:17:29 +0000 From: Claudia Wangerin <Claudia.Wangerin@gmx.de> Subject: Aw: Re: <nettime> Simon Tisdall: Trump and Putin are carrying out a pincer movement on Europe?s democracies. Suddenly, it all feels a bit 1939 (TG) (fwd) Please forward to the list: This author idealizes Europe, i think. He refuses to acknowledge that every country has its own interest groups that are willing to play the fascist card. And all Countries that rely on economic growth and fossil fuels will sooner or later have to wage raw material wars. No one will call it that; they will all cite grand ideals as an excuse. The current German government, for example, doesn't want a real transition to renewable energies either. Simon Tisdall assumes that no faction of the capitalist class in European countries has a vested interest in fascism and war. According to this analysis, all authoritarian, anti-immigration, and anti-liberal forces in Europe are merely useful idiots of foreign powers; Europe is morally pure and good; evil comes from outside; Europe needs strong leadership. This sounds a bit like pan-European nationalism. Who will benefit from this? European arms companies? Perhaps Germany will get a right-wing extremist government in 2029 because Germans vote for it again. This government will then inherit the arsenal of weapons created to defend democracy against external enemies. But the capitalist arms industry profits from every war. Putin has also enriched shareholders of Western arms companies. The worst thing he could do to these shareholders would be to bring his soldiers home from Ukraine. Claudia Wangerin ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer -- # 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 ------------------------------ End of nettime-l Digest, Vol 28, Issue 1 **************************************** -- # 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