The editors of the Washington Post make a good point about Elon Musk’s StarLink satellites and service. They provide a lot of power for one individual to hold. Shouldn’t the federal government act?
What’s to be done? While a president theoretically has the legal option of nationalizing Starlink in a worst-case scenario, as Woodrow Wilson did with the country’s railroads during World War I, that would be neither politically popular nor prudent. A better solution might be for the United States to try to build satellites of its own. The $1.5 billion contract the Pentagon awarded last week to Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman to create a low-orbit satellite constellation is the start of such a strategy.
At least in theory the Outer Space Treaty allows the United States to regulate private use of space by its citizens but it is not self-enforcing. I think I would argue that U. S. contracts with SpaceX are de facto authorization of its actions. I’m not sure what the WaPo’s proposal would accomplish.
Furthermore, I question the relevance and legality of their other proposal—nationalizing StarLink. To the best of my knowledge Wilson’s nationalizing the railroads was never tested in court. Would nationalizing the railroads be constitutional? I can think of a number of grounds on which to challenge it. And there’s a big difference between railroads and StarLink: U. S. railroads ran entirely within U. S. territory.
The real problem is Mr. Musk’s ability to affect foreign policy. Every CEO of every large company does that every day. It’s a bit late to start worrying about it now.
A question, how different are satellite constellations from subsea cables in international waters. What’s the government policy with respect to these cables?
The relevant law is the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). See also the Montego Bay Convention.
The US has not ratified UNCLOS.
My question is because subsea cables are very similar to satellite constellations from a policy perspective. They are critical for communications, which is their primary use by the military. They live mostly in the international commons and as far as I know, mostly owned by the private sector.
Their real point I guess is SpaceX and Starlink is privately owned and majority controlled by Musk. Almost all subsea cables are owned by public companies. The government has a lot more levers to morally suade public companies then Musk.