Dwayne Winseck, a professor at the School of Journalism and Communication at Carleton University and director of the Global Media and Internet Concentration Project, recently released a report questioning whether Starlink presents a risk to northern communities — reports the CBC.
The Carleton University professor said he spent this year looking into Starlink’s booming presence in Canada. “I think that Starlink has proven to be a decent option for Canadians. But the more that we see of Musk, the more serious red flags are waving around him as an individual and his business enterprises,” Winseck wrote in his report.
SpaceX-owned Starlink is a satellite internet service that promises high-speed connectivity anywhere and everywhere, making it especially popular in remote, rural locations where service is lacking or non-existent and among underserved Indigenous communities. As of earlier this year, Starlink has more than 400,000 subscribers in Canada.
Winseck and critics like him see Canadians’ growing dependence on the Musk-owned internet service as a potential problem — not that the most underserved of Starlink’s Canadian customers have access to any half-decent alternatives, though.
“What happens, for instance, if the man with the on/off switch and control over the LEO technology stack were to object to, for instance, CRTC regulations with respect to contributions to the universal broadband fund, information disclosure, and the need to consult with Indigenous communities?” the report asks.
Winseck further floated that Musk could one day decide to cut down capacity for Canadian users in order to meet the demands of Starlink’s priority customers in the U.S., including the Department of Defense.
One Canadian internet company’s CEO, however, says Winseck’s report is “absolute rubbish.” Jeff Philipp, CEO of rural internet provider SSi Canada, refuted Winseck’s concerns and endorsed Starlink. “I think that’s absolute rubbish … I would look at it completely differently,” Philipp said about Winseck’s report.
“I’ve spent 30 years trying to close the digital divide and working with people at all levels of government to try to make this problem go away. And the solutions are there, but we run into these discussions that take away from the real challenges.”
According to Philipp, Starlink is a bona fide business risk to every internet provider, and that’s a good thing. The space tech giant’s satellite internet service succeeded Xplornet as Canada’s premier satellite-based internet provider for rural and remote regions by 2022.
“It means we can bring services, we can bring health care, education, literacy, job opportunities, art, culture. We can export it south and we can bring it North,” said Philipp. The SSi Canada CEO noted that his company was among the first in Canada to work with SpaceX.
SSi Canada previously connected its cellular infrastructure to SpaceX’s satellite backbone system. Philipp said the two companies are now in the final stages of completing a project on emergency communication shelters for Canada’s northern regions and highways without service.
SpaceX launched Starlink Mini in Canada with special pricing earlier this month. The company is also expected to launch its direct-to-cell Starlink service sometime next year.
Want to see more of our stories on Google?
P.S. Want to keep this site truly independent? Support us by buying us a beer, treating us to a coffee, or shopping through Amazon here. Links in this post are affiliate links, so we earn a tiny commission at no charge to you. Thanks for supporting independent Canadian media!
Phillip misses the point. Winseck recognized the clear benefit of providing dependable internet service to the most underserved of Starlink’s Canadian customers. Winseck is only pointing out the risks associated with Starlink being controlled by Musk. Phillip does not address these risks. All of those risks are real. You only have to look to Ukraine and Musk's conduct there. Starlink is not a protected public service like the GPS system. This is no different than the problems Canada faced with PPE during COVID.
But the risks are not really risks at all. To review:
– CRTC regulations with respect to contributions to the universal broadband fund: Starlink literally negates the need for this fund. It's simply an attempt by a control-driven federal govt to be in charge of yet another service.
– information disclosure: Many of us in the tech sphere believe the internet should be free and open, not something that can be readily monitored by govt agencies.
– the need to consult with Indigenous communities: on what… if they want starlink they can have starlink, and if they don't then it doesn't affect them.
The reality is that these problems are only problems for big govt, central authority loving liberals who believe their worldview is the only legitimate one. The rest of us are fed up with this attitude, and have very little patience left for it. There are going to be more LEO satellite internet companies coming online in the near future.
Again, let's be honest. This is simply another example of liberals trying to find reasons for to prevent people with ideological differences from themselves from being successful.
Let's be actually honest. Techbros are taking a right turn into libertarians to protect their wealth, nothing more. This is just another example of the wealthy trying to purge and resistance to their plans to control the means of fighting back.
….unlike Ed Rogers or Bibic…right?
You just proved that 10 years of Pravda (CBC) propaganda worked: what the government can't control must be therefore declared evil and purged with fire. Or have its bank account frozen.
You just proved the education system has failed to teach people critical thinking. The adults are talking, go play.
Besides insulting others, do leftoids learn anything else in the indoctrination camps?
Stop using big words you picked from others, you totally disproved that you have any idea what thinking is…let alone “critical” one.
Is that why they're making a "right turn" towards libertarianism? (Libertarianism is actually the opposite of authoritarianism, it has nothing to do with "the right" meaning fascism in any classical sense)
Because if you look around you'll see that a great many people are turning towards libertarianism as a reaction to encroaching authoritarianism, from both the left and the right. Many of us have opposed centralization for years before this shift, and it has nothing to do with a desire to see tech bros protect their wealth. It has everything to do with a rational fear of what happens when centralization becomes irreversible.
Those of you who have this kneejerk reaction to assume that everyone who's leaving the left must be pawns of billionaires shows your ignorance toward the subject and desire to demonize those who you disagree with rather than trying to understand. You're not a cliche, right? Neither are we.
If you look around, you’ll see a great many people being feed algorithms that pray on the weak who are susceptible to the techbro fantasy of being able to do whatever they want with no one to stop them from the irreparable harm they are doing to society.
Can you give me examples? How extensive is the effect of these algorithms in manipulating people, and the harm they are doing to society? Again, it seems you're using an easy cop-out to suggest that some undefined proportion of the population has been brainwashed, as opposed to logically reaching similar conclusions based on observations and intelligent analysis. I have no doubt that there are some small fraction of people who have simply been misguided, but I also believe that a great many fall into the latter category. I can't quantify it myself, and so perhaps trying to specify a figure is redundant. My main point however is that it is wrong and far too common for people on the left to simply assume that a large majority of people veering libertarian have been brainwashed, and this view is simple and dismissive, utterly lacking any willingness to consider validity in the arguments made against neo-liberalism and the modern left. It's this head-in-the-sand, quasi-dogmatic worldview that truly represents the greatest ignorance in our social discourse.
GPS is a protected public service? It’s isn’t controlled and maintained by the US gov? Musk provided starlink to Ukraine.
The risks are a mix of fantasy and ideological fear mongering.
“Oh no, Musk might not be able to be forced to carry CanCon. The horror!”
There’s a much greater risk to these services being beholden to the Canadian gov. But some Canadians have been conditioned to think gov of everything is a necessity and a lack of it is a risk. Nanny state wards at their finest.
Let me preface this by saying I rather not be beholden to anybody. But in situations where there are only two choices, both lousy to a different degree, I’d rather be beholden to the government that is elected by fellow Canadians, even if I didn’t vote for them, than to an erratic, narcissistic hypocrite billionaire who changes his mind unpredictably and capriciously.
Generally, that could be said to apply to any private business. Anyone could find a reason to disagree with a CEO and use that as reason to claim they are a threat.
Instead of gov deciding everything we do and running everything, we’ve often allowed the free market to decide. This has generally worked well. Finding an excuse to slip in more gov control is a very slippery slope. Gov always screws things up. They run almost nothing well. Once gov has control, they almost never give it back.
“I don’t like this particular guy, so bigger gov with even more influence and control seems like a good idea today” will never end well.
Elon Musk is not free market. He’s now appointed as a high profile member of the government that threatens huge tariffs as a way of managing economic and political relations, which is as opposite to the free market as you can go. Most of the Tesla profits until recently came not from the car sales but the government handouts in a form of subsidies. As you said, finding more excuses to slip in more government control is a slippery slope. I guess Musk is sliding all the way to the very top of the government. But I’m sure he will let the free market to decide the success of their companies.
I don’t prefer the government control to any or every private company. Just in case of someone that rotten as Musk. No reason to twist my words. Rejecting an erratic, vindictive and narcissistic CEO as unreliable doesn’t mean automatically advocating for bigger government with even more influence and control, even though you put that in quotation as if those were my words.
Those subsidies were offered by a govt with certain goals which Tesla was meeting. You can argue against the subsidies, but then you'd be arguing against the promotion of EVs. If it were Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates running the most successful EV company in the world you'd likely have no issue with the fact that subsidies aided in their success, because you'd see that the ends justify the means in pursuit of EV prevelance. But since a guy who beleives stuff you don't like is benefitting from it you feel his success is unjustified. The truth is the EV market is as advanced today as it is mainly because of the ambitions of Elon Musk. Same goes for space flight. Like him or not, he made these things happen. We would not have the tech we have today if not for him, nor his govt funding. So you can be against Elon, but you also have to be willing to say we shouldn't have EVs to anywhere near the extent that we do either.
It seems to me that being willing or able to appreciate the nuance in this banality of polarization is a rare thing. Everything must be black or white, separated in two distinctive drawers. So if you have something to say about something in one drawer you must be against all of what is (artificially) stuffed in that one; and also you then must be a staunch supporter of everything what’s in the other one.
Believe it or not, I am very pro EV. And if the subsidies are necessary to lift the technology from the ground up, I have no problem with it. It just needs to be done fairly and with a minimum of corruption. Progress has a price, especially technological progress. It has to be paid. Also, not crazy about Bezos or Gates and if I did have a problem it would be with them, not necessarily with the EV company. To make it clear, I don’t have an issue with what Musk believes, he can believe whatever he wants. I’m not going to hate or like what his companies do because of what he thinks. I have an issue with his character and his scruples. All that I said about him was to point out that his personal flaws and business shortcomings make him a questionable choice for the government role for which he’s obviously not qualified.
Just to correct you, EV market might be as advanced as it is thanks to the Musk’a ambitions but just in America. Look at what is happening elsewhere and Tesla looks like a technology in stagnation compared to that. Space program existed before Musk, in the US it reached the levels his company is yet to achieve. There are good chances it will and I am glad. Others will too. But it is not reported because they are on the wrong side of the divide. I am not going to deny his contribution in technological advancement in respective fields, that wouldn’t be fair nor objective. However, he hasn’t accomplished any of it on its own so it’s naive to attribute all that success solely to him. He wouldn’t be able to achieve any of it if weren’t for an army of experts, engineers and brilliant minds capable of bringing his vision to life and figuring out the logistics of actually making it work. He’s not the Second Coming. All that messianic aura around him is a marketing hype and his narcissism.
I agree with the majority of your sentiment, but I think you do understate his role in the global development of these technologies. Before Tesla it was the common belief that practical EVs were unattainable with current technology. The global advancement of this technology only occurred after Tesla proved it so. The same is true of SpaceX, as reusable rockets was literally considered a laughable idea right up until the point they pulled it off. To this day there are still no other entities that have been able to achieve even a fraction of SpaceX's efficiency or affordability in launch capacity. Of course it is true that he has an incredibly talented team behind him on both fronts – but every army needs an effective leader to succeed. There is a reason only Tesla and SpaceX have succeeded in these fields where no one else has been able to. It's not coincidence that his other endeavors (PayPal, Neuralink, the Boring Company, etc.) are equally as groundbreaking and ahead of the curve in their respective industries. He IS the common denominator. I'm not suggesting he should be risen to messianic status, but to deny the importance of his role is irrational, and in my opinion can only be emotionally driven. It is all too common for people to point to his various controversial tweets or moments of weakness as representative of his demeanour in general, while ignoring the far more plentiful examples of ideological purity and lack of self-interest. (The fact that SpaceX is the primary launch provider for many of their competitors in LEO internet provision, for example.)
I do not, out of principle, support the idea of the wealthiest in society taking the reigns of govt policy making. However, I also look at the state of our country and that of our southern neighbours, and the "leadership" we've experienced for decades, and the direction we've been heading in, and think that a roll of the Elon dice is far superior than continuing down the same path. He's proven himself exemplary of accomplishing amazing things in the face of near universal doubt. What politician (or other person on this planet, for that matter) can make that same claim?
I also agree with many points you’ve made, especially with regards to technological advancements in Musk’s contribution through Tesla and SpaceX. I’m not trying to diminish that, but rather to cut to measure the overhyped positive slant that has been disseminated for various reasons; ideological, invested economic interests, fanboying…
I couldn’t agree about his ideological purity as he drastically shifted his positions and underlying values few times, and about his lack of self interest. LEO is not the greatest example, because it is done for the same reasons why Samsung is selling their displays to Apple or Apple is using Google as a search engine. Competitors do business with each other when it is in their mutual interests to do so. Not out of lack of self interest. Also about his amazing achievements despite the universal doubt. For a long time, while Tesla was still very far from the threshold of profitability the stock was unrealistically overvalued because of the – at that point – yet unearned faith in the company’s viability. ButI I don’t intend to debate you on any of that or try to change your opinion. I just can’t agree with those things and stated reasons why.
I don’t like what Musk has become (or maybe was all along), but I don’t criticize him because I don’t like him. I don’t like him because of the reasons he’s given to be criticized. I don’t see that as irrational. But to each their own. I once felt about him pretty much what you do now but that was mostly because I didn’t know enough about him. And all those missing sectors in data matrix I filled with my idealized projections of what I expected him to be. Then I learned things and my opinion changed.
That's fair. I can understand being opposed to mindless fanboying, and disagreeing with his political shift. But I would argue against the idea that he doesn't have ideological purity. His ideology has always been (as far as I've understood it) to advance humanities potential both in quality and longevity. He's simply shifted from believing that traditional liberal principles offer the best chances of this advancement to now believing that libertarian ideals do. The end goal has always been the same, as I often say it is for all people. Left, right or other – most of us believe our political views offer the best chance at creating a better society. The biggest problem we have (especially in recent times) is that many people have become convinced that anyone who doesn't share their own perspective is actually driven by some form of evil in which they actually desire the suffering of others. It might not be irrational to dislike someone's shift away from your own political views, but it IS irrational to believe they do so because they're no longer striving for a better future for all.
Again, there is a lot to agree with in what you said above. I appreciate your view that there are things like better society and future of humanity that can and should transcend the political divide. We should be lucky if more people would share that conviction. Unfortunate truth is that for most people, their political views are not in service of creating better society but are usurped and exploited by those who crave power and not advancement of humanity.
To go back to Musk quickly, my objections are not motivated by my political views but by apparent shift in his character. It is generous of you to assume his motivations always were and still are pure and lofty, and only his path towards achieving them underwent a drastic change. Generally, we can’t really get into the head of another person, especially the one we don’t know personally. We can try to ascertain their true motivations only by their actions. Time will tell with Musk. I have my doubts.
iPhone in Canada’s rightward tilt continues. Instead of looking at the substance behind the argument, we’re obsessed with Elon Musk and his Starlink system. What would we say if Starlink was Huawei. China controlling our internet? But instead we’re celebrating a right wing ketamine obsessed temperamental oligarch billionaire controlling our northern internet? Seems very short sighted at best.
What happens if he disagrees with some policy in Canada and shuts it down? That seems very very very possible and something this article ignores.
You'd prefer we hand it over to communism controlled entities? Or the likes of government?
Nah, I'm okay with billionaires doing it.
It's only okay if my side is the crazy one seems to be the going trend right now.
I'm not a fan of our current government but to claim Musk isn't absolutely off in his own little world view right now is just burying ones head in the sand. He's not qualified in any sense to be a part of government, yet he soon will be heading a department in the US government all while spouting right wing nonsense. But it's okay, because he might save us a few million dollars all while happily yanking away rights of those in the US.
'It's okay because it's not happening to me' also seems to be the common trend.
Why is he unqualified? What would make him qualified? Be specific.
Not stable, prone to erratic behaviour. Not elected by the people but ordained by laying of a hand of the one who is. Not really an expert and lacking any actual experience in the field of government management of wasteful spending, although he wants to have a say also in immigration policies and many others, as the self entitled geniuses usually do.
Most of that sounds like reasons for not liking him but not explanations of why he isn’t qualified.
-No presidential appointments are elected. They are appointments.
– He’s run multiple successful multi-billion dollar companies. He seems well suited to identify waste and inefficiencies.
So not having actual experience or expertise in the field you see as a reason not to like a person and not as a lack of qualification? Alright, then. I assume you hired a few people using that criteria. Also, the personal flaws like unreliability, being erratic, volatile, vindictive etc. often disqualify a person for a job, despite their actual qualifications.These are not just the reasons not to like him
Being appointed by a president doesn’t make you inherently qualified. Your abilities do. He has not demonstrated to have them for that particular job.
Relative success of some, not all, of his companies are not due to his business acumen but rather despite of it. He can thank his countless brilliant engineers and devoted employees who work hard. He’s there to collect the praises. And government subsidies. How successful is The Boring Company? Space X wouldn’t be commercially viable if there wasn’t for big government contracts. Tesla would have died in the crib and never reach profitability without the government subsidies. That’s the art of sucking up to the people in power, not being a brilliant business man.
He is definitely well suited to identify the waste and inefficiencies in purchasing a company for $44 billion, whose value decreased by 80% from the initial purchase price. And that’s from Fidelity, an investment firm that has a vested interest in it as they contributed $300 million to the acquisition.
And should I mention a conflict of interest that can be seen from the orbit?
OMG….yes, evil Musk might cut your internet. Unlike your beloved fascist government that straight out wants to legally cut your internet when you post something they don't like.
Read bill C63…..
Putting the world's temperamental billionaires in charge will not help me, you, or the proverbial "little guy". I don't understand how people are so eager to end up in another Gilded Age where the rich get richer and the remaining 99% of society becomes their servants. We're somehow at the "I voted for the Leopards Eating my Face Party and now they're eating my face?!" place in Canada too?
Wow. The amount of people who want to simp for Musk (here's a hint – he doesn't give a flying flip about you – or any of his kids, even!) And then to throw around "fascist" with no knowledge for what the word means or what actual fascist governments do/have done…
That "ketamine obsessed temperamental oligarch billionaire" is also the only person on the planet who has been able to pull off quality high speed satellite based internet. What does that say about the rest of us? Perhaps you're being to dismissive, looking only to see negative things while disregarding all positives.
Please. We need to stop vilifying Elon Musk and actually be thankful for the service that Space X has provided to 400,000 plus Canadians. For all the government’s wasteful attempts to provide bring high speed internet to rural areas – often by giving multimillion subsidies to corporations such as Bell and Telesat – there are millions of us still stuck without services. I live an hour outside Edmonton and have no services but Starlink. So I pay a little more and have a little higher latency than others. But at least I have services. Am I worried that SpaceX is going to shutdown the service for any reason including battling with the CRTC? Not a chance.
No, we don't need to simp for Elon.
Elon Musk and Starlink are not the same thing. He can be easily and justly criticized without knocking down the Starling as a service. He can be unreliable and volatile not only as a person but as a businessman (see just how he tanked the Dogecoin by 30% with a self indulgent joke when hosting SNL), while Starlink is a technical marvel created by a bunch of brilliant engineers, not by Musk in his workshop by his only two hands. Seeing what he does to those who criticize him, either employees in Tesla or people on X and his borderline irrational outbursts, it is actually very likely that he would use the Starlink service go get back to those who he feels aggrieved him.
Spot on, particularly on the Telesat part….giving 2 BILLIONS to a company now owned by an American VC joint.
But it's OK, it's just taxpayer dollars and they grow in trees…all 63 Billions we wasted in a year.
And the owner of Telesat absolutely won't cut Canadians from internet when they deem the company not profitable and sell it to whoever pays more drahmas.
AST SpaceMobile will offer true direct to cell soon, and will augment cell coverage to these remote regions beautifully. They are already partnered with Bell and other MNOs all around the world.
If Musk is looking for a country to takeover and run, I know of one with a primeminister.
After reading all the comments, I believe there is room for middle ground. Use SpaceX now that is available, but keep building Internet land connections to the area that is still not served. Eventually, both options will be available thus making the service less likely to go offline. In other words, don't put all eggs in one basket.
I don't know if it's true, but I feel like the professors report is just there to bash Musk.
So those fearing Musk's different opinions somehow puts them at minute risk of future Starlink service outages vs the days long actual outage tens of thousands of users actually experienced over new years week due to Northwestel problems
Got it.
If I needed reliable, affordable, easily accessible remote internet service, especially for business or other emergency critical applications, I sure wouldn't be gambling my money on Robbers, BHell or other government approved and or subsidized services.