Is the read-between-the-lines part here that Elon / SpaceX is too aligned with the USA government and their aspirations to take over Greenland to be trusted with their comms infra?
That's clearly what the author of that article want to say, but the truth is that Greenland has a centralized access (people go through the national provider to get access, and said provider uses others' solutions in the backend), while Starlink offer was for a direct to consumer system; they were simply not answering to the criterias requested.
> (...) while Starlink (...) were simply not answering to the criterias requested.
If you read the article, that's not exactly the arguments pointed out by neither Tusass nor Greenland's politicians.
Cited from the article:
> Binzer said it was not about which company was better, but about trust and long-term cooperation. Tusass already works with Eutelsat and knows their systems well.
> Some Greenlandic politicians have warned that the country must keep control of its telecom infrastructure.
> They fear that opening the market to foreign providers could threaten national security. For now, Tusass remains the sole provider of telecommunications in Greenland.
The citations from the article are clear on how national security concerns were a key argument to not go with Starlink.
The "uses others solutions" bit is for satellite alone when it comes to Tusass. They own and run all other types of telecom service in Greenland whether fiber, cellular, microwave, or marine radio.
This is pretty much exactly correct. This comment should be pinned to the top of this whole thread, because it does nobody any good when "alternative facts" are valued more highly than a boring truth.
You do not want to depend on infrastructure that might cease to work because the people running the infrastructure behave in an erratic, random and impulsive manner. This is a bigger risk than alignment with the policies of any government.
I mean, I think that's obvious. Ukraine obviously wouldn't contract anything essential from Russia, same goes for Denmark/Greenland and the US. You don't threaten countries you want to do business with.
It's also not very "between the lines" at all, the article finishes with:
> Binzer said the company will keep an open mind for future partnerships, but the priority remains clear. Greenland’s communication systems must stay under Greenlandic control.
Sovereignty is more important than ever, and governments are catching up to this fact.
Either way, trunks will use a network that is not under sovereign control. So sovereignty here means access must exclusively be through the locally controlled monopoly. Foreign powers will still have the ability to shut down or manipulate traffic, which is hardly sovereignty at all.
Whatever gave you that idea? Those who are opposed to Greenland being part of Denmark tend to be pro-independence, and opposition to the US taking over is even greater.
Many accept the status-quo because Greenland's economy depends greatly on money flowing in from the government.
USA has and has had military bases on Greenland, once established despite opposition from native Greenlanders.
Several of these are ecological disasters. There are valleys full of rusting oil drums and machinery. There are fears of there being radioactive waste hidden under the ice, expected to leak sooner or later.
That Denmark had approved some of these bases has fuelled sentiment against Denmark and the US in the first place.
No, Greenlanders are working towards independence and gaining independence from the US seems much less likely than from Denmark. Additionally Greenlanders aren't looking with admiration at how the US has treated other indigenous peoples.
Totally. It's the same as how people feel about Canada taking over the US. The current admin is such an abomination it would be best that Canada takes control. They are very nice people. Nicest ones some would say. Imagine how nice it would be to have some stability again. All the Americans I've spoken to agree on it.
> But a new survey by pollster Verian, commissioned by the Danish paper Berlingske, showed only 6% of Greenlanders are in favour of becoming part of the US, with 9% undecided.
6%, for practical purposes, means 0%; whenever you have a poll with a clearly insane option, about 4-5% of people will choose it, due to a combination of mistakes and trolling.
About half of Greenlanders support independence (in a concrete sense; far more than that in an abstract sense), but that's rather different to becoming part of the US.
Considering that "using AI" can mean anything from "AI wrote the whole article" to "the author used AI to check the grammar", I'd argue this disclaimer is unnecessary and it's safe to assume AI is involved in some way nowadays.
TBH I'm not even sure if I'm using AI half the time. I'm pretty sure any sort of autocomplete gets marketed as AI these days, so anything I type with my phone probably counts as having used AI. "AI" is a marketing term with no fixed technical meaning.
It's as if they're trying to mimic a Twitter post thread, fearing that people won't have the attention span to read a regular article. This is the equivalent to jump cuts in videos.
Well, it's a bit off-topic, but yes, Google is demonstrably killing the fabric of the Internet. Ever since they introduced the info box & knowledge graph, pretty much every change they've introduced is geared towards one goal: they don't want to just be a guide, they want to be the journey AND the destination. All the latest AI efforts are the apotheosis, the extreme logical conclusion of that. Surely I don't need to explain how this makes them extremely similar to a parasite killing its host, how this degrades the very ecosystem their foundations are built on?
? Yes? That's exactly what's happening, google's and meta's algos dictate which sites get traffic which is why every website is slowly but surely turning into clickbait/reels.
It's indeed rare to see the fine-grained item toggles only nowadays. But at least they are all off by default (unless I fell into some sort of dark pattern and misunderstood).
Still quite clearly illegal though. Rejecting tracking should be as easy as accepting it.
I recently saw a full screen cookie dialog, like a full blown control panel with a dozen settings. Can't remember which site, but it literally took over the entire page.
You don't understand! You can't write a dozen sentences that "may" have been generated by AI without selling your browsing history to 800 different companies!
I'm just worried the British will start orbiting satellites in the opposite direction as the rest of the world, for the same reason they drive on the left side of the road. ;)
Somewhat related to that, but Israel is launching satellites in the opposite direction than the rest of the world when they launch from their shores, this is so the launch is done over the Mediterranean sea and not their neighbors.
There's already a broad range of inclinations spanning from equatorial to polar (and slightly beyond polar (slightly "backwards"), for sun-synchronous orbits)—they already have enormous relative velocities, at up to 90-degree relative angles. Satellites going completely "backwards" wouldn't meaningfully make things worse.
> Greenland decision was political not technical to pay x5 more for x10 slower service.
I dunno, is "bus factor" a political or technical thing to consider? How about "did the country of this business threaten us before?" a technical or political consideration?
Personally, I'd try to stay away from entities I can't rely on, on a technical basis. Based on the article, it seems like Greenland traded stability and resilience for performance and price, doesn't seem political.
And terminal costs will be through the roof in comparison.
Who else out there is making full-on beamforming capable satellite terminals under $1k? Kymeta's over $20k+ for a single dish.
People may hate the company and the man behind it but there's something special about being able to grab specialized satcoms hardware for like $300 at Best Buy.
10 years ago a BGAN terminal ran me $5000+ and a 384k connection several thousand bucks a month. Now you can get ~512k for $5 a month in Standby Mode on a $300 dish.
From a quick skim of their Wikipedia page[0]: basically anything they could get their hands on. Arianes 1 through 5, Atlas II and III, Delta IV, Proton, Zenit, Long March 3, Falcon 9.
Starlink is run by a company based in a country which has threatened to invade Greenland, with a CEO who is aligned with the leadership of that country.
The sentiment is understandable. But jamming the satellite trunks to another country during an invasion would not be difficult for the US. It's not clear how choosing a French provider will prevent that.
> CEO who is aligned with the leadership of that country
Don't forget a guy who is so aligned with the leadership of that country that he paid to be a part of it, was kind of a government minister, and of course went on live national TV to perform a Nazi salute at an official event.
Obviously, it's hard to see under the current circumstances ( US belligerence and Musk's willingness to use his companies for political ends ) - how the decision would go any other way.
The interesting question is to what extent this is symptomatic of a wider pattern where governments and companies around the world are making such decisions for similar reasons.
Indeed —- choosing Starlink would be a security risk since Musk is totally willing to black out a country's service based on his own interpretations of situations.
I have no knowledge of who has deals and who doesn't, but more countries will find themselves in this situation — if you were picking countries who might see quasi-state embargo from a Trump-aligned oligarch this week, you'd pick Venezuela, Trinidad and Tobago, Brazil, Colombia. Next week, who knows.
Why does there need to be a 'state solution' when there is an affordable retail solution that individuals/families/groups can just purchase themselves?
Answer: Because of corruption! It's illegal to use Starlink in Greenland, and Tusass holds a concessioned monopoly over “telecommunications services in, to and from Greenland” and the underlying infrastructure! https://www.aqutsisut.gl/en/tele/satellite-regulation
Tusass was in talks with Starlink to basically provide Starlink service but via the Tusass monopoly, basically making Tusass a no-value-added reseller of Starlink at massively inflated prices (subsidized of course, basically being paid by the Danish government to do nothing besides cash checks while Starlink does everything else). This is so obviously corrupt that it's better for them to use a worse, more expensive service that doesn't make Tusass completely pointless.
With 56,831 inhabitants and those spread rather thinly I assume they enjoyed the years when it was both expensive and heavily subsidised. Without heavy government support I would claim nothing would happen.
Times are changing and commercial offerings starts to be viable. But the outlook of being in the pocket of StarLink is not too appealing. I think they would prefer other options in Ukraine these days. And if you notice the relations between Denmark (the only country outside US to celebrate the 4th of July) is at a record low.
> corruption! It's illegal to use Starlink in Greenland, and Tusass holds a concessioned monopoly over “telecommunications services in, to and from Greenland” and the underlying infrastructure
Having a single infrastructure provider isn't corruption. It's making the best out of a natural monopoly. It could lead to corruption, but unless you have any proof that it has, you're simply wrong.
France is also a US ally. I would rather suspect the answer is that the French company is more willing to bend over to censorship and surveillance orders from the Greenland government.
The US diverts trunks for interception and active attacks all the time. Jamming the internet to Greenland during an invasion would be trivial on multiple levels. This will make virtually no difference to national security. Good for the monopoly provider though.
LEO satellite communications constellations like OneWeb and Starlink seem like they could make a big difference in what kinds of operations you could carry out in places like northern Greenland or central Australia.
Readit News
If you read the article, that's not exactly the arguments pointed out by neither Tusass nor Greenland's politicians.
Cited from the article:
> Binzer said it was not about which company was better, but about trust and long-term cooperation. Tusass already works with Eutelsat and knows their systems well.
> Some Greenlandic politicians have warned that the country must keep control of its telecom infrastructure.
> They fear that opening the market to foreign providers could threaten national security. For now, Tusass remains the sole provider of telecommunications in Greenland.
The citations from the article are clear on how national security concerns were a key argument to not go with Starlink.
It's also not very "between the lines" at all, the article finishes with:
> Binzer said the company will keep an open mind for future partnerships, but the priority remains clear. Greenland’s communication systems must stay under Greenlandic control.
Sovereignty is more important than ever, and governments are catching up to this fact.
Dead Comment
West-Ukraine wouldn't. East-Ukraine ... not so sure.
USA has and has had military bases on Greenland, once established despite opposition from native Greenlanders. Several of these are ecological disasters. There are valleys full of rusting oil drums and machinery. There are fears of there being radioactive waste hidden under the ice, expected to leak sooner or later.
That Denmark had approved some of these bases has fuelled sentiment against Denmark and the US in the first place.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jan/28/85-of-greenlan...
> But a new survey by pollster Verian, commissioned by the Danish paper Berlingske, showed only 6% of Greenlanders are in favour of becoming part of the US, with 9% undecided.
6%, for practical purposes, means 0%; whenever you have a poll with a clearly insane option, about 4-5% of people will choose it, due to a combination of mistakes and trolling.
About half of Greenlanders support independence (in a concrete sense; far more than that in an abstract sense), but that's rather different to becoming part of the US.
> This article is made and published by Anna Hartz, which may have used AI in the preparation
The editors don't even know for sure if the author used AI or not.
> This article is made and published by Anna Hartz, which may have used AI in the preparation
Which, not who. They're not even sure the author is human!
Considering that "using AI" can mean anything from "AI wrote the whole article" to "the author used AI to check the grammar", I'd argue this disclaimer is unnecessary and it's safe to assume AI is involved in some way nowadays.
(the author of this comment may have used AI)
They don't even specifically know for each article if their authors use LLMs or not. What a shitshow.
Still quite clearly illegal though. Rejecting tracking should be as easy as accepting it.
Note: each of the tabs on the left has their own "vendors" you may grant access. In total, there are over 800 toggle switches.
Might be because i'm on a 14" laptop and it didn't fit on screen.
Consent-O-Matic does it for most sites but not on this particular type of dialog.
Greenland decision was political not technical to pay x5 more for x10 slower service.
I dunno, is "bus factor" a political or technical thing to consider? How about "did the country of this business threaten us before?" a technical or political consideration?
Personally, I'd try to stay away from entities I can't rely on, on a technical basis. Based on the article, it seems like Greenland traded stability and resilience for performance and price, doesn't seem political.
Who else out there is making full-on beamforming capable satellite terminals under $1k? Kymeta's over $20k+ for a single dish.
People may hate the company and the man behind it but there's something special about being able to grab specialized satcoms hardware for like $300 at Best Buy.
10 years ago a BGAN terminal ran me $5000+ and a 384k connection several thousand bucks a month. Now you can get ~512k for $5 a month in Standby Mode on a $300 dish.
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutelsat
https://www.ipinternational.net/oneweb-and-spacex-a-surprisi...
Deleted Comment
Ally (which Greenland and the US were in 2024)
and
Active invasion
Starlink removing service is nowhere near as extreme as America jamming starlink (which would be a breach of international treaties)
Don't forget a guy who is so aligned with the leadership of that country that he paid to be a part of it, was kind of a government minister, and of course went on live national TV to perform a Nazi salute at an official event.
The interesting question is to what extent this is symptomatic of a wider pattern where governments and companies around the world are making such decisions for similar reasons.
I have no knowledge of who has deals and who doesn't, but more countries will find themselves in this situation — if you were picking countries who might see quasi-state embargo from a Trump-aligned oligarch this week, you'd pick Venezuela, Trinidad and Tobago, Brazil, Colombia. Next week, who knows.
Dead Comment
Answer: Because of corruption! It's illegal to use Starlink in Greenland, and Tusass holds a concessioned monopoly over “telecommunications services in, to and from Greenland” and the underlying infrastructure! https://www.aqutsisut.gl/en/tele/satellite-regulation
Tusass was in talks with Starlink to basically provide Starlink service but via the Tusass monopoly, basically making Tusass a no-value-added reseller of Starlink at massively inflated prices (subsidized of course, basically being paid by the Danish government to do nothing besides cash checks while Starlink does everything else). This is so obviously corrupt that it's better for them to use a worse, more expensive service that doesn't make Tusass completely pointless.
With 56,831 inhabitants and those spread rather thinly I assume they enjoyed the years when it was both expensive and heavily subsidised. Without heavy government support I would claim nothing would happen.
Times are changing and commercial offerings starts to be viable. But the outlook of being in the pocket of StarLink is not too appealing. I think they would prefer other options in Ukraine these days. And if you notice the relations between Denmark (the only country outside US to celebrate the 4th of July) is at a record low.
Free markets you say? Tariffs I say!
Having a single infrastructure provider isn't corruption. It's making the best out of a natural monopoly. It could lead to corruption, but unless you have any proof that it has, you're simply wrong.