Starlink’s Dominance: Beyond Technology, a Question of Control
by Mani Thiru
Starlink’s costing and technical edge over Kuiper and OneWeb is undeniable. But the geopolitical tremors of recent years have exposed an overlooked fragility: what happens when the world’s most critical communications infrastructure rests in the hands of a single, volatile billionaire? As Starlink expands its reach, can governments and enterprises afford to ignore the broader implications of Musk’s erratic power?
Author’s Disclaimer: I waved goodbye to Amazon Web Services back in 2023. I have no strings attached, no secret handshakes with the company, and no sneaky benefits from this essay. Everything I’m sharing is public information no cloak-and-dagger company confidential secrets here.
When I was at Amazon, enterprises and governments often asked about SpaceX's Starlink vs. Amazon's Kuiper or Eutelsat's OneWeb LEO offerings.
Per Amazon's customer obsessed leadership principles, we sidestepped competitor critiques, focusing instead on innovative solutions for clients.
But post-Ukraine (where Musk blocked Starlink activation in Crimea in 2022), I’d subtly highlight his erratic behavior, loose grip on ethics, and the risk of relying on what is essentially a one-person company controlling critical communication for civilian and military purposes.
Nervous chuckles often followed from customers, but shrugs of “It’s the best, though? commentary” prevailed. And the reality was that Starlink’s 7,000+ satellites and 5 million users dwarfed Kuiper’s delays and OneWeb’s costly, clunky tech.
However, today Musk’s flip-flopping threats - like decommissioning SpaceX’s Dragon amid Trump tensions -underscore a danger that was waiting to unfold: the danger of single-provider dependence for vital space infrastructure.
Innovation Superiority: A Quick Starlink-Kuiper-OneWeb Comparison
On paper, there is simply no comparison between Starlink and other services.
Starlink, with over 7,300 satellites orbiting at 340-1200 km as of early 2025, is the undisputed leader in LEO internet. SpaceX’s satellites use phased-array antennas and optical inter-satellite links (OISLs) to deliver low-latency broadband (often under 20 milliseconds) rivaling terrestrial fiber.
Project Kuiper, with 3,236 satellites planned and commercial service slated for late 2025, launched 27 operational satellites in April 2025, following two prototypes in 2023. Amazon’s satellites, equipped with the custom “Prometheus” chip -which integrates 5G modems, cellular base stations, and microwave backhaul - promise seamless connectivity but remain untested.
OneWeb from Eutelsat, with “only” 648 satellites, focuses on enterprise and government clients, offering reliable service but lacking Starlink’s consumer appeal. Its simpler architecture prioritizes stability over speed, trailing Starlink’s versatility.
Bang for buck: Balancing Affordability and Ambition
Starlink’s pricing model balances accessibility with scale. The standard terminal costs $599, with a $120 monthly subscription. What really brings the cost down is the fact that SpaceX launches the satellites with their own in-house Falcon 9 rockets, for roughly $536,000 each, enabling cost-effective expansion. Maintaining a 7,000-satellite constellation, however, is a multi-billion-dollar endeavor, with Starlink projected to generate $12.3 billion in 2025 revenue but still grappling with profitability concerns amid massive infrastructure costs.
Kuiper aims to compete on affordability, promising terminals under $400, including a compact 7-inch model targeting 100 Mbps for budget users. Monthly pricing remains undisclosed, but Amazon’s history of aggressive pricing suggests it will undercut Starlink where possible.
Critical infrastructure demands your full due diligence
Yet, Kuiper’s reliance on external launch providers - United Launch Alliance, Arianespace, and Blue Origin - inflates costs, with per-satellite launch expenses estimated at $2.4 million.
Amazon’s $10-17 billion investment reflects its commitment, but production delays and a July 2026 FCC deadline to deploy 1,618 satellites could drive costs higher if deadlines are missed.
OneWeb’s smaller fleet and enterprise focus naturally implies steeper pricing, less competitive for individual consumers.
In 2025, Starlink reigns supreme, its 7,300 satellites and 5 million users setting the standard for global connectivity. Its technical maturity, cost-effective launches, and broad reach make it the go-to solution. Kuiper, with just 27 satellites, is a promising challenger, leveraging Amazon’s resources and enterprise focus, but production and launch hurdles temper its immediate impact. OneWeb trails, serving niche markets.
However, Musk’s political baggage and past years erratic behavior introduces risks, allowing space for more apolitical contenders to enter the scene.
Political Melodrama: Musk’s Power vs. Bezos
Musk’s $277 million in political donations during the 2024 U.S. election and his advisory role to Trump have translated into incredible financial advantages. Starlink has secured contracts with federal agencies, including a $4.1 million deal in 2022, and benefits from Trump’s tariff policies pressuring countries to approve Starlink licenses. For example, Lesotho granted Starlink a 10-year license post-tariff threats, and Bangladesh’s deal followed trade talks. These politically driven deals lower market entry costs and boost revenue, reinforcing Starlink’s cost efficiency.
Should national security and space sovereignty hinge on the lowest bid?
Elon Musk’s influence is Starlink’s greatest asset, however it is also its greatest liability. His polarizing persona and Tesla’s China ties have alienated markets like Taiwan, which rejected Starlink, and Poland, which sought alternatives after Musk’s diplomatic gaffes. In Ukraine, Starlink’s wartime role highlighted its geopolitical importance but drew scrutiny when Musk hesitated to expand service, citing escalation risks.
Furthermore, Musk’s dual role as a (former now) government advisor and Starlink owner is riddled with conflicts of interest, with Democrats like Senator Elizabeth Warren demanding investigations into potential corruption. His ability to “flip a switch” and affect war outcomes (e.g., Ukraine) underscores the dangers of unchecked power.
This danger has become more apparent in the past few days, after Elon Musk threatened to decommission its Dragon spacecraft immediately as a means of cutting costs. This has highlighted the extreme danger of relying on only one provider for critical infrastructures.
Meanwhile, although Jeff Bezos appeared at Trump’s inauguration and removed criticism of the Trump government as owner of Washington Post, Kuiper seems to have a more neutral stance. And strong and steady existing enterprise relationships make it a safer bet for governments wary of Musk's volatility. For example, Taiwan is engaging with Kuiper, and Amazon’s 10 planned gateways in India target a market where Starlink faces delays.
Blue Origin’s involvement adds a patriotic sheen, appealing to U.S. and allied governments seeking independence from Musk’s orbit.
It is not the first time that alarm bells have been raised about SpaceX monopoly. In 2021, NASA awarded SpaceX a $2.9 billion contract for the Human Landing System (HLS), which is designed to transport astronauts to the moon. Blue Origin protested NASA's decision, claiming it was unfair and that SpaceX had received preferential treatment, and pursued legal action. Blue Origin’s lawsuit was rejected twice, first by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) and secondly by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Interestingly, NASA defended its choice stating that “cost was a major factor in their decision to choose SpaceX, as their bid was significantly lower than Blue Origin's”.
Which again, begs the question: Should national security and space sovereignty hinge on the lowest bid?
The danger of monopolies
This is a great warning on monopolies, too. Monopolies stifle competition, and governments should push diversity in supply chains on anything that is deemed critical infrastructure. This includes technology, space and satellite communications.
History offers clear warnings. The breakup of AT&T in the 1980s, or more recently, antitrust scrutiny on cloud service providers like AWS and Azure, demonstrates the long-term risks of letting singular players consolidate control over essential infrastructure. In space, where resiliency depends on orbital diversity and geopolitical neutrality, no single firm, however innovative - should be allowed unchecked dominance.
Time for technological mindfulness
If you're a senior leader in business purchasing technology services, always take the time to weigh risks beyond cost or tech superiority - critical infrastructure demands your full due diligence.
Governments and multilateral agencies must now lead by example, creating procurement guidelines that emphasize geopolitical neutrality, vendor redundancy, and public accountability. This means embedding resiliency not only in hardware but in commercial contracts informed by political nous. As space infrastructure becomes a new form of national backbone, its governance cannot be left to market forces alone.
Mani Thiru runs DeepTech Ventures Australia, a tech advisory business. She previously led the Space and Satellite industry for Amazon Web Services across AsiaPacific for 6 years.