Starlink Mobile はイーロン・マスクによる新たな権力集中だ

But then even if we look outside of the United States, it sets off even more red flags. Because as I said earlier, you know, we have been talking about the threat of the growing dependence on U.S. technology and certainly on Elon Musk's services in particular. But certainly his are not the only ones. And now if we are going to see Starlink try to expand into European markets, into Canada, into other parts of the world and offer this Starlink service, that is not only going to give him more power, but also the U.S. government more power. Hello and welcome to Tech Won't Save Us, made in partnership with The Nation magazine. I'm your host, Paris Marks, and this week I am diving deep on a topic that I think is not getting nearly enough attention. And that is what is going on with Starlink, but specifically Starlink and Elon Musk's ambition

to create a mobile provider, a wireless provider, you know, basically to connect up cell phones, mobile phones called Starlink Mobile. And so I want to dig into that and the implications of it in this episode. So there will be no guests, it would just be me, kind of digging deep on this topic that I think that we should be paying more attention to. But before we do that, of course, I just want to say my new book, HyperScale, has been out for a few weeks now. I have been on the road for a few weeks. I think some listeners to last week's episode noticed how exhausted I looked on the video version. You would be right. I was traveling a lot, and I was recording that one quite early in the morning in London where I was, and I was very jet-lagged as well. But, yeah, it's been fantastic to meet readers in New York, in Montreal, in London. now increasingly in several cities across the United States, as I've been doing events here as well. Fantastic to see the reception and, of course, also to see how big of an issue data centers are in this moment.

We had the midterm elections in the United States where data centers were such a determinative issue in really key races for governors, for congresspeople, and beyond. It looks very clear now that stronger action on data centers is going to be taken in a number of key states where a lot of data centers are being constructed, like Texas, Georgia, and Ohio. And I guess we'll see what will happen on the federal level as we have more lawmakers who have been elected around data centers and addressing this rapid build-out of hyperscale data centers and the impact that that is having on communities across the United States. And so, of course, for me, this is very heartening. And I wrote about it on my Disconnect newsletter. I'll put a link to that in the show notes. But I think it also speaks to why my book, Hyperscale, is arriving at a great moment. And of course, if you want to know more about the issues with the construction of these massive Hyperscale data centers, the future that Silicon Valley and these tech billionaires

are trying to foist on us, and why we should be not just pushing back on that, but also thinking about what a better future looks like, you should definitely grab a copy of my book, check out the argument that I make in there. I think that you're really going to like it. And of course, in the past few weeks, I have been doing interviews with everywhere from MSNBC to Democracy Now! I've talked to Wired, CNET, and many more. The book even got a positive review in the Daily Mail of all places. You know, the right hates data centers as well, and I guess they're on board with my book and the arguments that I'm making, at least to a certain degree. So make sure to grab a copy of your own. You can find links to do that at hyperscalebook.com. And of course, by the time this airs, I will have finished my events in the United States for this year, but I will still be doing a lot of events in Canada and Europe. So make sure to come out and see me in Toronto, Hamilton, or Ottawa, Vancouver, Calgary, or Edmonton if you are in Canada. And of course, for those of you in Atlantic Canada, stay tuned. I'm hoping to do some events there in the new year.

And then I'll be headed back over to Europe where I'll be doing events in Dublin, I think in Leeds and Edinburgh, in Copenhagen and Malmo and Berlin, and possibly Amsterdam as well. So stay tuned for all that. You can find a link for more information in the show notes or go to my website, parismarks.com, and go to my speaking page where you'll see a list of events and links for more information, you know, where RSVP, all that kind of stuff. Some of the Europe ones might not be on my website yet, but keep checking back and they will be added as those details are confirmed. So thanks so much for your support with the book. As I said, make sure to grab a copy. And of course, if you like this episode, make sure to leave a five-star review on your podcast platform of choice. You can share the show on social media or with any friends or colleagues who you think would learn from it. And if you do want to support the work that goes into making Tech Won't Save Us every single week, you can join supporters like Bros from Toronto and Jesse from Dryden in Ontario by going to patreon.com slash techwon'tsaveus where you can become a supporter as well. Thanks so much. And now to the issue that I want to discuss

in this week's episode. Now, if you were paying attention last month, I'm sure that you saw this story about Starlink cutting off Ukraine or at least kind of limiting the speeds of its access again, right? This is not a new story. Something similar happened back in 2022 when Elon Musk cut off Ukraine's access to Starlink, at least in certain areas. And that obviously prompted a lot of discussion and a lot of concern about the power that one man can wield over what has become an essential communications infrastructure in Ukraine as it conducts its war to defend itself against Russian aggression, but also has become very important for other governments and in other industries. And Elon Musk was showing that if he didn't like you, if he didn't like what you were doing, if just for whatever reason he decided he did not want you to access Starlink anymore, he could very quickly cut it off. That gave one man an immense amount of power, and it kicked off a lot of discussion as to whether he should continue to have that power, right? Whether it should be okay for one person

to be able to have that degree of control and unilateral decision-making over a communications platform like the satellite infrastructure that Starlink has been able to build out and that there is not really an effective competitor to yet, even as we see a number of companies in China and Europe and beyond looking to try to match that capability or at least reach something that will be useful enough for the needs that it has. And so, of course, as we saw a repetition of this story, it brought back to many governments and to many people why this is a problem, right? Why it's a problem that Elon Musk has this degree of power. And, of course, there were questions as to who ordered this shutoff. Was it Elon Musk once again, or was it the U.S. government? If you listen to interviews with Vladimir Zelensky, the president of Ukraine, he was saying that actually the order came from the U.S. government. But then if you listen to what Elon Musk said, he said that he made the decision to cut off Ukraine's access to Starlink or, you know, to limit the speeds that it could access, but that that applied to the commercial Starlink service.

And, of course, there is also a national security service called Starshield that the U.S. government has much more authority over. And the question was left open as to whether the U.S. government had cut off access to that part of the Starlink service that Ukraine was using. Regardless, this shows the power that Elon Musk and also that the U.S. government can wield over communications infrastructures that are essential to many different countries around the world. It's another lever of power that they have at a time when we're discussing the vulnerabilities that dependence on U.S. technology has already created and trying to stop the expansion of that dependence even further. But as far as I'm concerned, this issue with Starlink, the issue of it as a defense platform and something that militaries need access to, is only one piece of the problem. And I would say if we focus too much on that national security element, we're missing a bigger potential issue that Starlink presents, especially with the ambitions that it has been laying out for some time now.

Starlink of course started offering satellite internet as a service back in 2020 and has slowly expanded that over time In 2022 it actually sought over million in rural internet subsidies from the Federal Communications Commission in the United States but was denied that because the FCC was concerned that it could not actually deliver the service that it was saying it would be able to deliver to these rural communities, you know, at the speeds and with the reliability and dependability that would be expected of terrestrial internet infrastructure, terrestrial meaning, you know, kind of all the cables and poles that we see built out on land that connect people up to internet service, telephone, and, you know, these other telecommunication services. But despite that, we already see people in rural areas, but also companies and businesses that operate in remote areas already being very dependent on Starlink because it does offer much better service than people can often get in those parts of the United States, but also in many other

parts of the world where Starlink operates, right? So it already has a lot of customers who rely on this service. But Elon Musk's ambition for it does not end there. In 2023, SpaceX started to make agreements with telecom companies in different countries around the world. T-Mobile in the United States, Rogers in Canada, Optus in Australia, 1NZ in New Zealand. And basically what that was trying to do was to say, okay, people are already using, you know, this kind of wireless or mobile phone service in these countries, and they have towers that are built out across those countries in order to provide that service, but there are dead spots, right, where those towers and that service does not extend. And so they can then tap into Starlink's satellite network in order to fill the gaps in that coverage, right, so that you basically will have service wherever you go, and that when you lose access to a cell phone tower, you will immediately connect over to the satellite option offered by Starlink.

And so that was the beginning of this ambition to start moving into the delivery to some degree of a mobile phone service. You know, Starlink was not the operator, but it was kind of making its technology available to these existing companies that did offer that service. But it became clear very quickly that Starlink didn't want to just stop there. It wanted to become a mobile phone provider of its own. We heard this in statements from Elon Musk and then SpaceX, which of course is the company that controls Starlink started to take actions in that direction. In 2025, it started buying up radio spectrum, essentially what is needed to provide a mobile phone service in the United States, and then continued buying up more of it into 2026. In August of this year, after SpaceX went public, Gwynne Shotwell, the president of the company, said that they were essentially planning to have this build-out of terrestrial infrastructure, of infrastructure on the ground, in order to enable Starlink mobile, right? basically the mobile phone service that was going to be offered by their satellite internet company.

And of course, it would not just be using those satellites that are in orbit. It would also be making use of cell phone towers built on the ground. By October, there were reports of discussions between SpaceX and basically companies that could provide these towers, that can build out 80,000 cell phone towers that Starlink would be able to access for that kind of on-the-land service in the United States. Then earlier this month in November, there were further reports that SpaceX was looking to buy Boost Mobile in order to basically boost what it was planning to do there, and that it had made an agreement with Qualcomm, basically a chip and modem maker, to use its technology in the infrastructure that it was going to be setting up. So a number of developments over a short period of time that made it clear that Starlink was not happy just kind of being a backup for existing mobile phone providers, but wanted to be a provider in its own right, wanted to be a national carrier in the United States. And there were suggestions that that would potentially extend internationally over time, you know, get started in the U.S.

Once that is created, then start looking at expanding into other markets where that might be a possibility. It's really the same way that they did with the Internet service, right? You know, it wasn't immediately available in every country. It expanded over time to the point where now it is available in many countries around the world. So essentially what that tells us is that, you know, SpaceX really intends to become a mobile phone provider as quickly as it can. Now, that might not be overnight or by the end of the year, but there are reports that Elon Musk wants to really get this set up within two years from now, which is a pretty rapid build-out of this infrastructure. But it's entirely possible that this might happen. This will cost a lot of money. But as we've seen, that is not really an impediment for Elon Musk, who tends to be able to get access to whatever money he needs. He goes to these investors that will essentially not say no to him, and that even if his companies are not delivering, You know, if Tesla is not living up to the expectations of revenue and sales that he promised, or if SpaceX is not actually as profitable as, you know, he led people to believe, it doesn't matter, right?

He will still get the money. His companies will still be valued at inordinate amounts of money that don't make any sense for the revenue they actually create. But he is so powerful. He is so influential that nobody wants to piss him off. And so they will give him the money, right? They will let him expand in a way that it would be much more difficult for these telecom companies to get access to that financing. And I think that is where we need to start pivoting to talking about what the threats of this are, right? I think it would be very easy to look at this plan and effectively to say, okay, telecom companies suck. The service they provide can be really bad in some places. You know, we have all had bad experiences with a telecom provider. and, you know, in some countries, the prices that we pay are ridiculous for access to these services. So why should we defend the existing telecom companies, the existing telecom oligopoly? Well, I would say that, unfortunately, there is good reason to do that, right, to make sure that some global competitor, some competitor with global ambitions,

is not going to be able to come in and basically distort the market there. You know, if we should be doing anything, it's probably making more public telecom companies in order to make sure that it's serving the public and not the investors and shareholders. But I think that's a whole other discussion there. You know, it really makes me think of Uber, for example. Right. You know, when Uber was rolling out, it was basically challenging these taxi companies that we also didn't love. Right. You know, we all had bad experiences with taxis. They could be hard to get at the times that you needed them. Maybe we encountered taxi drivers that were not so great or that tried to rip us off. And it was like, yeah, this new service is coming out. And it promises that I'm not going to have to deal with this or that there's going to be new ways to book a taxi through an app to make sure I'm charged a certain price, to have a certain degree of kind of surveillance and control over the driver to make sure that they're not doing things that I don't want them to be doing. You know, we can debate whether that's OK. You know, there's still workers and people as well. But let's leave that to the side for a moment.

You know, basically services that we didn't love. And then Uber was coming in and saying, we're going to make it so much better. And so, of course, we let Uber roll over it, right? And regulators did not do nearly enough to make sure that Uber aligned with, you know, expectations that we have for these kinds of services operating in our cities and our communities. And so a lot of the early promises that Uber made for how it was going to improve cities and improve transportation did not come to pass. Obviously, you know, the model that it pushed onto drivers was not a very fair and equitable one, even though it said otherwise. And it was able to lose billions of dollars for well over a decade in order to establish its dominance and basically run many taxi companies out of business and taxi drivers out of the profession through that time until it actually had to start making money, right? And raising prices and pushing down driver pay even further. but by then it was basically really hard to stop them, or to kind of do anything to address the problems

that it had created. Which is not to say that that means we need to aggressively defend taxi companies or something like that, but when you had this kind of player with global ambitions with billions of dollars that it could lose behind it it meant that local taxi companies could not effectively compete especially outside of the major cities And so they basically just got decimated As Uber undercut them and took their customers away, it meant that they had little other choices available to them. And now we're living with the consequences of that, right? With what it has done to the regulations of taxi and taxi-like services, but also what it has done to the drivers who deliver those services. And so now when we see a company like SpaceX moving into the telecommunications market, I think that that should set off some real alarm bells, right? This is a company that can lose a lot of money over a lot of time to poach customers from existing telecommunications companies, right? It can lose money in order to build out all this infrastructure,

but also to offer prices that are going to be lower in the short term in order to steal customers away. By stealing customers away, that means that those telecom companies are not going to be able to invest to properly compete with a competitor like Starlink. But there will also be pressure for them to further consolidate, right, to try to compete with this really deep-pocketed company that's going to be moving into their sector. And we know, of course, how well that consolidation tends to work out for the consumer in the long run. But then just as we have seen with Starlink's internet service, we will inevitably see price rises and changes to the service for the Starlink mobile service as well, right? We can already see that prices for Starlink's internet service have risen over time. And even while I record this, customers of Starlink in the United States and in parts of Canada are quite angry right now because Starlink just increased prices again. And not only did they do that, but they added a dynamic pricing model where if you are in parts of those countries with high demand on the network, you will be paying 10% to 20% more, right?

You know, the introduction of dynamic pricing in yet another facet of the economy and to more of the services that we depend on, it's not a great development. I would not be surprised if, you know, we see something like that happen with a Starlink mobile service over time as well, right? It starts inexpensive, it starts cheap to try to get people on board, and then inevitably, as the company has to make money and as it attracts a lot of customers, those prices are going to rise because that is how this works. But that will happen after it has already driven a lot of competitors out of the market or made it much more difficult for them to compete with Starlink as an alternative. I think it's obvious why this should be a problem, right? it puts more power into this very consolidated company and also into the hands of Elon Musk in the process. If we were concerned about his ability to turn off the Starlink internet service, what about when there are a ton of people relying on his mobile phone service and now that can be turned off as well? It should set off huge red flags in the United States itself because of what it would mean

for the mobile phone industry, but also the power it would give Elon Musk over the society, right? You know, if we're trying to hold Elon Musk accountable for harmful actions that he has taken or to make sure that we're trying to regulate his businesses, and then he has another lever of control over the telecommunications infrastructure, that is going to give him more influence to try to make sure that accountability never comes. But then even if we look outside of the United States, it sets off even more red flags. Because as I said earlier, we have been talking about the threat of the growing dependence on U.S. technology and certainly on Elon Musk's services in particular, but certainly his are not the only ones. And now if we are going to see Starlink try to expand into European markets, into Canada, into other parts of the world and offer this Starlink service, that is not only going to give him more power, but also the U.S. government more power over those countries because, again, there will be another form of dependence that has been created

that gives them that power over the society. You know, there's a real reason why there should be a protection on essential services like telecommunications to make sure that they're not owned and controlled and taken over by foreign entities because that gives those foreign entities a lot of power, right, over the society. And they certainly do not have the society's best interests in mind. They are just looking to maximize the amount of money that they can make, but also are looking to wield their power in the way that serves them. It's interesting that in the United States, we're seeing telecom companies trying to downplay the potential effects of a Starlink mobile service. The CEO of T-Mobile's parent company, Deutsche Telekom, basically tried to say, you know, this isn't coming very soon. It's going to cost Starlink a lot of money. You know, this isn't going to disrupt the business in the short term. And so people are overreacting to what this might mean. But then, of course, in Europe, where Deutsche Telekom is based, it is actually part of a coalition of other companies, including Vodafone, Telefonica, and Orange,

that are basically working together to make sure that they can buy the spectrum for satellite wireless communications to provide an alternative to what Starlink is offering. And they will eventually find a satellite partner in order to do that, probably a company like Utelsat, which is a French satellite operator. And so we can already see outside of the United States an attempt to try to make sure that if Starlink does enter in this way, that there will be limits on its ability to really take over the market. And, of course, you know, the Europeans are already thinking very clearly about getting off of Starlink and what it would mean to create a proper alternative to Starlink so that their militaries, in this case, are not dependent on it. But I would say that they should be thinking much broader than just military dependence, but also how, you know, the broader society, if we think about the Starlink Internet Service and the possibility of a mobile or, you know, wireless service, would kind of increase that dependence on the company itself. And that should be something that is very concerning, right?

You know, we have already seen Canada, for example, say that it is going to try to diversify away from Starlink. That, of course, won't be done in the short term. And at the end of October, there was an agreement signed between Canada and the European Union on basically closer ties around space and connectivity in space. basically as they work toward creating some kind of alternative satellite communication system other than the one offered by Starlink, and then they would depend on it collectively. So I guess the core of what I'm trying to say is that we really should not be handing more power to Elon Musk and to the U.S. government. Elon Musk is someone who obviously has been promoting and funding far-right movements across the world. He just gave over $400 million to try to make sure that the Republicans held on to power in the midterm elections. That obviously failed spectacularly, which was good to see. But that doesn't mean that he doesn't have ambitions to try to help these parties in other states in the United States, but also clearly in other countries as well, whether that's the alternative for Deutschland in Germany,

the far-right parties in the UK and France, and of course other European countries as well. But we can also look down to Argentina, where Javier Milay has, you know, had very close relationships with the tech industry and beyond, right? Where Elon Musk finds a far-right force that might serve his interests, he is happy to get behind them. So is this really the guy who we want to be controlling key infrastructures? And at the same time as he's doing that, he is also consolidating his power, right? He just recently merged XAI with SpaceX, and it's very clear now that as SpaceX is a public company, he is looking to bring SpaceX and Tesla together as well in a way that will make sure that he will basically have control over both of these companies in a way that he can never be dislodged or his decisions can never be challenged. He made sure that SpaceX was set up that way. But Tesla, when it went public years ago, was not set up in that way. But if it is absorbed by SpaceX, he will basically have that degree of control over Tesla as well

and will not be able to be effectively questioned or challenged. And, you know, if we're thinking about the finances here, right, you know, because I mentioned that if there is this build out of infrastructure for this kind of service, that it going to require basically losing a lot of money and spending a lot of money If you look at SpaceX public filings you might believe that Starlink is actually a very profitable service But when you dig below into the numbers you can see that it only profitable because Starlink is not on the hook for the satellite launches to get those satellites that it relies on into space You know, those are kind of like hidden away in other parts of SpaceX's books. So actually, the service does lose quite a bit of money, but you would not be able to tell that from the way that the company talks about it and kind of promotes Starlink as a service and its financials. Our governments have really presented the Ukrainian issue as the key part of the concern around Starlink, that it's really about defense and national security. You know, this is the reason that we should be concerned about Elon Musk's power, because our militaries, you know, will need to be dependent on a satellite communications infrastructure like this.

And if Elon Musk turns on us, then he will basically cut it off for us. Right. And that will really hamper us in whatever wars or military activities that these countries might be involved in in the future. Of course, you know, that's certainly less of a concern in the United States, not one that you will really hear talked about there, but it is a very real concern in Europe, in Canada, and, you know, in many other countries around the world that are depending on this and that might have kind of conflict that they might be dealing with into the future. But I would say that is really missing the key point, right? That sure, the defense dependence on Starlink is a problem, but we really cannot ignore the degree of kind of the society's dependence and reliance on this service. Sure, if we can get Germany's military off of Starlink, that would be great. But what if there are still millions of Germans, individual, regular people, depending on Starlink for Internet or mobility services? That still gives Elon Musk a lot of leverage over the society in ways that, okay, maybe it doesn't threaten the defense of, you know, the country or something like that or its ability to fight against Russia.

I guess those are the ideas that we're acting on here. But it means that there's still a lot of ways that Elon Musk can affect the internals of that society, you know, the internal workings of it, whether that's the government, whether that's the communications that people have access to, if he really wants to start messing with it. And that should be a concern, and that should be part of the discussion and the conversation as we talk about the power that Elon Musk holds, but also getting off of U.S. technology. The issue of dependence on the satellite communications network is back on the forefront of people's minds because Elon Musk cut off Ukraine. But that, I think, needs to be used as an opportunity to expand this conversation, to talk about the dependence on this infrastructure more widely, and to make sure that we are actually moving forward initiatives to make sure that that dependence is being weakened, right? Obviously, it's going to take a few years to get more satellites into orbit. And the risk there is that putting more satellites into orbit obviously increases the chance that some of them might collide.

And then there's a bunch of space junk that makes it really hard to launch anything else into space as a result. But unfortunately, I don't think that with the way the U.S. government is right now and the way that Elon Musk acts, that we have much of a choice other than to try to do that, right, to try to build basically satellite constellations that are separate from the ones that Elon Musk and U.S. companies control. And, you know, that should be done in a way that is more responsible than we see Elon Musk doing it. He's actually planning to launch a lot more satellites into orbit now, and even larger ones, because the ambition for his mobile service requires larger satellites, essentially, you know, in order to provide this new type of service that he wants to use. And we've already seen existing problems with how his satellites, given that they are in low Earth orbit and given that there are so many of them, reflect a lot of light, make it really difficult for basically astronomers, people using telescopes to see what is going on, you know, basically out in space.

It really damages those images, but it can also contribute to light pollution, right? So that us as regular people looking up to the night sky, trying to see the different stars and things like that, you know, obviously that can be difficult in cities where there's already so much light pollution. But even going out outside of cities in the areas where we're supposed to be able to see what's going on up in the sky a lot easier, it can really affect our ability to do that, right? And so if we are looking at being serious about, say, Europeans and other countries and allies working together with them in order to build out an alternative satellite communications infrastructure and, you know, low-Earth orbit satellite constellation, as they call it, then we need to be thinking seriously about what is going to happen to the light pollution and the light issues with those satellites. How are they going to be designed to make sure that we limit the chances of, you know, basically further damage in that area? But also how these satellites, and I hope to do an episode on this in the future, do come back down to Earth, right?

You know, when they pass back through the atmosphere, many of them will burn up. But some of them do have, you know, kind of large chunks of the satellite that do hit places on land. And there has been reporting on this. And so, again, I think that will need to be a consideration, right? How is this done better and more ethically than what Elon Musk and what SpaceX are doing? That needs to be a serious conversation. And ideally, the Chinese should be brought in on that as well, because they are, of course, looking to build out their own, too. And I think that we should obviously be concerned about how they are going to approach it, right, to make sure that they are not further contributing to this problem in a way that Elon Musk has been happy to do and really doesn't care too much about. You know, I know that this is kind of like an in the weeds and really kind of a bit maybe of too much of a deep dive into what is going on with Starlink and Starlink Mobile and what the implications of that might be. And maybe I need to think a bit better about how I try to present these arguments and how to talk about them. But I really do firmly believe that this is something that we're not paying nearly as much attention to as we should and that it will have implications if we do allow Elon Musk, SpaceX and Starlink to basically move forward with trying to become basically a mobile or wireless operator, you know, to power cell phones and smartphones and to try to take that over from existing companies who do that.

Elon Musk is someone who should not hold any more power over our societies. And yet, time and again, we let him do that. And we don't hold him accountable for the many ways that he has harmed our societies and continues to do so again and again. So I guess I would end by saying I would be more than happy to hear from people on this issue. I will also have a piece published on my newsletter, Disconnect, that digs into the arguments that I have been making here. If you do want to read or kind of share that around. But hopefully this is an issue that we can talk about and think about a bit more to make sure that we're not just worried about dependence on Starlink in the military domain, but also on the commercial and consumer domain and how we really need to address that if we want to try to rein in Elon Musk's power in this way. So I think I'm going to wrap up my rant on Starlink Mobile here. Hopefully you have learned a bit from this. Hopefully maybe you're going to start seeing this as a problem as well, or maybe you just think I've completely lost it. I guess that's fine as well.

But, you know, obviously I would say if you do enjoy my work, if you do enjoy the arguments I'm making, you can certainly go over to Disconnect to see where I've written a bit more about that. But obviously I would certainly encourage you to pick up my book, Hyperscale, because that would mean a lot to me. It's really how you can support me and my work in this moment by going to pick up a copy of my book. And obviously links to do that in the show notes or hyperscalebook.com. And as always, Tech Won't Save Us is made in partnership with The Nation Magazine and is hosted by me, Paris Marks. Production is by Kylie Houston. Tech Won't Save Us relies on the support of listeners like you to keep providing critical perspectives on the tech industry. You can join hundreds of other supporters by going to patreon.com slash techwontsaveus and making a pledge of your own. Thanks for listening and make sure to come back next week where I will have a new guest that I will be interviewing instead of just ranting on a topic that really concerns me. Thanks. Thank you.