Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Cellphones Wireless Networking Communications Network

SpaceX Is Reportedly Looking At Buying Boost Mobile (engadget.com) 47

Posted by BeauHD from the carrier-shopping dept.
SpaceX has reportedly held talks with EchoStar about acquiring Boost Mobile or gaining access to its network, potentially giving Starlink a shortcut toward becoming a full-fledged U.S. mobile carrier. Engadget reports: According to Washington Post's sources, the deal could look like SpaceX acquiring Boost Mobile outright or gaining access to its cell network, which is leased from AT&T and T-Mobile. There could be a major hitch with the deal though, since SpaceX's potential mobile service would need the green light from those major mobile carriers, according to the report. The Washington Post also reported that major cell companies, which include AT&T, T-Mobile and Verizon, have already turned down Musk down for access to its cell networks in order to launch a separate SpaceX service. Last month, SpaceX reportedly held talks with Crown Castle to access at least 80,000 cellular tower sites across the U.S. as it prepares to launch Starlink Mobile. "We will be building out our terrestrial networks so there's broad-based connectivity anywhere that SpaceX and Starlink are allowed to operate," Musk said during SpaceX's earnings call this week. Satellite launches plus spectrum acquisition "will pave the way for Starlink Mobile to become a major mobile carrier in the US," he said.

SpaceX Is Reportedly Looking At Buying Boost Mobile More | Reply

SpaceX Is Reportedly Looking At Buying Boost Mobile

Comments Filter:

  • Sherman Act (Score:5, Insightful)

    by b0s0z0ku ( 752509 ) on Monday November 02, 2026 @04:07PM (#66406627)
    Time to go full-on T.R. trust-buster on Elon Musk and the companies he controls. He's gotten too big for his britches - countries where the tall poppy gets scythed down have the correct approach.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Archangel Michael ( 180766 )

      So, Three companies good, four is anti-competitive? When T-Mobile bought Sprint, where you for or against that merger?

      Just wanting the logic here.

      • This would be relevant if the argument was about numbers of competitors, rather than whether someone is fit to have significant control over telecommunications.

        (Also the debate about T-Mobile buying Sprint wasn't about numbers: everyone knew Sprint was going to die anyway. The question was did you want the assets split equally across two large companies and one small one, or give them to the small one so it could be the same size as either of its competitors.)

        • This would be relevant if the argument was about numbers of competitors..

          'Competitors' might as well be spelled F-R-O-N-T in this space. It represents fashionable cellular brands spread wide on every digital street corner, while hiding just how few unique telecommunications backbone provider pimps are left out there controlling every signal street.

          A collusive group, has maintained significant (backbone) control over telecommunications, for a while now.

          ..rather than whether someone is fit to have significant control over telecommunications.

          Huh. A new metric.

          I'm guessing the technical constraints and real estate budget for PRISM back in its all-seeing eyeday, amoun

      • Against - I'm against consolidation in general, even if it leads to a less wealthy and innovative society. We need to prune the tall poppies more regularly.

      • Owning large social media sites and the pipes for the traffic sounds a lot like movie studios owning theaters.

      • I was right here saying that the merger should be killed but you do you.

        If a company can't compete then let it shut down and then let other companies get the spectrum besides the big three. This isn't hard wireless is a natural monopoly because of physics. Impractical terms this means that you have to tightly tightly regulated like you do with any natural monopoly. This means that if one of the players collapses you don't let the existing players buyout their spectrum. You bring in a new player and if y
    • Multiple industries depend on the price of RAM and it's playing havoc with all of them but we can't do shit about the obvious antitrust violation done by The Big Three ram producers.

      If we can't do something about an antitrust violation that obvious and that out in the open and that has been repeated over and over and over again there's fuck all chance we can fuck with somebody as politically connected as Elon Musk. He dropped a half billion dollars on two elections nobody is going to go after him.

      If
      • Convince your relatives to stop voting Republican AND STOP VOTING BY MAIL. COVID is practically speaking over for most people. Go to the polling place, stand in fking line until your vote is cast and counted. Less chance of fuckery with USPS, envelopes, and ballot drop boxes if you just vote like it's 2019. And yes, getting our country back from a band of corrupt traitors is well worth taking a few hours or even a day off from work. You can get a new job. You can't get a new planet, a new country, or

    • Musk paid his Trump dues. There will be no trust-busting.

      • You're assuming that Trump's tenure as POTUS will last for another ~2 years. Remember that there are a lot of Republicans who are getting disgruntled - if they lose both Houses, the machinery for whipping them to vote the party line becomes much less effective.

        • Unfortunately, it's the Justice Department that generally sues companies under the Sherman Act, or otherwise enforces antitrust law. Regardless of what Congress does, Trump will still be in charge of the Justice Department.

          Yes, states can also sue, as they did in the recent merger SkyDance merger. But they have proven to be weak in their enforcement as well.

          • You're assuming he won't be impeached/convicted/forced to resign within two years. If both House and Senate go blue, it will be a lot more difficult to whip fence-sitter Republicans not to vote for it ... a lot of Republicans are getting sick and tired of the admin.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by gtall ( 79522 )

          Yes, but la Presidenta has stacked the Supreme Court with Nazis who see no problem turning the U.S. into a Fascist state, dictatorwise and the state in bed with companies. And Alito has been making noises about retirement which would give el Bunko a chance to extend their Nazi reign of anti-Democracy terror a bit longer; that is if the Democrats fail to win back the Senate and that asshole doesn't resign right after the midterms so he could be confirmed by the current bootlickers in the Senate.

    • Under what legal theory do you believe SpaceX has violated the Sherman antitrust act?

      • Exclusionary contracts have been floated as an issue before. But it's also the 2000s, not early 1900s - if anything, laws should be expanded further to directly prohibit any individual from amassing the amount of wealth and power that Musk has. Tall poppy. Snippy snip.

        • Which exclusionary contracts, specifically? And what is it that SpaceX is doing that you want to expand Sherman to cover?

          And Elon isn't the only shareholder. Furthermore, define what you mean by "tall"

    • Right now, I think a higher priority is to go after food distributors. Food prices have gotten insane because almost all the restaurants in the USA are supplied by two suppliers.

    • countries where the tall poppy gets scythed down have the correct approach

      Translated or hallucinated?

  • One more company to boycott! Terms of service will likely permit training of AI using your voice and data communications.
    • I'm guessing that it will also push political texts that align with Muskie-doll's agenda while blocking others as "spam." It won't be a common carrier in any sense of the term, but rather an cesspool that amplifies disinformation (sort of like Xitter and Faux Snooze).

  • If you want the truth about why "affordability" might be a problem for you, look no further than this summary ("...would need the green light from those major mobile carriers...") and extrapolate that to essentially everything that costs too much, because that is exactly where it's coming from. Whether it's incumbent hospital networks deciding whether to permit new competitors in their territories, or incumbent universities deciding whom they will and will not permit to be accredited, and thus be eligible f

    • > In any case, none of this is "Capitalism." Actual "Capitalism" does not involve this sort of dysfunction. It certainly has other dysfunctions, but private-interest incumbent control over government gatekeeping is not among them. That's a different problem, and rational people don't confuse it with "Capitalism."

      Capitalism is about ownership, not the degree to which the government is involved. Perhaps you're confusing capitalism with the free market?

      Wealthy assholes monopolizing capital in order to contr

    • In any case, none of this is "Capitalism." Actual "Capitalism" does not involve this sort of dysfunction. It certainly has other dysfunctions, but private-interest incumbent control over government gatekeeping is not among them.

      What exactly do you think the definition of capitalism is? And are you aware that the actual definition is only six words long?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gtall ( 79522 )

      You are forgetting private credit in your screed. Private Equity has been buying up small-town America in the forms of their dental practices, vet clinics, farm land, etc. Any type of small Ma and Pop businesses that provide the same goods and services is being hoovered up by Wall Street Private Equity vultures. So now there are networks of dental practices in many different towns all owned by one private equity firm. That way of doing business will prevent other small businesses from getting started becaus

  • Wrong title (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    "SpaceX Is Reportedly Looking...... "

    you misspelled "PedoX"

  • What's the problem - can't they compete in the phone subsidy market, er I mean the phone service market?

    • Re:Why though, Starlink should working everywhere. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by edi_guy ( 2225738 ) on Monday November 02, 2026 @05:32PM (#66406839)

      SpaceX spent about $10-15 billion on the current number of starlink sattelites. And now they need to spend billions more on a third rate cell phone leasee ? Given that there are only three actual networks, Verizon, ATT, T-mobile and that you can get a Mint plan for $10-$15/mo before taxes, and cell signal coverage is not really a problem for 99% of the population 99% of the time.. I really don't get the business case.

      Feels like a Virgin Corp sorta play. They wanted to brand a bunch of stuff, where it was just their brand and nothing value-add. Virgin mobile, Virgin money, Virgin America airlines. But who really wants to be Musk or X-branded?

      • Except that Branson is generally speaking chaotic-good (outspoken against the death penalty, against authoritarianism, against climate change, contributes to charities). Musk is just ... Musk.

    • Patrick Boyle explained to this (Score:5, Informative)

      by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Monday November 02, 2026 @05:54PM (#66406883)
      He has a good video about the SpaceX IPO where he explains it. Basically it's very expensive for SpaceX to provide data services of any kind. They cannot compete with terrestrial data services when those are an option. Nobody is going to pay extra for satellite internet when they can just have a physical line to their house or apartment or can have access to Cellular radio service.

      The market for SpaceX is people that do not have access to terrestrial services because they're out in the boondocks and they don't have any other options. That market exists however it's got a cap because if you ever get enough people in a single area that form a large addressable market then somebody runs some cable to them or builds cell towers and suddenly you just lost your market.

      Mr Boyle brought this up in the context of how SpaceX cannot possibly generate enough income to justify its valuation and that it's very likely that SpaceX is just a scam to rip off our retirement savings and our 401ks.

      But getting back to the point they're not going to use starlink for cellular internet because it can't compete with regular cellular service. It's just too expensive to keep all those satellites going.
  • Ergen does like money. If Musk offers enough money, Ergen will accept.

Slashdot Top Deals

It's a naive, domestic operating system without any breeding, but I think you'll be amused by its presumption.

Close