Orbit Clash: From Musk vs. Cook to India’s Spectrum Storm

How Starlink’s Rise Could Trigger a CAG-Led Audit of the Skies

By P. SESH KUMAR

NEW DELHI, JUNE 7, 2025 – In 2022, Elon Musk made an audacious $5 billion offer to Apple to embed SpaceX’s Starlink satellite network into the iPhone ecosystem. Tim Cook, ever cautious and protective of Apple’s tightly controlled ecosystem, declined.

What followed was more than a boardroom disagreement—it erupted into a high-stakes corporate cold war marked by competing satellite alliances, regulatory skirmishes, and a battle of ideologies: Cook’s philosophy of strategic restraint and ecosystem purity versus Musk’s breakneck, sky-first disruption model.

Apple’s rejection led Musk to pivot aggressively. Starlink partnered with T-Mobile to roll out “Direct to Cell” satellite service, offering high-speed, low-latency mobile connectivity without the need for traditional cell towers—posing a direct threat to legacy terrestrial networks.

Meanwhile, Apple doubled down on its partnership with the more modest Globalstar, raising eyebrows internally and externally about the adequacy of the technology and the wisdom of the bet.

The technological divergence between Starlink and Globalstar is stark. Starlink’s massive and fast-evolving low-Earth-orbit (LEO) constellation boasts inter-satellite laser links and broad bandwidth capabilities, enabling true broadband from space.

Globalstar’s aging bent-pipe satellite infrastructure, on the other hand, offers narrow-band connectivity and limited scalability. Experts say that the contrast is not just technical—it defines who will shape the future of mobile connectivity: the nimble disruptor or the cautious incumbent.

India now finds itself on the frontline of this orbit war. As Starlink prepares to enter the Indian market in full force, it threatens to overturn the carefully balanced turf of Indian telecom.

For Reliance Jio, Bharti Airtel, and Vodafone Idea, Starlink is both an existential risk and a strategic opportunity. Initially opposed to the administrative allocation of satellite spectrum—arguing it violated the Supreme Court’s 2G spectrum ruling that spectrum is a national resource that must be auctioned—these same telecom giants are now warming to partnerships with Starlink, seeking to leverage its reach in rural and hard-to-wire geographies.

But amid this churn lies a constitutional question: who guards the public interest when spectrum—a national resource—is quietly allocated outside auctions?

The answer must involve the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India. Empowered by the Supreme Court’s 2012 judgment to audit spectrum allocation, the CAG is constitutionally obligated to examine whether such administrative allocations are transparent, economically sound, and non-discriminatory.

Drawing from its precedent-setting audit of the 2G spectrum scandal, the CAG must now verify whether spectrum valuation exercises were rigorous, whether rules were uniformly applied, and whether the public exchequer has been shortchanged in favour of global tech behemoths.

What began as a commercial standoff between two tech visionaries—Musk and Cook—has snowballed into a broader regulatory and policy reckoning.

Starlink’s ascent not only challenges terrestrial telecom orthodoxy but also compels India to re-examine how it stewards its skies. As the beams of LEO satellites crisscross Indian airspace sooner than later, it falls upon the CAG to ensure that governance does not get left behind in orbit.

Apple vs Starlink

It began, as so many Silicon Valley dramas do, with an ultimatum. Just weeks before Apple’s grand iPhone 14 unveiling in 2022, Elon Musk approached Tim Cook with what seemed like a tech powerplay of galactic proportions. Musk offered Apple the global reach of SpaceX’s Starlink network—$5 billion up front, followed by a billion dollars annually, in exchange for integrating Starlink satellite connectivity into iPhones.

Apple had just 72 hours to decide. The offer was staggering. So was the arrogance. And Cook said no.

Why did Apple refuse what looked like a futuristic partnership on a platter? The reasons, again experts say, were strategic and, some say, philosophical.

Tim Cook was not merely evaluating a technical proposal; he was fending off a deeper threat to Apple’s control over its ecosystem. Accepting Musk’s offer meant allowing an unpredictable external operator—known for feuds, tweets, and erratic corporate behaviour—into Apple’s tightly curated world of hardware and services.

Cook opted instead for Globalstar, a relatively low-profile satellite firm. It was not a bold choice, but it was a safer one.

But safety came at a price. Globalstar’s network was said to be slower, older, and less ambitious. Internally, some Apple executives were not thrilled.

Craig Federighi and Adrian Perica reportedly raised red flags about both the technical limitations of Globalstar and the regulatory risk Apple might attract by becoming, in effect, a satellite telecom player. A $1.7 billion investment—most of it funnelled into new satellite launches—did little to calm the waters within Apple Park.

Meanwhile, Musk was already executing his plan B. Having pledged that he would build a rival service if Apple declined, he wasted no time. SpaceX partnered with T-Mobile to roll out what is called “Starlink Direct to Cell,” offering direct satellite communication for smartphones.

It worked seamlessly with iPhones—but only if they were using T-Mobile’s network. In one stroke, Musk bypassed Apple and turned T-Mobile into a middleman for his satellite ambitions, all while positioning SpaceX as a formidable force in mobile connectivity.

But Musk was not done. He turned to the courts. SpaceX challenged Globalstar’s rights to a critical wireless spectrum, alleging that the company was not making full use of its allocations and was unfairly locking out competitors.

This was a shot fired not just at Globalstar, but at Apple’s satellite strategy itself. A successful legal challenge could destabilize Apple’s entire satellite roadmap and force a shift mid-flight.

SpaceX’s legal challenge against Globalstar’s spectrum rights did not succeed. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) ultimately dismissed SpaceX’s petition, allowing Globalstar to proceed with its satellite expansion plans.

In its filings, SpaceX alleged that Globalstar was underutilizing its allocated spectrum in the 1.6 GHz and 2.4 GHz bands, effectively hoarding these frequencies and impeding competition.

SpaceX argued that this limited the potential for other operators, like itself, to offer innovative satellite services. However, the FCC found that Globalstar’s application to launch additional satellites and extend its license was consistent with public interest and did not present significant interference concerns. Consequently, the FCC granted Globalstar a 15-year license extension and authorized the operation of up to 26 replacement satellites in low Earth orbit.

While the FCC dismissed SpaceX’s specific application to use the contested spectrum bands, it acknowledged the evolving landscape of satellite communications. The Commission has initiated a review of its longstanding spectrum sharing rules to enhance space-based telecommunications, considering petitions from companies like SpaceX to modernize regulations and potentially allow more flexible use of these bands in the future.

SpaceX’s immediate efforts to challenge Globalstar’s spectrum rights were unsuccessful, but the broader conversation about spectrum allocation and sharing continues, with the FCC actively reviewing its policies to accommodate the rapid advancements in satellite technology.

The drama also raised profound regulatory questions. If Apple becomes deeply integrated with Globalstar—bankrolling it, designing services atop it—does it risk being seen as a telecom provider? That would invite a regulatory regime Apple has long tried to avoid.

Musk, with his mix of legal jujitsu and technological audacity, had not just created a rival satellite network. He had pushed Apple toward regulatory exposure.

As of mid-2025, there is no truce in sight. Apple continues its quiet, methodical expansion with Globalstar, eyes firmly on control and privacy.

Musk races ahead with Starlink, chasing ubiquity and disruption. But beneath the satellite beams and billion-dollar investments lies a classic conflict of styles: Cook the operator, methodical and precise; Musk the disruptor, chaotic and visionary.

This is not merely about satellites. It is about who gets to own the future of connectivity. Should one trust a tightly managed corporate ecosystem with rigid privacy rules and predictable updates?

Or does one bet on a decentralized, open, faster-but-riskier constellation of connectivity from a serial innovator with little patience for rules?

The Apple–SpaceX satellite standoff is thus, more than a spat between two tech titans—it is a strategic crossroads for the global smartphone industry.

In refusing Musk’s offer, Apple may have protected its closed ecosystem, but it also invited technical challenges, internal divisions, and regulatory scrutiny. Musk, on the other hand, turned rejection into propulsion, expanding Starlink’s reach and making real his vision of internet-from-space.

As Starlink’s capabilities grow and Apple’s dependence on Globalstar becomes more apparent, we may be headed toward a second round of confrontation—this time not in boardrooms or courts, but in users’ hands. The orbit wars are just beginning, and the signal is far from clear.

The Starlink Disruption: India’s Telecom Turf, Consumer Stakes, and the Audit’s Watchful Eye

Initially, Indian telecom companies were vehemently opposed to any administrative allocation of spectrum for satellite-based services. Their argument was rooted in precedent. Following the Supreme Court’s 2012 judgment in the 2G spectrum case, spectrum was deemed a scarce and finite national asset—a “public good” that must be allocated in a transparent, non-arbitrary manner, preferably via auctions.

Allowing administrative allocation to satellite operators like Starlink, they argued, would not only be a rollback of this judicially enshrined principle but also create an uneven playing field, tilting the balance in favour of well-funded foreign players with no local network obligations.

They had argued that the proposed lower spectrum fees for satellite services—around 4% of annual revenue—are significantly less than the approximately 21% they pay through spectrum auctions. This disparity, they contended, created an uneven playing field, potentially undermining the substantial investments they have made in 5G infrastructure.

Yet, this initial hostility is giving way to pragmatism. Despite initial opposition, both major Indian telecom players have since entered into partnerships with Starlink. These collaborations involve distributing Starlink’s equipment and integrating its services to enhance connectivity in remote areas.

This strategic shift indicates a recognition of the potential benefits of satellite internet and a desire to remain competitive in a rapidly evolving market.

The first two article in this 3-part are series are as follows:

Starlink vs. Globalstar: Battle between Tim Cook and Elon Musk

Starlink in India: Role of CAG and Regulatory Considerations

(This is an opinion piece; views expressed solely belong to the author)

Follow The Raisina Hills on WhatsApp, Instagram, YouTube, Facebook, and LinkedIn

About The Author