Peter LINDM🅰️RK

$ASTS | The Weekly CHUCK NORRIS WOULD HAVE UNFURLED WITHOUT DETUMBLING

$ASTS | Green week

$ASTS | Sp🅰️ceMob | 🅰️T&T | @ATT

$ASTS | AT&T Poll linkedin.com/posts/att_marc…

$ASTS Good letter by Bill Roberts

$ASTS Next week green?

$ASTS: KNOW WHAT YOU OWN™️ SPACE SUPERIORITY AND DEFENSE PNT Radar Sensing Electronic Jamming Warfighter Communications

@ASTS_Investors Exactly, I scanned through and could not find it.

644k shares traded in a minute, looks like a dark pool trade as you can't see it on the tick by tick 👀 $ASTS

$ASTS |CAIA Ast SpaceMobile appoints Chief of Artificial Intelligence and Autonomy

$ASTS | Satellite Connect Europe It is encouraging to see SCE building out its own employee infrastructure. This is a signal of confidence in securing EU wide frequencies allocation. And making regulatory affairs one of the very first hires shows they get that it is top priority right now.

$ASTS 🧇🧇🧇 💻💻💻 How the waffle design could become a flying data center

🚨BLUE ORIGIN FILES FOR "PROJECT SUNRISE" Satellite constellation for DATA CENTERS IN SPACE🚨 Already using same frequencies as $ASTS through their Terawave program. Repeatedly state they will connect with other satellite networks through Optical Inter-Satellite Links (OISL)!

OFCOM OPENS MAJOR NEW SPECTRUM FOR SATELLITE GATEWAYS The UK regulator just unlocked massive new high-capacity spectrum for satellite networks and is actively moving toward allowing gateways, even in cities. This directly supports next-gen constellations scaling data throughput. $ASTS

@Olle_Thorell Ta bort allt "bistånd"

Extrem risk för korruption. Pengar går inte att spåra. Stöd till abortmotståndare. → 23 miljoner ändå. Samtidigt stryps Palmecentret som klarar varje granskning och uppnår hög kvalitet. Det här är inte ordning och reda. Det är politisk dubbelmoral. #S2026

$ASTS Soon℠

$ASTS | Satellite connect Europe (2 of 2) SEAL Levels (Sovereignty Effective Assurance Levels) These are the core grading system (0–4). Each objective gets a SEAL based on evidence; the contracting authority sets minimum SEAL thresholds per tender (e.g., often SEAL-2 or higher for critical services). SEAL-0: No Sovereignty — Fully under non-EU third-party control and non-EU jurisdiction. SEAL-1: Jurisdictional Sovereignty — EU law applies on paper, but limited enforceability; still under exclusive non-EU control. SEAL-2: Data Sovereignty — EU law is fully applicable and enforceable; material non-EU dependencies remain (e.g., indirect control via tech providers); customers have strong data control but not full operational independence. SEAL-2 corresponds to data sovereignty. It ensures GDPR-style protections and data localisation but tolerates some foreign supply-chain elements. SEAL-3: Digital Resilience — EU law enforceable; EU actors have meaningful influence (but not total control); only marginal non-EU third-party control. This level requires robust resilience against external interference, full audit rights, EU-based operations/support, and minimized dependencies. This eliminates the "kill-switch" risk: no practical ability for non-EU entities (e.g., via firmware, remote management, cryptographic keys, or supply-chain triggers under laws like the US CLOUD Act or Chinese regulations) to remotely disable, access, or manipulate services. US/Chinese tech often carries implicit "kill-switch" exposure through such dependencies; SEAL-3 forces providers to architect around it (e.g., EU-controlled stacks, no backdoors). SEAL-4: Full Digital Sovereignty — Complete EU control; zero critical non-EU dependencies; subject only to EU law. SEAL-2 focuses on data control (enforceable EU law + customer autonomy over data/AI). SEAL-3 upgrades to operational resilience, directly addressing "kill-switch" vulnerabilities highlighted in EU discussions (e.g., foreign governments or vendors remotely intervening). Many government RFPs now mandate SEAL-3+ for sensitive workloads.

$ASTS | Satellite Connect Europe In filings we find terms like Sovereignty and "kill-switch". SpaceX likes to argue that if AST uses EU compliant solutions allowing it to be EU Sovereign, it cannot be American. That is nonsense. It just a matter to be able to operate in Europe and adapt to its laws there. Let me explain. The European Commission's (EC) push for digital sovereignty is a core part of the EU's broader strategy to achieve "strategic autonomy" in technology. This means reducing dependence on non-EU (primarily US or Chinese) providers for critical digital infrastructure, due to risks like extraterritorial laws (e.g., the US CLOUD Act allowing access to data), supply-chain vulnerabilities, potential backdoors, and geopolitical leverage. The goal is to ensure EU control over data, operations, technology stacks, and resilience, while complying with EU laws like GDPR, NIS2, and DORA. In October 2025, the EC launched a €180 million competitive tender under the existing Cloud III Dynamic Purchasing System (DPS) for sovereign cloud services (IaaS/PaaS). This is open to EU institutions, bodies, offices, and agencies and runs for up to 6 years (framework contracts). Up to four providers will be selected. As of March 2026, the tender is indeed in its final stages of evaluation, with award decisions originally anticipated between December 2025 and February 2026. This procurement directly applies and benchmarks the new Cloud Sovereignty Framework (published October 2025, version 1.2.1). It sets enforceable minimum requirements and contributes to the quality/award score, creating a practical "level playing field" for providers. Tenders failing minimum levels are rejected outright. This tender is the first major operational use of the framework, signaling that "digital sovereignty" is no longer aspirational but a binding contractual criterion in public procurement. The Cloud Sovereignty Framework (Official EC Document) This 6-page reference document turns the vague concept of "sovereignty" into measurable, auditable criteria. It draws from national initiatives (France's Cloud de Confiance, Germany's Souveräner Cloud), Gaia-X, ENISA, NIS2, DORA, and supply-chain best practices. It defines eight Sovereignty Objectives (SOV-1 to SOV-8) — Each is assessed via tenderer questionnaires, evidence, and public docs. Sovereignty Effective Assurance Levels (SEAL) — Graded 0–4 per objective (minimum levels required; failure = rejection). Sovereignty Score — A weighted percentage (0–100%) that ranks bids as an award criterion (alongside price and quality). The 8 Sovereignty Objectives SOV-1 Strategic Sovereignty (15% weight): EU anchoring via ownership, governance, and alignment with EU priorities. SOV-2 Legal & Jurisdictional Sovereignty (10%): Protection from foreign laws/jurisdiction; enforceability of EU rights. SOV-3 Data & AI Sovereignty (10%): Customer control over data location, encryption, processing, and AI autonomy. SOV-4 Operational Sovereignty (15%): EU ability to run, support, and evolve services without foreign control (skills, continuity). SOV-5 Supply Chain Sovereignty (20% — highest weight): Transparency and resilience of hardware/software origins; no critical non-EU exposure. SOV-6 Technology Sovereignty (15%): Openness, auditability, interoperability, no proprietary lock-in. SOV-7 Security & Compliance Sovereignty (10%): EU-controlled security ops, certifications, and audits. SOV-8 Environmental Sustainability (5%): Long-term resilience regarding energy and raw materials. (1 of 2)

@OmniPolitik De har jobbat tillsammans i Tidögänget i nästan fyra år nu. Alternativet är en vänsterregering med stats- och stadsminister. Samt annat värre folk.

Mohamsson kallade SD rasistiskt – nu duckar hon frågan omni.se/mohamsson-kall…

$VOD × $ASTS makes coverage universal