In yesterday’s (Thursday) OpenFalklands blog, I noted that while a week may seem long in politics, even a single day can feel like an eternity when it comes to Starlink developments in the Falklands.
And then, ‘Black Friday’ arrived on Friday, 7th of February!
This morning, some Falkland Islands Starlink users began experiencing service terminations as their 60-day roaming period expired, following Starlink’s Terms & Conditions.
The Starlink message that triggered disconnection
Illegal use of Starlink in the Falkland Islands.
Regardless of differing opinions, it is now an established fact that hundreds of Starlink terminals are in use in the Falkland Islands. The underlying reasons for this widespread adoption have been discussed extensively elsewhere and will not be reiterated here.
The high level of Starlink usage sparked a successful petition backed by 70% of the island’s population. This petition demanded both a reduction of the £5,400 FIG VSAT licence fee and formal approval for Starlink’s operation in the Falkland Islands.
In response, a Starlink Select Committee – comprising all of the island’s MLAs – convened from July to October 2024. The committee formally endorsed the petition’s demands, and the proposal was subsequently forwarded to the Falkland Islands Government (FIG) for implementation. However, the effective date for this approval has now been delayed until April.
Because Sure International holds an exclusive monopoly telecommunications licence, Starlink’s use in the islands is currently illegal. Nonetheless, this restriction has not prevented the widespread installation of hundreds of Starlink terminals, which remain unlicensed.
At this time, Starlink has not received an official government statement endorsing its use in the Falkland Islands – a prerequisite for adding the territory to Starlink’s approved list of service areas. As a result, using Starlink in the islands continues to be illegal and is considered a criminal offence.
The £5,400 FIG VSAT licence
In addition to the hundreds of unlicensed Starlink terminals operating on the islands, two groups of users are deemed “legal” by FIG – even though Starlink has not yet received formal permission to provide service in the Falkland Islands.
Starlink’s low Earth orbit (LEO) satellites are
22 Comments
paulkrush
If I moved to the middle of nowhere because of Starlink and them… "The sudden shutdown of Starlink services clearly qualifies as a National Emergency due to the widespread and unforeseen consequences such an action would have."
benatkin
> Regardless of differing opinions
Those opinions seem to be relevant here.
jeffgreco
Strong FAFO vibes.
sneak
Is it insensitive to say “move somewhere less corrupt”? It doesn’t seem to be anything to do with Starlink as it seems they can’t legally offer service there.
hirokio123
Mobile technology is promoted for use under the law of the universe.
When human laws contradict the law of the universe, human laws are in violation of universal law.
aetherspawn
Well an island like this is basically a big strata where dividing the cost of infrastructure between everyone makes things livable. Don’t be surprised there’s a monopoly telco, because it probably doesn’t make economic sense any other way.
And keep in mind they probably insisted on a monopoly contract because they probably spent an absolute bomb setting it up, only to get max 1500 or so subscribers.
Say: 1500 subscribers @ $100/pm and you’d be running a telco on only $1.8M per year. That’s about enough money to pay for compliance, infra upkeep, and hire maybe 2-3 staff who wear many hats.
bpodgursky
> The high level of Starlink usage sparked a successful petition backed by 70% of the island’s population. This petition demanded both a reduction of the £5,400 FIG VSAT licence fee and formal approval for Starlink’s operation in the Falkland Islands.
Kind of incredible that anglo trend towards governmental gridlock extends to an island of 3,600 people. A blanket majority of the population endorsed the petition… why was it necessary that "proposal was subsequently forwarded to the Falkland Islands Government (FIG) for implementation… However, the effective date for this approval has now been delayed until April."?
Just call the law passed and let Starlink know it's legal now. Why do the islanders put up with this bureaucratic molasses. What am I missing.
ggm
Ask one of the large nation states nearby to supply service.
sureIy
> using Starlink in the islands continues to be illegal and is considered a criminal offence
What is wrong with this place? A criminal offense?
> protecting Sure International’s telecommunications monopoly
Ahh, that explains it. Mafia in power, essentially.
ccamrobertson
Huh, an arbitrary tax from a remote sovereign. Sounds familiar.
ww520
It's similar to using Starlink in a cruise ship. The cruise companies hate it and prohibit it for good. They want you to buy their expensive wifi plans. Some people still sneak them in and run them on the balconies.
perihelions
Saint Helena is another example of an island with an internet monopoly which outlaws satellite terminals,
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37645945 ("Saint Helena Island Communications" (2023), 145 comments)
throwpoaster
Telco monopoly got lapped. Shut it down.
FooBarBizBazz
This monopoly right is roughly equivalent to a bond (it is a bond in the archaic sense of "law"), given by the Falklands government to the satellite company, in exchange for the satellite infrastructure. The Bond's "coupon" isn't precisely fixed; it's the revenue that the company makes from its customers. To dissolve the monopoly would be roughly to default on this bond.
You can imagine an alternate timeline in which the Falklands literally sold bonds to finance this infrastructure. They would have sold bonds; the proceeds would have paid for the satellites; tax dollars (rather than subscription dollars) would then go to service the bond.
The core problem is that the infrastructure just isn't as valuable as people thought it would be, as a result of technological disruption.
There is probably value in the Falklands maintaining some infrastructure of its own for reasons of national autonomy. If they destroy this national monopoly, they'll be left dependent on a Starlink monopoly, over which they have even less control.
They should probably split the difference: Remove the monopoly, subsidize the company with tax revenue to keep it alive, and allow people to use Starlink if they want. This is a "partial default", but it doesn't totally screw anyone, and it looks out for their own autonomy.
neom
I was hoping starlink would shake things up in Canada a bit, and then I read… rogers is involved, so I presume more of the same for us then? (for those unaware Canada may as well be Falkland Islands when it comes to our telco monopolies, although ours are marginally, (marginally I said), justifiable because of the size of our country)
jajko
Any other company, sure lets have a discussion of pros and cons and weight cost in. With musk, you have no idea where his emotional imbalance and childish pettiness will carry him next day, he already feels entitled to mess with other (friendly!) countries' internal affairs and politics. He (in)famously turned off starling for Ukraine military mid attack.
I would lightyears and beyond to avoid having all internet dependent on such person.
Musk-free is good these days unfortunately, especially for non-US, meaning >95% of the world
inemesitaffia
This is just lobbying.
artyom
Why don't they just bury and undersea cable from the closest mainland? 300 miles from the coast doesn't sound like much for that kind of project.
Oh wait.
pelagicAustral
This is not a case of regulation/deregulation, is a case of a government being fully capable of changing the tide and repeatedly choosing not do so, in spite of a vocal majority of the population wanting to be able to provide their own internet service via Starlink.
Before, we did not had an alternative. Sure only ever gave tiny concesions when pressed to do so, or paid to do so. They are still highly subsidized by the local government.
> The horrendous de-facto ISP (Sure) charges £110 a month for 100 GB [0] of data usage at a top download speed of 5 (five, literal five [V in roman]) MBPS, while Starlink offers unlimited usage for £60 per month at an average download speed of 130 MBPS.
[0] Sure is a company with a long record of predatory conduct (more on a previous comment): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42657692
> https://guernseypress.com/news/2024/10/02/sure-ordered-to-pa…
metalman
It looks a lot like the people of the Faulklands demoraticaly elected a bunch of monopololists to run the place, and will have to use the same means to get things sorted out.
Or to put it bluntly, not bieng up to speed on todays internet is litteraly shackling the population to decling incomes and standards of living, plus no one in there right mind would emigrate there.A business?, startup?
It sounds like its a lot like rural Argentina.
ascorbic
Starlink is amazing, but if I were the Falkland Islanders I'd be quite nervous about relying on a service from a company owned by someone who is so openly hostile to the UK.
_bin_
stupid question: isn't starlink effectively beyond the reach of tiny countries' governments? why comply? they can't do a thing about satellites, physically can't touch them, and America owns the payment rails the company uses. why pretend that these countries have the ability or right to regulate this?