13 ms·

Starlink in the Falkland Islands – A national emergency situation?

180 points by pelagicAustral 2y ago

paulkrush 2y ago
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."
- edoceo 2y ago
  Is a third part of your comment missing or ...? I think this puts a focus on how much Internet connectivity is nearly necessary
- nosioptar 2y ago
  I worked for a satellite provider's customer service years ago. I'd get tons of calls from people upset that the service was only available in the US. About 40% were people trying to use it outside the US. (The other 60% were all from the same American state.) It's amazing what shit people expect sometimes.
  - adastra22 2y ago
    Alaska?
    - SllX 2y ago
      My guess was Hawai'i but I too am curious which State it was.
    - nosioptar 2y ago
      Texas
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    Were a lot of those 40% near the US and with a good view of the satellite? If so I don't see why it's amazing they want to purchase services from your company.
- usef- 2y ago
  I didn't read the article deeply, but my impression is that it's mostly people that already live there - one firm has an exclusive license to provide internet. I think it's ok to complain about such a situation as internet is not the exclusive reason someone might choose a place to live. I often hear people complain about milder internet monopolies -for instance, one cable provider in their town. But this sounds higher stakes because that internet provider has a single satellite for the island, so one malfunction could cut (most? All?) access completely.
  - madaxe_again 2y ago
    They seem to have outages quite frequently, and only recently started offering speeds above 5mbps (and price cuts) as a result of competition from starlink.
- ascorbic 2y ago
  What makes you think they moved to the middle of nowhere because of Starlink? These are people who've lived there for hundreds of years.
  - pessimizer 2y ago
    The first permanent settlement in the Falklands was by a German in 1826. So hundred of years.
    - ascorbic 2y ago
      Hundreds - two of them.
benatkin 2y ago
> Regardless of differing opinions Those opinions seem to be relevant here.
jeffgreco 2y ago
Strong FAFO vibes.
- decimalenough 2y ago
  By who? Are you blaming locals who want to use Starlink, or the incumbent monopoly that's likely twisting arms behind the scenes to ensure it retains the stranglehold on communications to the islands?
  - roenxi 2y ago
    > ...twisting arms behind the scenes... Falkland Islands, pop 3,600 [0] - can they sustain a "behind the scenes"? The Chinese National People's Congress is around 3,000 members. A bit of net emigration and the Falklands would be smaller than a legislative body. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands
    - pjc50 2y ago
      It's much easier to sustain corruption in a small community. The current setup will be personally beneficial to someone.
      - roenxi 2y ago
        In the sense that island communities are invariably quirky and the sexual abuse tends to be off the charts bad, sure. But nothing is happening behind the scenes. There isn't enough else to gossip about and people can't hide their wealth or stay off the radar. It isn't really possible to fight the community on an island that small. If a lynch mob forms it could potentially include the entire 10 people in the police force and nobody saw nuttin'. Corrupt, but overt.
    - thaumasiotes 2y ago
      > The Chinese National People's Congress is around 3,000 members. A bit of net emigration and the Falklands would be smaller than a legislative body. That's not really a great example; the reason 人民代表大会 can be so big is that the legislative decisions it formalizes are mostly made elsewhere.
sneak 2y ago
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 2y ago
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 2y ago
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.
- petesergeant 2y ago
  Yeah, the only real solution here feels like paying off the monopoly, a cost which in the end is likely going to need a handout from the UK. It’s tough to identify anyone who’s done anything explicitly wrong in this story, or a solution that doesn’t end up shafting someone. Perhaps a negotiated tax on non-monopoly users there that goes to the monopoly to help defray their investment is the only sensible solution.
  - Closi 2y ago
    Or just allow competitors in? Why does the monopoly need paying off? It’s risk/reward for them, if they end up loosing money on their venture why should the taxpayer foot the bill?
    - School-Cotton 2y ago
      They agreed to set up service in the falklands on the condition that they be allowed to have a monopoly. If you take that away you’re breaking a deal you made.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - Closi 2y ago
        You don’t have to break the deal, just serve notice. A bit of googling on this agreement shows that there is a 5 year notice clause, so they can just serve notice now if they want. No need to pay anyone off. (https://www.openfalklands.org.fk/leos-and-vsat-legislation-in-the-falkland-islands/ https://www.openfalklands.org.fk/leos-and-vsat-legislation-i...)
bpodgursky 2y ago
> 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.
- moshun 2y ago
  Interestingly Frank Herbert wrote about the hidden value of slow and measured bureaucratic processes. His essential argument was that a slow bureaucracy has time to review not just the letter of laws and policies, but the impact that they will have after enacted which may not be part of the conversation to get them passed. The story he writes on this is borderline satirical with a government agent called a saboteur, whose sole job is to slow down and muck up an incredibly efficient future government which is able to pass laws which have sweeping impact across the nation in hours, and in some cases seconds. While most of us corporate drones often laugh at the speed of government, considering the lightning fast decision-making often made in the world’s top companies, that book always made me think about the fact that government operations often have far more riding on them than any private enterprise ever will. So maybe that time is being spent more effectively than you assume. Personally, this whole scenario makes me very wary. Though I understand the complexities of the infrastructure we’re discussing here, I’d be super nervous to have my Internet lifeline to the rest of the world governed directly by Elon Musk.
  - bpodgursky 2y ago
    OK but they aren't deliberating. They're just delaying implementation until April for no particular reason.
  - radu_floricica 2y ago
ggm 2y ago
Ask one of the large nation states nearby to supply service.
- egl2020 2y ago
  Argentina would be a good candidate. Islas Malvinas and all that.
  - ggm 2y ago
    Or Uruguay. Lots of IPv6 in Uruguay
    - wkat4242 2y ago
      That would probably really sour their relationship with Argentina
sureIy 2y ago
> 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.
- helsinkiandrew 2y ago
  Just about all radio communication is illegal until licensed. Starlink had to get approval from the FCC in the US even before the first satellites went up, to provide fixed broadband service, and before allowing it to be used on mobile vehicles. Starlink gets licensed in different countries to use specific frequencies to avoid congestion/interference with other services
  - sureIy 2y ago
    Illegal sure, but criminal?
    - lazide 2y ago
      Many countries have rules like this. India, being one with quite a few people in it. [https://www.communicationstoday.co.in/uk-issues-travel-advisory-on-unlicensed-satellite-phones-in-india/ https://www.communicationstoday.co.in/uk-issues-travel-advis...][https://www.newindianexpress.com/amp/story/nation/2025/Jan/11/india-cagey-about-starlink-licence-after-manipur-breach https://www.newindianexpress.com/amp/story/nation/2025/Jan/1...] A lot of places ban unlicensed satellite communication devices for the same reasons.
    - guax 2y ago
      Being a criminal is illegal in many places.
      - redcobra762 2y ago
        Is it? Committing criminal acts maybe, but it’s relatively rare for mere existence, absent any other fact, to be illegal.
ccamrobertson 2y ago
Huh, an arbitrary tax from a remote sovereign. Sounds familiar.
- ascorbic 2y ago
  This tax is entirely local
ww520 2y ago
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.
- decimalenough 2y ago
  Some cruise lines like Oceania use Starlink for their own wifi.
  - floydnoel 2y ago
    most of them do now. it's massively cheaper and faster than what they had available before.
- GJim 2y ago
  > The cruise companies hate it and prohibit it The prohibition on all and sundry on using their own radio trancevers (yes, that includes satellite transceivers) is to prevent the risk of causing RF/electrical interference with the ships systems. The use of low power Wi-Fi and cellular phones is fine, but poorly set up directional VSAT terminals can play havoc with ships navigation and comms kit. This is historically the reason for banning their use without explicit permission in writing from the ships master. Source: Marine engineer.
  - ocschwar 2y ago
    Never ceases to amaze me that glibertarians think they can do their thing on board a ship more than on land.
    - KeplerBoy 2y ago
      They can if it's their ship.
      - ocschwar 2y ago
perihelions 2y ago
Saint Helena is another example of an island with an internet monopoly which outlaws satellite terminals, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37645945 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37645945 ("Saint Helena Island Communications" (2023), 145 comments)
- lxgr 2y ago
  At least Saint Helena recently got a submarine cable. I wonder if part of that deal was exclusivity for the operator(s) funding it (hopefully for a limited time). It would obviously better to make that happen without government restrictions on individual usage, but I can see how recouping a significant private investment for a few thousand people is harder than Starlink just providing services using the satellites that are overflying all of Earth anyway, whether they get used in a given region or not.
  - razakel 2y ago
    >I wonder if part of that deal was exclusivity for the operator(s) funding it (hopefully for a limited time). Google is the owner. The EU funded the connection.
    - lxgr 2y ago
      Wow, it's worse than I imagined: https://www.kentik.com/blog/ending-saint-helenas-exile-from-the-internet/ https://www.kentik.com/blog/ending-saint-helenas-exile-from-... > While internet service has improved exponentially in Saint Helena, tariffs are still quite expensive when compared to the average local income, and basic users face a data cap which seems hard to justify given the most expensive component — the submarine cable — was essentially gifted to Saint Helena by European taxpayers. > Lastly, Saint Helena islanders connect to the internet via ADSL2+ copper lines, meaning they rarely achieve more than 10Mbps download. The SHG began building their own FTTH network, but a major issue is Sure’s license to operate, which states that the SHG is required to compensate Sure for all its infrastructure if their exclusivity is not protected.
throwpoaster 2y ago
Telco monopoly got lapped. Shut it down.
FooBarBizBazz 2y ago
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.
- throwaway290 2y ago
  This is the most sensible comment in this dumpster fire of a thread.
neom 2y ago
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)
- barbazoo 2y ago
  I pay a hundred bucks for 1GBit/s and unlimited data, how is that comparable to Falkland Islands where it’s more expensive, much slower and has data caps?
  - neom 2y ago
    monopolies can exist in various markets causing different effects within their markets, that doesn't negate relative monopolistic effects, my comment was more about the former than the latter.
jajko 2y ago
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
- iknowstuff 2y ago
  He did not turn it off FYI https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink_in_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink_in_the_Russo-Ukrain...
inemesitaffia 2y ago
This is just lobbying.
artyom 2y ago
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.
- swarnie 2y ago
  Good idea, where's HMS Invincible these days?
- lxgr 2y ago
  There's some history here, so that particular coast might not be very amenable to any such project.
  - TMWNN 2y ago
    [dead]
pelagicAustral 2y ago
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://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42657692 > https://guernseypress.com/news/2024/10/02/sure-ordered-to-pay-back-115000-after-overcharging/ https://guernseypress.com/news/2024/10/02/sure-ordered-to-pa...
- mppm 2y ago
  £110 a month for 100 GB is actually less than I would have expected for a really remote place like the Falklands. As a point of comparison, I used to pay something like 10 USD per GB on flexiroam while traveling, though I think it's a bit less nowadays. Now that's what I call extortion. And it's still 100 times less than the roaming data rate on my standard mobile subscription. As for Starlink, keep in mind that you are piggybacking on a humongous satellite network that has tons of unused capacity in remote areas. Now that it's available, it's cool to have it, but the previous provider had an exclusive contract for a reason. And presumably it's still binding, so I imagine the Falklands government is in a bit of a bind over this. And by the way, Starlink itself is not above price gouging where they have no cheaper alternatives. Look at Starlink Marine pricing for example, which is I think 2500 USD / mo, down from 10000. So there is no actual guarantee that £60 per month unlimited usage will still be be there if Starlink is allowed to operate officially.
  - _bin_ 2y ago
    > price gouging this is a crazy way of describing a lack of competitive pressure leaving prices high. compare this to the other alternatives that existed. it's not gouging.
metalman 2y ago
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 2y ago
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.
- dmix 2y ago
  This is what everyone said he’d do in Ukraine (after he spoke against expanding the service into Russian controlled Crimea) yet the service continues to be a critical part of their military and Russia is still excluded from using it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink_in_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink_in_the_Russo-Ukrainia...
  - lesuorac 2y ago
    Russia is allowed to use Starlink namely because apparently Starlink only geo-fences so in order to let Ukraine use Starlink in an area you have to allow anybody else to use it. Presumably over the past 12 years they could've implemented some of linking accounts to a region and ban the use outside of the region. (Although wait, didn't they do that to counter-act people using them with RVs/Boats in the US!?) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink_in_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War#Reported_Starlink_use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink_in_the_Russo-Ukrainia...
    - bpodgursky 2y ago
      > Presumably over the past 12 years they could've implemented some of linking accounts to a region and ban the use outside of the region I'm sure they could do better but it's messier than this, because Ukraine units self-fund much of their equipment purchases and will buy Starlinks etc third party (because Starlink can't sell individual units as military equipment... technically). It's actually not easy to trace down exactly which are being used by Ukraine and which are used by Russia, especially when captured equipment gets reused by the other side not infrequently.
- AlgorithmicTime 2y ago
  [dead]
_bin_ 2y ago
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?
- EMIRELADERO 2y ago
  I'm guessing they deal with it at the citizen level. Just investigate, raid the property and confiscate all the equipment.
  - Klonoar 2y ago
    It’s only ~3500 people on the islands, it’s not exactly a difficult to find if someone brings it in.
mromanuk 2y ago
The use of the name Falklands is problematic because the Islas Malvinas are a disputed territory between Argentina and the UK. The UN has recognized this dispute and has urged the UK to negotiate their return, something the UK has ignored so far. Using the name imposed by the occupying power contributes to erasing Argentina’s legitimate claim and disregards the international legal stance on the issue. The proper approach would be to refer to them as Islas Malvinas or at least acknowledge the dispute in any discussion about them.
- Klonoar 2y ago
  The history is pretty well documented and the islanders overwhelmingly voted to align with the UK.
  - mromanuk 2y ago
    Self-determination does not apply here because the current population is not indigenous but was implanted after the UK forcibly took the islands in 1833, displacing the original Argentine population. The UN considers this a decolonization issue, not a matter of self-determination. The argument that the islanders “chose” to remain under UK control ignores that democracy cannot legitimize colonial occupation. A referendum by settlers cannot override international law, just as a vote by European colonists in Africa in the 19th century wouldn’t justify occupation. The UK has consistently refused to negotiate, violating UN resolutions and international norms.
    - GJim 2y ago
      > Self-determination does not apply here because the current population is not indigenous What a ridiculous (even racist) argument! Are you seriously going to tell us that only native North Americans can vote in the next US or Canadian elections!
    - Klonoar 2y ago
      > in 1833, displacing the original Argentine population Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reassertion_of_British_sovereignty_over_the_Falkland_Islands_(1833) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reassertion_of_British_soverei... > Argentina claims that the population of the islands was expelled in 1833;[11] however, both British and Argentine sources from the time, including the log of the ARA Sarandí, suggest that the colonists were encouraged to remain under Vernet's deputy, Matthew Brisbane. So again, I repeat: this is all very well documented by this point. The other commenter also already pointed out the other issue in your text here so I'll leave it at this.
massive-fail 2y ago
Are we all pretending starlink is financially viable and discussing it on that basis or from a different angle?
lxgr 2y ago
I find it quite interesting that roaming is available at all, even if just for a limited time period. As far as I understand, satellite operators need a local license to offer any kind of service in a country's territory (and I believe even in its airspace). For older systems, especially those with relatively large beam sizes, there's an argument to be made that provider-side regional limitations are technically infeasible, but that obviously does not apply to Starlink.

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."

edoceo 2y ago
Is a third part of your comment missing or ...? I think this puts a focus on how much Internet connectivity is nearly necessary
nosioptar 2y ago
I worked for a satellite provider's customer service years ago. I'd get tons of calls from people upset that the service was only available in the US. About 40% were people trying to use it outside the US. (The other 60% were all from the same American state.) It's amazing what shit people expect sometimes.
- adastra22 2y ago
  Alaska?
  - SllX 2y ago
    My guess was Hawai'i but I too am curious which State it was.
  - nosioptar 2y ago
    Texas
- Dylan16807 2y ago
  Were a lot of those 40% near the US and with a good view of the satellite? If so I don't see why it's amazing they want to purchase services from your company.
usef- 2y ago
I didn't read the article deeply, but my impression is that it's mostly people that already live there - one firm has an exclusive license to provide internet. I think it's ok to complain about such a situation as internet is not the exclusive reason someone might choose a place to live. I often hear people complain about milder internet monopolies -for instance, one cable provider in their town. But this sounds higher stakes because that internet provider has a single satellite for the island, so one malfunction could cut (most? All?) access completely.
- madaxe_again 2y ago
  They seem to have outages quite frequently, and only recently started offering speeds above 5mbps (and price cuts) as a result of competition from starlink.
ascorbic 2y ago
What makes you think they moved to the middle of nowhere because of Starlink? These are people who've lived there for hundreds of years.
- pessimizer 2y ago
  The first permanent settlement in the Falklands was by a German in 1826. So hundred of years.
  - ascorbic 2y ago
    Hundreds - two of them.

benatkin 2y ago

> Regardless of differing opinions Those opinions seem to be relevant here.

jeffgreco 2y ago

Strong FAFO vibes.

decimalenough 2y ago
By who? Are you blaming locals who want to use Starlink, or the incumbent monopoly that's likely twisting arms behind the scenes to ensure it retains the stranglehold on communications to the islands?
- roenxi 2y ago
  > ...twisting arms behind the scenes... Falkland Islands, pop 3,600 [0] - can they sustain a "behind the scenes"? The Chinese National People's Congress is around 3,000 members. A bit of net emigration and the Falklands would be smaller than a legislative body. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands
  - pjc50 2y ago
    It's much easier to sustain corruption in a small community. The current setup will be personally beneficial to someone.
    - roenxi 2y ago
      In the sense that island communities are invariably quirky and the sexual abuse tends to be off the charts bad, sure. But nothing is happening behind the scenes. There isn't enough else to gossip about and people can't hide their wealth or stay off the radar. It isn't really possible to fight the community on an island that small. If a lynch mob forms it could potentially include the entire 10 people in the police force and nobody saw nuttin'. Corrupt, but overt.
  - thaumasiotes 2y ago
    > The Chinese National People's Congress is around 3,000 members. A bit of net emigration and the Falklands would be smaller than a legislative body. That's not really a great example; the reason 人民代表大会 can be so big is that the legislative decisions it formalizes are mostly made elsewhere.

sneak 2y ago

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 2y ago

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 2y ago

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.

petesergeant 2y ago
Yeah, the only real solution here feels like paying off the monopoly, a cost which in the end is likely going to need a handout from the UK. It’s tough to identify anyone who’s done anything explicitly wrong in this story, or a solution that doesn’t end up shafting someone. Perhaps a negotiated tax on non-monopoly users there that goes to the monopoly to help defray their investment is the only sensible solution.
- Closi 2y ago
  Or just allow competitors in? Why does the monopoly need paying off? It’s risk/reward for them, if they end up loosing money on their venture why should the taxpayer foot the bill?
  - School-Cotton 2y ago
    They agreed to set up service in the falklands on the condition that they be allowed to have a monopoly. If you take that away you’re breaking a deal you made.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - Closi 2y ago
      You don’t have to break the deal, just serve notice. A bit of googling on this agreement shows that there is a 5 year notice clause, so they can just serve notice now if they want. No need to pay anyone off. (https://www.openfalklands.org.fk/leos-and-vsat-legislation-in-the-falkland-islands/ https://www.openfalklands.org.fk/leos-and-vsat-legislation-i...)

bpodgursky 2y ago

> 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.

moshun 2y ago
Interestingly Frank Herbert wrote about the hidden value of slow and measured bureaucratic processes. His essential argument was that a slow bureaucracy has time to review not just the letter of laws and policies, but the impact that they will have after enacted which may not be part of the conversation to get them passed. The story he writes on this is borderline satirical with a government agent called a saboteur, whose sole job is to slow down and muck up an incredibly efficient future government which is able to pass laws which have sweeping impact across the nation in hours, and in some cases seconds. While most of us corporate drones often laugh at the speed of government, considering the lightning fast decision-making often made in the world’s top companies, that book always made me think about the fact that government operations often have far more riding on them than any private enterprise ever will. So maybe that time is being spent more effectively than you assume. Personally, this whole scenario makes me very wary. Though I understand the complexities of the infrastructure we’re discussing here, I’d be super nervous to have my Internet lifeline to the rest of the world governed directly by Elon Musk.
- bpodgursky 2y ago
  OK but they aren't deliberating. They're just delaying implementation until April for no particular reason.
- radu_floricica 2y ago

ggm 2y ago

Ask one of the large nation states nearby to supply service.

egl2020 2y ago
Argentina would be a good candidate. Islas Malvinas and all that.
- ggm 2y ago
  Or Uruguay. Lots of IPv6 in Uruguay
  - wkat4242 2y ago
    That would probably really sour their relationship with Argentina

sureIy 2y ago

> 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.

helsinkiandrew 2y ago
Just about all radio communication is illegal until licensed. Starlink had to get approval from the FCC in the US even before the first satellites went up, to provide fixed broadband service, and before allowing it to be used on mobile vehicles. Starlink gets licensed in different countries to use specific frequencies to avoid congestion/interference with other services
- sureIy 2y ago
  Illegal sure, but criminal?
  - lazide 2y ago
    Many countries have rules like this. India, being one with quite a few people in it. [https://www.communicationstoday.co.in/uk-issues-travel-advisory-on-unlicensed-satellite-phones-in-india/ https://www.communicationstoday.co.in/uk-issues-travel-advis...][https://www.newindianexpress.com/amp/story/nation/2025/Jan/11/india-cagey-about-starlink-licence-after-manipur-breach https://www.newindianexpress.com/amp/story/nation/2025/Jan/1...] A lot of places ban unlicensed satellite communication devices for the same reasons.
  - guax 2y ago
    Being a criminal is illegal in many places.
    - redcobra762 2y ago
      Is it? Committing criminal acts maybe, but it’s relatively rare for mere existence, absent any other fact, to be illegal.

ccamrobertson 2y ago

Huh, an arbitrary tax from a remote sovereign. Sounds familiar.

ascorbic 2y ago
This tax is entirely local

ww520 2y ago

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.

decimalenough 2y ago
Some cruise lines like Oceania use Starlink for their own wifi.
- floydnoel 2y ago
  most of them do now. it's massively cheaper and faster than what they had available before.
GJim 2y ago
> The cruise companies hate it and prohibit it The prohibition on all and sundry on using their own radio trancevers (yes, that includes satellite transceivers) is to prevent the risk of causing RF/electrical interference with the ships systems. The use of low power Wi-Fi and cellular phones is fine, but poorly set up directional VSAT terminals can play havoc with ships navigation and comms kit. This is historically the reason for banning their use without explicit permission in writing from the ships master. Source: Marine engineer.
- ocschwar 2y ago
  Never ceases to amaze me that glibertarians think they can do their thing on board a ship more than on land.
  - KeplerBoy 2y ago
    They can if it's their ship.
    - ocschwar 2y ago

perihelions 2y ago

Saint Helena is another example of an island with an internet monopoly which outlaws satellite terminals, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37645945 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37645945 ("Saint Helena Island Communications" (2023), 145 comments)

lxgr 2y ago
At least Saint Helena recently got a submarine cable. I wonder if part of that deal was exclusivity for the operator(s) funding it (hopefully for a limited time). It would obviously better to make that happen without government restrictions on individual usage, but I can see how recouping a significant private investment for a few thousand people is harder than Starlink just providing services using the satellites that are overflying all of Earth anyway, whether they get used in a given region or not.
- razakel 2y ago
  >I wonder if part of that deal was exclusivity for the operator(s) funding it (hopefully for a limited time). Google is the owner. The EU funded the connection.
  - lxgr 2y ago
    Wow, it's worse than I imagined: https://www.kentik.com/blog/ending-saint-helenas-exile-from-the-internet/ https://www.kentik.com/blog/ending-saint-helenas-exile-from-... > While internet service has improved exponentially in Saint Helena, tariffs are still quite expensive when compared to the average local income, and basic users face a data cap which seems hard to justify given the most expensive component — the submarine cable — was essentially gifted to Saint Helena by European taxpayers. > Lastly, Saint Helena islanders connect to the internet via ADSL2+ copper lines, meaning they rarely achieve more than 10Mbps download. The SHG began building their own FTTH network, but a major issue is Sure’s license to operate, which states that the SHG is required to compensate Sure for all its infrastructure if their exclusivity is not protected.

throwpoaster 2y ago

Telco monopoly got lapped. Shut it down.

FooBarBizBazz 2y ago

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.

throwaway290 2y ago
This is the most sensible comment in this dumpster fire of a thread.

neom 2y ago

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)

barbazoo 2y ago
I pay a hundred bucks for 1GBit/s and unlimited data, how is that comparable to Falkland Islands where it’s more expensive, much slower and has data caps?
- neom 2y ago
  monopolies can exist in various markets causing different effects within their markets, that doesn't negate relative monopolistic effects, my comment was more about the former than the latter.

jajko 2y ago

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

iknowstuff 2y ago
He did not turn it off FYI https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink_in_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink_in_the_Russo-Ukrain...

inemesitaffia 2y ago

This is just lobbying.

artyom 2y ago

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.

swarnie 2y ago
Good idea, where's HMS Invincible these days?
lxgr 2y ago
There's some history here, so that particular coast might not be very amenable to any such project.
- TMWNN 2y ago
  [dead]

pelagicAustral 2y ago

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://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42657692 > https://guernseypress.com/news/2024/10/02/sure-ordered-to-pay-back-115000-after-overcharging/ https://guernseypress.com/news/2024/10/02/sure-ordered-to-pa...

mppm 2y ago
£110 a month for 100 GB is actually less than I would have expected for a really remote place like the Falklands. As a point of comparison, I used to pay something like 10 USD per GB on flexiroam while traveling, though I think it's a bit less nowadays. Now that's what I call extortion. And it's still 100 times less than the roaming data rate on my standard mobile subscription. As for Starlink, keep in mind that you are piggybacking on a humongous satellite network that has tons of unused capacity in remote areas. Now that it's available, it's cool to have it, but the previous provider had an exclusive contract for a reason. And presumably it's still binding, so I imagine the Falklands government is in a bit of a bind over this. And by the way, Starlink itself is not above price gouging where they have no cheaper alternatives. Look at Starlink Marine pricing for example, which is I think 2500 USD / mo, down from 10000. So there is no actual guarantee that £60 per month unlimited usage will still be be there if Starlink is allowed to operate officially.
- _bin_ 2y ago
  > price gouging this is a crazy way of describing a lack of competitive pressure leaving prices high. compare this to the other alternatives that existed. it's not gouging.

metalman 2y ago

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 2y ago

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.

dmix 2y ago
This is what everyone said he’d do in Ukraine (after he spoke against expanding the service into Russian controlled Crimea) yet the service continues to be a critical part of their military and Russia is still excluded from using it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink_in_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink_in_the_Russo-Ukrainia...
- lesuorac 2y ago
  Russia is allowed to use Starlink namely because apparently Starlink only geo-fences so in order to let Ukraine use Starlink in an area you have to allow anybody else to use it. Presumably over the past 12 years they could've implemented some of linking accounts to a region and ban the use outside of the region. (Although wait, didn't they do that to counter-act people using them with RVs/Boats in the US!?) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink_in_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War#Reported_Starlink_use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink_in_the_Russo-Ukrainia...
  - bpodgursky 2y ago
    > Presumably over the past 12 years they could've implemented some of linking accounts to a region and ban the use outside of the region I'm sure they could do better but it's messier than this, because Ukraine units self-fund much of their equipment purchases and will buy Starlinks etc third party (because Starlink can't sell individual units as military equipment... technically). It's actually not easy to trace down exactly which are being used by Ukraine and which are used by Russia, especially when captured equipment gets reused by the other side not infrequently.
AlgorithmicTime 2y ago
[dead]

_bin_ 2y ago

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?

EMIRELADERO 2y ago
I'm guessing they deal with it at the citizen level. Just investigate, raid the property and confiscate all the equipment.
- Klonoar 2y ago
  It’s only ~3500 people on the islands, it’s not exactly a difficult to find if someone brings it in.

mromanuk 2y ago

The use of the name Falklands is problematic because the Islas Malvinas are a disputed territory between Argentina and the UK. The UN has recognized this dispute and has urged the UK to negotiate their return, something the UK has ignored so far. Using the name imposed by the occupying power contributes to erasing Argentina’s legitimate claim and disregards the international legal stance on the issue. The proper approach would be to refer to them as Islas Malvinas or at least acknowledge the dispute in any discussion about them.

Klonoar 2y ago
The history is pretty well documented and the islanders overwhelmingly voted to align with the UK.
- mromanuk 2y ago
  Self-determination does not apply here because the current population is not indigenous but was implanted after the UK forcibly took the islands in 1833, displacing the original Argentine population. The UN considers this a decolonization issue, not a matter of self-determination. The argument that the islanders “chose” to remain under UK control ignores that democracy cannot legitimize colonial occupation. A referendum by settlers cannot override international law, just as a vote by European colonists in Africa in the 19th century wouldn’t justify occupation. The UK has consistently refused to negotiate, violating UN resolutions and international norms.
  - GJim 2y ago
    > Self-determination does not apply here because the current population is not indigenous What a ridiculous (even racist) argument! Are you seriously going to tell us that only native North Americans can vote in the next US or Canadian elections!
  - Klonoar 2y ago
    > in 1833, displacing the original Argentine population Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reassertion_of_British_sovereignty_over_the_Falkland_Islands_(1833) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reassertion_of_British_soverei... > Argentina claims that the population of the islands was expelled in 1833;[11] however, both British and Argentine sources from the time, including the log of the ARA Sarandí, suggest that the colonists were encouraged to remain under Vernet's deputy, Matthew Brisbane. So again, I repeat: this is all very well documented by this point. The other commenter also already pointed out the other issue in your text here so I'll leave it at this.

massive-fail 2y ago

Are we all pretending starlink is financially viable and discussing it on that basis or from a different angle?

lxgr 2y ago

I find it quite interesting that roaming is available at all, even if just for a limited time period. As far as I understand, satellite operators need a local license to offer any kind of service in a country's territory (and I believe even in its airspace). For older systems, especially those with relatively large beam sizes, there's an argument to be made that provider-side regional limitations are technically infeasible, but that obviously does not apply to Starlink.