10 ms·

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

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...)
  - petesergeant 2y ago
    > Why does the monopoly need paying off? Presumably because they have a piece of legally binding paper saying they do? Changing the law to cut out the monopoly is the government reneging on the agreement they made with the monopoly to pony up the cash and presumably a tort.
    - stickfigure 2y ago
      They could also simply fail to enforce the law. Or use that as a threat to come to a negotiated settlement with the monopoly.
      - petesergeant 2y ago
        > They could also simply fail to enforce the law The article says that that’s the status quo but Starlink aren’t ok with it. Not enforcing the law would also seem to be actionable under any agreement signed though. Finally, any precedent set here will make it much harder for the government to strike any other kind of deal next time it wants to encourage a company to invest.
      - Symbiote 2y ago
        The reputation and credit rating of governments falls if they fail to respect contracts they've signed under their own laws.
        Closi 2y ago
        They could just exit using the clauses in the agreement though, like the one they have seems to have a 5 year notice clause. I’m not saying break contracts, just saying there are usually sensible alternatives to exiting these sort of things that don’t involve just paying someone off.
  - quickthrowman 2y ago
    I would imagine there is a contract stipulating that they’re a monopoly because otherwise the economics don’t work out.
    - Closi 2y ago
      There is but it has a 5 year notice period that can be enacted.
- toast0 2y ago
  Waiting for the exclusive contract to end would also work. Unless they really weren't thinking ahead when they contracted this out, there must be a way to choose a different provider, but it may be a lengthy wait.
14 2y ago
And this might be the big issue with solar power and also EV's. If enough people switch to solar and are no longer paying into the grid at a certain point it will become unprofitable to maintain a large grid. The same is true at this point for EV's. Buying gas we pay road tax. So not buying gas is going to reduce that tax collected. At a certain point they will need to change the way that tax is collected. Probably some sort of tax on the distance an EV drives or perhaps some other method.
- fjjjrjj 2y ago
  Already happening. I paid an EV fee on my car tabs this week.
- loeg 2y ago
  (For some context: gas taxes are already a subset of road expense. Significant road funding comes from other revenue sources that EV drivers also pay.)
  - 14 2y ago
    Curious if you could provide more information about the other sources EV drivers pay? Is it at point of sale or where do they pay this? I am sure it is different depending on the region but I was always under the belief that road tax payed on gas where I am is the most significant contributor to road funding. Thank you I would enjoy learning more about what other revenue sources EV's contribute to.
    - supertrope 2y ago
      Not the parent commenter but https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/state-infrastructure-spending/ https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/state-infrastructur...
      - loeg 2y ago
        I can't tell if these figures are inclusive of interstates and all local roads, or some subset, but my impression is these numbers (for use tax pay %) look too high. The right ballpark is around 50%.
madaxe_again 2y ago
It’s $4-600/month for 10mbps. And that’s before line rental, equipment deposit, installation charges, and the various other surprise fees they hit you with. I know Falklanders and to say that they hate Sure would be an understatement. https://www.sure.co.fk/broadband/broadband-packages/?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://www.sure.co.fk/broadband/broadband-packages/?utm_sou...
- devilbunny 2y ago
  So let the UK eat the cost of making the ISP whole. Nobody needs or especially wants the islands except for national dick-waving; the British gov was making a point that they would and could still fight and win wars. Fine, you want to play at the big dollar table, ante up.
  - madaxe_again 2y ago
    Sure are already subsidised to the tune of a few million pounds per year.
  - worik 2y ago
    The islands have an exclusive economic zone, and are a supply stop in a vast ocean They are very valuable to the UK
    - ckdarby 2y ago
      Don't say that too loud of Trump might want them next after Greenland & Canada.
      - tonyedgecombe 2y ago
        If we could convince him to buy them that would be quite good for the UK.
        toss1 2y ago
        Depending on the valuation And with that guy, make sure you get paid up front. He has an extremely long and well-documented history of abusing the system to not pay contractors, workers, counter-parties, etc...
madaxe_again 2y ago
Their revenue is north of £100M p.a., and they are owned by batelco. They are not hurting for cash.
- SECProto 2y ago
  > Their revenue is north of £100M p.a., and they are owned by batelco. Looking at the wiki page for Sure, they serve many island jurisdictions with a total pop of ~265k, and the falkland islands is only ~3500. That's a ratio of 1:75, 100/75=1.3 million lines up pretty well with OPs comment of the budget for the falkland islands.
krsdcbl 2y ago
Honestly with those numbers, I'm pretty surprised it's even an independent company. Wouldn't such a community of 3-4k people in a very remote location be a prime example where providing internet could just be a gov/municipal service, subsided by an extraordinary tax if needed?
- Symbiote 2y ago
  Nowadays in Britain, even if the government provides the service they would typically contract a private company to set up and operate it. It looks like the Falkland are similar. Here's a Facebook post from the Falkland government announcing a deal with this ISP. https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=503105315175847&id=100064291495689 https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=50310531517584...
  - sitkack 2y ago
    This is what a Thatcher Conservative utopia looks like, top to bottom public private partnerships. The whole thing is an own goal.

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...)
- petesergeant 2y ago
  > Why does the monopoly need paying off? Presumably because they have a piece of legally binding paper saying they do? Changing the law to cut out the monopoly is the government reneging on the agreement they made with the monopoly to pony up the cash and presumably a tort.
  - stickfigure 2y ago
    They could also simply fail to enforce the law. Or use that as a threat to come to a negotiated settlement with the monopoly.
    - petesergeant 2y ago
      > They could also simply fail to enforce the law The article says that that’s the status quo but Starlink aren’t ok with it. Not enforcing the law would also seem to be actionable under any agreement signed though. Finally, any precedent set here will make it much harder for the government to strike any other kind of deal next time it wants to encourage a company to invest.
    - Symbiote 2y ago
      The reputation and credit rating of governments falls if they fail to respect contracts they've signed under their own laws.
      - Closi 2y ago
        They could just exit using the clauses in the agreement though, like the one they have seems to have a 5 year notice clause. I’m not saying break contracts, just saying there are usually sensible alternatives to exiting these sort of things that don’t involve just paying someone off.
- quickthrowman 2y ago
  I would imagine there is a contract stipulating that they’re a monopoly because otherwise the economics don’t work out.
  - Closi 2y ago
    There is but it has a 5 year notice period that can be enacted.
toast0 2y ago
Waiting for the exclusive contract to end would also work. Unless they really weren't thinking ahead when they contracted this out, there must be a way to choose a different provider, but it may be a lengthy wait.

14 2y ago

And this might be the big issue with solar power and also EV's. If enough people switch to solar and are no longer paying into the grid at a certain point it will become unprofitable to maintain a large grid. The same is true at this point for EV's. Buying gas we pay road tax. So not buying gas is going to reduce that tax collected. At a certain point they will need to change the way that tax is collected. Probably some sort of tax on the distance an EV drives or perhaps some other method.

fjjjrjj 2y ago
Already happening. I paid an EV fee on my car tabs this week.
loeg 2y ago
(For some context: gas taxes are already a subset of road expense. Significant road funding comes from other revenue sources that EV drivers also pay.)
- 14 2y ago
  Curious if you could provide more information about the other sources EV drivers pay? Is it at point of sale or where do they pay this? I am sure it is different depending on the region but I was always under the belief that road tax payed on gas where I am is the most significant contributor to road funding. Thank you I would enjoy learning more about what other revenue sources EV's contribute to.
  - supertrope 2y ago
    Not the parent commenter but https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/state-infrastructure-spending/ https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/state-infrastructur...
    - loeg 2y ago
      I can't tell if these figures are inclusive of interstates and all local roads, or some subset, but my impression is these numbers (for use tax pay %) look too high. The right ballpark is around 50%.

madaxe_again 2y ago

It’s $4-600/month for 10mbps. And that’s before line rental, equipment deposit, installation charges, and the various other surprise fees they hit you with. I know Falklanders and to say that they hate Sure would be an understatement. https://www.sure.co.fk/broadband/broadband-packages/?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://www.sure.co.fk/broadband/broadband-packages/?utm_sou...

devilbunny 2y ago
So let the UK eat the cost of making the ISP whole. Nobody needs or especially wants the islands except for national dick-waving; the British gov was making a point that they would and could still fight and win wars. Fine, you want to play at the big dollar table, ante up.
- madaxe_again 2y ago
  Sure are already subsidised to the tune of a few million pounds per year.
- worik 2y ago
  The islands have an exclusive economic zone, and are a supply stop in a vast ocean They are very valuable to the UK
  - ckdarby 2y ago
    Don't say that too loud of Trump might want them next after Greenland & Canada.
    - tonyedgecombe 2y ago
      If we could convince him to buy them that would be quite good for the UK.
      - toss1 2y ago
        Depending on the valuation And with that guy, make sure you get paid up front. He has an extremely long and well-documented history of abusing the system to not pay contractors, workers, counter-parties, etc...

madaxe_again 2y ago

Their revenue is north of £100M p.a., and they are owned by batelco. They are not hurting for cash.

SECProto 2y ago
> Their revenue is north of £100M p.a., and they are owned by batelco. Looking at the wiki page for Sure, they serve many island jurisdictions with a total pop of ~265k, and the falkland islands is only ~3500. That's a ratio of 1:75, 100/75=1.3 million lines up pretty well with OPs comment of the budget for the falkland islands.

krsdcbl 2y ago

Honestly with those numbers, I'm pretty surprised it's even an independent company. Wouldn't such a community of 3-4k people in a very remote location be a prime example where providing internet could just be a gov/municipal service, subsided by an extraordinary tax if needed?

Symbiote 2y ago
Nowadays in Britain, even if the government provides the service they would typically contract a private company to set up and operate it. It looks like the Falkland are similar. Here's a Facebook post from the Falkland government announcing a deal with this ISP. https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=503105315175847&id=100064291495689 https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=50310531517584...
- sitkack 2y ago
  This is what a Thatcher Conservative utopia looks like, top to bottom public private partnerships. The whole thing is an own goal.