5 ms·

> 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 S

by 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.
      - cwmoore 2y ago
        Writers write, bakers bake, drivers drive, and murderers do 25-life deterrence, so you don't eg. use satellite internet in the Falkland's.
      - guax 2y ago
        Technically correct. Best kind of correct. I stand corrected.
    - cryptoegorophy 2y ago
      Is it criminal for Ukraine to transit Russian gas during the war? Yes, but is it illegal? No.
  - helsinkiandrew 2y ago
    I think the criminal was added by the blog poster. The bill talks about "civil or criminal prosecution". I imagine its the same as elsewhere in the world: if you transmit on an illegal frequency you would likely be taken to the civil courts. If you continue and/or cause interference with other services you'd be taken to criminal court. https://assembly.gov.fk/jdownloads/Executive%20Council/Executive%20Council%20Papers/2016/26%20October%202016/163-16P%20CommsBill.pdf https://assembly.gov.fk/jdownloads/Executive%20Council/Execu...
  - xhkkffbf 2y ago
    If there's no punishment, the law is just a polite suggestion.
jajko 2y ago
The problem is more musk, to anybody outside US he is potentially an enemy, a self-made one but thats irrelevant. Internet access is a strategic resource to certain extent, you dont want to pay your enemy for such service. Europe also doesnt want puttin's gas and oil
- inemesitaffia 2y ago
  That's not relevant here.
  - kmeisthax 2y ago
    Not quite. Elon has made it clear that slights against his companies are personal attacks; see, for example, the Trump Administration's shutdown of USAID in retribution for investigating Starlink contracts in Ukraine.
    - inemesitaffia 2y ago
      Everything you mentioned might well be true (it's not; most of the monetary value for Starlink in Ukraine is from the military via pLEO. Not the measly single digit USAID) But it's not relevant here.
quickthrowman 2y ago
Prior to Starlink, the Falklands had two choices when it came to internet service: no internet at all, or sign a monopoly agreement that allows a private ISP to make a profit. The UK government could’ve provided internet as well, but that’s unlikely, leaving the two options on the table. It’s not mafia in power, it’s simply the economics of providing internet service to a tiny population of ~3,500 living on an island that is almost a thousand miles away from friendly allied nations.
karlgkk 2y ago
> Ahh, that explains it. Mafia in power, essentially. It's not so cut and dry, really. Imagine you're an ISP - and you want to set up infrastructure to about 3600 people. Really, it's actually 1200 - many people live in a single household. Now, you want to get internet TO the island. How do you do that? Easy! Point to point from the nearest terrestrial base. Oops! That's too far! Also, that's Argentina and they hate you (long history). Okay so, that leaves satellite - famously historically affordable. That requires a lot of bandwidth from satellite and this requires some pretty expensive infrastructure. By the way, it's a lot cheaper if you set up multiple "streams" and distribute them - versus everyone having their own dish. And we haven't even gotten to the cost of laying out the cable, cell service, etc. So if this sounds all really expensive - and it is - you better have an agreement from the government that your huge up front investment won't be ruined by some competitor which causes a collapse of both parties. That sounds unreasonable, but honestly, it isn't - this stuff is expensive! Anyways, they got completely wrecked on the math by Starlink, and so it's probably time for them to go away. But honestly, considering how remote they are, it wasn't really that bad of a deal for quite a long time!

by sureIy 2y ago

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.
    - cwmoore 2y ago
      Writers write, bakers bake, drivers drive, and murderers do 25-life deterrence, so you don't eg. use satellite internet in the Falkland's.
    - guax 2y ago
      Technically correct. Best kind of correct. I stand corrected.
  - cryptoegorophy 2y ago
    Is it criminal for Ukraine to transit Russian gas during the war? Yes, but is it illegal? No.
- helsinkiandrew 2y ago
  I think the criminal was added by the blog poster. The bill talks about "civil or criminal prosecution". I imagine its the same as elsewhere in the world: if you transmit on an illegal frequency you would likely be taken to the civil courts. If you continue and/or cause interference with other services you'd be taken to criminal court. https://assembly.gov.fk/jdownloads/Executive%20Council/Executive%20Council%20Papers/2016/26%20October%202016/163-16P%20CommsBill.pdf https://assembly.gov.fk/jdownloads/Executive%20Council/Execu...
- xhkkffbf 2y ago
  If there's no punishment, the law is just a polite suggestion.

jajko 2y ago

The problem is more musk, to anybody outside US he is potentially an enemy, a self-made one but thats irrelevant. Internet access is a strategic resource to certain extent, you dont want to pay your enemy for such service. Europe also doesnt want puttin's gas and oil

inemesitaffia 2y ago
That's not relevant here.
- kmeisthax 2y ago
  Not quite. Elon has made it clear that slights against his companies are personal attacks; see, for example, the Trump Administration's shutdown of USAID in retribution for investigating Starlink contracts in Ukraine.
  - inemesitaffia 2y ago
    Everything you mentioned might well be true (it's not; most of the monetary value for Starlink in Ukraine is from the military via pLEO. Not the measly single digit USAID) But it's not relevant here.

quickthrowman 2y ago

Prior to Starlink, the Falklands had two choices when it came to internet service: no internet at all, or sign a monopoly agreement that allows a private ISP to make a profit. The UK government could’ve provided internet as well, but that’s unlikely, leaving the two options on the table. It’s not mafia in power, it’s simply the economics of providing internet service to a tiny population of ~3,500 living on an island that is almost a thousand miles away from friendly allied nations.

karlgkk 2y ago

> Ahh, that explains it. Mafia in power, essentially. It's not so cut and dry, really. Imagine you're an ISP - and you want to set up infrastructure to about 3600 people. Really, it's actually 1200 - many people live in a single household. Now, you want to get internet TO the island. How do you do that? Easy! Point to point from the nearest terrestrial base. Oops! That's too far! Also, that's Argentina and they hate you (long history). Okay so, that leaves satellite - famously historically affordable. That requires a lot of bandwidth from satellite and this requires some pretty expensive infrastructure. By the way, it's a lot cheaper if you set up multiple "streams" and distribute them - versus everyone having their own dish. And we haven't even gotten to the cost of laying out the cable, cell service, etc. So if this sounds all really expensive - and it is - you better have an agreement from the government that your huge up front investment won't be ruined by some competitor which causes a collapse of both parties. That sounds unreasonable, but honestly, it isn't - this stuff is expensive! Anyways, they got completely wrecked on the math by Starlink, and so it's probably time for them to go away. But honestly, considering how remote they are, it wasn't really that bad of a deal for quite a long time!