4 ms·
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 ta
by 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 agoThey 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 agoYou 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 agoThey 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 agoThe reputation and credit rating of governments falls if they fail to respect contracts they've signed under their own laws.
- Closi 2y agoThey 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 agoI would imagine there is a contract stipulating that they’re a monopoly because otherwise the economics don’t work out.
- Closi 2y agoThere is but it has a 5 year notice period that can be enacted.