[HN Gopher] Starlink in the Falkland Islands - A national emerge...
___________________________________________________________________
Starlink in the Falkland Islands - A national emergency situation?
Author : pelagicAustral
Score : 137 points
Date : 2025-02-08 02:41 UTC (20 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.openfalklands.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.openfalklands.com)
| paulkrush wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Is a third part of your comment missing or ...? I think this
| puts a focus on how much Internet connectivity is nearly
| necessary
| nosioptar wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Alaska?
| SllX wrote:
| My guess was Hawai'i but I too am curious which State it
| was.
| nosioptar wrote:
| Texas
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| 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- wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| The first permanent settlement in the Falklands was by a
| German in 1826. So _hundred_ of years.
| ascorbic wrote:
| Hundreds - two of them.
| benatkin wrote:
| > Regardless of differing opinions
|
| Those opinions seem to be relevant here.
| jeffgreco wrote:
| Strong FAFO vibes.
| decimalenough wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > ...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
| pjc50 wrote:
| It's much easier to sustain corruption in a small
| community. The current setup will be personally beneficial
| to someone.
| roenxi wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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 Ren Min Dai
| Biao Da Hui can be so big is that the legislative
| decisions it formalizes are mostly made elsewhere.
| umanwizard wrote:
| The Chinese National People's Congress isn't a legislative
| body, it's a pastiche of one.
| benatkin wrote:
| This monopoly seems to be preventing unexpected changes.
| Maybe better Internet would cause it to turn into a digital
| nomad paradise, which would cause more demand for visiting or
| living there, and that in turn would cause greater tension in
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_d.
| ..
| roenxi wrote:
| > Because Sure International holds an exclusive monopoly
| telecommunications licence, Starlink's use in the islands is
| currently illegal.
|
| The national emergency seems to be that they want to do
| something that is explicitly illegal. The article seems to be
| missing important context on why they expect to be able to do
| what they are doing.
| wmf wrote:
| The article also says the law was changed but it will take
| two months to take effect.
| sneak wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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?
| umanwizard wrote:
| 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.
| petesergeant wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| > 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.
| quickthrowman wrote:
| I would imagine there is a contract stipulating that
| they're a monopoly because otherwise the economics don't
| work out.
| toast0 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Already happening. I paid an EV fee on my car tabs this week.
| loeg wrote:
| (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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Not the parent commenter but
| https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/state-
| infrastructur...
| loeg wrote:
| 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%.
| loeg wrote:
| State general funds -- any sales, property, or income tax
| of your state -- as well as Federal highway dollars
| (Federal income tax). Notably, non-drivers also pay into
| these funds.
| crummy wrote:
| In NZ, EVs pay road user charges.
| gibolt wrote:
| Even worse, many states are more than double charging EVs for
| the comparable average mileage that determines gas tax.
| iforgotpassword wrote:
| I never really got these arguments. It doesn't have to be
| that way, does it? I already pay a monthly base fee for
| electricity and then per kwh on top of that. So I consider
| the base fee as what is being used to maintain the grid. It's
| not like my actual consumption influences the wear of the
| grid in a meaningful way
|
| That argument would actually make more sense for roads so I
| see how you'd want to tax gas instead of car ownership, but
| even there I think it could still be acceptable to spread it
| out like that.
| 14 wrote:
| Sure if you pay a base fee maybe but if you went 100% solar
| to cover all your needs and completely disconnected from
| the grid so you were not a paying customer then what? How
| many houses have to leave the grid switching to solar
| before the grid is no longer viable? At some point in time
| we will reach a tipping point. If half of all households
| left the grid to solar could the other half support the
| upkeep of the entire grid? My guess is no. So at some point
| we will need to subsidize the grid for those still on it or
| force them to switch to solar. It will be hard. Solar is
| not cheap upfront even though overall it is cheaper. As for
| the EV's I hear it is already happening in some places you
| are being charged for how much you drive however they do
| that.
| iforgotpassword wrote:
| I see this far in the future, and a slow process. I
| already know a few people with big enough solar setups to
| be self sustaining even in winter with big battery packs,
| but they still connect to the grid "just in case", which
| honestly I'd do too.
|
| As more people disconnect then sure the base price might
| go up but why not, the other ones don't need the grid, so
| why pay? And as for public infra like street lights, that
| will just get heavier on taxes. This is something I see
| happening over decades rather than years, so there will
| be enough time to figure this out.
| ocschwar wrote:
| Big battery packs are insane to put inside a house. I'm
| biased because I work for a utility scale storage
| company, but really, 2nd law of thermodynamics, people.
|
| The more potential energy you pack into a volume, the
| higher the chance the energy will be released at a time
| not of your choosing and in a fashion that will make you
| sad. We put our product in industrial zoned places where
| the worst case scenario for a fire is pre-planned to not
| be catastrophic and so that no homes will be lost. Why
| put your house at risk? So you can cosplay as Henry David
| Thoreau and take some stance against your power utility?
| lazide wrote:
| Keep in mind, in the US most people park ICE vehicles
| (sometimes 2-3 at a time) in garages attached or part of
| their dwellings all the time. And those not only catch
| fire more regularly, but contain far more energy.
|
| Aka people do dumb stuff all the time. And mostly
| survive. Frankly, this isn't likely to even be top ten
| from an actuarial basis.
| brookst wrote:
| This is the first time I've seen a claim that ICE
| vehicles are more likely to have catastrophic fires while
| parked than EVs. Is that true? Any source?
| ocschwar wrote:
| If I did put batteries in my house, I'd want them mounted
| on wheels so if they overheat I can push them out before
| things get exciting. Those do exist, and apart from
| storing juice for your house they can also take you
| places...
| lazide wrote:
| There is no way you could get close enough to a battery
| bank this size to push them once they started to catch on
| fire and not die. You might as well be trying to put out
| a kiddy pool of gasoline with your hands.
| lazide wrote:
| [https://alliedworldinsurance.com/risk-
| management/electric-ve...]
|
| Far more often. Battery fires can be much harder to put
| out, but gasoline fires are no slouch frankly.
| brookst wrote:
| Thanks for the great link! Unfortunately it doesn't speak
| specifically to parked/charging, which is when I would
| expect EV's to be at the greatest risk and ICE's to be at
| their lowest risk.
|
| But still, seems pretty clear that EV'a are likely no
| more risky and possibly considerably less so in the
| garage. Thanks!
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| https://www.google.com/search?q=recall+%22park+outside%22
|
| These recalls from Ford, GM, and Kia are _each_ millions
| of vehicles. And the number of these recalls is going up:
| https://turnto10.com/i-team/consumer-advocate/serious-
| park-o...
|
| It's always been a significant risk; why do you think
| there are strict building code regs for the garage area
| of a home?
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| > I work for a utility scale storage company
|
| Clearly not in any sort of engineering capacity given you
| wildly misused the second law of thermodynamics, which
| has _nothing_ to do with potential energy, but the _flow
| of heat_ from hot areas to cooler areas.
|
| Second: energy density has _nothing_ to do with how
| stable that energy is. 12lb of plutonium could level a
| city, but not if it isn 't in an extremely precisely
| engineered device.
|
| Third:potential energy and volume, you say?
|
| Do you own a riding lawnmower in your garage? Those have
| about 2 or more gallons of gas, which is about 66 kWhr of
| energy.
|
| Pour that out onto your garage floor, strike a match, and
| let me know how "sad" you are when your garage is
| leveled, your house structurally damaged, and you're dead
| in your neighbor's yard.
|
| Do you have a gas grill, and do you keep a spare tank in
| the garage? 20lb of propane is equal to almost 130kWhr of
| energy.
|
| Do you keep a 5 gallon jug of spare gas in your garage?
| 165 kWhr.
|
| So. You were saying?
| ocschwar wrote:
| If I went 100% solar, I'm happy to pay the utility to be
| the middleman while I sell my excess solar to the
| neighbors.
| Aurornis wrote:
| > Sure if you pay a base fee maybe but if you went 100%
| solar to cover all your needs and completely disconnected
| from the grid so you were not a paying customer then
| what?
|
| Off grid solar is exceptionally rare. The grid still
| serves a purpose unless you're willing to buy a lot of
| batteries and always moderate your usage.
|
| Realistically, solar users won't be disconnecting from
| the grid in large numbers. It doesn't make financial
| sense to buy massive battery banks to avoid a small
| monthly grid service fee, even if battery prices drop
| significantly more.
|
| The fear of everyone dropping off grid isn't realistic.
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| > Sure if you pay a base fee maybe but if you went 100%
| solar to cover all your needs and completely disconnected
| from the grid so you were not a paying customer then
| what?
|
| Then they are generating substantially less pollution and
| CO2 than the idiots driving around in their dick-
| compensating machinery that gets 12mpg, and society
| should incentivize that.
|
| Hint: look at _all_ the costs to society from internal
| combustion vehicles. Chiefly, global warming, and the
| health costs (and lost productivity) from the pollution.
| unmole wrote:
| It's already happening in Pakistan: https://www.ft.com/conten
| t/69e4cb33-3615-4424-996d-5aee9d1af...
| rich_sasha wrote:
| Consumer electricity is also taxed, although it's not
| explicitly linked to roads. But then that's not really how
| governments work anyway, all the money goes into a ~black
| hole~ big pot and is spent around.
|
| Roads are notionally supported from general taxes in the UK
| anyway, not fuel duty.
| dzhiurgis wrote:
| > no longer paying into the grid at a certain point it will
| become unprofitable to maintain a large grid.
|
| 1. IDK where you live, but most people pay quite a bit for
| grid itself, often more than for actual power.
|
| 2. With batteries the grid can be about 10x smaller.
| mbreese wrote:
| In my state, I pay a special tax on my EV when I renew my
| license plates. It is based on fuel source. The point is to
| offset the lack of gas taxes I would be paying. Or it might
| just be a disincentive to buy an EV, it's hard to tell
| sometimes.
| brookst wrote:
| At some point we'll switch to mileage taxes, which make
| more sense for infrastructure upkeep. Gas taxes were only
| ever a rough proxy for "how much do hou use roads and
| bridges."
| pfannkuchen wrote:
| How do you track how far everyone drives to tax them
| correctly?
| KeplerBoy wrote:
| The same way we track how much electricity households use
| from the grid. By using a (smart) meter.
| brookst wrote:
| There are a bunch of technical solutions, from certified
| shops you stop by once a year to networked cars.
| Implementation is the easiest part of this change.
| xeromal wrote:
| Many cars are already "smogged". Would be trivial to
| record their mileage year to year at the same time.
| Require a "smog" for EVs and record their mileage and
| maybe scan their BMS for any faults.
| toast0 wrote:
| Require a mileage readout when renewing registration, and
| when sold.
| Aurornis wrote:
| Gas taxes are used to fund road work.
|
| The nice think about gas taxes is that they're mostly
| proportional to the mileage driven and the weight of the
| vehicle, two factors that determine contribution to road
| wear.
|
| EVs tend to be heavy but not contribute at all to gas tax.
| A separate EV tax for road maintenance is reasonable.
| blululu wrote:
| Sort of but road erosion is to the fourth power of weight
| while fuel consumption is approximately linear with
| weight, so the tax is not exactly proportional to use.
| fisherjeff wrote:
| Do you have a source for this? I wouldn't be surprised if
| it were supralinear but that feels high to me.
|
| Like we have a short segment of road in my town that's
| almost exclusively and regularly used by garbage trucks,
| which are ~10x the weight of a car. I don't think the
| road gets repaved 10,000x more often than other roads
| though?
| matthewmacleod wrote:
| It's even got its own Wikipedia page -
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law
| fisherjeff wrote:
| Aha, 4th power of axle load - that makes more sense.
| Thanks!
| SECProto wrote:
| Not all road structures are equal (it's easy to design a
| road to last 20 years before resurfacing almost
| regardless of the loads put on it, and the cost variances
| aren't that major). Temperature variations are a bigger
| limiter of life of a road, especially freeze-thaw cycles
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| > Gas taxes are used to fund road work.
|
| "Road work" is almost entirely paid for by overall tax
| revenue and only a tiny fraction comes from fuel _and_
| other use taxes like registration fees. It doesn 't
| include things like police/fire/ems response to crashes.
|
| https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-13/debunk
| ing...
|
| In my state, you get a _90 percent_ discount on your
| excise tax if your vehicle is of a model year newer than
| the current year. I don 't see anyone getting up in arms
| about that, but someone buys an EV - which pays taxes on
| the electricity it uses - and people scream blue bloody
| murder they're "cheating", because among other things, we
| don't look at the total cost to society that a car has.
|
| No, friend. These regressive taxes are because
| conservative idiots in dick-compensating machinery that
| gets 12mpg are pissed that people who made the
| intelligent and environmentally conscious choice are
| being led around by the nose by the oil cartels.
|
| ...who are subsidized, and those subsidies are rising:
| https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/climate-change/energy-
| subsidie...
|
| https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-fossil-fuel-
| subs...
| devwastaken wrote:
| oil and gas subsidies repay it back. the true cost of gas is
| 2-3x current price.
| madaxe_again wrote:
| 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_sou...
| devilbunny wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Sure are already subsidised to the tune of a few million
| pounds per year.
| worik wrote:
| The islands have an exclusive economic zone, and are a
| supply stop in a vast ocean
|
| They are very valuable to the UK
| ckdarby wrote:
| Don't say that too loud of Trump might want them next
| after Greenland & Canada.
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| If we could convince him to buy them that would be quite
| good for the UK.
| toss1 wrote:
| 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...
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| It's a loss making endeavour, just like all the remnants
| of empire.
| ocschwar wrote:
| The present president of Argentina is a Trump-testicle-
| gargler. That would make me nervous if I were a
| Falklander.
| devilbunny wrote:
| Great. So they won't mind ponying up to pay off the ISP.
| Subsidizing people to live there is part of it.
| ta1243 wrote:
| The people living in the Falklands want the islands.
|
| While some countries look at land like the Falklands, or
| Ukraine, or Taiwan, or Greenland, and think "That's Mine",
| Britain doesn't do that (any more), and instead says "it's
| upto you"
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| The inhabitants of the Falklands are British settlers. It
| is quite easy to let people choose when you know that the
| choice they will make matches what you want.
|
| That being said, if Argentina had not invaded then no-one
| in Britain would care one way or the other (government
| could have handed the Islands to Argentina in whatever
| deal and most people in the UK would just have shrugged
| it off). It has become a point of principle and pride
| since the invasion to tell "the Argies" that they can
| stuff it.
| GJim wrote:
| It's called a democracy. The right of a people (including
| the Falkland Islanders) to self determination.
|
| Frankly, your anti-democratic trolling isn't welcome.
| artyom wrote:
| This is data provided by the UK government itself: the
| Falklands have a little above 3500 people, with about
| half of it being military and government personnel, and
| the rest being their families.
|
| So calling them "people living there", or "settlers" or
| "inhabitants" or "a democracy" is nothing short of
| disingenuous.
| StefanBatory wrote:
| Argentinians are "settlers" too, when you think of it. I
| think, that according to your line of logic, they should
| all leave Argentine and leave it to native people.
|
| Maybe they can move to Falklands, then. Because it was
| empty and had no natives...
| mrlonglong wrote:
| You forgot that in a recent referendum almost all the
| islanders voted to stay part of the UK.
| GJim wrote:
| Results of the 2013 Falkland Islands Referendum
|
| _Do you wish the Falkland Islands to retain their current
| political status as an Overseas Territory of the United
| Kingdom?_
|
| YES: 1513
|
| NO: 3
|
| Why do you not wish to accept the above democratic decision
| made by the islanders? We can only conclude you are
| trolling.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Falkland_Islands_soverei
| g...
| brookst wrote:
| Fair point. So do a one-time tax levy of the Falklanders
| to buy the telco out, since they can no longer honor the
| commitment they made to get service installed. Shouldn't
| be more than a half million pounds each?
| devilbunny wrote:
| I have no doubt that the islanders very much wish to be
| British subjects rather than left on their own (they
| would, in that case, quickly become Malvinians). But why
| should someone in Glasgow want to pay taxes to support
| them in living there permanently?
| blibble wrote:
| > But why should someone in Glasgow want to pay taxes to
| support them in living there permanently?
|
| you could have picked a better example, Scotland is a net
| drain on the UK treasury
|
| why should someone in London pay to support people living
| in Glasgow permanently?
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| You should have picked a better example, Glasgow is a
| port city and almost certainly not a net drain; the rural
| parts of Scotland are. Just like all the rural parts of
| England, which leech of the English cities.
|
| Just like all the rural parts of the US, which leech off
| the "coastal liberal elites."
| blibble wrote:
| > You should have picked a better example, Glasgow is a
| port city and almost certainly not a net drain
|
| certainly true in the 1900s
|
| unfortunately in the 2000s it's at the wrong side of the
| island
| devilbunny wrote:
| That was the point. If I had meant London, I would have
| used it.
| madaxe_again wrote:
| Their revenue is north of PS100M p.a., and they are owned by
| batelco. They are not hurting for cash.
| SECProto wrote:
| > Their revenue is north of PS100M 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.
| bpodgursky wrote:
| > 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 PS5,400 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| OK but they aren't deliberating. They're just delaying
| implementation until April for no particular reason.
| radu_floricica wrote:
| That's an argument for a small government. Private entities
| are both much faster than current governments, and more
| careful with their money. And when they fail, you basically
| get free infrastructure (as part of the bankruptcy process)
| instead of a black hole in which public money keeps getting
| sunk.
|
| Reading the rest of the comments in this thread it seems like
| the original decision was at the very least sane: you need
| major investment in telecom infrastructure, and to facilitate
| this the government offered a monopoly to incentivize said
| investment. Makes sense, at face value. Problem is that
| technology advanced, and now a centralized solution is worse
| than the state of the art (Starlink). So instead of the
| infrastructure provider living or dying on merit, you have
| regulations sustaining it artificially, and no incentive to
| have them upgrade or become more efficient.
| watwut wrote:
| Country with no or failing public school or no or failing
| public Healthcare looks just like a failed state.
|
| And about none of them has overall good conditions, except
| for the richest.
| derbOac wrote:
| I'm not sure private entities are more careful with their
| money. More importantly, it's their money, it doesn't
| necessarily flow back to the public.
|
| The danger is in monopoly. Then you're left with no choice
| and also no vote. At least with public infrastructure you
| have a vote.
|
| The situation in the Falklands sounds like a mess, and I'm
| not faulting anyone for using Starlink in those
| circumstances. But I suspect if the island becomes
| dependent on Starlink they will find themselves with other
| problems later.
|
| These private-public arguments are misguided IMHO because
| the real issue is choice versus monopoly. Public services
| provide choice to those who might not have it otherwise,
| and give a nonmonetary mechanism for feedback. But they can
| become monopolies as well. Private services can provide
| options but when they become monopolies you have no options
| for feedback other than to withdraw from the service, which
| sometimes isn't a real option. Also, the moneys aren't
| necessarily redistributed back to the community, which can
| be an opportunity cost.
| rightbyte wrote:
| The proposal could be the other way around. You'd ideally want
| some time to protest a proposal.
| ggm wrote:
| Ask one of the large nation states nearby to supply service.
| egl2020 wrote:
| Argentina would be a good candidate. Islas Malvinas and all
| that.
| ggm wrote:
| Or Uruguay. Lots of IPv6 in Uruguay
| wkat4242 wrote:
| That would probably really sour their relationship with
| Argentina
| sureIy wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Illegal sure, but criminal?
| lazide wrote:
| Many countries have rules like this. India, being one with
| quite a few people in it.
|
| [https://www.communicationstoday.co.in/uk-issues-travel-adv
| is...][https://www.newindianexpress.com/amp/story/nation/20
| 25/Jan/1...]
|
| A _lot_ of places ban unlicensed satellite communication
| devices for the same reasons.
| guax wrote:
| Being a criminal is illegal in many places.
| redcobra762 wrote:
| Is it? Committing criminal acts maybe, but it's
| relatively rare for mere existence, absent any other
| fact, to be illegal.
| cwmoore wrote:
| Writers write, bakers bake, drivers drive, and murderers
| do 25-life deterrence, so you don't eg. use satellite
| internet in the Falkland's.
| cryptoegorophy wrote:
| Is it criminal for Ukraine to transit Russian gas during
| the war? Yes, but is it illegal? No.
| helsinkiandrew wrote:
| 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/Exec
| u...
| jajko wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| That's not relevant here.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| 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.
| quickthrowman wrote:
| 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.
| ccamrobertson wrote:
| Huh, an arbitrary tax from a remote sovereign. Sounds familiar.
| ascorbic wrote:
| This tax is entirely local
| ww520 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Some cruise lines like Oceania use Starlink for their own wifi.
| floydnoel wrote:
| most of them do now. it's massively cheaper and faster than
| what they had available before.
| GJim wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| Never ceases to amaze me that glibertarians think they can do
| their thing on board a ship more than on land.
| KeplerBoy wrote:
| They can if it's their ship.
| ocschwar wrote:
| The ship has to fly a flag, and be captained by a master
| mariner licensed for that tonnage, by the country flying
| the flag.
| 15155 wrote:
| Ah yes, the old "interference on the tenth harmonic"
| explanation.
|
| Really? Which bands are in use that are interfering? Why are
| the downlinks not wreaking havoc today?
| GJim wrote:
| > Why are the downlinks not wreaking havoc today
|
| The entire point is the concentration of RF energy per unit
| space.
|
| Downlink from a satellite in LEO, this is fuck all.
|
| The uplink, in front of a directional VSAT antenna, this is
| very significant.
|
| The fact you do not understand the difference suggests you
| are commenting outside the area of your expertise.
| sponaugle wrote:
| I'm an electrical engineer - I don't understand how what you
| said can be true at a wide and effective scale. Of course any
| device can interfere with something else - But what kind of
| evidence exists that starlink terminals, and in particular
| the pattern steering and bands use, actually cause
| interference in a meaningful way to activly used marine
| system used on these kinds of crafts.
|
| Starlink used Ku and Ka bands, so we are talking about
| 10-12Ghz and 37-42Ghz downlinks, and 14Ghz and 47-51Ghz
| uplink. This is highly directional radiation, and even with
| beam forming and reflections is not likely to have any
| specific high interference risk. Clearly the downlink
| transmission from the satellite is exceptionally low power at
| the ground, even with the beamforming used in the satellites.
|
| I would love to learn that this is a real problem with actual
| tested data.
| Klonoar wrote:
| No, they don't. They're just going to charge you an insane
| price to use it, other than that they all know the service is
| better.
| perihelions wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Telco monopoly got lapped. Shut it down.
| FooBarBizBazz wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| This is the most sensible comment in this dumpster fire of a
| thread.
| neom wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| He did not turn it off FYI
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink_in_the_Russo-Ukrain...
| inemesitaffia wrote:
| This is just lobbying.
| artyom wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Good idea, where's HMS Invincible these days?
| pelagicAustral wrote:
| 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 PS110 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 PS60 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...
| mppm wrote:
| PS110 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 PS60 per
| month unlimited usage will still be be there if Starlink is
| allowed to operate officially.
| _bin_ wrote:
| > 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.
| quickthrowman wrote:
| It's only 110 pounds a month? I figured it would be much more,
| given that ~3,500 people live there. That gives a customer base
| of ~1,500 or so.
|
| There aren't exactly many places to run a fiber connection to,
| Uruguay being the closest friendly neighbor (aside from the
| Chilean part of Tierra del Fuego), I assume the current
| internet connection is a satellite link?
|
| Before starlink, the only way to get a private company to offer
| internet service to a tiny island with less people than my
| neighborhood is a monopoly, the economics simply don't work if
| there is competition.
| schiffern wrote:
| If _this_ is the caliber of internet people are dealing with, I
| really hope some kind local techies are helping to set people
| up with uBlock Origin (ideally on Firefox), ClearURLs to skip
| unnecessary redirects (I 'm assume GEO latencies here), and
| LocalCDN or DecentralEyes to avoid re-downloading the same
| libraries and assets over and over. Probably good to add
| something that defaults Youtube to 360p, and use Pihole for
| mobile/smart devices.
|
| There are many addons, but I find these are the minimal "set it
| and forget it" set that makes the most difference.
|
| Personally I would run uBO in at least Medium Mode[1], but I
| expect that's probably too much for most non-technical users.
|
| _Source: I suffered through metered satellite internet for
| many years._
|
| [1] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock
| kcb wrote:
| Or you know...just use that worldwide broadband speed
| satellite network.
| metalman wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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-Ukrainia...
| lesuorac wrote:
| 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-
| Ukrainia...
| gadders wrote:
| I don't think criticising the lack of action over gangs of
| child rapists makes him hostile to the UK.
| _bin_ wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| I'm guessing they deal with it at the citizen level. Just
| investigate, raid the property and confiscate all the
| equipment.
| Klonoar wrote:
| It's only ~3500 people on the islands, it's not exactly a
| difficult to find if someone brings it in.
| mromanuk wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| The history is pretty well documented and the islanders
| overwhelmingly voted to align with the UK.
| GJim wrote:
| > the Islas Malvinas are a disputed territory between Argentina
| and the UK
|
| Not according to the Islanders who live there.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Falkland_Islands_sovereig...
|
| Please understand the word democracy.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-02-08 23:01 UTC)