The 2017 Telecommunications Ordinance That Shaped Falklands Connectivity For A Decade

In the previous two OpenFalklands posts, we looked at two telecommunications consultants’ reports published in 2005 and 2015. One of the major activities following the 2015  report was the drafting of the 2017 Communications Ordinance, which represented a significant overhaul of telecommunications law in the Falkland Islands, replacing the outdated 1988 Ordinance with a broader, more modern regulatory framework. It expanded regulation beyond traditional telephony to cover all forms of electronic communications, including internet services, satellite communications, broadcasting infrastructure, and the import and use of communications equipment.  The Ordinance began by stating that “the needs of the people of the Falkland Islands are the paramount consideration in operating the licensing regimes under this Ordinance”.

A central change introduced by the Ordinance was the creation of an independent Communications Regulator with powers to license operators, enforce compliance, investigate breaches, and impose penalties or require compensation. The Regulator was intended to operate independently of political direction, guided by objectives such as affordability, investment, and consumer protection. This marked a shift toward a more structured and interventionist regulatory model.

The Ordinance reinforced the political decision to rely on a single (exclusive) telecommunications provider.

A particularly significant element was the approach to VSAT and self-provision. The policy sought to actively discourage self-provision, especially for commercial users, by setting licensing fees high enough to deter uptake. While not an outright ban, this approach was intended to maintain a unified network and shared infrastructure costs. However, it became increasingly contentious as new technologies, such as low Earth orbit satellite services like Starlink, emerged. By 2024, pressure to allow such services highlighted the tension between maintaining a controlled monopoly model and enabling access to faster, more affordable connectivity.

The Ordinance introduced stronger consumer protections and data safeguards, including judicial oversight for access to customer data and broader regulation of data collection, amateur radio, interception, and surveillance. It also placed greater emphasis on managing national communications assets such as spectrum, numbering, and domain names as public resources.

New licensing regimes were introduced across areas including spectrum use, broadcasting, satellite phones, and communications equipment, many of which had previously been unregulated or informally managed. The Regulator also gained responsibility for setting technical standards through KPIs, enforcing penalties, and addressing illegal use, thereby significantly expanding its regulatory scope.

The Ordinance also established clearer long-term governance between FIG and the licensed operator, including structured exit arrangements (which are highly relevant in 2026) and compensation mechanisms, thereby reducing uncertainty and limiting reliance on the incumbent provider.

Overall, the Ordinance represented a move toward centralised regulation, stronger enforcement powers, and a controlled market structure, aiming to ensure universal service and consistent pricing, but with clear trade-offs around competition and user choice.

Consumer and business criticisms in 2016

When the Ordinance was made public, it prompted extensive and often consistent criticism from consumers, businesses, and technical witnesses. Evidence to the Select Committee on the Communications Bill repeatedly highlighted frustration with slow speeds, restrictive data caps, and high costs, with many describing existing services as inadequate for modern needs. Users reported having to ration their usage, delay downloads, or rely on physical data transfers on CDs, while businesses and government departments struggled to access large datasets, cloud services, and routine online tools.

A central concern was that the Falklands were falling behind global standards. Witnesses from business, science, and the wider community warned that limited bandwidth and reliability were constraining economic development, reducing efficiency, and affecting education and quality of life. There were clear concerns that poor connectivity risked increasing isolation and making it harder to attract and retain skilled workers.

Significant scepticism was also expressed about the proposed regulatory framework. Multiple contributors pointed out that previous attempts at telecoms regulation had been under-resourced and ineffective, with the regulator’s role historically unfunded or difficult to fill. This led to doubts that simply creating or formalising the role would deliver meaningful change, particularly if it lacked independence, expertise, or adequate funding.

Criticism extended to both the process and substance of the proposals. Businesses and the Chamber of Commerce argued that consultation had been insufficient and that key elements, particularly the licence arrangements underpinning the system, had not been fully scrutinised. Telecommunications was consistently described as a critical enabler of economic growth, yet existing limits through data usage quotas and performance were seen as actively restricting business operations, including the use of cloud services, video conferencing, and modern digital platforms.

A major point of contention was the continuation of an exclusive licensing model and the treatment of alternatives such as VSAT self-provision. Witnesses argued that self-provision had served as an important safety valve and exerted competitive pressure, and expressed concern that proposed licensing fees and barriers would render it effectively inaccessible. Some framed this as not only an issue of competition and value for money, but also one of fairness and proportionality, given the increasing importance of internet access for communication, education, and daily life.

Finally, there was a clear concern that the Ordinance risked entrenching an already outdated model at a time of rapid technological change. Contributors highlighted emerging satellite technologies and argued for greater flexibility, more frequent review, and openness to new solutions. Without this, there was a fear that the Islands would be locked into a system that could not keep pace with global developments, thereby prolonging existing constraints rather than resolving them.