Falklands' telecoms: Learning From Yesterday, Building for Tomorrow

“Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it”

On November 3rd, 2025, the Falkland Islands reached a milestone many once believed impossible: unrestricted access to Starlink and the right for residents to obtain their own VSAT licences. Starlink Freedom Day is not simply the arrival of a new internet service; it marks the end of enforced technological dependency and the availability of choice, fairness, and progress. Falkland Islanders are no longer told what broadband connectivity they’re allowed; they can finally choose it for themselves.

For years, the Falkland Islands have lived under a telecommunications monopoly justified by necessity but maintained by institutional and commercial inertia. More than £6 million in public funds was committed to prevent a judicial challenge to Starlink’s arrival, a tactic framed as “negotiation” but viewed by many as a delay of consumer choice.

Even though a significant milestone has been reached, it is worthwhile to conduct a brief audit of what led to the need for a Starlink petition.

Sure SA’s Possible Strategic Missteps

First, let’s review areas where Sure SA’s telecommunications approach in the Falkland Islands may have fallen short.

Betting on the wrong vendor
Sure SA backed OneWeb early on, a LEO business model misaligned with Falklands consumers’ needs, then resisted Starlink to defend that decision. Technical delays further compounded the problem.

Ignoring the inevitable
As global momentum shifted decisively to LEO and Starlink became the market leader, Sure SA continued to delay acknowledging Starlink and its growing use in the Falklands.

A decade of technological stagnation
Due to a lack of investment, broadband in Stanley still relies on decades-old VDSL copper, while Camp only recently began moving beyond WiMAX to LTE — a transition that was slow, limited, and significantly overdue.

No lack of adequate budget
Despite consistently substantial profits and significant dividends paid to the parent company, Batelco, local investment and innovation lagged.

Strategic refusal to collaborate
Rather than partnering with FIG to plan the Falklands’ long-term digital future, Sure SA adopted a defensive posture, eroding trust in its commitment to the community.

Withholding unlimited broadband until competition loomed
Unlimited broadband was introduced only when Starlink’s entry became inevitable — and appeared to be used as a negotiating tool — suggesting that sufficient capacity had, in fact, existed beforehand.

Leveraging legal threat for financial gain
Sure SA sought £6.1m from FIG in exchange for not pursuing a judicial review over Starlink’s introduction — a move viewed as prioritising commercial interests over consumer benefit.

Losing public trust has consequences
If Sure SA had demonstrated reliable performance and genuine innovation, the December 2027 licence transition might have proceeded smoothly. Instead, waning confidence has compelled FIG to reconsider policy, explore alternative providers, and acknowledge the significant infrastructure upgrades still required in Stanley and Camp.

These points are not expressions of blame, but reflections on lessons learned. Delays in progress had consequences, and it’s essential to recognise how they affected the community.

Did the Falkland Islands Government Fall Short?

While Sure SA made independent strategic choices, these occurred alongside government policies and decisions that influenced the outcome. Key considerations included:

Over-reliance on a monopoly provider
For more than a decade, FIG placed critical national connectivity in the hands of a single supplier, with no competitive pressure or meaningful contingency planning. The monopoly was treated as a default, not a strategic risk.

Failure to anticipate technological change
Government planning did not keep pace with rapid global shifts in telecoms. While other nations embraced LEO technologies, the Falklands remained tied to legacy paths and did not demand innovation early enough. Sure, SA could have served as a key source of strategic guidance to FIG, but it seemingly did not.

Absence of a long-term public digital vision
There is no agreed or published NATIONAL digital strategy linking telecommunications infrastructure with broader goals in education, healthcare, the economy, and remote residency. Efforts toward a Falkland Islands broadband strategy have so far been limited to expanding Intelsat satellite capacity by subsidising Sure SA at a cost of approximately £1 million per year.

Need for a Regulator
Back in 2015–2017, it was rightly recommended that the Falkland Islands should establish an independent telecommunications regulator. While this was an appropriate and forward-looking proposal, there was a general expectation that such a regulator would be able to resolve many of the issues associated with Sure SA’s services. In hindsight, this expectation was somewhat naïve, as it overestimated the regulator’s ability to influence decisions that were fundamentally commercial and strategic, made by Sure SA—and so it proved.

Reactive rather than proactive policy-making
Instead of defining a forward-looking connectivity strategy, policy responses were often reactive and protective of the status quo, rather than shaping a competitive, future-ready telecoms environment.

Underestimating public frustration
Rising public dissatisfaction was evident but insufficiently recognised. By the time concerns were addressed, frustration had reached a level that required a public petition — an outcome that should have been avoidable through earlier engagement.

A decade of semi-stagnation
FIG did not cause the semi-stagnation from a telecommunications technology perspective, but it allowed the conditions in which stagnation became possible. Ultimately, Falkland Islanders had to fight for choice rather than having it delivered as part of their democratic entitlement.

Missed economic-development opportunities
Connectivity policy wasn’t framed as a growth engine (e.g., remote work, research stations, tourism tech, defence connectivity resilience). Strong connectivity wasn’t treated as a competitive asset for the Falklands.

Limited stakeholder engagement
Industry, community groups, and businesses were not regularly included in telecommunications planning. Consultation was reactive rather than embedded in policymaking.

To conclude in a positive vein, even though Sure SA was granted an exclusive licence, the decision to exempt self-provisioning of VSATs was a stroke of foresight and good fortune for future innovation. This exemption became key to the argument that Starlink should be licensed even though this is only for personal, consumer use. It also ensured that government use remained unrestricted.

Possible learnings

The Falklands telecommunications story offers clear lessons in strategy, investment, and collaboration. Sure SA’s early bet on OneWeb did not align with local needs, and resistance to Starlink delayed meaningful progress. At the same time, decades-old infrastructure in Stanley and slow upgrades in Camp highlighted that financial strength alone does not guarantee local innovation. Both the operator and the government missed opportunities to embrace emerging technology and plan for the islands’ long-term digital future.

Public trust suffered as Sure SA delayed the rollout of unlimited broadband, issued legal threats, and refused to collaborate with the Falkland Islands Government. A similar situation occurred on other South Atlantic islands. FIG also played a role by over-relying on a monopoly provider, reacting slowly to technological change, and failing to establish a long-term digital strategy that linked connectivity to education, healthcare, economic growth, and resilience.

The case shows that strategic foresight, proactive policy, and collaboration between operators and government are essential. Timely investment, competitive pressure, and continuous engagement with communities help prevent stagnation and build trust. Most importantly, technology decisions should always serve the people they are meant to benefit, ensuring that digital infrastructure becomes a tool for growth rather than a source of frustration.

Falklands’ telecoms: Learning From Yesterday, Building for Tomorrow

“Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it”

Leave a Reply Cancel reply