FIG Has Not Ruled Out Telecoms Exclusivity After 2027

We seem to be learning what is going on inside FIG’s telecommunications work in dribs and drabs, largely through face-to-face interviews that explain the reasons for the delays, rather than through a comprehensive public update.

It is beginning to remind me of the boiling-frog metaphor, where gradual change happens so slowly that its significance is not immediately recognised. Taken individually, each new statement may not appear particularly dramatic. Put them together, however, and a different picture of the post-2027 process is emerging.

Recent verbal updates from MLAs have gradually told us more about what is happening behind the scenes, and the direction and emphasis appear to have changed since the new Assembly and FIG Chief Executive took office. Among other things, we have learned that:

The closed August ExCo paper considered giving notice to Sure and set parameters for doing so and for engaging with the international telecommunications market.
FIG says those parameters have not yet been met because of “recent geopolitical events”.
FIG still intends to give notice to Sure, but has not given a date.
International market engagement is still intended to form part of the process, once FIG believes the conditions are right.
FIG officers are already in regular contact with Sure so that both organisations will be in the best possible position to “work together effectively once notice is given”.
FIG says it intends to work constructively with Sure through the transition, while maintaining that it has not yet decided the future telecommunications arrangements.

I have discussed these verbal snippets in two posts.

Becky Clark’s Interview

A Falkland Islands TV interview with Becky Clark, FIG’s Director of Strategic Projects, has added an important detail to a developing picture. Clark gives perhaps the clearest explanation yet of FIG’s reluctance to start the clock on Sure’s existing licence. Once notice is given, she says, it triggers a two-year exit process. FIG does not want to do that until it is:

“absolutely certain that we’re going to be in a position within that two-year period to do the best possible transfer of responsibilities from the current exclusive model to whatever it is that’s indicated for the future.”

That is significant. FIG is not simply waiting for a convenient date to give notice. It appears to want much greater certainty about the future model and how the transition would work before starting that process. But if FIG gave notice now, the two-year period would already extend beyond December 2027. What arrangements would then apply with Sure in the meantime, and on what terms?

The interview itself can be seen at 14:26 in the video.

Another International Market Exercise

Clark also confirms that FIG is hoping to undertake a future market engagement exercise. She says the current international situation and FIG’s ability to engage with markets are “just not seen as optimal”. FIG wants to give Executive Council the best chance to consider as many opportunities and options as possible before it decides.

But FIG has already tested the international market. Cambridge Management Consultants undertook Preliminary Market Engagement on FIG’s behalf in late 2025. So an obvious question, asked several times before, remains: what will materially differ in the next international market exercise?

There is a circularity here: FIG wants certainty about the transition before giving notice, but that certainty depends on a market engagement exercise with no start date.

Exclusivity Has Not Been Ruled Out

Perhaps the most important statement in the interview concerns the structure of the future telecommunications market.

Clark says:

“We haven’t ruled it out, because the necessity of exclusivity may still apply. We’re still a small community.”

Importantly, she says FIG is considering

“if and where exclusivity might be required in future provision.”

That does not necessarily mean recreating today’s exclusive telecommunications model. Exclusivity might apply only to specific infrastructure or services, while other parts of the market remain open to competition. But it does mean that some form of exclusivity after 2027 remains firmly on FIG’s table.

Of course, there may be a case for exclusivity around particular pieces of essential infrastructure where duplication would make little economic sense. But that is very different from broad market exclusivity. If FIG now believes some form of exclusivity remains necessary after 2027, it needs to explain precisely where, why, and what has led it to that conclusion.

Sure Is “Absolutely Essential”

Clark also makes a striking comment about Sure:

“Sure, particularly the local team within the Falkland Islands, are absolutely essential to us.”

She says FIG is working constructively with them and wants to ensure they are respected and informed. There is an important distinction here. The local Sure workforce is essential to a successful transition, but that doesn’t mean Sure South Atlantic must automatically become the future operator.

Indeed, if FIG genuinely wants as many different opportunities and options as possible from the international market, maintaining that distinction becomes particularly important. Sure should have every opportunity to compete for whatever role emerges after 2027 – but so should other credible operators.

The Picture Is Becoming Clearer

We know more now than we did even a week ago. FIG has chosen to delay notice until it is more confident it can complete a transition successfully. FIG plans another international market engagement exercise. Some form of exclusivity remains possible. And FIG is already working closely with Sure in preparation for the eventual transition. None of that tells us what FIG has decided. Indeed, it may not have decided yet.

But the direction of travel is becoming clearer. Let’s see what the next piece of information to emerge in ‘dribs and drabs’ tells us. The bigger question is whether the eventual international process will genuinely determine the Falklands’ future telecommunications model, or merely confirm a direction already taking shape.

For an issue as important as the future of Falklands telecommunications, this is not how government should communicate with the public. Islanders should not have to piece together major policy and process developments from occasional interviews and public meetings. FIG should provide clear, comprehensive, and regular updates on what it is considering, what has changed, and what happens next.

Against that background, I find it surprising that exclusivity has not been ruled out, because it runs counter to the overwhelming direction of the views and conversations I have had about Falklands telecommunications over many years. Those conversations have repeatedly reflected dissatisfaction with the consequences of an exclusive market and a desire for greater choice and competition. Indeed, ending exclusivity altogether was a recurring theme long before the current round of telecommunications work began in 2025.

Islanders should take note.