This is the official website for the Starlink Select Committee.
The agenda of the 20th September 2024 Starlink Select Committee.
Listen to an interview by Kris Ball with Roma Stewart, CEO of Sure Falkland Islands, broadcast on the 18th of September on Falkland Islands Radio service.
On September 16th, Sure Falkland Islands updated their new ‘unlimited’ service by an additional a 5 GB limited hotspot quota!
A summary of camp capital expenditure for the period 2019 to 2023 as posted to the public Select Committee website.
SURE- Camp Capital Spend
Listen to an interview by Traighana Smith with MLA Birmingham, broadcast on the 18th of September about Starlink Select Committee on Falkland Islands Radio service.
David Rogerson of Incyte Consulting, the Communications Regulator’s consultant, has submitted the following written submission to the Starllink Select Committee.
240917 Select Committee Briefing Paper redactedDownload a copy of the submission.
The 20th September Starlink Select Committee oral submissions.
The Falklands Islands Regulator (The FIG Attorney General standing in for the Regulator) gives an oral submission to the Starlink Selection Committee. Credit: Falkland Islands Radio service.
The FIG Director of Development & Commercial Services gives an oral submission to the Starlink Selection Committee. Credit: Falkland Islands Radio service.
The next Select Committee meeting is at 09:00 on the 3rd of October, 2024.
Chris Gare, OpenFalklands September 2024, copyright OpenFalklands
Some commentary from an outside observer…
The technological changes are relentless. SpaceX is launching Starlink satellites at an unprecedented pace. Roughly two-thirds of those satellites are for internet service and the other one-third are related to cell phones (called direct-to-cell). Near the end of the select committee’s deliberations, Starlink will be in a position to provide voice, text, data, and emergency service to cell phones throughout the Islands and adjacent waters. Because of the life-critical importance of these kinds of services, and Sure’s inability to provide similar from ground level, MLAs and the FIG will be pressured constantly to renegotiate or cancel the Sure contract.
In many respects, Starlink’s technology is ideal for the Islands. But the bureaucratic transition to it could be messy. Consider that SpaceX is a small company for what it does. It’s very engineering-heavy and it shies away from the task of client hand-holding. I laughed when I read its reply letter to the FIG. Yep, that sounds like a letter that a well-meaning but overworked SpaceXer would write in between letters to Brazilian and Indonesian authorities. They would love to apply for a license, but they are incapable of devoting enough time and attention to jumping through the elaborate hoops that the FIG accepts as normal and expected. Because of this, Sure might end up being the middleman/distributor.
In any event, good luck!
Having remotely attended both sessions of the select committee meetings and listened to all the presenters and questions asked of them by the MLA’s I don’t envy the Select Committee’s job at all. The current problems encountered by all who live on the Islands are significant and is affecting the economic and social aspects in a very big way.
Sure are determined to only look at the short term future and are not considering that by being determined to stand their ground on exclusivity it is bound to affect any long term prospects after the exclusivity expires. If I was the CEO of Sure I would be trying to secure the future of the company by negotiating what I could offer the Islands after exclusivity trading what I have now and allowing the petition to go through. By sticking their boots in the ground now they are alienating way more people on the Islands than they think.
FIG, who is not subject to the exclusivity should now be looking to cancel their problematic, slow and expensive contracts with Sure and installing Starlink in each school, in the hospital and across all FIG offices. The public should be questioning why the money FIG spend on FIGs internet services isn’t spent in a better way now that technology has moved on. Whilst the MLAs heard from students how slow internet is affecting them at home they also heard how it is stressing them out in lessons yet FIG has the opportunity legally to make that change in schools despite the result of the petition.
A million pound a year subsidy….. is that guaranteed until the end of the contract or can that be reviewed at any time? That was designed to increase the quotas for everyone yet was it really needed with a profit margin of 48% coming to Sure? The regulator stated that some other companies make even more than that which may be the case, but do they also get 1 million pounds per annum from the government?
Sure have very recently increased the quotas again, but so close to the select committees meetings, and they didnt ask for a million pounds this time.
The extremely high fee for a VSAT license that is being reviewed is there only to protect Sure’s exclusivity because if there was no such contract in place it is extremely doubtful the fee would be in place.
I will end this by simply saying a massive thank you to all presenters and all the MLA’s for your exceptional questions and answers. Good luck in bringing this to a conclusion.
1) In essence these defined terms and the licensing obligations capture the ownership and provision of the equipment necessary…
For a third party TECHNICAL CONSULTANT, he seems to be telling the Attorney General about how to interpret the law:
2) licences can be granted subject to conditions and those conditions can be varied even after a licence has been granted.
Apparently hands are “tied” especially over the amount levied, despite MLA protestations to the contrary.
3) Effectively these provisions and the terms of the licence itself seek to strike a fair balance
I will be delighted to get £8M profit next year.
4) the Ordinance makes clear that the setting of licence fees is the
responsibility of the Governor (rather than the Regulator or the Legislative Assembly).
So can you explain why the Governor was not mentioned as a colluding partner by the old Oftel lawyer, Chris, who now works for Sure?
5) But there will be winners and losers from any change to VSAT licence fees: lower fees provide immediate benefits to those who use VSATs for internet access, but they risk higher fees for other services and even loss universal service provision in the longer term.
I’m thinking that the loser will be Bahrainy Telecom, the parent company of Sure. Dunno why, cause they licenced Starlink to operate in Bahrain in April 2023.
6) The presumption should therefore be that the licence fee ought to stay as it is, unless there have been relevant and material changes in the electronic communications environment.
Starlink could, by anyone who can do sums, be considered to be a relevant and material change in telecoms – the rest of the world SEEMS to think so.
7) Sure has amended its broadband packages
On behalf of ALL of the organisers of the Starlink petition – “You’re welcome”
8) The exclusive licence allowed Sure to use collective purchasing to obtain some economies of scale
Which they materially failed to do – two pVSAT users had the “luxury” of free evening AND free weekend usage. WHY could Sure with it’s collective purchasing power not obtain similar tariffs for it’s customers? Or did it simply fail to pass those savings on?
9) And, of course, the number of applications will rise
further if the licence fee is reduced. But none of this should affect the regulated price of the VSAT licence. The licence fee was set to cover the economic externality (i.e. the cost to the collective of one person withdrawing their broadband service from the Sure network).
And that, of course, is pure fiction, because a) there was NEVER a test to see if Sure was simply incapable (and therefore there was NEVER any loss incurred by them),
and b) any version of a percieved loss was not collected by Sure (even if the very capable Oftel lawyer Christine Durnell was involved in the legal to-and-fro for the 2016 posturing).
10) Today the largest Sure broadband package (other than bespoke arrangements) is the
Pro XL which costs £467.
Thank you for playing Jeopardy – their biggest uncapped provision at 15 Mbps works out at “only” £320. So that’s only x20 slower and x4 more expensive than a residential Starlink account.
11) Although there have been some relevant and material changes in the communications
environment since the VSAT licence was launched, none of these changes alters the
economic calculus that led to the VSAT licence fee being set at £5400 per annum.
Bollocks!
12) However, if the benefits are so great, then many of these customers should be willing
to pay the VSAT licence fee in order to obtain them.
Actually, we banded together to show that the law is questionable and needs to be rewritten. As John Birmingham himself said – you cannot ban something in perpetuity. So, crack on, ladies and gentlemen… History awaits.
13) migration of customers away from Sure’s broadband service will undermine the exclusive licensee’s ability to fund other communication services (fixed lines, mobile, radio, TV).
I think you’ve copied and pasted that from elsewhere (chatgpt presents similar arguments, actually).
BUT here in the Falklands, Sure does not provide radio or tv facilities. There IS a catchup tv facility funded by FIG and supplied and supported by BFBS, called miplayer. ALSO, there WAS a streaming facility for the commonwealth games but Sure were specifically directed by the BBC to make it available to EVERYONE, at zero cost.
14) Starlink has not applied for a licence in the Falkland Islands. Were it to do so, the Communications Regulator would have to consider whether granting such a licence would be in breach of Sure’s exclusivity.
Wrong – the primary legislation in paragraph 24 and 25 talk about exceptions before they even CONSIDER the exclusive licence. Sure SA cannot plead ignorance of the law if FIG, the MILITARY, BFBS, BAS and anyone able to demonstrate that Sure are incapable of providing a required service actually do so. They cannot whinge to the military, to the government, to the ACTUAL TV provider, and to any individual who can demonstrate their inability to provide a service that they have “lost” any revenue. They simply HAVE NOT LOST anything, and they simply cannot bar the military, the government, the TV provider or the individual from providing services that they are incapable of providing. A week ago, Roma Stuart sat in front of the Select Committee and stated that Sure are incapable of determining if they have lost any money AT ALL.
15) experience from other jurisdictions, including Ascension and small island nations in the Pacific, suggests that SURE would strongly resist any licence conditions that attempt to control the prices
that it may charge.
I fixed that for you David. It is Sure that has currently loosed the legal dogs-of-war against places like Ascension. It is interesting to note that the parent company in Bahrain didn’t try such legal posturing when Starlink was given a licence to operate there in April 2013.
16) 4.8 Neither the Communications Regulator nor MLAs have the ability to grant regulatory
approval for Starlink to offer domestic tariffs in the Falkland Islands.
Yup, it’s up to the governor.
17) 4.9 The only available power is for the Communications Regulator to grant Starlink a domestic service provider licence, but this can only be done if Starlink applies for such a licence.
And as per Rebecca Hunter’s submission, “Starlink would very much like to apply for a service provider license in the Falkland Islands”
Well said Brian