After ExCo: Where Does Sure Fit Into the Next Stage?

The report on Executive Council meetings held on 12 and 25 August 2026 included this statement:

“Future of Telecommunications – Closed paper: Executive Council agreed the next stage of planning to secure robust telecommunications provisions for the Falkland Islands. Work will now begin on shaping future market models and opportunities for public engagement will be outlined soon. Full public communications are being planned to reflect decisions made. Owing to strong commercial sensitivities, no comment can be made until they are published.”

This tells us rather more than we knew. Future market models are still to be shaped, public engagement has been promised, and further information is to be published. That is encouraging, but the reference to “strong commercial sensitivities” also raises some obvious questions. FIG has not explained what those sensitivities are.

What Are the “Strong Commercial Sensitivities”?

It would be easy to assume that they relate to discussions with Sure, but there is insufficient public evidence to reach that conclusion. FIG has previously undertaken preliminary market engagement with international telecommunications providers, and the sensitivities could equally involve potential operators, market models, procurement strategy, costs, contractual issues or possible arrangements with Sure.

Nevertheless, the wording is significant. If work will now begin on “shaping future market models”, what is already sufficiently commercially sensitive to prevent further comment? Does it concern the international process FIG previously promised? Possible negotiations with Sure? Information received from other telecommunications providers? Or something else entirely?

There may be perfectly legitimate reasons for withholding commercially sensitive details. The issue is whether enough can be explained for the community to understand what has already been decided and what choices remain genuinely open.

Where Does Sure Fit Into This?

Whatever long-term model emerges, discussions between FIG and Sure will be unavoidable. They may concern Sure’s exit and continuity of services beyond December 2027, or they could involve a transitional extension or revised arrangement while a different long-term model is established.

That needs to be considered alongside FIG’s Chief Executive’s previous statement:

“The Falkland Islands Government still intends to give notice to Sure and to run an international process to decide on the future of telecommunications in and for the Falkland Islands.”

Giving notice and running an international process would not prevent FIG from negotiating transitional arrangements with Sure. Indeed, some negotiation with the incumbent is almost certainly unavoidable. The important distinction is whether those negotiations enable the transition to a new telecommunications model – or begin to determine the model itself.

The Obvious Suspicion

There is, of course, another interpretation that many Islanders may already have reached: that FIG may already be negotiating with Sure because continuing with the incumbent represents the safest and least disruptive option.

It is not difficult to see why that suspicion might arise. No public confirmation has been made that notice has been served; the time before December 2027 is shortening; Sure operates much of the existing infrastructure; the ExCo paper contains “strong commercial sensitivities”; and there is a clear precedent for FIG resolving telecommunications uncertainty through negotiation with the incumbent.

But a plausible interpretation is not evidence. The commercial sensitivities may concern something quite different, and FIG has explicitly said that it intends to give notice to Sure and run an international process.

That is why greater clarity now matters. If negotiations with Sure are taking place, there may be perfectly sound reasons. The important question is not whether FIG should talk to Sure, but whether those discussions are about managing a transition or deciding the future before the promised international process and public engagement have taken place.

The Unanswered Question of Notice

Notice could have been served from January 2026, allowing the full two years before the existing arrangements end in December 2027. Every month of delay reduces the time available to establish whatever alternative arrangements FIG ultimately chooses.

That matters because delay increasingly creates its own argument for continuity. The less transition time available, the harder it becomes to put new infrastructure, contractual and regulatory arrangements in place while maintaining uninterrupted services.

At some point, the consequences of delay could themselves become the justification for continuing some form of arrangement with Sure. As future market models take shape, the status of notice becomes more important, not less.

The 2016 Precedent

Something broadly similar happened in 2016. FIG considered alternative telecommunications models but ultimately entered commercial negotiations with Sure, resulting in the exclusive arrangements that remain in place today.

Much has changed since then. Starlink has transformed the satellite broadband market, and FIG has explicitly committed to an international process. But some realities remain: the Falklands is a very small market, Sure operates much of the existing infrastructure, continuity must be protected, and significant change carries operational and financial risk.

The lesson from 2016 is not that history will repeat itself, but that commercial negotiations can themselves help determine the eventual policy outcome. That is why it matters to understand, at least broadly, what today’s “strong commercial sensitivities” concern and what the ExCo summary means when it says future public communications will “reflect decisions made”.

A Transitional Agreement Would Not Necessarily Mean Another 2016

Nor would an agreement with Sure necessarily mean abandoning reform. A shorter transitional arrangement, potentially involving changes to exclusivity, investment obligations, or infrastructure ownership, could provide continuity while a different long-term model is established. That could be entirely rational if an international process and subsequent transition cannot safely be completed before the existing arrangements end.

Again, the distinction is between negotiation enabling the transition and negotiation becoming the long-term solution itself.

Public Engagement Is Now the Next Test

The commitment that “opportunities for public engagement will be outlined soon” should be welcomed. The Assembly previously told the Connected Falklands Group that the August ExCo paper would “determine a preferred direction of travel rather than to approve a final implementation plan.” We are now told that work will begin on “shaping future market models”.

Taken together, those statements suggest that meaningful choices should remain open. The test will be when public engagement takes place and what the community can actually influence. If businesses, consumers and other stakeholders can contribute while alternative models are genuinely being shaped, that would be a significant and positive development.

Commercial confidentiality does not require publishing every negotiating position or piece of information supplied by potential operators. But meaningful engagement does require enough information for the community to understand the broad alternatives and what has already been decided.

Addendum

Sure is undertaking a telecommunications survey this September. I do hope that the results will be placed in the public domain as a contribution to improving their relationship with the islands’ community.

I would certainly encourage consumers and businesses to take a few minutes to answer the questions Sure asks about telecommunications.