If Sure Challenges the Falklands Government Over Starlink – What Comes Next?

Perhaps this could be an alternative title for this post?

“The People Chose Starlink – Will Sure Try to Overrule Them?

As Starlink’s long-awaited arrival in the Falkland Islands draws closer, the region’s digital landscape is poised for a historic transformation. Yet not everyone welcomes the change. The local telecommunications provider, Sure South Atlantic (Sure), has expressed significant concern about the Falkland Islands Government’s (FIG) decision to permit other VSAT-based services, such as Starlink, which could potentially bypass Sure’s exclusive telecommunications license. Some speculate that Sure may even pursue legal action against FIG. While we all hope it doesn’t come to that, it raises a critical question: How might FIG respond if it does?

The analysis presented here is a personal perspective, drawing on publicly available information. Additionally, I am not a lawyer, and what follows is pure conjecture.

Why would Sure think that legal action benefits them?

Sure may view legal action against the FIG as a strategic move to protect its commercial interests amid growing competition. One of the primary motivations could be to delay or disrupt Starlink’s market entry. Even a temporary halt in licensing or rollout would slow down Starlink and help preserve Sure’s revenue streams in the short term.

Another reason would be to try to protect Sure’s long-standing market dominance. The drastic reduction of the VSAT licence fee, from £5,400 to £180, will be seen by Sure as a regulatory decision that unfairly undermines its existing operating conditions. Legal action might be aimed at challenging the fairness or legality of such a significant change, especially if Sure believes it breaches the spirit, if not the letter, of its current exclusive licence. Sure will argue that the FIG’s policy shift constitutes an unfair intervention that disproportionately affects their commercial standing.

Legal proceedings could also serve as a negotiation tactic. By possibly threatening or initiating legal action, Sure may be trying to gain leverage in discussions with FIG, potentially securing transitional support, regulatory concessions, or a better position when its licence comes up for renewal. In this context, litigation may not be about winning in court, but rather about increasing bargaining power.

Ultimately, legal action may be about reasserting control and influencing the future regulatory landscape. However, such a move comes with considerable risk, especially in a small community where public sentiment overwhelmingly favours improved services and greater choice.

What legal actions might Sure take?

Let’s consider what I believe would be the two main legal paths Sure might pursue. I am sure that FIG would have considered these options and others in considerable depth before they decided to relax VSAT policies.

1. Breach of Contract
   Sure could argue that allowing Starlink to operate violates the exclusivity terms of its existing licence, especially if that licence guarantees market protection until 2028. It could be claimed that the drastic reduction in the VSAT licence fee from £5,400 to £180 materially undermines the exclusive licence’s financial returns. Indeed, during the Select Committee submission, this is precisely what was claimed.

2. Judicial Review
   Sure could challenge the legality or fairness of FIG’s decision-making process, claiming procedural unfairness, lack of consultation, or irrational policy change. This could include claims that it was not adequately consulted, or that the policy change was so drastic as to be unreasonable. It might also be argued that it had a legitimate expectation of stable regulatory conditions for the rest of its exclusive licence period. Again, this is speculative analysis, and only a full legal review of the licence terms and FIG’s actions could determine whether such claims would hold up in court. Though we know that following due process was paramount in FIG’s mind throughout the process.

To address these challenges, I would hazard a guess that an injunction could be used. An injunction is a court order that either prevents a specific action from happening or requires a specific action to be taken. In this case, Sure could likely seek a temporary injunction to prevent FIG from issuing a licence to Starlink or implementing the new licence policies pending the outcome of a broader legal challenge (like breach of contract or judicial review discussed above).

What are the takeaways from the possibility of legal action?

First and foremost, it’s important to remember that this policy change wasn’t made behind closed doors in a smoky room. It was the result of a robust, democratic process. A dedicated Select Committee of the Legislative Assembly spent many months investigating the issue. More than 600 residents responded to a public consultation, an unprecedented level of engagement in a population of just 3,500. Additionally, a petition in support of Starlink’s introduction gathered over 2,400 signatures in July 2024. After a thorough review and clear public support, FIG reduced the VSAT licence fee from £5,400 to £180, making it financially viable for businesses and consumers to use Starlink legally. This wasn’t just a technical regulatory tweak; it was an unprecedented community-backed policy reform.

Some may interpret Sure’s objections as being more focused on market control than on fairness. The company has held a monopoly on local telecommunications and broadband service for many years. While there have been incremental service improvements, residents have long voiced frustrations about limited speeds, high costs, and reliability issues. Interestingly, Sure commissioned a technical report that appeared to emphasise the benefits of its preferred alternative over Starlink. Furthermore, the company has publicly warned that these changes could significantly harm, or even destroy, its profits, suggesting that its primary concern is maintaining its commercial dominance rather than addressing consumers’ needs.

It’s also worth dispelling a common misconception: that the Government has “handed” anything to Starlink. In reality, Starlink must still undergo the same rigorous licensing process as any other provider. This includes applying for a licence, securing spectrum allocation, and meeting all regulatory requirements. The Government hasn’t given Starlink a free pass, as it has simply created a framework that makes telecommunication competition possible. Sure is welcome to compete under these same terms going forward.

From a legal and procedural standpoint, the Government has done everything by the book so far. The policy shift was grounded in consultation, legislation, and due diligence. It was reviewed at multiple levels, from internal analysis and multiple external expert consultations to Executive Council approval, and was conducted in accordance with existing communications law. If Sure chooses to pursue legal action, they will be challenging not only FIG’s authority but also the clearly expressed will of the Falkland Islands’ public and its MLAs.

That said, the Government can —and should—keep the door open for dialogue. A constructive approach would involve inviting Sure to update its service offerings as proposed during Alistair Beak’s (CEO of Sure South Atlantic) visit in March, participating in ongoing fair licensing discussions, or exploring innovative ways to cooperate with the Government in its work to define what will happen when Sure’s exclusive licence expires.

At the same time, FIG should continue to move forward transparently with Starlink licensing even if Sure decides to undertake legal action, ensuring decisions are well-documented and communicated to the public. Messaging is also critical: the Government must continue to emphasise that this is about improving connectivity, affordability, and resilience for all islanders, not about favouring one company over another. Ultimately, I am confident that FIG is taking this approach.

Finally, any legal action by Sure must be weighed against the public mood. The people have spoken. They want more choice, better service, and a break from monopolistic control that has not met the needs of the islanders. If Sure proceeds with litigation, it risks not only alienating the community but also overtly positioning itself as the islands’ only barrier to progress. We should all remember that the exclusive licence ends on December 29^th 2027.

Conclusions

In truth, Starlink isn’t the threat here; stagnation is. The Falklands have a unique opportunity to embrace a new digital era, one where people have greater freedom, faster speeds, and more equitable pricing. If Sure decides to challenge that future in court, FIG should stand firm and not delay licensing Starlink, knowing that it has acted legally, transparently, and in the best interest of the public. And in doing so, it will continue leading the way toward a more connected and competitive Falklands.