Something significant happened in St Helena today that deserves close attention in the Falkland Islands. On 16 September 2026, the St Helena Government (SHG) announced it had signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Sure South Atlantic to advance a major upgrade to the island’s broadband and mobile networks.
At first sight, that might sound like another telecommunications investment announcement. But buried within it is a much more important principle:
“A key principle of the proposed arrangements is that new network assets purchased through the publicly funded project would remain SHG-owned assets, recognising the importance of telecommunications infrastructure as part of St Helena’s critical national infrastructure.”
That deserves to be read again. The government will own the new telecommunications infrastructure. Sure is intended to operate and maintain it. For the Falkland Islands, currently considering what its own telecommunications arrangements should look like after 2027, that is highly relevant.
Ownership and Service Operation Are Not the Same Thing
One assumption that can easily creep into telecommunications discussions is that whoever provides services to customers must also own the underlying network. St Helena is proposing something different.
Public money will fund new telecommunications assets. Those assets will remain publicly owned. Sure is intended to operate and maintain them during the licence period, with the investment ultimately remaining with St Helena. That separates two questions which I believe the Falklands also needs to consider separately:
Who should own strategically important telecommunications infrastructure? And who should operate it and provide services over it? They do not necessarily have to be the same.
This Is Not About Whether Sure Should Be Involved
Another important aspect of the St Helena announcement is this. SHG is not excluding Sure. Quite the opposite: it intends to work with Sure to deliver and operate the upgraded network. But neither is it simply handing publicly funded infrastructure to the operator. Public ownership and private-sector operation are being combined.
That is important because discussions about the future of Falklands telecommunications should not be reduced to a choice between retaining Sure in its present form or replacing Sure with somebody else. There are other models. Sure—or another suitably qualified operator—could potentially operate infrastructure without necessarily owning all of it.
St Helena Is Separating Infrastructure From Licensing
The announcement makes another distinction that I think is particularly important. The infrastructure project and St Helena’s future telecommunications licence are being treated as separate workstreams. The MoU does not itself grant Sure a new telecommunications licence. That means St Helena can progress urgently needed investment while separately determining the longer-term licensing arrangements.
Again, there may be lessons here for the Falklands. The islands need investment in an ageing telecommunications infrastructure, particularly Stanley’s fixed network. But decisions about who funds and owns replacement infrastructure do not necessarily have to predetermine the telecommunications market’s entire future structure.
This Is Very Close to What I Have Been Arguing
I have argued for some time that the Falklands should seriously examine a model in which strategically important telecommunications infrastructure is publicly owned, while operation and retail services can be provided under appropriate commercial arrangements. That does not mean simply copying St Helena. The two territories have different networks, geography, international connectivity and economic circumstances.
Nor do we yet know the detailed commercial arrangements between SHG and Sure. The announcement itself makes clear that substantial technical, contractual, licensing and approval work remains to be completed. But St Helena has established an important principle: public ownership of telecommunications infrastructure and commercial operation of that infrastructure are not mutually exclusive.
The Falklands Should Examine This Option
FIG has said work is now underway to shape future telecommunications market models. As we know, the Falkland Islands Government has signed an MoU with SHG, so they should be familiar with what is being proposed in St Helena. I believe public ownership of key telecommunications infrastructure should explicitly be one of the models examined during that process.
That should include questions such as who should own any future fibre network in Stanley, who should own strategically important mobile infrastructure, whether common infrastructure could support more than one service provider where competition is practical, and how public investment can remain an asset of the Falkland Islands rather than becoming permanently embedded within one commercial operator.
There may ultimately be good reasons for choosing another model. But those reasons should emerge from comparing the alternatives rather than assuming that the traditional vertically integrated model—where one telecommunications company owns the network and sells the services carried over it—is the only practical solution.
The Timing Could Hardly Be Better
St Helena’s announcement comes as the Falklands considers its own post-2027 telecommunications arrangements. That makes it particularly useful.
A closely related South Atlantic territory now faces many of the same fundamental questions about small-market telecommunications, investment and critical national infrastructure. St Helena has reached one particularly interesting conclusion: if public money pays for strategic telecommunications infrastructure, there is a strong case for that infrastructure remaining a public asset.
However, we should remember that St Helena’s project is substantially funded through UK Government grant money, including the FCDO’s Economic Development Investment Programme, alongside funding through a separate BIOT Memorandum of Understanding. The Falklands do not have access to external funding on the same basis, given the Islands’ greater fiscal autonomy from the UK.
That is a real and significant difference, not a minor one, and it raises an obvious question: how would the Falklands fund public ownership of strategic telecommunications infrastructure without an equivalent external funding source?
It is a fair question. But the absence of a ready-made funding mechanism is an argument for examining how public ownership could be financed here, not a reason to avoid examining the principle at all.
Addendum
It is interesting to read yesterday’s contrasting post in the Jersey Evening Post: Sure beset with service issues amid ambitious investment programme
Chris Gare, OpenFalklands, September 2026, copyright OpenFalklands
