Hacker News Reader

Comment by jeffgreco | Hacker News Reader

Strong FAFO vibes.

By who? Are you blaming locals who want to use Starlink, or the incumbent monopoly that's likely twisting arms behind the scenes to ensure it retains the stranglehold on communications to the islands?

> ...twisting arms behind the scenes...

Falkland Islands, pop 3,600 [0] - can they sustain a "behind the scenes"?

The Chinese National People's Congress is around 3,000 members. A bit of net emigration and the Falklands would be smaller than a legislative body.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands

It's much easier to sustain corruption in a small community. The current setup will be personally beneficial to someone.

In the sense that island communities are invariably quirky and the sexual abuse tends to be off the charts bad, sure. But nothing is happening behind the scenes. There isn't enough else to gossip about and people can't hide their wealth or stay off the radar.

It isn't really possible to fight the community on an island that small. If a lynch mob forms it could potentially include the entire 10 people in the police force and nobody saw nuttin'. Corrupt, but overt.

> The Chinese National People's Congress is around 3,000 members. A bit of net emigration and the Falklands would be smaller than a legislative body.

That's not really a great example; the reason 人民代表大会 can be so big is that the legislative decisions it formalizes are mostly made elsewhere.

The Chinese National People’s Congress isn’t a legislative body, it’s a pastiche of one.

This monopoly seems to be preventing unexpected changes. Maybe better Internet would cause it to turn into a digital nomad paradise, which would cause more demand for visiting or living there, and that in turn would cause greater tension in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_d...

> Because Sure International holds an exclusive monopoly telecommunications licence, Starlink’s use in the islands is currently illegal.

The national emergency seems to be that they want to do something that is explicitly illegal. The article seems to be missing important context on why they expect to be able to do what they are doing.

The article also says the law was changed but it will take two months to take effect.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com