Hacker News Reader

Comment by ltbarcly3 | Hacker News Reader

Why does there need to be a 'state solution' when there is an affordable retail solution that individuals/families/groups can just purchase themselves?

Answer: Because of corruption! It's illegal to use Starlink in Greenland, and Tusass holds a concessioned monopoly over “telecommunications services in, to and from Greenland” and the underlying infrastructure! https://www.aqutsisut.gl/en/tele/satellite-regulation

Tusass was in talks with Starlink to basically provide Starlink service but via the Tusass monopoly, basically making Tusass a no-value-added reseller of Starlink at massively inflated prices (subsidized of course, basically being paid by the Danish government to do nothing besides cash checks while Starlink does everything else). This is so obviously corrupt that it's better for them to use a worse, more expensive service that doesn't make Tusass completely pointless.

View on HN

Damned if you do.Damned if you dont't.

With 56,831 inhabitants and those spread rather thinly I assume they enjoyed the years when it was both expensive and heavily subsidised. Without heavy government support I would claim nothing would happen.

Times are changing and commercial offerings starts to be viable. But the outlook of being in the pocket of StarLink is not too appealing. I think they would prefer other options in Ukraine these days. And if you notice the relations between Denmark (the only country outside US to celebrate the 4th of July) is at a record low.

Free markets you say? Tariffs I say!

> corruption! It's illegal to use Starlink in Greenland, and Tusass holds a concessioned monopoly over “telecommunications services in, to and from Greenland” and the underlying infrastructure

Having a single infrastructure provider isn't corruption. It's making the best out of a natural monopoly. It could lead to corruption, but unless you have any proof that it has, you're simply wrong.

It's not a natural monopoly, it's a legally enforced monopoly.

The answer is more likely national security. Starlink is run by an ally of the government that has repeatedly threatened Greenland with invasion.

France is also a US ally. I would rather suspect the answer is that the French company is more willing to bend over to censorship and surveillance orders from the Greenland government.

Sure, but Starlink, 5eyes, Palantir and some drunk misfit defsec would never...

France is an ally of the US, but not of the current government.

The US diverts trunks for interception and active attacks all the time. Jamming the internet to Greenland during an invasion would be trivial on multiple levels. This will make virtually no difference to national security. Good for the monopoly provider though.

If the concern is jamming, the solution is to have a diversity of service providers, not to assume you know who your enemy will be in a decade from now.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com