Hacker News Reader

Comment by dreambuffer | Hacker News Reader

Starlink is a massive national security risk, and that is one of the primary reasons it has not been allowed in South Africa.

It's also why Starlink has pushed so aggressively to establish itself in South Africa, going as far as to hold private meetings with the Democratic Alliance and even spamming their customers with emails urging them to put pressure on the government.

View on HN

>one of the primary reasons it has not been allowed in South Africa.

That's just nonsense. The regulator has been very clear on what the hold up is. A ECNS license is needed, which in turn requires 30% black ownership which musky boy isn't willing to do and isn't likely to change his mind on given his stance on DEI.

That's why the communication minister tried to create an alternative pathway around the 30% requirement

https://www.businessday.co.za/companies/2025-12-12-starlink-...

B-BEEE exists as a kind of "national security risk insurance", that is why it is only applied to sectors like Telecomms and Mining. So my statement is not incorrect.

> requires 30% black ownership

What an absurd requirement.

The goal is to hedge national security risk by giving ownership of key industries to native South Africans and especially those who have historically been denied economic opportunities by the apartheid government.

Requiring SpaceX to set up a token reseller just to meet the the ownership requirement does exactly nothing for "national security". It's pure graft for whoever gets handed ownership of the reseller and nothing more. In fact if blatant enough it could be illegal under the FCPA.

It hedges national security risk by having 30% of the profits stay within South Africa, so that if the foreign company decides to use their company to, say, spy on South Africans, they at least have to fund our key industries to do so. That is why B-BBEE applies to Telecomms and other key industries.

It hedges national security risk by saying "well, there's a national security risk here, and we really can't do anything about that, but we can make them pay us off for taking that risk"? You're really stretching on this one.

No you misunderstand severely, some risks are unavoidable and unknowable. You need a telecommunications industry, you can't just eliminate all risks associated with it. So instead you make them pay a kind of insurance to operate in it, just in case the leader of the country you're allowing in one day decides to target your country (sound familiar?).

Of course, another goal is just to empower previously disenfranchised groups and contribute to the economy of South Africa.

It's not "insurance". There is no coverage of any losses; no claims process. The correct term is "graft".

You are at this point purposefully trying to misunderstand me so you can let out your anger. Conversation is over, sorry.

When you use words incorrectly to disguise the nature and intent of these policies, you are purposefully trying to be misunderstood.

I agree that lack of a domestically controlled satellite communication service is a national security concern. If SA had a domestically controlled service and required citizens to use that instead of Starlink that could be a real national security measure. But a reseller of telecom services is not a telecom industry any more than a car dealership is an automotive industry. The actual owner of the satellite constellation can cut off access at will regardless of the domestic reseller's objections.

Furthermore this arrangement does not contribute to the economy of SA. It just makes Starlink services more expensive for SA consumers. The reseller is not really doing anything to develop an industry, but rather taking a skim. If the government actually wanted to develop the economy they would just let Starlink in for any real entrepreneur to use the internet access in remote areas to potentially expand business services into areas that previously lacked communication.

We barely have a space industry, how are we meant to compete with starlink? We need foreign investment. We also need protections against foreign investment. We also need to uplift south africans left behind by apartheid. That is the purpose of the law.

You are just wrong, the law says the local partner must be economically productive, and starlink is allowed to choose them, so if they don't contribute to starlink's business, that is starlink's fault. This is now the second time I have told you this, so you are wilfully misunderstanding me. Conversation over.

> requires 30% black ownership

Of SpaceX or of a special South African Starlink reseller that SpaceX owns 70% of?

Why would he give up ownership to someone who did absolutely nothing of value? That's a shakedown. It's like the laws that keep Tesla from selling cars in some states because they require a stealership as middle man.

Starlink is allowed to choose who they partner with. They will go through a lengthy process to pick partners that align with their business, including value propositions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com