Hacker News Reader

Comment by dreambuffer | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com