The subject of the previous OpenFalklands post was – Falklands Telecommunications: Why the Two-Year Notice Matters, while this post examines the potential consequences of delaying notice. That post concluded that approximately 20 months have passed since an external consultancy began developing proposals for the Falkland Islands Government’s (FIG) telecommunications licence-expiration strategy. Based on public reporting, it now appears that it could take up to 25 months for FIG and ExCo to make any firm decisions on the path forward.
The exclusive telecommunications licence held by Sure is due to end on 31 December 2027. Under its terms, FIG must give at least two years’ notice if it intends to terminate or fundamentally change the arrangement, thus setting the earliest decision point to January 2026. As we move through May 2026, no such notice has been given, and indications are that any decision will not now come until later in 2026.
The possible consequences of this delay deserve closer examination.
Disclosure
By way of disclosure, I participated in the August 2024 selection of Cambridge Management Consulting (CMC) to advise FIG on options for the expiry of the exclusive telecommunications licence. I also provided feedback on the Phase 1 report, but have not seen the Phase 2 PME report or its recommendations.
The perspectives shared in this post are offered in a personal capacity.
Is the Delay Understandable?
At one level, the delay is understandable. Telecommunications is competing with many other FIG financial priorities, such as port infrastructure and electricity generation. Public finances are under pressure. The arrival of Starlink has changed the picture for many households and businesses, particularly in Camp, and it provides a genuine broadband alternative that did not exist even a few years ago. Taken together, it is easy to see how FIG might judge the current situation as good enough for now and opt to let the status quo continue.
But delaying the decision is still a decision, and it carries major consequences.
Loss of Leverage
The most immediate is a loss of leverage. Licence renewal milestones are rare and represent the principal moments when FIG can require meaningful change. This is when investment commitments can be secured, pricing structures can be challenged, and service obligations can be reset. Without using that moment, existing arrangements largely continue by default.
This matters because both previous strategic telecommunications reviews reached the same conclusion: in a market where full competition is limited, regulation and licensing must do more of the work. If that lever is not used, few other tools are available to drive improvements.
The Infrastructure Deterioration Risk
There is a more immediate and practical consequence of delay that deserves to be stated plainly. Without clarity on the future licence, Sure has little commercial incentive to invest meaningfully in the current network beyond the minimum required to meet its obligations, particularly for the 4G/2G network. Why would any company commit significant capital to infrastructure that it may not be operating in two years? The result could be a steady, largely invisible deterioration. Mobile coverage gets worse. Broadband reliability declines. Equipment ages without replacement. Each month of uncertainty adds to the investment backlog that whoever operates the network after 2027 will inherit.
The Missing Signal
FIG and MLAs are not operating without guidance. The CMC Phase 2 report, commissioned specifically to inform the post-2027 decision, has now been completed and is in FIG’s hands. It is understood to set out costed strategic options, a transition roadmap, and foundations for a refreshed regulatory framework according to CMC’s published case study. That it remains confidential is, to a degree, understandable; some elements of a procurement or negotiating strategy are legitimately sensitive. But the absence of any public signal about its broad direction leaves businesses, residents and potential new operators with little to plan around. The report exists. The strategy work has been done. What is less clear is what happens next, and specifically when.
Delayed Operational Planning
A further constraint is that no practical work can begin by any stakeholder until formal notice is given, and even early-stage planning is likely to remain significantly limited until then. This is not simply procedural; it reflects the commercial and legal reality that operators and potential entrants are unlikely to commit further meaningful resources without clarity on the future framework. As a result, the effective delivery window is compressed, leaving less time to implement changes once a decision is made and increasing the risk of a more pressured transition and of mistakes.
Market Momentum at Risk
Another important consequence of delay lies in the momentum generated during CMC’s Phase 2 Preliminary Market Engagement (PME) process. Phase 2 of the CMC’s work was designed to test market interest and identify potential providers willing to operate in, or support, the Falkland Islands.
At the time (I attended one of the meetings in London in September 2025), this generated genuine and serious commercial interest among other operators worldwide. By participating in this activity, companies would have invested significant time, resources and finances in assessing a challenging, unknown remote market and positioning themselves for a potential opportunity.
That interest is not indefinite. As time passes, priorities shift, and investment pipelines move on. The longer the gap between engagement and a clear decision, the greater the risk that early enthusiasm will fade, reducing competition and weakening FIG’s position. Indeed, the PME activity may even need to be repeated if the delay proves too prolonged.
Prolonged uncertainty can also signal a lack of direction or commitment, making the Falklands a lower priority compared to more immediate opportunities elsewhere.
Regulatory Lag
The regulatory framework itself risks falling further behind. The system in place is already seen as incomplete, with gaps in customer protection, service standards and the treatment of newer technologies. Since 2017, the market has become considerably more complex. Starlink and other satellite services introduce new forms of competition and new questions about how the market should be structured. Without a clear policy response, these changes are absorbed informally rather than managed strategically.
The Trade-Off
None of this suggests that immediate action is straightforward or without cost. Major changes to telecommunications policy are genuinely complex, and the current system, supported by Starlink’s arrival, works better than it did a few years ago. But the trade-off is clear. By not acting now, FIG gives up some ability to shape the sector’s future direction and to require Sure to make commitments it might not otherwise volunteer.
Conclusion: Drift or Direction
The real risk is not sudden failure but gradual drift. The Falklands are moving into a new telecommunications environment, one where traditional networks and global satellite services coexist. The question is not whether that transition happens — it will — but whether it is guided by deliberate policy or simply allowed to unfold by default.
Licence renewal points are rare. The strategy work has been done, the consultants have reported, and the market has demonstrated genuine interest. What is missing is a decision. A clear, published timetable from FIG, setting out its intentions for the post-2027 framework, would at a minimum signal that the question is being taken seriously and that the Falklands’ digital future is not being left to chance.
The process has taken 20 months so far, and further delay is not a neutral act. Every month that passes without a decision narrows the options, deepens the infrastructure backlog, and quietly transfers advantage to the incumbent. In that context, doing nothing may feel like the safest choice. It is not.
Chris Gare, OpenFalklands, May 2026, copyright OpenFalklands
