OPINION: Mixed signals are muddying the Starlink debate waters

To quote The Cardigans: “Dear, I fear we’re facing a problem.” Right now, the Electronic Communications Act (ECA) treats all networks that serve internet connectivity the same, but the regulations assume terrestrial infrastructure.

So, when trying to apply it to an internet service provider that operates via low-Earth orbit (LEO) satellites and may never touch the internet infrastructure on South African territory, you have an inherent problem.

Read more: Malatsi issues directive to bypass Icasa BEE deadlock and clear Starlink for landing

The citizens do not own the sky, but we should (through our democratically elected representatives) have some say on what data moves across our radio spectrum. And there should also be a local presence to help with customer complaints, and with national security concerns.

To that end, Communications Minister Solly Malatsi is correct in his assertion that the country needs reform. But to be fair to the laws as they stand, choosing the path of circumventing ownership regulations around the country’s scarce national resources might not be the best option.

Yes, there is an anti-BEE agenda

When Dion George sat down with Heidi Giokos to read his party resignation letter to the nation, his answers to the subsequent questions were coded with all the same language of the IRR and DA’s crusade. George suddenly had much to say about “race laws” and the need for “equivalence” – a clear wink to equity equivalent investment programmes (EEIPs) as an alternative to direct black ownership.

In turn, by directing the regulator to align strictly with the B-BBEE ICT Sector Code (which allows for EEIPs for service companies like Microsoft and IBM) he is effectively creating a path for multinationals like SpaceX to bypass the strict 30% historically disadvantaged group equity requirement that Icasa has clung to with regards to dishing out licenses.

Read more: The many voices in BEE chorus find no equity harmony

However, the department insists this is standard practice rather than a political crusade. Malatsi’s spokesperson, Kwena Moloto, responding to questions from Daily Maverick, argued that “EEIPs are not new. They are an established mechanism that has been used to unlock investment and deliver practical empowerment outcomes... Since 2007, there have been 23 international companies that have utilised EEIPs.”

He was also careful to clarify that this doesn’t exempt companies from the law: “Scarce natural resources owned by the state are typically made available for use through usage licences. Section 10 of the B-BBEE Act requires that where a licence is granted, the licensee must comply with the B-BBEE Act. This does not change.”

An alternative direction

When pressed to list other possible market entrants who would benefit from EEIPs, Moloto said that “it is not for the minister to pre-announce which companies may be considering an EEIP application”, aiming to depoliticise the specific Starlink connection.

But practically, the political football about ownership should actually be a technical discussion about sovereignty and safety.

Malatsi doesn’t need to fight the ownership battle to get Starlink into the country. He could simply look up.

The current ECA was written for towers, fibre and copper. Things that are physically planted in South African soil. This creates a massive regulatory loophole that should be closed by enforcing some kind of local presence to comply with enforcement of consumer protection laws.

Satellite operators like Intelsat and Eutelsat have been serving South African users without owning significant local infrastructure because the spectrum access is managed by the UN’s International Telecommunication Union. If their data traffic never touches a local gateway (thanks to inter-satellite links), Icasa’s traditional enforcement tools become toothless.

Eating humble pie

It’s on this technicality that Malatsi is very much justified in his pursuit of an EEIP directive. Starlink needs to obtain an Electronic Communications Network Service licence – permission to operate a network – and an ECS (Electronic Communications Service) licence – permission to provide connectivity to end‑users.

Mobile virtual network operators have historically operated under ECS licences without facing the same rigid equity ownership requirements as network owners.

Read more: Diary of a CEO: Jorge Mendes grapples to get Cell C ready for JSE

Then it’s just about applying for landing rights and getting the equipment (terminals and routers) approved by Icasa.

This is where the minister’s focus should be. Rather than just finding a workaround for the 30% ownership rule, he should be working with Icasa to expand the scope of the ECA to explicitly include non-geostationary satellite constellation operators.

It’s a parity problem, not an equity problem

The Association of Communications and Technology (ACT) – which represents mobile network operators like Vodacom, MTN and Rain – has been careful with its words, but the message is clear: “No exceptions.”

ACT CEO Nomvuyiso Batyi took this stance when Malatsi’s draft directive was first tabled in May 2025. In a response at the time, she said that ACT constituents support innovation and were not opposed to having a new competitor, but it must be “within the same rules that everyone else follows”.

Their concern is about regulatory parity. Local operators spend billions on spectrum licences, universal service obligations and Rica compliance.

Read more: Starlink promises internet for rural SA schools — if BEE rules bend

If a global player is allowed to swoop in, offer services without a local licence and bypass the heavy lifting of national security compliance because the law doesn’t quite know how to categorise them, that is fundamentally unfair competition.

And, if Malatsi pushes the EEIP route solely to solve the ownership problem, he risks ignoring the operating problem. Starlink needs to be regulated not just as a company that needs to be owned by locals, but as a unique type of network that requires specific checks and balances.

A better route to the stars

Malatsi is right: the system is clogged. But the blockage isn’t black ownership. The obstacle is an analogue law trying to regulate a digital space race.

Instead of burning political capital, the minister could instruct Icasa to modernise the licensing framework and mandate a local legal presence (not necessarily equity partners) for Rica and consumer disputes.

By framing the solution almost exclusively around the DA’s preferred mechanism of equivalence, he might be missing the chance to fix the actual wiring of our telecommunications regulations. We don’t just need a workaround for Elon Musk; we need a modernised ECA that is ready for the future of the internet. DM