SONJA BOSHOFF: STARLINK IS NOT THE STORY — CLOSING THE CONNECTIVITY GAP IS
- BEE NEWS
- Feb 11
- 4 min read
Sonja Boshoff | 10 February 2026
There seems to be a trend in our country’s political discourse of turning practical infrastructure questions into identity, and perhaps ideological battles. The current Starlink debate is the most recent example that includes more heat than light.
There is far too little focus on the people who pay the price for slow delivery, including our rural communities, small town entrepreneurs, pupils, clinics and transport operators trying to function in a digital economy with unstable connectivity.
Let me start with a point that is too often lost in the noise. A minister does not “hand out” licences on demand. Licensing sits with the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (Icasa), and the process is bound by law. Recent commentary has correctly reminded the public that a policy direction is not a licence, and South Africa’s regulatory architecture must be respected.
That is precisely why the debate must mature. The question is not whether South Africa should have rules but whether those rules remain fit for purpose in a technology environment that has changed faster than our regulatory assumptions, particularly where satellite broadband can reach places that fibre and towers do not.
Across provinces the same pattern is visible. Communities are expected to learn, trade and comply digitally, while the state and market take years to deliver reliable broadband. A school cannot recover lost learning without stable internet. A small farmer cannot price or sell competitively without connectivity. A spaza shop, guesthouse or workshop cannot operate digital payments or supplier systems without affordable data. Even taxi associations depend on digital communications for operations, safety co-ordination and administration.
"Across provinces the same pattern is visible. Communities are expected to learn, trade and comply digitally, while the state and market take years to deliver reliable broadband."
South Africa’s economic inclusion challenge is not abstract. It exists in the gap between policy commitments and infrastructure reality. If satellite broadband can narrow that gap faster, it deserves serious engagement, not slogans.
At the centre of the controversy is the minister’s proposed policy direction to Icasa. This policy direction is a lawful, deliberate step to better align South Africa’s transformation goals with how they are applied in practice under the Electronic Communications Act.
Its intention is to ensure Icasa upholds the full scope of our transformation laws, including ownership and equity equivalent investment programmes (EEIPs), as set out in the Broad-Based BEE (BBBEE) Act.
This includes ensuring transformation in telecommunications and broadcasting takes place in the same way it does in other sectors of the economy, by enabling BBBEE rather than narrow deal making.
At its core the policy direction seeks to unlock foreign and local investment while expanding internet access. It does so by ensuring all transformation contributions recognised under the BBBEE Act, including equity equivalent investment programmes and deemed ownership, are fairly considered. Icasa’s regulations do not fully reflect these options and only allow for ownership, ignoring EEIPs.
EEIPs are not new and are used by multinational firms in other sectors. They are lawful instruments designed to secure measurable empowerment outcomes through skills development, enterprise support, supplier development and localisation.
This does not mean a free pass. It means the state can demand enforceable transformation results instead of thin ownership structures that have tended to benefit a connected elite without delivering broad-based inclusion. The uncomfortable truth is empowerment policy has at times been gamed. If transparent and independently verified, a properly structured EEIP can guard against that risk.
Critics raise three concerns that deserve serious attention:
Relaxing equity requirements undermines transformation;
Satellite operators pose risks to sovereignty and data security; and
Corporate or geopolitical behaviour could threaten national interests.
These are legitimate categories of risk. They are also not unique to Starlink. The correct response is regulation and conditions, not performative rejection.
A mature, pro-South Africa position would insist any satellite broadband provider operates under strict and enforceable public interest conditions.
At minimum, Icasa and relevant departments should require a credible, audited EEIP with clear targets. This should include ring-fenced investment amounts and timelines, skills pipelines for engineers and technicians, enterprise and supplier development for local small, medium and micro enterprises (SMMEs), and measurable rollout commitments for rural and township areas.
There must also be public interest obligations directing connectivity to underserved spaces such as rural schools, clinics and small enterprises.
Strong data protection and cybersecurity compliance must be non-negotiable. The Protection of Personal Information Act, lawful interception requirements and transparency on data handling must be codified in licence conditions. Sovereignty cannot be an afterthought.
Procurement and localisation should be required where feasible. Even if equipment is imported, installation, maintenance and support ecosystems can be local. That is real job creation.
Institutional roles must be respected. Regulators must regulate, politicians must oversee and companies must comply. Public pressure campaigns aimed at influencing regulatory outcomes undermine constitutional boundaries and should be discouraged.
Some parliamentary leaders have called for the directive to be withdrawn. That view should be engaged respectfully. However, it would be a mistake to discard the underlying policy question: how do we modernise our framework so satellite broadband can be licensed lawfully, including requirements that benefit the poor?
South Africa does not have the luxury of policy paralysis. If enforceable empowerment outcomes can be secured through EEIPs, sovereignty protected through compliance conditions and broadband delivered faster to underserved communities, then engagement is not capitulation. It is governance.
If satellite broadband can help a pupil in a remote village access education, a small business expand market access or a taxi association operate more safely and efficiently, then it is worth pursuing. However, it must be pursued on South Africa’s terms, through Icasa’s independent process, with transparent empowerment commitments and strong safeguards for the national interest.
That is not abandoning transformation. Done properly, it is transformation, because it delivers capability, opportunity and access where South Africa needs it most.
‘Disclaimer - The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the BEE CHAMBER’.