Loading map data...
| Brazil | Americas | High |
| Fiji | Pacific | High |
| Indonesia | Asia-Pacific | High |
| Malaysia | Asia-Pacific | Moderate |
| Nigeria | Africa | Moderate |
| Ukraine | Europe | Moderate |
What we observed across all six countries
In all countries, the initial decision to authorize LEO satellite services was made at the high political level by presidents, prime ministers, or senior ministers rather than by independent regulatory bodies. The regulator's role was almost universally to ratify a political decision already taken, often at speed and under conditions that made meaningful scrutiny difficult.
Every country adapted frameworks designed for terrestrial telecoms or geostationary satellites. None had a LEO licensing regime prior to Starlink’s application. Frameworks created in haste, with ambiguous entry conditions, and gaps that became visible only after operators were established and alternatives were limited. Structural gaps exist in terms of market concentration risk, space sustainability, and digital sovereignty.
Across all six countries, governance processes lacked meaningful consultation, transparency, and accountability. In most cases, there was no adequate legal framework. Commercial interests, framed through emergency rhetoric, political timing, digital resilience, or foreign investment, overrode governance norms. Decisions were made at the top and handed down.
Multiple providers are authorized on paper, but Starlink is a dominant provider in practice.
LEO connectivity is promoted as a digital inclusion tool. Its actual affordability for the communities it is supposed to reach is the sharpest and most consistent finding across all six cases. In every country, the cost of LEO satellite hardware and subscriptions significantly exceeds what low-income and rural households can afford without subsidy. Household adoption of LEO connectivity is viable only for a narrow, higher-income segment of the population. So, Starlink moved from “connecting the unconnected” to “connecting those who can pay”.
In all countries, the accountability architecture is weaker than the authorization architecture. Every country authorized Starlink with speed, political intent, or both. None built accountability systems that matched the scale or pace of that authorization.
No country has published the full text of its LEO authorization documents, including all annexes, conditions, and commitments, in a form that allows civil society or researchers to monitor compliance.
Consumer protection mechanisms for LEO satellite services are either nonexistent or not specifically adapted to the sector's characteristics. Standard telecom consumer protection frameworks were designed for terrestrial operators with local presence, predictable pricing models, and national regulatory jurisdiction. LEO operators challenge all three assumptions.