Local telecommunications providers Flow and Digicel have objected to the introduction of a new licence type to facilitate the specific licensing of satellite-based internet services by companies such as Starlink and Amazon.
Flow (Cable & Wireless) opposed a new satellite–specific license category, based on concerns of anti-competitive behaviour. It has advocated for technology-neutral licensing under existing Internet Network or Services categories.
In opposing the new licence structure, Digicel argued that a new category undermines regulatory neutrality and introduces unfair competitive advantages.
The objections from the two companies come at a time when, according to a recent survey conducted by the Turks and Caicos Islands Telecommunications Commission, 89% of respondents want satellite services in TCI, particularly the internet; 81% are interested in satellite internet services specifically and 45% are dissatisfied with current telecom services.
According to a report of the survey which was obtained by The SUN, there is “strong dissatisfaction with current services” of Flow and Digicel, especially in Grand Turk, North, Middle,and South Caicos. There is broad support for increased competition, infrastructure upgrades, and satellite alternatives and there are calls for fair pricing, consumer protections, and transparent regulation.
On October 8, 2024, Starlink applied for an Internet Service Provider Licence (INS-2), with a maximum subscriber of 500 users. In March 2025, Starlink submitted an application to secure a license to provide satellite internet services in TCI. However, due to some concerns raised about the scalability of the licence and its long-term suitability for the service they intend to offer, the company later withdrew its application to allow the Telecommunications Commission to undertake a comprehensive consultation process to thoroughly explore regulatory implications for establishing a new licensing regime for satellite services.
The consultation attracted strong engagement, including detailed submissions from key industry stakeholders. The Commission also conducted a public survey to assess the market’s appetite for satellite services.
Flow and Digicel were among five entities which formally submitted responses to the Consultation on Licensing of Satellite-Based Internet Service Providers. The others were Global Satellite Operators Association (GSOA) an international industry association representing the satellite communications sector; Starlink, a satellite internet service operated by SpaceX, and Viasat Inc., a U.S.-based global communication company.
When the companies were asked their views on the extent to which the introduction of satellite-based services will impact the businesses of existing suppliers (Flow and Digicel) and affect consumers, Starlink argued that satellite will complement, not replace, terrestrial providers. They highlighted benefits to under served regions and disaster resilience.
Viasat said it recognizes competition impact but sees a complementary role and emphasized service to niche markets like maritime/aviation.
Digicel warned of harmful competition from “asset-light” foreign entrants lacking local obligations, while Flow was cautiously optimistic and believes that uptake may be limited due to pricing, but calls for consumer protection parity.
GSOA highlighted satellite’s role in boosting resilience and expanding connectivity in hard-to-reach areas.
In a report, the Telecommunications Commission, commenting on the impact of the introduction of satellite providers on the local market, stated: “Whilst satellite-based internet providers therefore offer competition to local services, we do not believe that at current price levels they would be taken up by a large enough number of subscribers to damage the ability of existing operators to continue to invest in their networks, or reduce their quality of service to a detrimental level which will materially impact the service they provide to consumers.”
Below are the summaries of from the five entities on specific questions from the Telecommunications Commission.
Question 1: Should the Commission introduce a new licence type to facilitate the specific licensing of satellite-based internet services?
•Starlink: Strongly supports a new license category tailored for satellite ISPs to reduce complexity and align with global norms.
•Viasat: Supports differentiated licensing, especially for satellite operators providing direct-to-consumer services. One-size-fits-all licenses aren’t suitable.
•Digicel: Opposes. Argues that a new category undermines regulatory neutrality and introduces unfair competitive advantages.
•Flow (Cable & Wireless): Opposes new satellite–specific license category, for concerns of anticompetitive behavior. Advocates for technology-neutral licensing under existing Internet Network or Services categories.
•GSOA: Supports a flexible framework and simplified licensing, including blanket authorizations for VSAT and no mandatory local presence for wholesale satellite capacity providers.
Question 2: What approach should the Commission take to establish the licence fees for satellite-based internet services?
•Starlink: Advocates for drastically reduced fees (2% of annual net revenue vs. 7% of gross), citing affordability and regional examples like El Salvador.
•Viasat: No detailed fee proposal but supports tailored fees for each satellite service type (direct-to-consumer vs. capacity resale).
•Digicel: Favors using the existing INS (Internet Network or Services) fee structure to ensure parity and avoid regulatory arbitrage.
•Flow: Recommends fees aligned with the existing INS structure to uphold fairness and competitive balance.
•GSOA: Implies support for a proportionate and enabling fee framework, consistent with global best practices.
Question 3: In what way should the Commission approach the issues associated with the fact that the provision of some parts of a satellite service occur outside its jurisdiction?
•Starlink: Suggests a simple licensing model recognizing the global nature of satellite services, with local resellers handling retail compliance.
•Viasat: Differentiates between operators directly serving TCI and those merely supplying capacity; only direct providers should require local licenses.
•Digicel: Demands robust local regulation regardless of service origin. Calls for mandatory local representation and reporting.
•Flow: Acknowledges jurisdictional complexity and supports “best effort” licensing conditions; asks that these be applied to all providers equally.
•GSOA: Emphasizes that wholesale satellite operators should not be subject to retail service licensing and supports using local resellers.
Question 4: How should the Commission proceed with the requirements for Islander Control for satellite internet services?
•Starlink & GSOA: Suggest flexible ownership rules, favoring minimal restrictions.
•Digicel: Strongly supports retaining Islander Control or requiring tangible local benefits for exemptions (e.g., infrastructure, employment).
•Flow: Accepts current legislative requirements as sufficient.
•Viasat: No specific position, but implies licensing should reflect service type and local impact.
Question 5: What approach should the Commission take to the licensing of VSAT terminals?
•Starlink & GSOA: Support blanket/automatic licensing for VSATs to reduce redtape.
•Viasat: Recommends imposing conditions based on spectrum coordination, not end-user licensing.
• Digicel: Insists on individual licensing per terminal to maintain oversight and manage interference risks.
•Flow: Accepts blanket licensing for personal/residential use; insists provider spay spectrum fees.
Question 6: Do you have any comments on the Commission’s assessment of the potential interference between satellite terminals and other services?
•Starlink: Claims advanced spectrum-sharing technology enables coexistence with terrestrial services.
Viasat: Urges enforcement of ITU rules (e.g., EPFD limits) to prevent interference; advocates for safeguards at the market access stage.
•Digicel: Warns against unregulated VSAT use; supports site-specific licensing and active interference monitoring.
•Flow: Agrees with the Commission’s concerns; urges operators to demonstrate mitigation capabilities before licensing.
•GSOA: Recommends harmonizing with ITU Resolutions (e.g., WRC-23) and supports shared use of spectrum with protections.
The consultation was necessary because the Telecommunications Commission recognised that there were no specific licensing categories to address satellite-based internet service providers, and further considering the nuances of satellite communications on a whole.
However, the commission noted that unlike terrestrial telecommunication networks, whose infrastructure can be wholly regulated in the jurisdiction where the service is provided, satellites are regulated by the countries under whose flag they were launched.
Each country must ensure its satellite operators follow the rules and conditions in the Radio Regulations published by the International Telecommunications
Union (ITU). A country is free to enact domestic rules as long as they align with its international commitments and agreements.
As such, existing satellite networks are regulated outside the Commission’s jurisdiction. The only part of the satellite service that would be directly regulated by the Commission is those situated in the Turks and Caicos Islands. This constitutes only the satellite terminals used by end-users to connect to the satellite service.
As it now stands, Providenciales, the economic epicenter of Turks and Caicos Islands, is directly connected to an international submarine fiber optic cable system known as ARCOS-1, which serves as the country’s sole communications gateway.
Connectivity to Grand Turk and the islands in between – the family islands(North, Middle, and South Caicos) are established over wireless radio links, known as microwave links which provide the backbone and the carriage way that allow telecommunication services to be dispersed across the islands.
The commission noted that over the years, these microwave links have become over-saturated due to the increasing demand placed on these systems by the consumer, resulting in degraded telecommunication services, particularly internet connectivity, in those communities. Unfortunately, these microwave systems struggle to provide the required bandwidth to support modern-day communication due to their technical limitations thereby restricting the amount of bandwidth capacity they can offer to sustain highspeed, reliable access.
As a result of the persistent poor quality of internet services experienced in the family islands and Grand Turk, some residents have turned to satellite-based operators such as Starlink for internet access as an alternative.
This is a growing trend that is being observed and it is particularly concerning a sit has some obvious market implications to consider.
In recognizing the issue with the rising uptake of this service, the Commission reached out to Starlink to inform them about the activities on the ground and to further inquire about the status of regularizing its services in the Turks and Caicos Islands. Shortly thereafter, Starlink issued notices to its TCI-based users advising them that their services would be disrupted by a certain date.