Kae Matundu-Tjiparuro
Can anyone please kindly bring Yours Truly Ideologically up to speed regarding the fuss and hullaballoo that has been accompanying the unsuccessful application by Starlink for internet services in Namibia?
For it is beyond any understanding what the commotion and consternation have been all about, unduly giving rise to false impressions that Starlink’s application may have been treated unreasonably, unduly and/or unfairly.
While it simply submitted its application, that was duly considered by the Communications Regulatory Authority of Namibia (Cran). But did not meet three of the six requirements.
Foremost, the 51% local ownership threshold. As Starlin Namibia’s subsidiary is wholly foreign-owned.
Admittedly, Namibia is in dire need of investors. But not by any means necessary. Not against and at the expense of the regulator’s criteria. The era must have long dawned when African countries, including Namibia, were an open book and all free to all, especially to so-called foreign investors. Who are and actually have been plunderers and exploiters. Entering African countries as they please and helping themselves to their resources, with the locals mere onlookers. Hardly even afforded anything but leftovers. With the investors going about their investments with little inhibition, let alone consideration regarding the wellbeing of the host country and their people. All that Namibia and the regulator, Cran, are requiring of Starlink, like with any other would-be investor, is to meet and fulfil the requirements. Half of which Starlink has not met.
The 51% local and/or Namibian shareholding and/or stake cannot and should not be the bottom line. Even if the company oversubscribes local shareholding.
For Yours Truly Ideologically, it also matters very much who the co-owners are and/or are going to be. Not the usual suspects who have been seen swarming around Elon Musk, obviously ready like vultures to grab the shares.
Not for public good in any sense but for self-enrichment. While many may see the initial denial of the licence to Starlink by Cran as a lost opportunity, this may be a blessing in disguise. So that co-ownership criteria, if adhered to eventually, is facilitated especially for community entities rather than greedy vultures masquerading as businesspeople and entrepreneurs, the usual suspects. This calls for the co-ownership process to be streamlined in a way that communities become co-owners.
But community co-ownership, as much as it cannot and should not be, is the only and paramount consideration. It cannot and must not be generally accepted and/or taken for granted that communities stand to benefit from enhanced connectivity that Starlink and its digital technology may be promising as an internet service provider.
For now very much an assumption and expectation, if not mere hope, then a reality. Without any empirical projection. It stands to reason how the ordinary people, especially in Namibia’s economic backyards, can and may practically and materially benefit from Starlink’s internet connectivity.
The motivation for granting Starlink the licence to operate in Namibia is its supposed reach of the remote areas. Admittedly, in this digital age, the ideal is for connectivity for everyone and each, including the remote areas currently not covered by existing public service providers like Telecom Namibia and Mobile Telecommunications (MTC).
By last year, 2025, Namibia’s internet penetration rate was about 64.4%, with about 1.97 million users. But most interesting is covering only 16.2% of rural households. While over 50% of urban households have access to mobile internet. There are also some new service providers that may promise and claim increasing penetration.
But it is necessary to pause and pose the critical question. Penetration towards what end? For its own sake, or has penetration been shown to have a causal effect and socio-economic impact, particularly on the subsistence economic endeavours of people in the remote areas of the country?
Connectivity cannot and should not solely be an end in itself but a means to an end. The end goal is enhancing the economic and material wellbeing of those connected, especially rural populaces.
Admittedly, there is a gap that needs bridging as far as internet connectivity in Namibia is concerned, especially in rural Namibia.
Thus, necessitating service providers bridging this gap. With due consideration of the cost factor that has been established to be a challenge, Namibia’s internet costs are said to be 50% worse than the global average.
Thus, the question begging in this regard is whether Starlink is likely to bridge this gap. Especially enhancing rural connectivity at an affordable cost, not for its own sake but as an economic enabler.
For Yours Truly Ideologically, this cannot be taken for granted. Given that Starlink is a private entity and not a public good, one shouldn’t be expected to automatically bridge the digital gap. Except where and when it is to make profit. Needless to say, thus, one of the considerations, no less significant for that matter, is how granting Starlink the licence can have a tangible economic benefit and impact on rural subsistence economies. But also, admittedly, in urban households where internet connectivity somehow is still a luxury.
Not to mention communication technology as a subject in schools in Namibia. Notwithstanding the efforts of the government in this regard, from the Education Ministry to the Ministry of Information and Communication, which lately, with the ongoing budget debate in the National Assembly, have been claiming improvements and progress in this regard.
Be that as it may and should be, it stands to reason to what extent it has been fully integrated in schools. Not to mention to what extent and how many government schools have got computer laboratories and how often learners access them. How far and to what extent can we comfortably say that most of our learners, except for being able to use handsets, are computer or laptop savvy? I am afraid to conjecture that there are not many of them.
Is Starlink, if granted the licence on review following its intended appeal, likely to change the prevailing situation for the better?
It is only then that the minister of information and communication technology could be expected to use her discretion in causing the Starlink application to be accepted notwithstanding that it did not meet the requirements. While also, for that matter, Cran has not been shown to be wanting in competently considering the application, as it did and denied it.
How Starlink can be hoping the second time will be successful without meeting the requirements only baffles the mind. A clear inclination towards corruption!
