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 six countries, the infrastructure arrived faster than the governance. Multiple providers are authorized, but Starlink is the dominant provider in practice.
No country had an LEO licensing regime before Starlink’s application. Every country hastily adapted frameworks designed for terrestrial telecoms or geostationary satellites.
Entry conditions were ambiguous, and gaps that became visible only after operators were established and alternatives were limited.
LEO connectivity is promoted as a digital inclusion tool, but the cost of hardware and subscriptions significantly exceeds what low-income and rural households can afford without subsidy.
None of the six countries built accountability systems that matched the scale or pace of that authorization. Across all six countries, governance processes lacked meaningful consultation, transparency, and accountability.
Consumer protection mechanisms for LEO satellite services are either nonexistent or not specifically adapted to the sector's characteristics.