Starlink, BEE and the danger of ad hoc rule-making

When policy looks personalised, legitimacy collapses — and future tech investors stay away.

Article link: https://open.substack.com/pub/johanosteyn/p/starlink-bee-and-the-danger-of-ad?r=73gqa&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true

Audio summary: https://youtu.be/XWikY013zQ4

Follow me on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/johanosteyn/

The Starlink debate in South Africa has become emotionally charged and deeply symbolic. To some, it’s a case of transformation being undermined by a powerful foreign company. To others, it’s an example of a government blocking a technology that could expand access for millions. But there is a more important risk hiding in plain sight: ad hoc rule-making. When policy starts to look like it is being adjusted around one company, one personality, or one news cycle, it erodes trust in the regulatory system itself. And once that trust is gone, the damage spreads far beyond a single satellite internet provider.

CONTEXT AND BACKGROUND

In recent months, multiple reports have described Starlink’s South African rollout as stalled, with no full commercial launch, alongside Elon Musk’s public claims that the licensing environment is discriminatory under local ownership requirements.

At the same time, the conversation has spilled into public mobilisation. One report notes Starlink urging South Africans to pressure ICASA and the government to update licensing rules, positioning public lobbying as a way to unlock entry and expand connectivity.

Regulators have also signalled enforcement risk. A further report highlights warnings that using Starlink without proper local authorisation breaches regulations, with the possibility of a crackdown on unlicensed workarounds.

And hovering over all of this is the policy question: what exactly do empowerment requirements mean in the context of foreign satellite operators? A legal explainer lays out why B-BBEE ownership requirements have become a sticking point in telecoms licensing, and how “equity equivalent” mechanisms could allow compliance through social investment rather than equity dilution.

INSIGHT AND ANALYSIS

Here is the uncomfortable truth: even if a policy reform is sensible, it can still be disastrous if it appears personalised. The Starlink saga is now filled with competing narratives: “this is a pragmatic fix for connectivity”, “this is bending rules for a billionaire”, “this is undermining transformation”, “this is politics masquerading as regulation”. Once a debate reaches that stage, regulation stops looking like a predictable system and starts looking like a negotiation.

You can see the political framing harden in public rhetoric. One article quotes Julius Malema describing Starlink in extreme political terms, positioning it as a threat rather than a service. Whether one agrees with that framing or not, the point is that technology policy has been pulled into identity politics, factional narratives, and suspicion.

Similarly, Eyewitness News reports the EFF’s condemnation of a directive approach, arguing it effectively creates a bypass of the 30% ownership rule by using equity-equivalent projects and sidestepping Parliament. This is the crux of the ad hoc problem: if reforms are perceived as workaround politics rather than coherent, sector-wide rule updates, legitimacy collapses.

A competing political storyline is also evident in coverage of opposition pressure to allow Starlink, including arguments that equity-equivalent investments could meet transformation goals through schools, skills, and rural connectivity instead of equity transfer. Again, whether one agrees or not, the broader pattern is clear: rules are being argued through politics and media narratives rather than through stable, trusted governance.

IMPLICATIONS

If South Africa wants to avoid making this worse, the solution is not to “win” the Starlink argument. The solution is to fix the regulatory pattern that causes these arguments to spiral.

First, if equity equivalents are the right tool, they must be framed as a general mechanism, not a Starlink mechanism. That means clear eligibility criteria, audited obligations, timelines, and penalties for non-delivery. A credible framework reduces suspicion because it applies to everyone, not just whoever dominates headlines.

Second, regulators must be faster and more transparent. When enforcement warnings exist alongside licensing uncertainty, citizens feel trapped: people want better connectivity, but fear that using available tools will be criminalised. That is a governance failure, not a citizen failure.

Third, we must treat connectivity as strategic national infrastructure, not a proxy battlefield for political signalling. The moment internet access becomes a partisan symbol, the people who lose are rural learners, job seekers, small businesses, and families trying to access basic services.

CLOSING TAKEAWAY

The Starlink saga matters because it is a case study in how South Africa absorbs frontier technology. If reforms look improvised or personalised, public trust breaks and investment hesitates. If reforms are transparent, enforceable, and sector-wide, transformation goals and connectivity goals do not have to be enemies. The real test is state capability: can we govern modern technology with rules that are fair, predictable, and legitimate? Because the next wave is already here, and it will not only be satellites. It will be AI, digital identity, fintech, and systems that touch citizens at scale.

Author Bio: Johan Steyn is a prominent AI thought leader, speaker, and author with a deep understanding of artificial intelligence’s impact on business and society. He is passionate about ethical AI development and its role in shaping a better future. Find out more about Johan’s work at https://www.aiforbusiness.net