In an official response to Parliament dated October 15, Greenland’s government defended the framework supporting Tusass’s nationwide telecommunications services, warning that opening satellite access to competing providers could undermine the revenues needed to serve communities across the country.
The response addresses a proposal listed on Inatsisartut’s October 20 agenda, asking whether users should be able to purchase satellite internet directly without going through Tusass or another licence holder.
Submitted by Pele Broberg of Naleraq, the proposal covers residents, businesses, public institutions and vessels purchasing connections for their own use. It calls for discussion of greater choice alongside protections for nationwide service, technical security and critical communications.
Broberg’s proposal explicitly states that it does not demand a particular legislative amendment. It seeks an open discussion about how additional options could be introduced without weakening Greenland’s shared infrastructure.
The item was listed as an inquiry debate, a procedure that does not permit a binding decision. It therefore provided no new authorization to use Starlink. For ordinary broadband access, the telecom regulator’s published guidance states that end users who independently install equipment and use services such as Starlink breach the Telecommunications Act.
Why the government is defending the Tusass model
In its response, Naalakkersuisut acknowledges that satellite technology offers opportunities unavailable a decade ago. However, it argues that changing or removing Tusass’s concession could weaken the company’s finances and its ability to maintain service in areas dependent on the common network.
The government warns that Greenland could ultimately exchange a public monopoly with nationwide service obligations for dependence on foreign private providers without equivalent responsibilities.
It also points to work with Tusass to improve satellite connections, support secured with Denmark and the European Union for additional satellite capacity, and plans for a submarine cable connection to Tasiilaq.
Funding nationwide coverage remains central to this argument. The regulator explains that revenues from more densely populated areas help support telecommunications infrastructure in remote communities, where costs are high and customers are few.
The unresolved question of individual choice
The discussion revisits questions raised in GreenlandEnergy.com’s September 21 opinion article, “When Greenland Loses Its Connection, Should Starlink Be Off Limits?” That article examined service disruptions, the reported experience of a temporary Starlink installation at Tasiilaq’s hospital, and the potential value of independent backup connections.
The debate also raises a broader question: who gets to exercise choice? National control over communications infrastructure does not automatically give individual Greenlanders greater freedom over how they connect. A policy adopted in the collective interest can still deserve scrutiny over the choices it restricts.
Protecting nationwide service is a legitimate objective. The government should also explain whether that objective could be achieved with fewer restrictions, and what evidence would justify opening access.
Questions for Starlink and Greenland’s government
Greater choice would also require clarity about the responsibilities competing providers would accept. A more concrete discussion would address four questions:
- Would Starlink contribute to nationwide connectivity? Would it accept Greenlandic regulation, security requirements and an agreed financial contribution toward serving remote communities in return for permission to serve customers directly?
- What is actually blocking direct access? Has SpaceX formally sought authorization or proposed an arrangement with Naalakkersuisut or Tusass? If so, what remains unresolved?
- Could independent backups be tested? Would the government and Starlink support a limited pilot for hospitals, businesses and residents, with clear commitments on pricing and continuity of service?
- What would the financial impact be? What evidence can the government provide about how different forms of access, including limited backup use, would affect the funding of nationwide telecommunications?
These questions put responsibilities on both sides. The government should substantiate the restrictions it maintains, while any provider seeking access should explain how it would operate reliably and contribute fairly.
The stakes become clear when a connection fails. The challenge is to protect the network that serves the whole country while giving people dependable alternatives, and a meaningful say in how they connect.
GreenlandEnergy.com provides independent analysis of Greenland’s energy landscape, critical minerals development, and Arctic geopolitics. For corrections or feedback: press@greenlandenergy.com
