Top-tier models

Here are the two most optimal business models that could be adopted.

FIG-Owned, FIG-Managed, Wholesale-Only Model

• Single government-owned network (backbone, 4G base stations, last-mile copper/fibre connections).
• The possibility of multiple ISPs and mobile providers competing in providing retail services.
• Wholesale pricing is regulated and transparent. ✅ Keeps costs low (one network to maintain). ✅ Allows real competition at the end-user service layer. ✅ Proven in other small or remote regions.

FIG-Owned, Outsourced Operator

• FIG still owns the infrastructure but has outsourced its operations and management to an independent operator. This could even be to the operator providing retail telecommunications services.
• Retail service providers compete fairly because the operator can’t favour its own retail arm. ✅ Reduces burden on FIG as they don’t need to run a telco day-to-day. ✅ Brings in outside expertise. ⚠️ Requires strong contracts to avoid capture by operator. This would be minimised with the use of a golden share.

Discussion.

While both models create a wholesale-only environment that enables retail competition and transparent pricing, they differ significantly in terms of execution and sustainability.

Both models create a wholesale-only environment that supports retail competition, but they differ in execution and sustainability.

The FIG-owned, FIG-managed model gives the government complete control and keeps all profits in-house, but it requires FIG to develop telecom expertise, posing high operational and financial risks.

In contrast, the FIG-Owned, Outsourced Operator model maintains public ownership while outsourcing daily operations to an independent specialist. This reduces FIG’s operational burden, brings in expertise, and preserves the benefits of a wholesale-only market. Governance structures and contracts can mitigate risks of bias or operator capture.

Overall, the Outsourced Operator model is the most practical and sustainable choice. It combines public ownership with professional management, supports retail competition, and mitigates the operational risks associated with a government-run telecoms company.

Second Tier models (Possible, but Less Optimal)

Infrastructure Leasing Model

• FIG leases infrastructure, including dark fibre, tower space, and spectrum.
• Retail operators build some of their own infrastructure. ✅ Works if a couple of retail operators want technical independence. ⚠️ Risky in such a small market: might be underused and raise costs.

Reseller/White-Label Model

FIG offers one wholesale broadband service, which resellers rebrand.

✅ Very easy to implement. ⚠️ Not much real competition (same product everywhere, only billing/service differ).

Discussion

Both the Infrastructure Leasing and Reseller/White-Label models are technically feasible, but each has drawbacks that make them less attractive than wholesale-only approaches.

The Infrastructure Leasing model offers operators more control and technical independence, allowing differentiation at both service and network levels. However, in a small market like the Falklands, duplicating infrastructure would likely lead to underutilisation and higher costs, undermining efficiency.

The Reseller/White-Label model is easy to set up and ensures universal access, but competition is largely superficial, limited to customer service and billing, which may stifle innovation.

In summary, while both could work, neither balances efficiency, competition, and sustainability as effectively as wholesale-only models, making them fallback options rather than preferred strategies.

Third Tier models (Likely Unsuitable)

Franchise/Concession Model

Exclusive concession given to one operator at a time.

⚠️ Just replicates today’s monopoly model (e.g., Sure). ⚠️ Islanders only get competition every 10–15 years when the concession is rebid.

Cooperative / Community Operator Model

Locally owned operators buy wholesale capacity.

✅ Nice in principle, but: too few people for sustainability and affordability. ⚠️ Technical + financial capacity would be challenging.

Hybrid Public/Private Partnership Investment Model

Government and private companies co-own infrastructure.

⚠️ Risky in a small market: private partner will want guaranteed returns, pushing up prices. ⚠️ Better suited to large projects (like a submarine cable).

Discussion

Models in this tier are generally unsuitable for the Falklands, as they risk replicating existing problems or creating new inefficiencies without meaningful benefits.

The Franchise/Concession model offers little improvement over the current monopoly, with competition only arising during infrequent re-tendering, leaving Islanders without ongoing choice. The Cooperative/Community Operator model appeals locally but is financially and operationally unviable in such a small population, risking underfunding and service limitations.

One such community-owned private venture already exists in the Falkland Islands –” Seafish Falklands Ltd exists to enable ordinary Falkland Islanders to participate and invest in the Falkland Islands’ economy.“ This approach is well-suited for start-ups that begin on a small scale and grow over several years, but require only modest initial financing. In the case of the Falklands, however, PPV telecommunications costs are heavily front-loaded due to the need to acquire the existing infrastructure.”

Hybrid Public-Private Partnerships can work for large-scale projects. Still, they are ill-suited to the Falklands, as private partners would demand guaranteed returns, which would raise prices and reduce affordability.

In short, these models are either duplicative, unsustainable, or likely to undermine competition, making them unsuitable for FIG’s long-term telecom strategy.