spacefaring countries and Indigenous nations that respect these treaties and these communities' sovereignty. Such agreements must be transparent and include cost analysis so that agreements are not dependent on a new generation of leaders and people. Looking at New Zealand’s approach once more, Aotearoa (the Maori name for New Zealand) is a new Artemis Accords signatory with public statements[1] emphasizing Māori principles of sustainability and stewardship of natural resources, as applied to outer space, which is termed an environment. Legal scholars are yet to answer the broader legal question of whether night skies are implicit in the multiple existing agreements and treaties between state actors and Indigenous peoples.
Systematic studies are needed on the viability of satellite broadband and outcomes for economic development. Two of our subgroup members drew attention to the unfolding situation as regards satellite broadband in their countries.
In Mexico, as an example, Dr. Avila Castro shared that as of July 2021, according to official data[2] 31% of the working population earns 3700 pesos a month or less, or approximately a third of the population earns $185 USD or less a month at current exchange rates of $1 USD = 20 pesos. Only 2% of the working force earns 18,700 pesos ($925 USD) a month. The announced price of Starlink in Mexico is the same as in the USA: An initial $500 USD (10,000 pesos) and a monthly fee of $99 USD (2,000 pesos). With this information we can easily see that Starlink is completely out of reach of the vast majority of the population. On the other hand, Mexico has 84 million internet users which is around 70% of the overall population. In urban areas, internet coverage is acceptable and affordable through cellular (3G, 4G), and ground-based internet (DSL, cable, optic fiber). As with other services, rural areas are the ones left behind so it could be argued that Starlink could fill those gaps in coverage. However, rural areas have the lowest incomes meaning that satellite internet is completely unaffordable for them. Even if resources are pooled to share a satellite link for the whole community, infrastructure has to be acquired, installed, and maintained (routers, cables, WiFi antennas, etc) and at that point it makes more sense to solve the last mile problem through conventional internet access. But let's expand the scenario even further, e.g., that Starlink is installed and operating through a community effort. What is going to happen if the Starlink project doesn’t pan out and has to shut down the service? Now the community has invested a lot of money, only to be left with some proprietary antennas that are no longer useful. This is what technological colonization means in a developing country. You no longer own the infrastructure or services — they are owned instead by a private company in a foreign country[3]. So for the developing world, satellite internet in this form does not have a real market to expand, nor does it have a long term benefit for the people. However, people in these countries will suffer the increase in light pollution, and the loss of their traditional tales and stories in the skies. Any short-term benefits from satellite broadband may therefore be eclipsed by long-term economic and other impacts, with no clear path of recovery.
- ↑ https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/space-exploration-soars-artemis-accords
- ↑ Data come from the National Institute of Statistics, Geographical Information (INEGI), and the Federal Institute of Telecommunications (IFT).
- ↑ More broadly, fiber optic cables can serve multiple data-carrying functions in multiple formats for multiple providers and users from individuals to corporations to governments for multiple decades. In contrast, satellite dishes to access satellite broadband internet are fixed to one household account with one private provider corporation using one format of data transmission, and are prone to rapid obsolescence.
