There doesn’t seem to be a reliable source one way or another. The South African reported he was denied a liscence because of the black ownership laws while Newsweek says there was never a public liscence application filed. It’s possible the royalities offer was given privately and rejected, this is most likely since Starlink does pay for liscenses based on service in ither African countries.
Comment on Poor guy
Wigners_friend@lemm.ee 1 month agoI live in SA. Care to back up the royalties claim?
yeather@lemmy.ca 1 month ago
notaviking@lemmy.world 1 month ago
I admit it is not royalties, it’s called something else not sure what, word that came to my mind. But basically an equivalent of paying similar money but without giving away equity or ownership.
notaviking@lemmy.world 1 month ago
It is called equity equivalents, this is where you don’t give away equity but basically still pay as if you are, hence I admit royalties are maybe not the right word but for my it is similar. Unlike other international tech companies like Google or Microsoft in our country that pays equity equivalents, the telecommunications requirements are equity or slice of your business.