By Emran Emon
In recent months, the debate over whether Bangladesh should allow Elon Musk’s Starlink to operate within its borders has intensified. Proponents tout the promise of fast, reliable satellite internet, particularly in underserved rural regions.
However, beneath the surface of technological optimism lie complex issues of digital sovereignty, geopolitical pressure, and regulatory vulnerability that demand far more scrutiny than they are currently receiving.
The high cost of Starlink services, paired with potential regulatory bypasses and the geopolitical weight behind its global expansion, suggests that this is not merely a matter of upgrading internet infrastructure. It is a matter of sovereignty, economic fairness, and national resilience in the face of foreign pressure.
Starlink promises high-speed internet in remote areas where traditional infrastructure is expensive or impossible to deploy.
This sounds ideal for a country like Bangladesh, where significant portions of the population still lack reliable internet access. However, this promise begins to falter when one examines the pricing structure of Starlink’s services.
The hardware needed to access Starlink costs $599 (approximately BDT 65,959), and the monthly service fee is around $120 (about BDT 13,213). In contrast, local broadband services offer 5 Mbps speeds for as low as BDT 500 per month, and mobile internet packages providing 30 GB of data cost between BDT 400-500. The excessive cost of Starlink places it far out of reach for most Bangladeshi households.
Monthly service fees of Starlink in other countries hover between $90 and $120, again far above what the average Bangladeshi can afford. While the company may argue that prices will fall over time, there is little evidence of this happening at a scale that would benefit developing economies anytime soon.
What’s more, the arrival of Starlink could have a destabilizing impact on local ISPs and telecom providers who have built infrastructure and services under heavy regulatory scrutiny and public accountability.
These companies provide jobs, contribute taxes, and operate under national digital frameworks. Introducing a foreign entity with the power to operate over domestic regulation could jeopardize this fragile ecosystem.
Starlink is not just another tech company—it is a transnational corporate force backed by an ambitious billionaire who has demonstrated little patience for public oversight.
Across several countries, Starlink has resisted national regulations, pushed back against licensing conditions, and sought exemptions under the guise of innovation and urgency.
Bangladesh is still in the early stages of building a robust digital governance framework. Questions around data privacy, cybersecurity, and fair competition remain unresolved. In this context, allowing a company like Starlink to operate with minimal oversight could create dangerous precedents.
What mechanisms will ensure that Starlink complies with local laws on data retention and user privacy? How will Bangladesh protect its citizens’ digital rights if a dispute arises with a foreign satellite operator that is not even physically present in the country? These questions are not just theoretical; they are at the core of ensuring that technological progress does not come at the cost of national security or consumer protection.
US Tariffs and the Global Push for Starlink: Bangladesh’s Digital Crossroads
The geopolitical undertones of Starlink’s global push cannot be ignored. According to a detailed report by The Washington Post (Titled: U.S. pushes nations facing tariffs to approve Musk’s Starlink, cables show, published on May 7, 2025), the U.S. government—particularly under the Trump administration—has been actively lobbying countries to approve Starlink.
State Department cables reveal that embassies around the world have been instructed to promote Elon Musk’s satellite internet service as part of a broader economic and strategic agenda.
Senator Marco Rubio and others have reportedly directed officials to pressure governments into fast-tracking regulatory approvals for Starlink. The tactic? Using the threat of tariffs—especially on developing economies—to create a sense of urgency and dependency.
Bangladesh, with its burgeoning export economy and sensitive geopolitical positioning in South Asia, appears to be walking into this trap.
Moreover, due to its strategic geographic location, the United States needs Bangladesh to counterbalance the rising influence of China and India in the region. The interim government’s muted response to such pressures is especially worrying.
Are we seeing the early signs of a compliance reflex, driven by fear of economic retaliation? Or worse, a deliberate abdication of regulatory responsibility under the guise of modernization?
Make no mistake: Elon Musk and Starlink have emerged as the biggest winners of the post-Trump tariff landscape.
Where traditional diplomacy once guided international tech cooperation, we now see corporate lobbying backed by strategic coercion. In many cases, Starlink is not being chosen—it is being imposed.
This should concern Bangladesh greatly.
The nation has worked tirelessly to maintain a neutral foreign policy stance, prioritizing multilateralism, trade diversification, and regional cooperation. If Starlink’s approval becomes a precondition for tariff relief or favorable diplomatic treatment, Bangladesh risks becoming a pawn in a much larger game.
More disturbingly, this game is being played with asymmetric information and power. Starlink holds the technological and financial upper hand, while Bangladesh’s interim government—unelected and inherently lacking political legitimacy—is in no position to negotiate terms that protect the public interest. Any deal struck under such conditions must be viewed with skepticism.
The current interim administration has yet to articulate a clear digital policy or public position on Starlink. This silence is not neutrality—it is weakness.
In the face of global corporate pressure and U.S. lobbying, the government’s failure to initiate a transparent and participatory debate is both dangerous and undemocratic.
The regulatory authorities must assert that no foreign internet provider can operate above national law. Any partnership must include provisions for local accountability, taxation, consumer protection, and regulatory oversight.
Moreover, civil society, technologists, and policymakers must be given a platform to contribute to this decision, rather than being sidelined by opaque dealings between foreign lobbies and unelected officials.
To be clear, rejecting Starlink outright would be unwise.
There is real potential in satellite internet to bridge connectivity gaps, support disaster recovery, and improve service delivery in remote regions. But integration must happen on our terms, not through the backdoor of coercion or desperation.
Bangladesh must:
1. Conduct an independent cost-benefit analysis of allowing Starlink, factoring in economic impact, data sovereignty, and market disruption.
2. Develop a clear regulatory framework for satellite internet providers, including licensing, taxation, cybersecurity, and compliance mechanisms.
3. Negotiate transparently with Starlink and the U.S. government, ensuring that no trade-offs on tariffs are linked to digital sovereignty.
4. Empower local stakeholders including telecom providers, consumer rights groups, and digital rights activists to shape the public conversation.
Bangladesh, for its geographical strategic position in South Asia, stands at a crossroads.
Bangladesh must remain constantly vigilant to ensure that it does not suffer any harm or fall into the traps set by the two major global powers, the United States and China, in their strategic rivalry.
On one path lies the promise of technological leapfrogging, where innovation serves the public good and enhances national resilience.
On the other lies a future of dependency, where decisions are made under pressure and foreign companies operate above local law.
Welcoming Starlink—or any global tech player—should not come at the cost of our regulatory independence, economic fairness, or strategic autonomy. The price of high-speed internet cannot be our sovereignty. The question, then, is not whether we need Starlink. The question is: at what cost?