Greenland’s National Telco, Tusass, Signs New Agreement with Eutelsat
Key topics
Greenland's national telco, Tusass, has signed an extended deal with Eutelsat, sparking debate about the implications of choosing a non-US satellite service over Starlink, and the geopolitical tensions surrounding telecommunications infrastructure.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Very active discussionFirst comment
2m
Peak period
84
0-3h
Avg / period
17.8
Based on 160 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Oct 22, 2025 at 3:14 AM EDT
2 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Oct 22, 2025 at 3:17 AM EDT
2m after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
84 comments in 0-3h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Oct 23, 2025 at 1:36 PM EDT
2 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
There is an assumption that such a loss would be a prelude to a major attack - but cock up is always more likely.
https://www.ipinternational.net/oneweb-and-spacex-a-surprisi...
EDIT: Nvm, just now saw the sibling comment with the wiki article.
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutelsat
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutelsat_OneWeb#Launches
Greenland decision was political not technical to pay x5 more for x10 slower service.
Who else out there is making full-on beamforming capable satellite terminals under $1k? Kymeta's over $20k+ for a single dish.
People may hate the company and the man behind it but there's something special about being able to grab specialized satcoms hardware for like $300 at Best Buy.
10 years ago a BGAN terminal ran me $5000+ and a 384k connection several thousand bucks a month. Now you can get ~512k for $5 a month in Standby Mode on a $300 dish.
The company and the man behind it cost $300 more per terminal.
I dunno, is "bus factor" a political or technical thing to consider? How about "did the country of this business threaten us before?" a technical or political consideration?
Personally, I'd try to stay away from entities I can't rely on, on a technical basis. Based on the article, it seems like Greenland traded stability and resilience for performance and price, doesn't seem political.
Might be because i'm on a 14" laptop and it didn't fit on screen.
Note: each of the tabs on the left has their own "vendors" you may grant access. In total, there are over 800 toggle switches.
Consent-O-Matic does it for most sites but not on this particular type of dialog.
There are sites that ignore this requirement – they set tracking cookies on the first visit, before you've even seen the dialog. Consent-O-Matic could potentially be better in those cases, assuming the "Reject All" button actually works. There are also sites where the "Reject" option is intentionally or unintentionally broken.
PS. One of my hobbies is to track sites in my country that set non-required cookies on first visit, and contact them asking to fix it. And escalate to the local DPA if they refuse or don't respond. I made a little script that checks a list of sites nightly: https://github.com/cuu508/tasting-party One reason for re-checking regularly is regressions – somebody fixes their site, then two months later the problem is back... Over a year, the list of problematic sites has shrunk from 300-400-something to ~100, so there's progress :-)
Still quite clearly illegal though. Rejecting tracking should be as easy as accepting it.
0: No shade thrown at the submitter, as this is the title used by the site.
In business, especially on the government side, incumbency plays a very big role. Just knowing whom to call in case of issues and how soon they respond may account for all the trust needed to renew. My 2c.
But this year is also the year all European companies and governments learned the hard way they need to ditch US providers, and actually started working on it.
Blackmail from your provider is not great for business relations. Let’s not pretend otherwise.
But this article has nothing to do with the above, or with views of Musk. As others said, this request was for centralized access and SpaceX responded with a B2C proposal. It would have been rejected just as quickly even if it came from another company unaffiliated with the US.
Oracle could offer a company a better product/service, but would you really trust them?
The obvious aspect is that Starlink is a US company owned by a US oligarch with deep ties to the ruling regime, which is repeatedly threatening Greenland with invasion and annexation.
Relying on that service provider for communication would be outright stupid.
Also, what's cool about Starlink is that they have sort of vertical integration with SpaceX that allows them to constantly keep launching new satellites which allows them maintain lower orbit constellation that allows for cheaper end-user equipment and potentially better speeds. Also the constant recycling of satellites allow for ever going network improvement as the tech advances.
What's not cool about Starlink is that it is American and Elon Musk affiliated, which makes it national security risk for Europe and Greenland in particular. That is also part of the newsworthiness because if this becomes a trend Starlink may become unviable business for a market of just 300M people.
When shopping solar, installers would open with ‘we sell various brands, what are your views on Musk?’
It's described as slightly worse than Starlink, which makes sense because the orbits are not that different to warrant 20 orders of magnitude performance difference.
Where do you get the 1s latency number?
“If it’s like old school satellite internet”
The do 4gb too, but I can’t use that much, and rarely get over 1gb.
Coverage is smaller than Starlink, but I don't think Greenland plans to move anywhere any time soon.
Nobody is arguing that it isn't newsworthy.
"but losing to an established competitor isn't super newsworthy"
345M people. Of which, the real market is around 15M households. Everyone else already has wired broadband. I suppose some people will want an additional link for redundancy, but my understanding is that Starlink satellites would be oversubscribed if urban areas had significant adoption.
AFAIK, you, as end user, cannot. Last time i checked that Eutelsat offers the service only as wholesale, to ISPs and other large customers, not to regular end-users.
I reckon he has delivered on plenty.
For example particularly in the UK and I think in Australia, the expression "ditched at the altar" is not uncommon.
If Greenland was legitimately close to a finalising a deal with Starlink, my semantics brain cells will accept "ditched" here.
We all know at this point that rage == clicks == ad revenue.
(The only ads here are YC startup job offers)
If you read the article, that's not exactly the arguments pointed out by neither Tusass nor Greenland's politicians.
Cited from the article:
> Binzer said it was not about which company was better, but about trust and long-term cooperation. Tusass already works with Eutelsat and knows their systems well.
> Some Greenlandic politicians have warned that the country must keep control of its telecom infrastructure.
> They fear that opening the market to foreign providers could threaten national security. For now, Tusass remains the sole provider of telecommunications in Greenland.
The citations from the article are clear on how national security concerns were a key argument to not go with Starlink.
It's also not very "between the lines" at all, the article finishes with:
> Binzer said the company will keep an open mind for future partnerships, but the priority remains clear. Greenland’s communication systems must stay under Greenlandic control.
Sovereignty is more important than ever, and governments are catching up to this fact.
Apparently, some partners/"friends" are more likely to take military action against you than others.
If you're considering sovereignty and you have a choice between one partner who've said "I'll protect you" and another that said "Well, we'll never rule out military action against you", working together with one of those are obviously better for your sovereignty than the other.
West-Ukraine wouldn't. East-Ukraine ... not so sure.
why you acting like ukraine is already lose its territory???? the war is still going on
there is no winner yet
When an invader has a gun against your head, how would you vote?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_annexation_referendums_in...
USA has and has had military bases on Greenland, once established despite opposition from native Greenlanders. Several of these are ecological disasters. There are valleys full of rusting oil drums and machinery. There are fears of there being radioactive waste hidden under the ice, expected to leak sooner or later.
That Denmark had approved some of these bases has fuelled sentiment against Denmark and the US in the first place.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jan/28/85-of-greenlan...
> But a new survey by pollster Verian, commissioned by the Danish paper Berlingske, showed only 6% of Greenlanders are in favour of becoming part of the US, with 9% undecided.
6%, for practical purposes, means 0%; whenever you have a poll with a clearly insane option, about 4-5% of people will choose it, due to a combination of mistakes and trolling.
About half of Greenlanders support independence (in a concrete sense; far more than that in an abstract sense), but that's rather different to becoming part of the US.
"Ditches" sounds like they were already using Starlink, but abandoned it in favor of Eutelsat's system. The text clarifies that they only decided to (continue to) use Eutelsat, and Starlink was just another option considered.
> Binzer said it was not about which company was better, but about trust and long-term cooperation.
Well, who can blame them? After Trump repeatedly expressed "interest" in owning Greenland (fortunately he seems to have moved on to other pet projects in the meantime), and with Musk being one of Trump's closest allies, it would be a bit naive to trust Starlink...
Don't know the publication, but it seems to be a Danish publishing in English.
> to get rid of something or someone that is no longer wanted:
They were considering two contracts, with two different companies, and were in talks with both of them. If they stop considering one of those contracts/companies, wouldn't it be accurate to say they "ditched" that bid/contract then?
I guess the misleading part could be that "ditched" might implicitly imply they were already using Starlink, but the "ditched" used in the title is actually about the contract, not established service?
A more appropriate term here would be "rejected" which means to decide against something prior to accepting it. Example: “I was going to buy that car, but I rejected their offer.”
> This article is made and published by Anna Hartz, which may have used AI in the preparation
The editors don't even know for sure if the author used AI or not.
> This article is made and published by Anna Hartz, which may have used AI in the preparation
Which, not who. They're not even sure the author is human!
Considering that "using AI" can mean anything from "AI wrote the whole article" to "the author used AI to check the grammar", I'd argue this disclaimer is unnecessary and it's safe to assume AI is involved in some way nowadays.
(the author of this comment may have used AI)
I don't think it's safe to assume so at all. Granted, I only know one journalist, and they've told me they only use LLMs in their work to gather further sources/references to check, everything else they still do "manually" with their own hands.
The editorial team should know exactly the scope of their teams AI usage. The snark mostly comes from them not knowing if AI was used or not, and they be upfront about them not knowing it. Feels like they're missing integrity if they don't know such things.
I'd argue that your example falls under "which may have used AI in the preparation", which was exactly my point. (I actually had using AI for research as an example, but English is not my first language and I couldn't get the sentence to sound correct and chatGPT suggested I drop it)
> The editorial team should know exactly the scope of their teams AI usage. The snark mostly comes from them not knowing if AI was used or not, and they be upfront about them not knowing it. Feels like they're missing integrity if they don't know such things.
I don't see this as a lack of integrity, but rather as a futile attempt at being transparent. Everyone else is in the same position, they are just not adding a disclaimer.
And that's nothing specific about journalists, this applies to all professions. At most you can say what your official policy states, but you have absolutely no way of knowing how your employees/coworkers are using AIs.
AI suggests you drop disclosing possible usage of AI.
If it was smart we'd say this was AI influencing the narrative ;)
They don't even specifically know for each article if their authors use LLMs or not. What a shitshow.
Answer: Because of corruption! It's illegal to use Starlink in Greenland, and Tusass holds a concessioned monopoly over “telecommunications services in, to and from Greenland” and the underlying infrastructure! https://www.aqutsisut.gl/en/tele/satellite-regulation
Tusass was in talks with Starlink to basically provide Starlink service but via the Tusass monopoly, basically making Tusass a no-value-added reseller of Starlink at massively inflated prices (subsidized of course, basically being paid by the Danish government to do nothing besides cash checks while Starlink does everything else). This is so obviously corrupt that it's better for them to use a worse, more expensive service that doesn't make Tusass completely pointless.
Having a single infrastructure provider isn't corruption. It's making the best out of a natural monopoly. It could lead to corruption, but unless you have any proof that it has, you're simply wrong.
With 56,831 inhabitants and those spread rather thinly I assume they enjoyed the years when it was both expensive and heavily subsidised. Without heavy government support I would claim nothing would happen.
Times are changing and commercial offerings starts to be viable. But the outlook of being in the pocket of StarLink is not too appealing. I think they would prefer other options in Ukraine these days. And if you notice the relations between Denmark (the only country outside US to celebrate the 4th of July) is at a record low.
Free markets you say? Tariffs I say!
The only thing that has changed is who you can trust long-term, but I think trust has always been one of the top factors.
Recent upheavals and actions have really pushed people to question exactly who and what you can trust.
Also the recent focus on strategic elements with regard to globalisation also plays into these choices now - where it might have been dismissed a couple of years ago.
Granted you live in a neat place, those two first ones are still reasonable to trust in your day-to-day life, and in those same places the latter was never worshiped on the same level that happened in the US.
However, after the events of the past few years, especially last 12 months, they have lost a more important kind of trust.
Early in the war, Starlink used their killswitch to prevent Ukraine from utilizing their service for military purposes.
The sitting US president has threatened war against Greenland. He has not backed down or apologized, merely moved on hoping we would forget.
You'd have to be crazy to pick Starlink under these circumstances.
Ally (which Greenland and the US were in 2024)
and
Active invasion
Starlink removing service is nowhere near as extreme as America jamming starlink (which would be a breach of international treaties)
Don't forget a guy who is so aligned with the leadership of that country that he paid to be a part of it, was kind of a government minister, and of course went on live national TV to perform a Nazi salute at an official event.
103 more comments available on Hacker News