Global South's Digital Future Under Corporate Control
· news
The Dark Side of Universal Connectivity
The expansion of satellite internet into underserved regions raises questions about who benefits from this technological advancement. Amazon’s partnership with Herotel in South Africa, which promises high-speed internet for rural communities, is one example of how large corporations are reshaping the digital landscape. However, behind the promise of universal connectivity lies a more insidious threat: dependence on foreign corporations that control not only the infrastructure but also the flow of information.
Satellite services like Starlink and Leo have brought coverage to areas previously neglected by fibre and mobile operators. But this access comes at a cost – literally. In Nigeria, Starlink raised its monthly residential fee by 50% in April 2025, making it increasingly difficult for poorer households to afford the service. This is not an isolated incident; across Africa, only 36% of people use the internet, falling to 21% in rural communities. The cost of data, devices, and electricity remains a significant barrier to entry.
The extent to which these corporations are embedding themselves in national security infrastructure is even more alarming. SpaceX and Amazon Web Services (AWS) provide classified cloud services to US defence and intelligence agencies, intertwining their infrastructure with state power. Entrusting them with essential networks across poorer countries would extend American strategic power into local economies, institutions, and daily lives.
Colonial history provides a stark reminder of the dangers of foreign corporations exerting control over local resources and infrastructure. The Matadi-Leopoldville railway built by Belgian companies in the late 19th century forcibly extracted rubber and ivory from Congolese communities while the colonial regime controlled the profits. Similarly, Facebook’s earlier experiment with Free Basics in India showed how corporate interests can supplant local control.
In India, a nationwide campaign for net neutrality eventually forced regulators to prohibit content-based data pricing in 2016. The legacy of Free Basics lives on in Africa, where it remains available in over 30 countries, including Ghana and Kenya. However, even as these services expand their reach, they often do so at the expense of local control and diversity.
In Ghana, for instance, about 70% of Free Basics services are based outside Africa while major local news sites are absent. The danger lies not only in Amazon’s acquisition of Globalstar or its plans to connect Leo directly to AWS but also in the broader trend of corporate influence over connectivity extending beyond services to infrastructure itself.
The 2Africa consortium, led by Meta, is building a core system that reaches 33 countries across Africa, Europe, and Asia – while Google’s Equiano cable links Europe to several African nations. As we hurtle towards an increasingly interconnected world, it’s essential to recognize the fine print of these technological advancements. Universal connectivity may bring many benefits, but it also risks perpetuating dependence on foreign corporations that wield significant power over local economies and institutions.
The true cost of this progress remains to be seen – and it’s a price we can ill afford to pay.
Reader Views
- CSCorrespondent S. Tan · field correspondent
The push for universal connectivity is masking a more sinister agenda: corporate control of local economies and societies. As we expand our digital infrastructure, we're unwittingly ceding strategic power to foreign entities that will inevitably prioritize their own interests over those of the communities they serve. The fact that many governments in the Global South are eager to partner with these corporations on this venture only serves to underscore the need for a more nuanced discussion about the true costs and consequences of our technological advancements.
- EKEditor K. Wells · editor
The push for universal connectivity in the Global South comes with a peculiar price tag: surrendering control of local infrastructure and information flows to foreign corporations. This is not merely a matter of cost or access; it's a transfer of strategic power that reeks of neo-colonialism. The article astutely points out the entanglement between corporate interests and national security agencies, but let's not forget: even if these corporations provide free or subsidized services initially, they're likely to extract concessions in return, quietly shaping local policies and economies to serve their own ends.
- ADAnalyst D. Park · policy analyst
The rush for global connectivity is being hijacked by corporate interests that prioritize profit over people. The article highlights the alarming trend of foreign corporations embedding themselves in national security infrastructure, but a critical aspect is being overlooked: the absence of regulatory frameworks to govern these partnerships. Without robust oversight, developing nations risk becoming digital colonies, with their sensitive data and infrastructure controlled by extraterritorial entities. Policymakers must prioritize creating inclusive and equitable governance structures that empower local communities, not just accommodate corporate interests.