For all the excitement surrounding Starlink, Amazon Kuiper, AST SpaceMobile and direct-to-device satellite services, one question remains surprisingly underexplored, why are Africa’s largest telecom operators not leading the charge?
The continent’s dominant carriers, MTN Group, Vodacom Group, Airtel Africa, Orange and Safaricom, collectively serve hundreds of millions of subscribers. They operate some of the largest mobile networks in the developing world and have spent decades overcoming the infrastructure challenges that satellite operators now claim they can solve from space.
Yet none of these companies has committed capital to satellite infrastructure on the scale that they have invested in towers, fibre, spectrum and data centres. Instead, most have limited themselves to trials, partnership agreements, reseller arrangements and exploratory projects.
This is not because they fail to see the opportunity. It is because satellite connectivity threatens the economics that made them successful in the first place.
The apparent underinvestment in satellite connectivity is therefore not a technology problem. It is a strategic one.
The Business Model Conflict
Africa’s telecom leaders built their fortunes on terrestrial infrastructure.
For decades, competitive advantage came from owning towers, acquiring spectrum, building fibre backhaul and expanding coverage faster than rivals. These assets created barriers to entry and generated predictable returns.
Satellite connectivity changes that equation.
A low Earth orbit (LEO) constellation can deliver coverage to regions where traditional operators would normally need to build expensive infrastructure. In its most disruptive form direct-to-cell technology satellites effectively become cell towers in space, capable of communicating directly with ordinary smartphones.
The challenge for incumbent operators is obvious: every successful satellite connection reduces the strategic value of terrestrial coverage advantages.
Economists refer to this as a "classic innovator's dilemma." Although they are aware of the technology's potential, operators have no motivation to hasten a disruption that would eventually erode their own infrastructure protection.
MTN: Partnership Without Ownership
MTN offers perhaps the clearest example of this cautious approach.
The company has publicly explored partnerships with Starlink, Eutelsat OneWeb, AST SpaceMobile and Lynk Global. It has conducted satellite-to-phone trials and announced plans to use direct-to-cell services to reach remote communities across its footprint.
Yet MTN has stopped short of making large-scale ownership investments in satellite infrastructure itself.
This reflects a rational strategic calculation. Satellite partnerships allow MTN to extend coverage in uneconomical regions while preserving its core business model. The company gains access to emerging technology without assuming the enormous capital expenditure, launch risk and regulatory complexity associated with building or owning a satellite constellation.
From MTN’s perspective, satellite connectivity is currently a complementary technology rather than a replacement for terrestrial networks.
Vodacom: Hedging Through Strategic Alliances
Vodacom has followed a similar path.
Through its Vodafone parentage, the company has long-standing relationships with AST SpaceMobile and has participated in efforts to develop direct-to-device satellite services. More recently, it expanded its engagement with Starlink to enhance connectivity across African markets.
Notably, Vodacom’s strategy emphasizes integration rather than disruption.
Satellite services are being positioned as extensions of existing mobile networks rather than independent alternatives. This distinction matters. By embedding satellite capability within its own ecosystem, Vodacom can retain customer ownership, billing relationships and network control.
The company appears determined to ensure that satellites strengthen its terrestrial business rather than compete with it.
Airtel Africa: Capital Discipline Over Technological Ambition
Airtel Africa’s relative caution is perhaps easier to understand.
The company operates across multiple African markets while balancing substantial infrastructure expansion demands, spectrum costs and currency volatility. In such an environment, management tends to prioritize investments with proven returns.
Satellite infrastructure remains capital intensive and commercially uncertain. While Airtel has shown interest in satellite partnerships and testing initiatives, it has largely avoided aggressive investment commitments.
This reflects a broader reality in emerging markets, operators often face immediate demands for network densification, fibre deployment and 5G expansion that compete directly for capital allocation.
For many executives, investing in terrestrial infrastructure still offers a clearer path to shareholder returns than investing in an industry where economics are still evolving.
Orange: The Most Forward Looking, Yet Still Cautious
Among major operators, Orange arguably appears the most advanced in its satellite thinking.
The company has assembled a diverse portfolio of satellite partnerships involving AST SpaceMobile, Eutelsat, SES, Starlink and other providers. It increasingly views satellite capability as part of a broader resilience and coverage strategy.
However, even Orange has largely chosen partnerships over ownership.
This is revealing.
If one of the world’s largest telecom groups with significant resources, technical expertise and a large African footprint, prefers strategic alliances to direct satellite investment, it suggests that the economics of ownership remain unconvincing for traditional operators.
Orange appears to have concluded that access to satellite capability matters more than ownership of satellite assets.
Safaricom: Protecting a Successful Domestic Model
Safaricom faces a different challenge.
The company’s success in Kenya is built on dense terrestrial coverage, mobile money dominance and extensive local infrastructure. Unlike operators with large coverage gaps, Safaricom already enjoys strong network economics in its primary market.
As a result, satellite connectivity offers less immediate upside.
The company has little incentive to accelerate technologies that could eventually reduce dependence on terrestrial infrastructure. While satellite services may prove useful for remote coverage and enterprise applications, they do not fundamentally improve Safaricom’s strongest competitive advantages.
This makes cautious experimentation a logical strategy.
The Regulatory Reality
Another overlooked factor is regulation.
African telecom operators operate under licensing regimes designed around terrestrial infrastructure. They pay spectrum fees, comply with coverage obligations and often face local ownership or empowerment requirements.
Satellite operators challenge these assumptions.
Many regulators are still determining how satellite providers should be licensed, taxed and supervised. The resulting uncertainty creates hesitation among incumbent operators, who are reluctant to commit major capital before regulatory frameworks mature.
This is particularly visible in South Africa, where debates over satellite licensing, transformation requirements and spectrum use have become highly contentious.
Global Lessons: Africa Is Not Unique
The cautious behavior of African operators mirrors global trends.
In the United States, major carriers such as AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile have largely chosen partnership models with AST SpaceMobile, Starlink and Amazon Kuiper rather than building satellite networks themselves.
In Europe, Vodafone, Orange and Telefónica have pursued similar strategies.
This pattern suggests that the issue is not technological skepticism. Instead, telecom operators increasingly view satellite connectivity as a wholesale capability to be integrated into existing networks rather than a business they must own directly.
The winners may ultimately be operators that successfully orchestrate satellite partnerships rather than those that attempt to become satellite companies themselves.
The Real Reason for Underinvestment
The prevailing narrative assumes that Africa’s telecom giants are moving too slowly.
That interpretation misses the deeper strategic logic.
MTN, Vodacom, Airtel, Orange and Safaricom are not underinvesting because they doubt satellite technology. Their actions suggest the opposite. Each has conducted trials, signed agreements or explored partnerships.
What they are resisting is ownership.
Building satellite infrastructure would require them to invest heavily in technologies that could eventually undermine the value of their terrestrial assets. By partnering rather than owning, they preserve flexibility while limiting exposure.
In effect, Africa’s telecom leaders are attempting to manage disruption without accelerating it.
Whether that strategy proves wise depends on how quickly satellite economics improve.
If direct-to-device services remain a complementary technology for rural coverage, incumbents will likely be vindicated. If satellites become a true substitute for terrestrial networks, however, the companies that hesitated may discover that the future arrived faster than expected.
The skies above Africa are becoming increasingly crowded. The question is no longer whether satellite connectivity will matter.
It is whether Africa’s telecom giants will shape that future or simply adapt to it.
