According to reports first from Bloomberg, and then from the same oblique statements by the protagonists, the Italian government is reportedly in advanced negotiations for a contract worth €1.5 billion with SpaceX, the company founded by Elon Musk, aimed at ensuring secure communications for the Italian government through the Starlink satellite network. This five-year project has reportedly already received the approval of the Italian intelligence services and the Ministry of Defence, although it has not yet been formalised.

The Italian government has denied signing a definitive agreement, stating that talks with SpaceX are part of normal investigations conducted with companies specialising in secure connections for encrypted data communication needs. Nevertheless, Elon Musk has publicly expressed his willingness to provide Italy with secure and advanced connectivity services through Starlink. These discussions are part of a broader context in which Italy is considering solutions to improve internet connectivity in general, especially in remote areas. Today, for example, it was reported that Starlink was favoured in the tender to upgrade satellite connectivity in Lombardy, while Unipol’s collaboration with Starlink to improve connectivity in the flood-affected areas of Emilia-Romagna dates back to 2023.

Let’s start from an assumption: Starlink’s penetration in Italy is facilitated by an inescapable fact, the delay in connectivity accumulated in recent years with respect to other European countries, as a recent I-com report clearly testifies. Starting from this fragility (not the only one), Italy is objectively the ‘ideal’ place from which Starlink can attempt to establish itself in the European market.

Starlink is now the undisputed leader

In recent years, the satellite telecommunications sector has undergone a radical transformation thanks to the entry of private players such as SpaceX, with its ambitious Starlink project. With over 7,000 operational satellites and an expanding network aiming to exceed 12,000 satellites, Starlink already offers a global service enabling high-speed internet connections in remote and poorly connected areas.

Musk’s creature has built its success in the industry on a solid business model, based on monthly subscriptions that guarantee recurring cash flows, and a highly innovative technological infrastructure. Reusable Falcon 9 rockets have dramatically reduced launch costs, enabling rapid network expansion with unprecedented efficiency. The company has not limited itself to the civil market: it has already proven to be a strategic partner for governments and armed forces, as demonstrated by the use of the Starlink network in critical contexts such as the conflict in Ukraine.

IRIS² and GovSatcom: the delay of the European initiative

On the other hand, there is IRIS², i.e. the European attempt to build a satellite constellation offering secure communications for government, military and civil purposes, while providing high-speed internet access in underserved regions. With an estimated cost of EUR 10.6 billion, financed through a public-private model, the project aims to strengthen Europe’s technological sovereignty and reduce dependence on external players such as Starlink. Next to IRIS², there is also the GovSatcom programme, launched in combination, which focuses on providing secure and reliable satellite communication services for European and national public authorities in crisis situations or for sensitive operations.

Let us speak frankly: the European project suffers from significant weaknesses. The constellation will not be operational before 2030, making it difficult to compete with Starlink’s rapid expansion. Moreover, the planned number of satellites (around 290) is significantly lower than Starlink’s, potentially limiting coverage capacity and performance competitiveness. European space launchers, such as Ariane 6 and Vega-C, are still under development or have delays, which limits the scope for early expansion and keeps operating costs high. The difference between Starlink and IRIS² is not limited to the technical dimension. It also represents two opposing philosophies. Starlink embodies the ability of a private player (which has also benefited from generous public support throughout its ascent) to innovate rapidly, attract investment and respond to the needs of global consumers. IRIS², on the other hand, reflects a model of public intervention oriented towards long-term strategic goals such as security, resilience and sovereignty. This diversity is also reflected in the way it is financed. While Starlink sustains itself through subscriptions and private investment, IRIS² depends largely on European public funds, with all the political and bureaucratic complexities this entails. There is, it must be said, no shortage of strengths in the European project. IRIS² focuses on applications of high strategic value, such as secure military and governmental communications. Obviously, in order to capitalise on these strengths, the project faces urgent challenges: reducing implementation delays, increasing scalability and overcoming bureaucratic and political sluggishness that often hold back the efficiency of European action. The usual story, in short: having thought for years about regulating instead of doing and letting things happen has led to the current state of affairs.

Peter W. Kruger has brilliantly written what needs to be said on the matter: “If Musk in 25 years has been able to mass-create Tesla, SpaceX, Starlink, xAI, etc., it is precisely because of the impressive market holes left untapped by generations of politicians and bureaucrats who could not even tie their own shoes. We are talking about the same level of legalistic and dirigiste dementia that makes certain ‘digital savvy’ lawyers say that the AIAct will make the EU a key player in the AI revolution.

Kruger also writes that if there is a way to solve the country’s problems, it lies entirely in technology, ‘so welcome to Starlink if you can give us an edge (and why not? Let’s also invest in the EU project)‘. Kruger’s reflection starts from the assumption, which for him has been valid since the days of the endless and ultimately futile discussions on the ‘Italianness’ of the Telecom network, that the sensitive element is not the ‘physical layer’ of the communication system, be it fibre or a network of satellites, but the real ability to compete on the frontier of innovation.

We have a lot of work to do on this, throughout Europe and especially in Italy, if we do not want to condemn ourselves to a fate as a colony of external powers and potentates. A possible slogan for a party of European patriots that is not there: less regulation, more innovation.