I spent three years inside government trying to make this argument. I could not convince many of my government brothers then. Today, however, the question has become much bigger than the price of an internet package. Nepal must decide whether it wants to build tomorrow's digital economy-or continue investing in yesterday's physical infrastructure.
The most important mistake is comparing the monthly price of fibre with the monthly price of Starlink. That is not an economic comparison. The correct calculation is total cost of ownership: capital expenditure, operating expenditure, towers, poles, fibre routes, civil construction, power, batteries, technicians, transportation, repairs, monsoon damage, landslides, replacement equipment and years of maintenance.
In Kathmandu, fibre is logical. In a dense urban neighbourhood, thousands of customers can share the same infrastructure. But Nepal is not Kathmandu. Our country is mountains, valleys, rivers, cliffs and scattered settlements. A tower in the Himalaya is not simply a tower. It can mean transporting steel, concrete, batteries and electronic equipment through terrain where even basic logistics are difficult. Then someone has to maintain it. The cheapest internet connection is not necessarily the cheapest internet infrastructure. That is the point Nepal's policymakers must understand.
The Question That Must Be Asked
The Nepal Telecommunications Authority already collects 2 percent of relevant telecommunications revenue for the Rural Telecommunications Development Fund, and that fund has been used to subsidise rural broadband infrastructure, including optical fibre and microwave networks. There is nothing wrong with subsidy when the social return is greater than the commercial return. But the question should be brutally simple: Are we subsidising the most economically efficient technology, or merely subsidising the expansion of the existing industry?
If public resources are used to build infrastructure, Nepal must measure the outcome-not the kilometres of cable. The essential metrics are stark and unavoidable. How much does each connected household cost? How much does each school cost to connect? How much does each health post cost? How much maintenance will be required for twenty years? How many competing cables are being placed on the same poles? How much of the investment is duplicated?
And most importantly: Could a satellite have done it more cheaply? That is the question that should now be asked before another rupee is committed.
When Geography Changes Economics
Nepal's geography is not merely an inconvenience. It changes the economics of telecommunications. Every additional kilometre of fibre through difficult terrain carries a hidden bill. Every remote tower has an OPEX burden. Every inaccessible site creates a maintenance risk. Every monsoon creates a potential failure point. The indirect cost of "cheap" internet can therefore become extraordinarily expensive.
We should calculate the full lifecycle cost of terrestrial connectivity, not merely the retail price paid by the customer. If a remote mountain community requires fibre, towers, power systems, roads, technicians, repeated transportation and emergency repairs, then comparing that system with the price of a satellite terminal is meaningless unless all those costs are included. Nepal's mountains may make satellite internet economically superior-not because satellite is inherently cheaper, but because the alternative is exceptionally expensive. That is the leapfrog opportunity.
The Hybrid Architecture
I am not arguing that Nepal should abandon fibre. That would be equally foolish. Fibre should remain the backbone of the national digital economy. Kathmandu, major cities, airports, universities, hospitals, banks, industries, data centres and government networks require enormous capacity and redundancy.
But fibre should not automatically be the answer to every last kilometre. The future should be hybrid: fibre for capacity, wireless for flexibility, satellite for geography. That is the architecture Nepal should be pursuing.
Starlink's current position demonstrates why this debate is becoming urgent. In 2026, Starlink has renewed its effort to enter Nepal, while regulatory and foreign-ownership requirements remain obstacles. Bangladesh's recent regulatory decision has also created a potential technical pathway for Starlink bandwidth to reach Nepal through Bangladesh. Reporting indicates that a Nepali user terminal could technically connect to the Starlink constellation without requiring the same kind of terrestrial gateway infrastructure inside Nepal. The technology is moving. The policy must move faster.
Lifecycle Economics, Not Retail Pricing
This is the wrong question: "Is Starlink expensive?" Ask instead: "What is the complete national cost of connecting this location terrestrially?"
Suppose Starlink costs more per month than fibre. So what? If fibre requires an expensive tower, difficult road access, repeated maintenance, replacement batteries, technicians, transport and disaster repair, the apparent "cheap" fibre connection may actually be the expensive option. This is called lifecycle economics. Government must understand CAPEX plus OPEX plus maintenance plus depreciation plus replacement plus downtime plus disaster recovery plus logistics. That is the real price. The retail broadband tariff is only one line on the balance sheet.
Negotiate from Strength
If Starlink wants Nepal, Nepal should negotiate from strength. We should not simply say: "Please come to Nepal." We should say: "If you want access to the Nepali market, what national affordability package will you offer?"
Nepal should negotiate bulk procurement, special rates for schools, special rates for health posts, special rates for remote municipalities, emergency connectivity for disasters, connectivity for mountain and border communities, and government procurement at negotiated wholesale rates. The objective should be a Nepal-specific digital partnership, not simply another imported subscription service.
And Nepal should negotiate with more than one provider. Starlink should not become another monopoly. Invite every credible LEO satellite operator. Let them compete. Competition is the subsidy that never has to come from the taxpayer.
Protecting Consumers, Not Business Models
Nepali ISPs should not be protected from technological competition. They should be challenged by it. If satellite arrives and fibre companies respond by reducing prices, increasing speeds, improving reliability and cleaning up their infrastructure, Nepali consumers win. That is precisely what competition is supposed to do. The government should protect consumers-not business models.
And if existing operators have invested in infrastructure, they should be allowed to earn a return. But public policy should not guarantee them permanent protection from disruptive technology. The NTA itself requires licensed providers to contribute royalties and RTDF payments and has warned service providers about reliability and quality obligations. That creates an obvious policy principle: If the public pays into the ecosystem, the public must receive measurable public value.
Infrastructure Sharing, Not Duplication
Walk through Kathmandu. Look at the electricity poles. Look at the cables. That tangled infrastructure is not simply an urban eyesore. It represents a fragmented infrastructure model. Multiple companies. Multiple cables. Multiple maintenance teams. Multiple investments. Limited physical space. Repeated failures.
This is where Nepal needs passive infrastructure sharing. One pole should not become five companies' competing infrastructure. One duct should not require five separate construction projects. One tower should not be unnecessarily duplicated. The government should create a national framework in which infrastructure can be shared while service providers continue competing. Compete on service-not on unnecessary duplication of steel and cables.
The Digital Finance Revolution
Now comes the subject that government finds even more uncomfortable: crypto. Nepal should not become a crypto casino. Nor should Nepal become technologically blind. There is a profound difference between speculative cryptocurrency trading and the underlying technologies of blockchain, tokenisation, smart contracts, digital identity, programmable payments and distributed ledgers. Nepal Rastra Bank itself has been examining Central Bank Digital Currency, showing that the underlying digital transformation deserves institutional attention.
The right answer is not blind liberalisation. The right answer is regulated experimentation. Create a regulatory sandbox. Allow universities and qualified companies to develop blockchain applications. Apply strict KYC, AML, taxation, consumer-protection and financial-stability controls. Let Nepali engineers build. Let entrepreneurs experiment. Let regulators supervise.
Nepal should investigate whether blockchain can improve remittances, land records, tourism payments, supply chains, digital credentials, government procurement and financial infrastructure. Do not confuse regulating technology with banning knowledge. Technology should not be forced to fit yesterday's infrastructure. Yesterday's infrastructure should be required to justify why it deserves to survive in tomorrow's economy.
The Real National-Security Issue
The biggest danger is not that Nepali young people will use too much technology. The biggest danger is that they will understand the future better than their government. A young Nepali engineer should be able to sit in a Himalayan village, connect through satellite internet, use cloud computing, work with artificial intelligence and sell software to New York, London, Tokyo or Singapore. That is not fantasy. That is the economic opportunity.
Our mountains should not be an excuse for isolation. Our mountains should become the reason we leapfrog. Nepal has hydropower. Nepal has a young population. Nepal has tourism. Nepal has a global diaspora. Nepal has enormous geographic challenges. Those are not merely weaknesses. They can become the foundation of a new digital economy.
Internet Is Infrastructure, Not a Utility
This is the central message: Internet is no longer simply something households purchase for entertainment. It is now economic infrastructure. A farmer connected to a global market is infrastructure. A doctor providing telemedicine to a remote patient is infrastructure. A hotel selling directly to international travellers is infrastructure. A Nepali programmer working for an American company from Kathmandu is infrastructure. A mountain guide receiving real-time weather information is infrastructure. A school connected to the world's knowledge is infrastructure. A hydropower company operating an intelligent digital grid is infrastructure.
Therefore, the government should stop asking: "How cheap can we make internet?" It should ask: "How much economic value can every rupee of digital infrastructure create?" That is the real question.
A Platform for Innovation
Let me be clear about my own experience. I facilitated communication between the Government of Nepal and Elon Musk through Starlink. Nepal's Prime Minister and Elon Musk did speak, although I was subsequently excluded from the video conversation, and the communication itself was reportedly difficult because Elon Musk could barely hear the Prime Minister. That experience reinforced for me that Nepal needs to think beyond conventional telecommunications infrastructure.
I also witnessed how social media platforms reshaped political movements. Nepal's recent experience with Facebook and other Meta platforms shows how quickly digital platforms can reshape social and political dynamics. There are legitimate questions about whether attempts to restrict these platforms may have had unintended consequences. But any claims about hidden agendas should be treated as questions requiring evidence-not established facts. The point is that Nepal is already deeply embedded in the global digital economy. The question is whether we shape that relationship deliberately, or allow it to shape us.
The Strategic Mandate
Prime Minister Balendra Shah has an opportunity that previous governments did not have: a political mandate to think differently. Do not protect yesterday's infrastructure simply because yesterday's institutions understand it.
Create a national digital infrastructure commission. Compare fibre, microwave, fixed wireless, 5G and LEO satellites using twenty-year total-cost-of-ownership models. Audit every major subsidy. Measure the actual cost per connected citizen. Require infrastructure sharing. Invite global satellite companies to compete. Negotiate aggressively with Starlink. Demand special national pricing. Develop satellite connectivity for mountains, schools, health posts, borders and disaster response. Build fibre where fibre makes sense. And establish a controlled regulatory framework for blockchain and emerging digital finance.
Most importantly, make Nepal a place where technology companies come to build-not merely sell.
The Calculation Nepal Has Failed to Make
I tried to make this argument during my three years in government. I could not convince my government brothers. Perhaps the time was not right. Today it is. Nepal does not need the cheapest internet today. Nepal needs the cheapest, safest, most resilient and most productive digital infrastructure for the next thirty years.
A cable may be cheaper than a satellite today. But a cable that requires a mountain road, a tower, a helicopter, a technician, batteries, repeated repairs and years of maintenance is not necessarily cheaper. That is the calculation Nepal has failed to make.
The rest of the world anticipated satellite internet because it understood one simple truth: When the cost of building the ground becomes greater than the cost of reaching the sky, development must move upward. Nepal's geography gives us no excuse not to understand this. It gives us every reason to lead.
The question is no longer simply, "What is cheapest today?" The better question is: "What system gives Nepal the lowest total cost, widest access, greatest resilience and strongest economic opportunity over the next 20 years?"
That is the conversation Nepal should be having.
Don't build yesterday's internet for tomorrow's Nepal.
Leapfrog. Compete. Negotiate. Innovate. And let Nepal's young people connect to the world before the world passes us by.
Bajgain is an entreprenuer & former member house of representative
