July 14, 2026 | By Admin User | 5 min read

NOT SO STARLINK

Starlink's Growing Pains in Kenya - and Why the Whole Region Feels Them

Starlink arrived in Kenya in July 2023 promising something East Africa had never really had: fast internet beamed straight from orbit, no trenches, no fibre, no waiting on a telecom to finally reach your village. Three years on, that promise is running into a very earthly problem Starlink is a victim of its own popularity, and the ripple effects are reaching well beyond Kenya's borders.

From launch darling to capacity crunch

Kenya's numbers tell the story of a service that grew almost too fast for its own infrastructure. Subscriber counts more than tripled in about nine months, climbing from roughly 8,000 users in mid-2024 to nearly 25,000 by March 2026, according to Communications Authority of Kenya data. Aggressive price cuts helped: the dish that once cost around KES 89,000 (about $689) now sells for KES 49,900 (about $386), with rental options as low as KES 1,950 a month.

That growth has a ceiling, though. Unlike fibre, where you can simply dig another trench and lay more cable, a satellite network's capacity in any given region is fixed by how many satellites are overhead and how much bandwidth they're allocated there. By early July 2026, Starlink had exhausted that allocation in seven of Kenya's busiest counties Nairobi, Kiambu, Mombasa, Machakos, Murang'a, Kirinyaga, and Kwale and simply stopped taking new customers there, redirecting hopefuls to a waitlist with a deposit and no promised date. Existing subscribers keep their service; new ones are out of luck until Starlink adds capacity it hasn't given a timeline for.

The strain shows up in speed tests too. Ookla measured average Starlink speeds in Kenya at 34.55 Mbps in March 2026 down 26 percent from 47 Mbps a year earlier, and an all-time low for the service in the country. That decline has narrowed Starlink's edge over local ISPs from a wide gap to just over twice their average speed, giving competitors like Safaricom and smaller players such as Vilcom Networks and Ahadi Wireless room to win customers back.

Compliance troubles on top of congestion

Capacity isn't Starlink's only headache in Kenya. In line with local telecom rules first announced in February 2026, the company gave its roughly 22,000 subscribers until the end of April to complete in-person identity verification at authorized retailers. Those who missed the deadline started receiving suspension notices, cutting them off until they submit and verify the required information a reminder that regulatory compliance can knock users offline just as easily as a technical fault.

And it isn't only regulation or crowding. In mid-July 2026, users began reporting a more old-fashioned kind of outage: specific destinations including major content networks going dark for days while the rest of the connection performed normally. Network diagnostics pointed to instability somewhere in the transit path leaving Kenya's gateway, with traffic taking inconsistent routes through Johannesburg or Marseille and picking up heavy packet loss along the way. It's a useful illustration of how even a "space-based" internet service still depends on very terrestrial ground stations, transit providers, and internet exchange points once the signal comes down from orbit.

How this spills across borders

Kenya doesn't sit in isolation. It has been Starlink's proving ground for East Africa, and the region's patchwork of national policies means Kenya's fortunes good or bad are entangled with its neighbors' in a few concrete ways.

Uganda's ban was tangled up with Kenyan terminals. Starlink was never officially licensed to sell in Uganda, but that didn't stop the service from showing up there anyway: terminals bought and activated in Kenya and other licensed markets were carried across the border and used illegally inside Uganda. When the Uganda Communications Commission cracked down on unlicensed satellite service, Starlink disabled its network across the entire country on January 1, 2026, cutting off every terminal legitimately imported or not. So a Kenyan subscriber's hardware could end up part of a dispute in a country where Starlink had no formal presence at all.

Tanzania is watching and waiting. As of mid-2026, Tanzania remains the one country in the region without a Starlink license, with negotiations reportedly stuck on a handful of unresolved issues. Uganda's decision to grant Starlink a license after President Museveni's government secured commitments on security and revenue oversight has put pressure on Tanzania to reach its own agreement, with Kenya's earlier, faster embrace of the service often cited as the regional benchmark other governments are measuring themselves against.

Shared ground infrastructure means shared risk. Because Starlink's East African traffic often routes through hubs in Nairobi and Johannesburg, congestion or instability at the Kenyan gateway doesn't necessarily stay confined to Kenyan users it can affect the latency and reliability of connections for anyone whose traffic happens to transit through the same infrastructure, a quiet reminder that "satellite internet" still leans heavily on regional ground networks.

Competitive pressure travels too. Kenya's capacity freeze and slowing speeds have already let local ISPs claw back market share domestically. Regional telecom operators some of whom were reportedly uneasy about Starlink's expansion in the first place are watching Kenya's experience closely as a signal of how much runway satellite internet really has in markets where legacy providers are trying to hold their ground.

The bigger picture

None of this makes Starlink a bust in East Africa a sub-1-percent share of Kenya's fixed broadband market is still growing, and the company has genuinely reached farms, tourist lodges, and rural schools that fibre never will. But Kenya's rocky 2026 is a useful case study in the limits of low-earth-orbit broadband: satellites can't be laid like cable, ground stations can still fail, and governments still get a vote. As Uganda, Tanzania, and others chart their own paths on licensing and regulation, Kenya's experience both its early success and its current growing pains is shaping how the rest of the region thinks about satellite internet's promise, and its limits.

Related Insights

May 26, 2026

Zero Trust Networking: Why “Never Trust, Always Verify” Matters

For years, Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) were the standard solution for secure remote access. They allowed employees to connect to company networks from outside the office and helped businesses support remote work securely. But the cybersecurity landscape has changed dramatically. Cloud computing, remote work, mobile devices, and increasingly sophisticated cyberattacks have exposed the limitations of traditional network security models. In response, organizations are rapidly adopting a modern approach known as Zero Trust Networking. Unlike traditional security methods that automatically trust users once they’re inside the network, Zero Trust assumes that no user, device, or connection should be trusted by default. Its philosophy is simple: Never trust. Always verify. What Is Zero Trust Networking? Zero Trust Networking is a cybersecurity model that continuously verifies every user, device, application, and request before granting access to company resources. Traditional networks operated like a castle: Strong defenses around the perimeter Open trust once inside This worked when employees mainly worked from office buildings using company-managed devices. But today: Employees work remotely Applications live in the cloud Personal devices access corporate systems Attackers target user identities instead of networks As a result, trusting users simply because they connected to the network is no longer safe. Zero Trust removes that assumption by verifying access continuously and limiting permissions to only what users truly need. What Is a VPN? A VPN, or Virtual Private Network, creates an encrypted connection between a user’s device and a company’s internal network. VPNs are designed to: Protect internet traffic Allow remote access Hide user activity from outside interception Secure communications over public networks When users connect through a VPN, they are often treated as if they are physically inside the company’s office network. This approach was highly effective for many years — but it also introduced a major problem: Once connected, users often gain broad access to internal systems. If attackers steal credentials or compromise a device, they can potentially move throughout the network with fewer restrictions. How Zero Trust Differs from VPNs Zero Trust and VPNs may appear similar because both deal with secure access, but they operate very differently. A VPN focuses on securing the connection. Zero Trust focuses on securing identity, access, and behavior continuously. Zero Trust vs Traditional VPN Feature Zero Trust Networking Traditional VPN Security Model “Never trust, always verify” Trust once connected Access Control Granular, role-based access Broad network access Authentication Continuous verification Usually verified only at login Network Exposure Minimal exposure Larger internal network exposure Remote Work Security Built for modern distributed teams Designed for older perimeter networks Lateral Movement Risk Greatly reduced Higher if compromised Device Verification Frequently enforced Often limited Cloud Compatibility Strong cloud-native integration Less optimized for cloud systems Threat Detection Real-time monitoring and response Basic session monitoring Scalability Flexible and modern Can bottleneck under heavy usage User Experience Direct access to specific resources Full network tunnel access Why Businesses Are Moving Toward Zero Trust Modern cyberattacks no longer focus only on breaking through firewalls. Instead, attackers target: Weak passwords Phishing emails Stolen credentials Unsecured devices Human error Once attackers gain access to a traditional VPN-connected environment, they may move laterally across systems. Zero Trust helps prevent this by: Restricting unnecessary access Continuously validating identities Monitoring behavior in real time Segmenting networks into smaller protected zones This significantly limits how far attackers can go if an account or device becomes compromised. Core Principles of Zero Trust 1. Verify Every User and Device Every access request must be authenticated and validated, regardless of where it originates. This may include: Multi-factor authentication (MFA) Device security checks Identity verification Behavioral analysis 2. Least Privilege Access Users receive access only to the systems and data they need to perform their tasks. This reduces exposure to sensitive resources. 3. Micro-Segmentation Networks are divided into smaller protected sections to prevent attackers from moving freely between systems. 4. Continuous Monitoring Zero Trust systems constantly analyze activity for suspicious behavior, including: Unusual login attempts Unexpected file transfers Abnormal access patterns Unauthorized privilege changes Benefits of Zero Trust Networking Stronger Security Zero Trust minimizes blind trust and reduces attack surfaces. Better Remote Work Support Employees can securely work from anywhere without exposing entire networks. Reduced Breach Impact If attackers gain access, their movement is heavily restricted. Improved Visibility Organizations gain deeper insight into users, devices, and application activity. Better Cloud Security Zero Trust aligns naturally with modern cloud environments and hybrid infrastructures. Challenges of Implementing Zero Trust Although Zero Trust offers major advantages, implementation can be challenging. Organizations may face: Complex infrastructure changes Legacy application compatibility issues Higher upfront investment User resistance to additional verification steps However, many businesses consider these trade-offs worthwhile given the growing threat landscape. Can Zero Trust Replace VPNs Completely? In some cases, yes. Many organizations are adopting Zero Trust Network Access (ZTNA) solutions that provide secure application-level access without exposing the full network. However, VPNs still remain useful for: Legacy systems Certain internal tools Temporary remote access needs Smaller organizations with simpler infrastructures Today, many businesses use a hybrid approach where VPNs coexist with Zero Trust strategies during transition periods. The Future of Cybersecurity Cybersecurity is moving away from perimeter-based security toward identity-based security. As businesses continue embracing: Remote work Cloud computing SaaS applications Mobile devices AI-powered systems Traditional trust-based models become increasingly risky. Zero Trust Networking represents a modern security mindset built for today’s digital environment — one where every access request must earn trust continuously. Final Thoughts VPNs helped shape secure remote work for decades, but modern threats require more adaptive security approaches. Zero Trust Networking offers a smarter framework by: Continuously verifying access Limiting unnecessary permissions Monitoring activity in real time Reducing attacker movement across systems In an era where cyberattacks are becoming more sophisticated every day, trusting nothing by default may be the strongest defense organizations can build.

Jul 01, 2026

Our first PPPOE Set Up in Uganda: Luxenetworks

How We Set Up PPPoE for a Client: A Luxenetworks Walkthrough At Luxenetworks, we get a lot of calls that start the same way: "My internet was working fine, then the ISP switched us to a new connection type, and now nothing works." More often than not, the culprit is PPPoE (Point-to-Point Protocol over Ethernet). Last week, we handled exactly this kind of job at a 50-unit apartment complex whose ISP had just migrated the property onto a PPPoE-based connection. Here's how we approached it, the equipment we used, and the steps we took, in case it helps you understand what a proper PPPoE setup actually involves at scale. First, What Is PPPoE and Why Does It Matter? PPPoE is a networking protocol that many ISPs, especially DSL and fibre providers, use to authenticate and manage customer connections. Instead of your router just grabbing an IP address automatically (like with DHCP), PPPoE requires your router to "dial in" using a username and password supplied by the ISP, much like old-school dial-up internet, just running over Ethernet instead of a phone line. The upside for ISPs is better control over billing, session management, and security. The downside for customers is that if it's not configured correctly, the connection simply won't come up: no internet, no clear error message, just a blinking light and a frustrated household. The Property and the Situation This job was for a 50-unit apartment complex. The building had just been switched over to a new connection by their ISP, and the property manager reached out after residents across multiple units started reporting the same issue: Wi-Fi showing as connected, but no actual internet access. With that many units relying on one shared connection point, even a small misconfiguration at the network core cascades into a building-wide outage, so we prioritized the visit. They called us with three symptoms: The core router showed a physical link to the ISP's line but no internet access The ISP-provided PPPoE username and password weren't being accepted Wi-Fi devices connecting through the access points on different floors could see the local network but had no external connectivity This is a textbook PPPoE misconfiguration, so we scheduled a visit. The Equipment We Used For a property of this size, we relied on a compact but capable equipment stack: MikroTik RB951: our core router, chosen for its RouterOS flexibility, reliable PPPoE handling, and the ability to manage NAT and firewall rules for the whole building from a single point Managed switch: sitting between the RB951 and the rest of the building, distributing wired connections out to each access point Tenda F6 wireless routers (x2): repurposed as dedicated Wi-Fi access points to extend coverage across the property, rather than acting as independent routers ISP-provided line: the incoming connection requiring PPPoE authentication Cat5e/Cat6 patch cabling: connecting the ISP termination point, RB951, switch, and each Tenda F6 in the chain This combination gave us a single, centrally managed PPPoE session at the RB951, with the switch and Tenda F6s doing what they do best: distributing that connection cleanly across a larger property without introducing conflicting routers or duplicate DHCP servers. Step 1: Confirming the Physical Layer First Before touching any settings, we always rule out physical and cabling issues. With this setup, the chain ran: ISP line in, then the RB951 WAN port, then the managed switch, then the Tenda F6 access points on different floors, then resident devices. We checked that: The ISP's incoming line was active and delivering a stable signal The cable running from the ISP termination point to the RB951's WAN port was properly seated and undamaged The RB951's WAN port link light was active The cable from the RB951's LAN port into the managed switch was solid, and the switch itself was passing traffic (link lights active on every relevant port) The cabling running from the switch out to each Tenda F6 access point was intact It's tempting to jump straight into software configuration, but a good chunk of "PPPoE won't connect" calls turn out to be a loose cable, a faulty switch port, or a bad patch lead, and in a multi-floor property, tracing that down first saves a lot of guesswork later. In this case, the physical layer was clean end to end, so we moved on. Step 2: Gathering the Correct PPPoE Credentials This is where most self-installs go wrong. PPPoE credentials are not the same as your Wi-Fi password, and they're often formatted in ways that trip people up: extra characters, case sensitivity, or a required domain suffix (like username@isp.net instead of just username). We contacted the ISP's provisioning line to confirm the exact credentials issued to the account, and verified there was no realm/domain suffix required for this particular provider. Small detail, but it's a common point of failure. Step 3: Configuring PPPoE on the RB951 An important decision in a multi-device, multi-floor setup like this is choosing exactly one device to handle the PPPoE dial-up. You never want two devices both trying to authenticate the same session, especially on a property serving 50 units. We chose the RB951 as the PPPoE client, since it's the device sitting closest to the ISP line and has the routing horsepower to handle NAT and firewall duties for the entire building. With confirmed credentials in hand, we logged into the RB951 via WinBox and: Created a new PPPoE client interface bound to the WAN-facing Ethernet port (ether1), rather than leaving it on a plain DHCP client Entered the username and password exactly as provided by the ISP, double-checking for trailing spaces, a surprisingly common issue when credentials are copy-pasted from an email Set the MTU to 1492, the standard value for PPPoE, since it accounts for the protocol's overhead compared to a normal 1500-byte Ethernet frame Set "Add Default Route" and "Use Peer DNS" so the RB951 would automatically pick up routing and DNS information from the ISP once connected Configured NAT masquerading on the PPPoE interface so devices on the LAN side could share the single public IP Enabled the connection and confirmed the PPPoE interface came up with a "running" status and a valid public IP address Step 4: Setting the Switch and Tenda F6s to Their Proper Roles With the RB951 handling PPPoE and routing, everything downstream just needed to pass traffic correctly across the building: The managed switch was configured to carry traffic cleanly from the RB951's LAN port out to every Tenda F6 access point and any wired connections on the property Each Tenda F6 was set to Access Point mode rather than its default router mode, with DHCP disabled on both units. This is a critical step, because if a Tenda F6 is left in router mode, it will try to hand out its own IP addresses and NAT traffic, creating a double-NAT situation that causes exactly the kind of "connected but no internet" symptom residents were seeing Both F6s were connected to the switch via their LAN ports (not WAN), configured with static management IPs on the same subnet as the RB951, and set to the same Wi-Fi SSID and password so residents could roam between coverage areas seamlessly as they moved around the property Step 5: Verifying the Connection End to End With the PPPoE session up on the RB951 and the F6s reconfigured as access points, we ran through our standard checks: Confirmed the RB951's PPPoE interface held a stable public IP with no repeated drops Pinged an external IP from the RB951 to confirm outbound connectivity Resolved a domain name to confirm DNS was working correctly (thanks to "Use Peer DNS" pulling the ISP's DNS servers automatically) Tested speeds on a wired device through the switch and on Wi-Fi through each Tenda F6 Walked the property between coverage areas with a phone to confirm seamless roaming on the shared SSID, with internet access holding throughout Spot-checked connectivity with a few residents on different floors to confirm the fix had resolved the outage building-wide, not just near the core router Everything came back clean. Step 6: Locking In Reliability Getting PPPoE to connect once isn't the whole job. We wanted to make sure it stayed connected. So we also: Enabled the RB951's built-in PPPoE keep-alive behaviour so a brief ISP-side blip wouldn't require a manual reboot or an on-site visit Double-checked that DHCP was fully disabled on both Tenda F6s, so there was no risk of them silently re-enabling and causing IP conflicts across the building Checked firmware/RouterOS versions on the RB951 and the F6s and applied available updates, since outdated firmware is a common cause of intermittent PPPoE drops and Wi-Fi instability Documented the full topology and working configuration (RB951 PPPoE settings, switch layout, and F6 access point settings) securely for the property manager, in case a device ever needs to be replaced or the network expanded to cover more of the building Common PPPoE Pitfalls We See Again and Again If you're attempting a PPPoE setup yourself, especially with more than one networking device on site, here are the mistakes we run into most often: Letting more than one device try to handle PPPoE. If your main router and a secondary access point (like a Tenda F6) both attempt to dial the PPPoE session, or both run DHCP and NAT, you end up with conflicts and double-NAT issues that are painful to diagnose. Leaving access points in router mode. The Tenda F6 is a capable router in its own right, but when it's meant to just extend Wi-Fi, it needs to be switched into access point mode with DHCP turned off. Otherwise it'll hand out its own conflicting IP addresses. Mistyped or copy-pasted credentials with hidden characters. Always type PPPoE credentials manually if pasting isn't working reliably. Ignoring MTU settings. An incorrect MTU on the PPPoE interface can cause some websites to load while others time out, a confusing, hard-to-diagnose symptom. No keep-alive configured on the dialing device. Without it, the connection drops and needs manual intervention, often at the worst possible time. Assuming the switch and cabling are fine without checking link lights first. Physical issues on a switch port masquerade as configuration issues constantly. Wrapping Up For this 50-unit property, the whole process, from diagnosis to a fully stable, building-wide connection, took under a few hours once we were on site. PPPoE isn't inherently complicated, but it does require getting several small details right: correct credentials, correct connection type, sensible MTU, and a reliable reconnect policy. At scale, it also means making sure every downstream device (switch, access points) is configured to complement the core router rather than compete with it. If you're dealing with a similar situation, a new ISP connection that just won't come online, whether it's a single home or a full apartment complex, it's often faster and less frustrating to have someone experienced take a look rather than guessing through router menus. That's exactly the kind of job our team at Luxenetworks handles regularly, and we're always happy to help get your connection stable and secure.

May 20, 2026

Starlink vs Uganda Internet Providers 2026

  The Internet Landscape in Uganda Uganda has just approved Starlink's entry into its telecommunications market, marking a significant shift in the country's internet landscape. With broadband penetration below 20% and millions living in areas unreached by traditional infrastructure, Starlink's satellite-based service offers a compelling alternative to existing providers. This guide breaks down pricing, speeds, and real advantages to help you make an informed decision about which provider suits your needs. Internet Providers Pricing and Speed Comparison Provider Entry Speed Entry Price Top Speed Top Price Hardware Starlink 50 Mbps 120k UGX 150+ Mbps 190k UGX 1.36M UGX MTN Wakanet 100 Mbps 110k UGX 500 Mbps 300k UGX Free Canalbox 50 Mbps 90k UGX 200 Mbps 200k UGX Free Airtel Xstream 20 Mbps Competitive 60 Mbps 395k UGX Free Savanna Fiber 50 Mbps Affordable 500 Mbps Variable Free   Starlink's Key Advantages •       Works nationwide including remote areas unreached by fiber •       Installation in hours, not weeks •       50-150+ Mbps speeds (outpaces most fiber in rural areas) •       Low 20ms latency ideal for gaming and video calls •       Unlimited data across all plans •       No dependency on terrestrial infrastructure •       Creates competitive pressure forcing other providers to innovate •       Bypasses Uganda's congested national fiber backbone Starlink Pros and Cons Advantages: •       Nationwide coverage •       Fast deployment •       High competitive speeds •       Low latency •       Unlimited data •       Remote area access Limitations: •       High upfront cost (1.36M UGX) •       Weather dependent •       Needs clear sky view •       Higher monthly fees •       New in Uganda market •       Not needed in already-served areas Who Should Choose What? Starlink: Rural Uganda with no fiber access, need reliability outside Kampala, can afford upfront cost. MTN Wakanet: Kampala or major towns, widest coverage, want top speeds, value established support. Canalbox: Budget-conscious in Kampala area, want good speeds at lowest cost. Airtel Xstream: Existing Airtel customer wanting bundled voice and internet. Savanna Fiber: Value customer satisfaction, want balanced pricing in premium estates. The Bottom Line Starlink is not meant to replace fiber for urban users with good alternatives. Rather, it is a game-changer for the millions of Ugandans currently priced out or geographically isolated from quality internet. The real victory for Uganda will be when competition between all these providers drives costs down and service quality up across the entire country. Important Disclaimer Prices and specifications are accurate as of May 2026 and subject to change. Monthly subscription costs may vary based on exchange rates and promotional offers. Contact providers directly for current pricing in your area. Weather conditions (particularly heavy rain) may temporarily affect Starlink signal quality. Site surveys are recommended before committing to any fiber provider installation. Individual experiences may vary based on location, installation quality, and network congestion.