Europe Reserves Bulk of Critical 2 GHz Satellite Spectrum for European Operators, Drawing Sharp US Backlash and Starlink Criticism
The European Commission has put forward a major proposal to reshape access to one of the most valuable pieces of radio spectrum for satellite communications, prioritizing European operators and limiting the room available to non-European players such as SpaceX’s Starlink. Announced in late May 2026, the plan for the 2 GHz mobile satellite services (MSS) band has already triggered warnings of reciprocal action from the United States and detailed objections from SpaceX, which argues the approach risks fragmenting usable frequencies and complicating connectivity in places like Ukraine.
The 2 GHz MSS band — specifically the paired frequencies of 1980–2010 MHz (Earth-to-space) and 2170–2200 MHz (space-to-Earth) — has long been recognized as highly suitable for mobile satellite services. These frequencies support direct-to-device (D2D) connectivity, allowing ordinary smartphones and other devices to link straight to satellites without specialized hardware. This capability is especially valuable in remote areas, during emergencies, for Internet of Things applications, and for hybrid networks that blend terrestrial and satellite coverage. As low-Earth orbit constellations expand and demand for seamless global connectivity grows, control of this spectrum has taken on strategic importance far beyond traditional satellite telephony.
Under the current framework, dating back to a 2008 EU decision, the band is licensed to two US companies: Viasat (through its Inmarsat heritage) and EchoStar. Those rights are scheduled to expire in May 2027. The Commission’s proposal would replace that regime with a new EU-level authorization process designed to deliver consistent rules across all member states. The spectrum would be divided into three roughly equal portions.
One third would be reserved exclusively for governmental, security, and military uses. An EU-controlled operator would provide these services and would be required to integrate them with IRIS², Europe’s sovereign multi-orbit satellite constellation. IRIS² is explicitly positioned as a European alternative to systems such as Starlink, intended to deliver secure communications for government, defense, crisis response, and critical infrastructure. Recent developments have expanded the planned IRIS² constellation, underscoring the political weight attached to building independent European capacity in space-based connectivity.
Of the remaining two-thirds earmarked for commercial services — including D2D, IoT, and related applications — one half would be prioritized for “Union new entrants.” These are European operators meeting strict criteria on establishment, ownership, and control. The final third would remain open to qualified applicants from both the EU and third countries. In practice, this structure means non-European companies such as SpaceX and Amazon would be restricted to competing for approximately one-third of the total available spectrum in the band.
Existing license holders would be eligible for a one-time two-year extension upon request, stretching operations potentially to May 2029, but only under the condition that the rights cannot be transferred, leased, or sold during that period. This non-transferability clause has particular relevance given SpaceX’s broader spectrum acquisition activities involving EchoStar in other markets.
EU officials have framed the proposal as a pragmatic balance. Henna Virkkunen, the Commission’s Executive Vice-President for Tech Sovereignty, Security and Democracy, has stressed the need for high-capacity, widely available satellite connectivity to strengthen the resilience of Europe’s communication networks. The approach, she and other officials have argued, boosts European industrial capacity and security while still leaving a meaningful portion of the band open to international competition. The proposal aligns with the broader Digital Networks Act and reflects growing emphasis on reducing strategic dependence on non-European systems in critical infrastructure.
The reaction from the United States has been pointed. FCC Chairman Brendan Carr has repeatedly warned against European policies that prioritize domestic satellite operators. In comments earlier in 2026, Carr indicated that the United States would be compelled to take reciprocal action if Europe pursued a path of “satellite sovereignty” that disadvantaged American companies. He has emphasized that reciprocity and non-discrimination have long guided the FCC’s treatment of European satellite operators doing business in the United States, and that this principle would continue to apply.
SpaceX has delivered a more detailed technical and operational critique. The company has argued that dividing the band into smaller blocks risks rendering portions “virtually unusable” for efficient large-scale D2D services. It has also raised concerns that integration requirements tied to IRIS² could create interference risks, including potential impacts on Starlink services supporting emergency and operational communications in Ukraine. SpaceX has further contended that the proposal elevates an operator’s country of incorporation above technical, economic, and regulatory considerations, and that it sits uneasily with international spectrum coordination practices under the International Telecommunication Union.
The dispute sits within a wider geopolitical context. Europe has grown increasingly focused on technological autonomy in the wake of supply-chain vulnerabilities, the war in Ukraine, and concerns about over-reliance on foreign-controlled infrastructure for critical communications. Satellite connectivity is no longer viewed purely as a commercial service; it is treated as an element of national and continental resilience. At the same time, American companies and regulators see open access to global spectrum markets as essential for the rapid deployment of next-generation services that benefit users worldwide.
For European industry, the proposal creates clearer pathways for new entrants and for established players linked to IRIS², such as the consortium involving SES, Eutelsat, and others. For non-European operators, the available commercial spectrum remains meaningful but more constrained, potentially forcing more selective deployment strategies or partnerships that meet EU control criteria. Consumers and businesses in remote or underserved regions of Europe could see delayed or more limited D2D options if the open portion of the band proves insufficient to support robust competition, though the Commission maintains that the framework still enables innovation and coverage.
The proposal remains subject to the ordinary legislative process. It requires approval from the European Parliament and the Council of the EU, and amendments are possible as member states and lawmakers examine the details. National regulators, including those in the UK which is outside the EU but affected by spectrum coordination, are also monitoring developments closely. Implementation timelines will depend on how quickly the regulation is finalized and how the subsequent selection process for licensees is conducted.
In the meantime, the debate highlights a fundamental tension in the emerging space economy. Spectrum is a finite resource, and decisions about who can use it inevitably involve choices between open competition, industrial policy, and security priorities. Europe has chosen to weight those choices toward greater control over a strategically important band. Whether that decision ultimately strengthens European capabilities without imposing excessive costs on users or triggering retaliatory measures from major trading partners will be tested in the years ahead as the new regime takes shape and IRIS² moves toward operational status. The outcome will influence not only the competitive landscape for Starlink and its rivals, but also the broader architecture of satellite connectivity across the continent.
About The Author
