In the aftermath of Hurricane Helene in September, SpaceX provided a masterclass in public relations by handing out thousands of Starlink satellite-broadband kits, waiving monthly fees, and enabling emergency alerts over cellular networks in affected areas. Not only did the effort generate significant goodwill for the company, but it also demonstrated that satellite technology can play a key role in providing broadband to underserved and unserved areas.
SpaceX has nearly 6,500 Starlink low-Earth-orbit (LEO) satellites, and ultimately plans to have as many as 42,000 in its constellation. While Amazon’s Project Kuiper has only a few test satellites in orbit today, it expects to have more than 3,200 in its constellation. Both efforts promise to revolutionize connectivity, especially in underserved rural areas.
With so many satellites circling the planet, there is a growing risk of signals from one constellation interfering with signals from another. Like a popular new restaurant where many chatting customers (and too loud music) make it hard to have a conversation with your dining companions, too many satellite signals can disrupt existing satellite services.
To manage this chitter-chatter and cross-talk in the sky, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has adopted new rules for sharing the limited radio spectrum these satellites use. The FCC’s approach, however, is a departure from the more conservative norms accepted internationally. For its part, the commission claims its rules will provide “flexibility” and prompt “market entry, regulatory certainty, and spectrum efficiency through good-faith coordination.”
A New Measurement for Interference
Traditionally, interference has been measured by a simple “interference-to-noise” ratio, which offers a gauge of how strong an unwanted signal is relative to the natural noise present in the system. The FCC, however, has embraced a more complex but realistic metric: degraded throughput. This looks at the actual impact on data speeds with the goal of preventing interference that would noticeably affect consumers. The FCC explains that “[s]ervices should plan for the spectrum environment in which they intend to operate” and that this new approach would align with the “technical record… regarding [non-geostationary-satellite orbit, fixed-satellite service] systems.”
In focusing on the actual impact on data speeds, the degraded-throughput approach aligns with the FCC’s recent trend of considering “actual and harmful interference.” But it is a departure from the longstanding global practice rooted in interference-to-noise measurements. This could create challenges in harmonizing with international standards, as the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) generally uses the interference-to-noise metric.
The Aggregate-Interference Puzzle
The new rules reject the use of aggregate-interference limits. This means there would be no overall cap on the total interference that later-round systems, collectively, are permitted to cause to earlier systems. In developing the rules in this manner, the FCC explicitly acknowledges that satellite connectivity is a complex and dynamic industry that could be stifled by overregulation. Critics like OneWeb argue that this risks harmful interference once multiple systems are fully deployed: “more operators [may be] granted authorizations to operate in a given band than can reasonably be accommodated.”
The FCC counters that such concerns are premature, as not all authorized systems actually launch. The agency says it expects that technological advancements and operator coordination will prevent a worst-case scenario.
Favoring the Early Birds, but with a Sunset
To encourage early investment in this risky market, the FCC is giving priority to satellite systems authorized in earlier rounds of licensing. As a later-round entrant, Kuiper will be required to submit detailed technical analyses (called “compatibility showings”) to demonstrate that its operations won’t harmfully interfere with earlier-round systems like SpaceX’s Starlink. This will require Kuiper to invest significant resources in modeling and analysis, potentially slowing deployment.
This priority does, however, come with a 2030 sunset provision. After that, all systems will be on equal footing, subject to a default spectrum-splitting mechanism. The FCC believes this strikes a balance between “the need for stability for incumbent operations and the possibility for new entrants to compete on an equal footing once they have built out their systems.”
The Perils of Flexibility
The FCC’s rules emphasize “case-by-case assessment” and “good-faith coordination” to resolve disputes. While such an approach has its merit and seems to be common sense, it also introduces uncertainty.
Without clear technical parameters and mandatory information-sharing, there’s more room for disputes among operators, especially as the complexity of interference analyses increases. This could slow new entrants and benefit incumbents who are already familiar with the system. The FCC itself warns its approach “could reward inefficient system designs at the expense of more competitive new entry.”
The Missing International Dimension
The FCC’s rules operate within a global context where the ITU sets international standards for satellite communication. The ITU’s approach, however, differs significantly. It assigns priority to the first operator to claim spectrum rights—a “first-come, first-served” model that contrasts with the FCC’s shared-spectrum approach. As satellite internet becomes increasingly global, this mismatch could create friction and complicate coordination efforts.
Technological advancements are fueling a boom in LEO constellations, but the regulatory framework is struggling to keep pace. The FCC’s new rules are a bold experiment and a step in the right direction, betting on the dynamism of the market and the ingenuity of engineers. But there are sure to be some hiccups along the way that require the FCC to revisit and revise its rules.