GLMA Myth #1: Market Access Is Just “Filling A Form And Following The Rules”

In the satellite industry, it’s often assumed that gaining market approvals is simply a matter of completing a form and following existing rules. While this may sound ideal, it drastically oversimplifies the reality. Market access is far from a linear, standardised administrative task – it’s a strategic, country-by-country pursuit that varies widely according to multiple factors.

Licensing Is National, Not Universal

Satellite operators often believe that once they’ve secured ITU filings or launched their spacecraft, they can easily apply for and obtain the domestic approvals. But licensing regimes are shaped by national laws, spectrum policies, and frameworks which deviate from one country to another.

Different authorisations can apply depending on the frequencies used, the technology, the go-to-market strategy, the network elements in or over the territory (satellites, terminals, gateways, etc.) and the entities involved in local service delivery. With the proliferation of different satellite applications, a rigid "tick-box approach" to licensing has become less practical from the regulator’s standpoint.

Even landing rights – permissions to operate satellites over a foreign country – are not automatically guaranteed by showing an ITU filing. These require separate procedures in countries enforcing them, following evaluation against technical, legal and other criteria case-by-case.

Tailored and Adaptive Models

Regulators are moving away from generic, checkbox-style procedures toward case-by-case licensing evaluations. This reflects the growing complexity of satellite services and the need for more nuanced regulatory oversight.

Many have “technology-neutral” licensing models, which focus on the service characteristics rather than the underlying technology. This allows greater flexibility and future-proofing, considering diverse technologies, while tailoring conditions to each request.

Instead of relying solely on standardised forms, many regulators now require detailed descriptive annexes, technical specifications, coverage maps, and interference studies as part of the application. Supporting documents may include business plans, security protocols, and compliance declarations tailored to the specific service and technology. 

Regulators are also licensing the testing of new services – such as D2D and IoT connectivity – in controlled environments before their full-scale deployment. Offering conditional approvals, pilot programmes, and temporary waivers to support innovation while managing risk.

All this reflects a broader trend: licensing has become less transactional and more of a dialogue between innovator and regulator, needing proactive engagement, clarity of purpose, and technical collaboration.

Evolving Regulations and “Chat GPT”

Far from being static, satellite and spectrum regulations are being increasingly updated and reshaped nationally. Recent years have seen an unprecedented number of countries updating their rules and mechanisms under which licenses can be granted. 2025 alone has seen over 30 countries revise their licensing frameworks. Many more are expected in 2026, with regulators seeking to accommodate new satellite technologies, spectrum bands and hybrid networks. 

For technology disruptors, existing frameworks often have no basis for approval: meaning the regulator must create a new one, or grant certain waivers. Frequencies and services that fall outside the traditional envelope require dedicated staff for evaluation, including the economic and technical factors. Usually based on substantiated and compelling requests. 

In the meantime, gaining clarity on national rules and planning ahead for compliance has become more difficult than ever for satellite stakeholders. What applies today in one country can easily change before service launch one year from now.  Investment in new technology needs global regulatory certainty, but this ignores the complex reality. Regulators’ websites and public information also vary, with many difficult to navigate and still showing old frameworks, especially in regions like Africa.

While it may be tempting, relying on “Chat GPT” and other AI tools, is mostly unhelpful and misleading – especially for achieving reliable information to make business decisions. This task calls upon established contacts and enquiries with the regulators themselves, alongside deeper checks and investigation on any “hidden rules”.

Local Presence and Sovereignty

Aside from forms and rules being non-existent or opaque, an operator may simply be ineligible for licensing in a country under basic criteria, such as lack of local presence. In most countries, selling connectivity to local users requires corporate presence, or local partnership – to give accountability under local laws, like public safety or breach of consumer obligations.

However, where formal applications may not be possible, earliest engagement is encouraged, to open the regulatory dialogue and exchange information towards finding practical solutions, wherever possible. Again, this requires specialist expertise and contacts with regulators, to start out “on the right foot”.

Conclusion: Licensing Is Strategic, Not Administrative

Satellite market access is not a matter of ticking boxes – it’s often a complex process requiring strategic planning, agility and advocacy. The myth that stakeholders can simply “find out the rules and fill in a form” is, especially for innovators, far from the reality and overlooks the increasingly diverse, flexible and evolving landscape. To succeed, stakeholders must instead see licensing and market access as a constructive dialogue, with opportunities for solutions and positive change where regulatory ambiguity may exist.