GLMA Myth # 3: Spectrum Allocation Guarantees National Licensing

So long as there is an allocation in the national frameworks to the intended satellite service — such as Fixed‑Satellite Service (FSS), Mobile‑Satellite Service (MSS) or Earth Exploration‑Satellite Service (EESS) — licensing the use of radio spectrum is just standard procedure. Right?

Unfortunately not. In practice, a national spectrum allocation only signals the potential to be licensed in that country for use by satellite devices, services and equipment – often by default to the ITU Regional Allocations. Not necessarily that a clear, predictable or usable licensing pathway actually exists with local factors in mind.

Example: Satellite gateways

Take for example satellite gateways, where demand is rising sharply to support the growing number of low‑Earth‑orbit (LEO) constellations. Gateways have specific operational needs and rely on stable, interference‑free environments to deliver high‑capacity links between space and ground infrastructure. A frequency allocation table doesn’t often define the protection criteria, power limits, siting requirements or interference‑management rules. Meaning operators are left uncertain about what is actually permitted, where, and under what constraints. As a result, applications are often delayed or rejected when submitted late in the planning cycle, under the mistaken notion that a licence grant will be routine.

As traffic volumes and the number of LEO constellations increase, gateways matter more—not less—because they concentrate high‑throughput backhaul and must be carefully sited and licensed both to protect, and to be protected from, neighbouring services. Regulators are therefore exploring tools such as protection zones, shared‑site licensing and the use of new high‑frequency bands (e.g. Q/V/E) to add capacity without creating harmful interference. Applicants need to be aware of these additional considerations and potential pitfalls.

Another challenge for new gateways is that even in legacy bands (C, Ku, and Ka), national regulators have often pre-authorised other users—such as fixed or mobile terrestrial systems—in the same frequencies. Before a new gateway can be licensed, detailed technical, operational and security information is therefore required, along with existing user coordination. Regulators may also mandate industry consultations or impose special licence conditions.  

Space Sovereignty

These practical challenges are increasing under the broader trend toward space sovereignty. Countries are asserting more discretion over how satellite systems are authorised and used within their territory, prioritising domestic security, industrial policy or data governance objectives over strict alignment with international norms like the ITU. While the ITU Radio Regulations are a key reference point, they are no longer sufficient on their own: governments are more willing to take unilateral approaches that materially affect market access, timing and system design.

Complications in obtaining country‑specific licences are not unique to gateway infrastructure. Smaller fixed and mobile terminals face similar issues. For example, in many countries, S‑band spectrum that is co‑allocated for satellite use under the ITU Radio Regulations has been prioritised locally for terrestrial mobile broadband (IMT). Operators planning next‑generation 5G/6G NTN services—such as satellite IoT or direct‑to‑device (D2D)—may find that licensing pathways are blocked, despite the band’s theoretical availability on paper.

Conversely, even where a frequency band is not recognised nationally for satellite use, licensing options may still exist. Many regulators offer mechanisms for temporary or controlled access, such as trial licences, test‑and‑development authorisations or participation in regulatory sandboxes (see: https://www.riveradvisers.com/post/regulatory-sandboxes-and-their-importance-for-satellite-technology-evolution). These frameworks allow stakeholders to validate new technologies, assess coexistence, and demonstrate new satellite services under defined conditions.

Importance of Early Engagement

Given these complexities, early evaluation and proactive local engagement are paramount. Where rules are unclear or still evolving, early dialogue with regulators can help shape practical requirements, coexistence measures and potential compromises. This may include trial authorisations, low‑power or geographically limited deployments, or temporary licensing while longer‑term frameworks are developed. Early engagement helps avoid surprises and allows operators to provide technical evidence before regulatory positions crystallise.

This proactive approach is particularly key for emerging high‑capacity bands such as Q, V, and E, which are attracting interest for next‑generation gateway deployments. These bands offer significant bandwidth but remain at an early stage of international development, with further study planned at next year’s World Radiocommunication Conference. In parallel, some regulators have already moved ahead with conditional access frameworks and national consultations on coexistence and siting limits to make these bands usable in practice. In addition, X band—traditionally reserved for government, defence or space agency gateways—is increasingly being opened to private space missions, adding another layer of national constraints for operators to consider.

A country’s spectrum plan is a key starting point in any licensing journey—but it is far from the end of the story. With technologies entering new frequency bands, and demand for satellite capacity increasing, the deployment of gateways and new MSS D2D/IoT services depends on careful local analysis and targeted regulatory engagement. In this environment, specialist regulatory expertise—grounded in a detailed understanding of national procedures, procedural dynamics, and channels to the regulators concerned —can significantly accelerate approvals, reduce risk, and turn regulatory uncertainty into successful outcomes.