Satellite Licensing and State Sovereignty in Europe: The DNA Test

If you deliver or plan to deliver satellite services in the EU you need to pay attention to the European Commission’s proposed Digital Networks Act (DNA), which stands to impact the authorisation process and potentially ongoing operations too. 

Proposed in January of this year, the DNA has exposed a longstanding tension in satellite services regulation: simpler and more predictable cross-border access, versus States’ sovereignty over scarce spectrum and related national security, competition and connectivity interests. Even in the EU, the world’s most integrated regional bloc, efforts to centralise licensing reveal the enduring tension between spectrum harmonisation and national control.

Among a range of measures to overhaul the EU’s electronic communications framework, the DNA proposed an EU-level satellite spectrum authorisation overseen by the Commission and supported by a new Radio Spectrum Policy Board (RSPB). Instead of satellite operators obtaining spectrum approval from individual Member States, the DNA proposes an EU satellite spectrum authorisation administered at Union level. Existing national authorisations would ultimately be replaced following a transition period, representing a significant transfer of responsibility from national governments and regulators to EU institutions.

Historically, the EU’s 2002 framework phased out traditional satellite “landing rights,” moving to an “open skies” model and enabling services under general authorisation, while preserving Member States’ power to assign spectrum rights. In practice, several countries have continued to regulate foreign operators under satellite network spectrum licences, or similar.

The proposed DNA authorisation regime would also require non-EU applicants to establish an EU presence and comply with public-interest obligations, like support for emergency communications and crisis preparedness.

Spectrum as a scarce resource and national strategic asset

Radio spectrum is a finite resource essential to connectivity, safety, defence, transport, science and innovation. The DNA retains the existing general authorisation model for electronic communications networks and services (ECN/ECS), but proposes a more centralised approach for spectrum access, via a Union-level clearance for operators seeking deployment across multiple Member States. 

While many stakeholders support a "single EU passport" for satellite-based ECN/ ECS provision, applying something similar to the use of frequencies has been largely resisted, drawing reference to national frequency management, incumbent users, security interests, earth station rules and third-country coordination.

No unity within the EU as far as DNA is concerned 

Operators may value the speed and scale of one EU process. But member States and regulators argue that methods like targeted band harmonisation for key services (like the 2GHz MSS) and coordination via existing international bodies (CEPT and ITU), could deliver many of the same benefits.

This all reflects River Advisers’ earlier Global Licensing and Market Access Myth #2 and Myth #3 Blog analysis: EU-wide spectrum licensing will encounter sovereignty concerns, while harmonised allocation alone would not remove national interference, security and incumbent-user requirements.

RSPG response: strong Member State pushback

The Radio Spectrum Policy Group (RSPG) advises the Commission and represents Member States on spectrum policy matters. In June, it published an Opinion rejecting exclusive Commission management of satellite spectrum. The RSPG treats spectrum as a critical public resource and warns that centralisation could constrain national responsibilities for defence, security, incumbent uses and international ITU negotiations. It favours national satellite licensing and targeted EU harmonisation, allowing limited Union selection only for particular scarce bands or applications.

BEREC: harmonisation without over-centralisation

The Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC), which brings together and coordinates EU national telecoms regulators, has warned that the DNA's spectrum provisions could centralise powers and create additional complexity, legal uncertainty and administrative burdens, particularly regarding the roles of national authorities, the Commission and international coordination. At the same time, BEREC sees potential in a centrally managed satellite framework, provided it remains consistent with ITU procedures and properly reflects national responsibilities. BEREC also opposes constraints on Member States' positions in international frequency coordination, while some national regulators, like Sweden's Post and Telecom authority, PTS, calling for more sweeping changes to the spectrum provisions.

Discussion in the European Parliament has similarly focused on balancing common EU rules with national responsibility. While some stakeholders argue that the cross-border nature of satellite networks justifies greater EU coordination, others caution against concentrating spectrum management powers at Union level. 

Legislative status, timescales and outlook

The DNA remains under the EU Ordinary Legislative Procedure and has not been withdrawn or returned to the Commission. However, its timetable appears to be slipping: reporting on a draft summit text indicated that the previous objective of full adoption by June 2027 would be replaced by a target of political agreement by then. Resistance to the spectrum proposals makes substantial revision during Council and Parliament negotiations increasingly likely.

Formal adoption could follow later in 2027 or in 2028. As a Regulation, the DNA would apply directly without national transposition, potentially around six months after entry into force, subject to longer transitions. However, the weight of Member States, RSPG and BEREC opposition suggests that the final framework is likely to preserve national authority over satellite spectrum licensing, while strengthening EU-level coordination, common conditions and procedural consistency.

DNA Check: What stakeholders can do now

Stakeholders should prepare on the assumption that national spectrum licensing and variation will endure after the DNA, albeit within a more harmonised and coordinated EU framework:

· Monitor negotiations – track ongoing legislative developments and compromises via EU Parliament’s Legislative and ITRE documents, and Council public-register documents.

· Map obligations – inventory ECN/ECS notifications, spectrum licences, earth-station approvals, conditions and expiry dates.

· Assess EU establishment – non-EU operators should evaluate EU subsidiary, branch or local partner options under potential Union authorisation regime and identify suitable corporate structures in advance.

· Plan for continued national licensing – assess how more consistent EU rules may alter, but not replace, country-specific applications and approvals.

· Engage selectively – prioritise security, interference, transition and protection of existing rights.

· Preserve flexibility – ensure contracts, deployment plans and budgets can accommodate evolving national procedures and any additional EU-level coordination requirements.

Conclusions

The DNA represents an important effort to further simplify and streamline the deployment of satellite communications services across the Union. Nevertheless, radio spectrum for satellite services is likely to remain nationally regulated, even if associated procedures become more harmonised and predictable across the EU. Both EU and non-EU stakeholders will continue to require specialist regulatory expertise when entering this complex region and preparing for any future changes, especially when planning innovative and emerging services such as D2D and IoT. As our Blog Myth #2: “European licence to provide satellite services” explained, the need for navigating national requirements and engaging local regulators will continue to remain in Europe whatever the final DNA produces.