The Technology Policy Institute’s Winter Spectrum Series panel on direct-to-device satellite services revealed an industry moving faster than regulators anticipated, with fundamental questions about spectrum rights and international coordination still unresolved. The panel featured experts Roger Entner, Thomas Hazlett, Jennifer Manner, and Greg Rosston. Scott Wallsten moderated.
Top 5 Takeaways
- D2D is already broadband, not just texting. Both Starlink and AST SpaceMobile have demonstrated video streaming and app support. The “emergency texting only” framing understates where the technology already is.
- The spectrum distinction between terrestrial and satellite is breaking down. SpaceX buying terrestrial spectrum, carriers leasing spectrum to satellite operators, and the SCS framework collectively mean the old categories are increasingly meaningless. To paraphrase Rosston, some see terrestrial spectrum and some see satellite spectrum, but “to me, there’s just spectrum.”
- SpaceX’s $20 billion spectrum purchase may matter more than its launch dominance. Hazlett called it a “tectonic plate shift” because it shows a path around regulatory bottlenecks: if you can’t get spectrum allocated, buy it from someone who has it.
- Competition exists but is fragile. SpaceX has a massive head start in satellites, launches, and now spectrum. The competitive opening comes partly from customers and partners who want alternatives to Musk, and partly from deep-pocketed competitors (Amazon, carriers backing AST). Whether that’s enough remains uncertain.
Two Different Technologies, Two Different Regulatory Paths
Jennifer Manner of AST SpaceMobile distinguished between two distinct D2D approaches. Supplemental Coverage from Space (SCS) uses terrestrial spectrum leased from mobile carriers, who control when and where satellite service is available to their customers. Dedicated mobile satellite spectrum (L-band, S-band), by contrast, is allocated specifically for satellite service, giving operators more flexibility and doesn’t require carrier partnerships.
Both approaches have become viable because of converging technological changes, including falling satellite costs, cheaper launches, and mature 3GPP standards that let satellites communicate with ordinary smartphones. “Technology finally caught up with the dream of the satellite industry,” Manner said.
Beyond Texting: Broadband Is Already Here
The panel pushed back on the perception that D2D is limited to emergency texting. Roger Entner noted that T-Mobile’s Starlink service already supports apps and video. AST SpaceMobile has demonstrated streaming video and video calls, and expects to have 45-60 broadband-capable satellites operational by year’s end.
The constraint isn’t technology but geography. “Do I think we will have satellite broadband service in Manhattan? No,” Entner said. Satellite capacity is fixed and expensive to expand because every upgrade requires a rocket launch, so the economics favor rural and underserved areas where terrestrial infrastructure is sparse.
The $20 Billion Market Solution
Thomas Hazlett highlighted SpaceX’s purchase of AWS-4 spectrum from Dish as a watershed moment. “SpaceX saying, well, okay, we’re just gonna take $20 billion and buy our way out of this problem. That is huge. That is a tectonic plate shift.”
The panelists saw this as the market working: spectrum flowing to higher-value uses through negotiation rather than regulatory proceedings. Greg Rosston argued the traditional distinctions between “terrestrial spectrum” and “satellite spectrum” are becoming obsolete. “To me, there’s [just] spectrum. And it should be used wherever it has highest value.”
SpaceX Dominance and the Competition Question
SpaceX’s position is formidable, with approximately 94% of global launch capacity, thousands of satellites already in orbit, and now substantial spectrum holdings. But Entner argued the market isn’t foreclosed. “The reason why Starlink hasn’t won, and why there’s room for others, is that a lot of people don’t want to live in Elon Musk’s world.”
AST SpaceMobile, Amazon’s Project Kuiper, and Blue Origin are building alternative capacity. Rosston noted that even a SpaceX near-monopoly in launches is preferable to the pre-SpaceX era: “It would be better to have the SpaceX monopoly than to not have this launch technology.”
The International Fight Ahead
The most contentious issue may be international. Manner described an escalating conflict at the ITU, driven by Iran and BRICS countries, over satellite sovereignty. These nations aren’t just seeking to block market access; they want satellites to cease transmissions entirely when passing over their territory, or at minimum report their activities.
“These countries are saying, we don’t want your satellite even to be beeping as it goes overhead,” Manner explained. The U.S. and allies are pushing back, arguing existing ITU rules (which prohibit unauthorized service but don’t require satellites to power down) have worked for decades. This will be a major fight at WRC-27 and the 2026 Plenipotentiary Conference.
Sarah Oh Lam is a Senior Fellow at the Technology Policy Institute. Oh completed her PhD in Economics from George Mason University, and holds a JD from GMU and a BS in Management Science and Engineering from Stanford University. She was previously the Operations and Research Director for the Information Economy Project at George Mason School of Law. She has also presented research at the 39th Telecommunications Policy Research Conference and has co-authored work published in the Northwestern Journal of Technology & Intellectual Property among other research projects. Her research interests include law and economics, regulatory analysis, and technology policy.
Scott Wallsten is President and Senior Fellow at the Technology Policy Institute and also a senior fellow at the Georgetown Center for Business and Public Policy. He is an economist with expertise in industrial organization and public policy, and his research focuses on competition, regulation, telecommunications, the economics of digitization, and technology policy. He was the economics director for the FCC's National Broadband Plan and has been a lecturer in Stanford University’s public policy program, director of communications policy studies and senior fellow at the Progress & Freedom Foundation, a senior fellow at the AEI – Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies and a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, an economist at The World Bank, a scholar at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, and a staff economist at the U.S. President’s Council of Economic Advisers. He holds a PhD in economics from Stanford University.
