As satellite networks proliferate across GEO, MEO and LEO and new D2D services compete for frequencies traditionally used by terrestrial and satellite operators, spectrum access is emerging as one of the biggest constraints on the growth of the space economy.

SpaceX recently petitioned the FCC requesting that regulators block a proposed satellite deployment by Viasat, arguing that Viasat’s planned orbital configuration would create electromagnetic interference across Starlink’s LEO megaconstellation.

Rachel Kong, industry analyst for ABI Research, explores how regulators balance interference protection for existing systems with the need to let new architectures use scarce spectrum more efficiently.

Q: The SpaceX-Viasat dispute is the latest battle over satellite spectrum. As thousands more satellites come online, will access to spectrum become one of the biggest constraints on the growth of the space economy?

A: Yes, definitely. Dedicated satellite spectrum is one of the most valuable assets in the industry, and many operators are paying up to get their hands on it. SpaceX bought EchoStar’s spectrum for US$17 billion; Amazon acquired Globalstar for their infrastructure assets and spectrum for US$11.6 billion; the merger between Lynk and Omnispace, which finalized last month to form Elveo Mobile, happened largely because of Omnispace’s 60 MHz of MSS spectrum. As tens of thousands of satellites and millions of users come online, demand for capacity will grow. Many of the existing spectrum allocations today are shared among operators and the radio frequencies used to beam data back to Earth have become highly congested. New allocations also move at the pace of regulators and ITU conference cycles (years), while constellations deploy in months. Alongside the launch and supply chain bottlenecks, spectrum is one of the biggest constraints in scaling space networks.

Q: Much of today’s spectrum framework was created before proliferated LEO constellations, electronically steered beams and software-defined satellites. Does the industry need a fundamentally different approach to spectrum sharing?

A: Yes. We are relying on 30-year-old EPFD limits created when only hundreds of satellites were in orbit. The framework must be updated to match today’s reality of thousands of active satellites, especially since proliferated megaconstellations have much larger networks planned. Additionally, the market has swung decisively in favor of LEO operators where they now dominate the space in terms of delivering satellite communications and underpinning critical infrastructure across every commercial and consumer segment. The old EPFD rules treat spectrum allocation as a rigid, zero-sum game, forcing NGSO operators to leave capacity unused, even in regions with zero GSO services. With modern interference-reduction technologies now available, these old regulatory frameworks need to be updated.

For instance, ESA’s Eutelsat Quantum is a software-defined satellite that uses reconfigurable radios and waveforms to dynamically adjust frequency use, power and protocols based on changing market demands and geopolitical situations. In an increasingly crowded satcom environment, this flexibility helps with dynamic interference management and supports more efficient spectrum allocation. It is also critical to evaluate which end-user segments are affected. Case in point, LEO operators now serve high-demand markets across government, enterprise, and consumer sectors. In contrast, GSO operators primarily focus on satellite TV, fixed data links, and backhaul services and also serve key markets like aviation, maritime, telecommunications and government. While both systems are essential, the FCC’s decision on which to prioritize depends on the scale of demand and which customer base is most vital for today’s economy. To this point, the U.S. is bypassing international timelines (such as WRC-27) and forging its own path. For instance, in January 2026, the FCC granted a time-limited waiver allowing SpaceX to increase its EPFD limits for its Gen 2 constellation, forcing a shift away from rigid legacy rules. Ultimately, as both GSO and non-GSO operators remain vital to current economic demands, they must co-exist and learn how to manage interference cooperatively moving forward.

Q: How could technologies such as dynamic spectrum sharing, smarter beamforming and AI-based interference management change the spectrum equation?

A: Today, satellite operators can leverage advanced technical innovations that allow non-GSO and GSO architectures to share frequencies far more efficiently as compared to legacy spectrum frameworks that rely on rigid power restrictions. Rather than enforcing blind power caps, dynamic spectrum sharing utilizes real-time, location-aware adjustments to proactively prevent frequency overlaps and adapt to current conditions. Adding AI and machine learning into these architectures help with automated resource allocation, driving up Dynamic Spectrum Utilization Efficiency (DSUE) while safeguarding incumbent users.

As for smart beamforming technologies, it can directly reduce EPFD levels by minimizing the transmitting antenna gain in the direction of the victim GSO receivers, meaning that as the non-GSO satellite moves, the smart beams will continuously adjust their pointing direction away from the GSO orbital arc. In addition, advanced phased arrays antennas use digital beamforming technologies to actively place a spatial null (reducing signal emission to near-zero) in the direction of the GSO equipment. This software-driven agility proves that a flexible approach can be adopted instead of rigid EPFD capped limits.