The Geopolitics of LEO: How WRC-27 Risks a Deadlock

Since the launch of Sputnik in the late 1950s, satellites have never been more controversial. From Starlink’s disruptive technology, new direct-to-device services, to emerging market entrants, survival-driven mergers, and a multitude of proposed Low-Earth Orbit (LEO) constellations, the satellite industry is making headlines again – and this time within a booming space economy. Recent conflicts like the war in Ukraine have reminded everyone that satellites and space can be a ‘military’ area of influence and that, at times, it more closely resembles the weapons industry than telecommunications.

As a result, geopolitics is once again becoming the dominant force influencing the satellite sector. Starlink’s capabilities may be pushing the satellite industry to develop more advanced satellites and user terminals, but political powers have their eyes on LEO like never before and geopolitics will be the main influencer in the coming years. Already, we are seeing governments announce loans and investments into new LEO capabilities while having conversations with existing satellite operators to understand how they might achieve ‘Starlink-type’ connectivity – but without Elon Musk.

As most Via Satellite readers know, the World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC) is more than just a conference – it marks the culmination of a four-year cycle aimed at achieving global spectrum harmonization. As the flagship event for the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), its goal is to reach global – or at least regional – agreements on the use of radio spectrum, while avoiding interference between different services and encouraging economies-of-scale for equipment. But that may not be the case for WRC-27 if the geopolitics of LEO continue to dominate headlines.

The WRC has always been shaped by geopolitics. As a treaty-making conference, it has to be. Almost 170 nations working for four years to reach global agreements is not an easy task. Lately, however, each region tends to arrive with their own regional proposals, but not many inter-regional conversations are happening in advance of the big event. As a result, when the 4-week long conference kicks off, we are almost at the start line, instead of just a month away from the end of the cycle. And within those four weeks, it is not unusual for the most critical issues to be settled only in the final days.

At the next conference, Agenda Item (AI) 1.5, which studies “regulatory measures to limit the unauthorized operations of non-GSO FSS and MSS earth stations in the Earth-to-space direction in order to address and cease such operations," may prove a hard nut to crack and risks pushing this multilateral meeting into a stalemate.

AI 1.5 aims to establish new rules requiring satellite providers, mainly for LEOs, to deny service when their systems are connecting users in countries where said operator has no license. While this item clearly has one operator in mind, it will nevertheless affect all Non-Geostationary Satellites (NGSO).

This Agenda Item presents many difficulties. The most dangerous one involves moving stations, like the ones on board aircraft or vessels. If a LEO system is providing safety-of-life communications, those transmissions cannot simply be ‘turned off’ when crossing into a country where the operator lacks a license to provide services in that jurisdiction. Any new regulatory measure must explicitly account for this very relevant nuance.

There are also technical limitations. Close to borders, it will be tough for satellite terminals to be as accurate as a mobile phone connecting to a cellular network. Moreover, many satellite operators provide services through regional or local resellers and are therefore unaware of their licensing status in every jurisdiction. GSO operators should also be aware: what starts with LEO today could expand to include them in WRC-31.

Regulating NGSOs at the ITU has already given headaches to everyone. The long-running debate over updating decades-old power limits for NGSO systems hasn’t come to any positive outcomes yet and caused endless meetings and debates during WRC-23. AI 1.5 risks repeating this pattern at WRC-27, potentially jeopardizing a successful conclusion to the conference.

It is important to remember that satellite services are global by nature, designed to maximize coverage and reach the remote corners of the world. In the end, we all agree that satellites are one of the key enablers to expanding telecommunications and closing the digital gap. So, when regulating them, we should be working together to promote universal connectivity, not limit it. While this is no easy task, it must remain the goal. Unfortunately, current geopolitical tensions around LEO systems seem to be driving us in the opposite direction – for now. VS

Juan Cacace is the Director of Government Affairs and Space & Connectivity Lead, Access Partnership

Lead photo: Secretary-general of the International Telecommunication Union Doreen Bogdan-Martin address WRC-23. Photo: ITU