On 27 May 2026, the European Commission adopted a proposed Regulation to reassign the only EU-wide harmonised mobile-satellite band — the 2 GHz spectrum at 1980–2010 MHz (Earth-to-space) and 2170–2200 MHz (space-to-Earth) — for direct-to-device (D2D) services. The headline number is the one that will define the next decade of European connectivity policy: roughly two-thirds of the commercial-and-governmental band is ringfenced for EU operators, leaving about one-third open to non-EU bidders such as SpaceX's Starlink and Amazon's Kuiper.
What the proposal actually does
The band is split three ways. One-third is reserved for a European operator providing governmental and critical communications, integrated with the EU's IRIS² constellation. One-third is set aside for new EU commercial operators. Only the final third is opened to a competitive selection in which non-EU firms may participate. The current licences — held by Inmarsat (now Viasat) and Solaris (now EchoStar) under the 2009 awards — expire in May 2027 and receive a two-year transitional extension, with the EU-level selection beginning in 2027 (Commission proposal; Via Satellite).
This replaces Decision No 626/2008/EC, which created the original EU-level MSS selection procedure and required, even then, that applicants be established in the EU and request no more than 15 MHz per direction (EUR-Lex). The mechanism is not new; what is new is the explicit nationality quota layered on top of it.
The case for Brussels' approach
The strongest argument for the Commission deserves to be stated plainly, not caricatured. Direct-to-device satellite links can deliver connectivity where no terrestrial network reaches — and in a crisis, the operator controlling that link controls whether the lights stay on. Europe watched Starlink become indispensable to Ukraine's defence, then watched a single US executive's discretion shape its availability. Commission tech-sovereignty spokesperson Thomas Regnier framed the proposal bluntly: "Satellite connectivity is a key piece of our technological sovereignty, our security, and our defence" (Euronews). For governmental and defence traffic, insisting that the carrier sit under EU jurisdiction is a reasonable, even prudent, condition. Executive Vice-President Henna Virkkunen made the same point about critical communications.
Where proportionality breaks down
The problem is that the proposal applies a sovereignty logic — sound for the governmental third — to the commercial spectrum as well. Reserving a full commercial third for "new EU operators" assumes those operators exist and can deploy at scale before the spectrum's value decays. Today the credible D2D contenders in this band are largely the US incumbents and challengers: Viasat and EchoStar already hold the licences, while AST SpaceMobile has formed a European joint venture with Vodafone, SatCo, specifically to bid (Via Satellite). A homegrown EU operator capable of filling a third of the band on a commercial footing is, for now, more aspiration than fact.
Spectrum is a perishable public asset. A block reserved for a champion that does not materialise is not sovereignty — it is fallow capacity, and the cost falls on exactly the rural, maritime and remote users D2D is meant to serve. The Commission's own anti-hoarding safeguards (annual fees, one-time contributions, mandatory wholesale access for MVNOs) tacitly concede the risk that winners may sit on spectrum they cannot fully use.
A more proportionate design would set the conditions and let the market meet them. Demand EU jurisdiction, lawful-intercept compliance, security vetting and IRIS² interoperability for the governmental block — then run the commercial blocks on origin-neutral terms, awarding spectrum to whoever can light it up fastest and cheapest. Security objectives are achieved through binding licence conditions, not nationality screens. That is how the EU already regulates undersea cables and cloud: by capability and compliance, not passport.
The retaliation Brussels invited
The geopolitical cost is not hypothetical. FCC Chairman Brendan Carr warned at Mobile World Congress in March 2026 that "if Europe insists on going down a path of satellite sovereignty that excludes providers that are not based in the continent, then the US will have to be taking that into account" (Euronews). Reserving two-thirds of the band invites tit-for-tat exclusion of European operators from the far larger US market — a trade the EU's nascent space sector can ill afford (SpaceNews).
What to watch
The proposal still needs European Parliament and Council approval, and the one-third reserved for non-EU bidders is a genuine opening that earlier drafts reportedly resisted. The constructive path now is to keep the governmental carve-out, drop or shrink the commercial nationality quota, and harden the licence conditions instead. Sovereignty and openness are not opposites here — Europe can guarantee that its emergency networks answer to European law without telling its citizens which company is allowed to connect their phone to a satellite.