On September 30, 2026, the Federal Communications Commission voted to open 1,050 MHz of spectrum to satellite broadband. The order makes 550 MHz at 12.7-13.25 GHz available for downlinks to consumer terminals, including those on aircraft and ships. It also makes 500 MHz at 42-42.5 GHz available for gateway downlinks, according to CircleID's account of the vote. The same meeting adopted further notices on 1,450 MHz in the Ku and Ka bands and on the D-band, per the Benton summary of the FCC agenda.
The decision matters beyond satellite operators. The 12.7 GHz band had also been discussed for terrestrial mobile use, so the order closes off one possible home for mid-band 5G capacity.
The strongest case for the terrestrial alternative
The argument for mobile is serious. In its 2022 notice (FCC 22-80), the Commission proposed repurposing some or all of 12.7 GHz for mobile broadband, and the record is on the FCC's document server. Mid-band spectrum is scarce, and carriers say they need more of it to densify networks. Terrestrial networks serve dense cities, where satellite beams are least efficient per user. A regulator that hands spectrum to one technology also gives up what a different use could have produced. That is a real cost, and the Commission should not wave it away.
Why satellite is the better call here
The satellite case is strongest on three points: where the demand is, what the band can carry, and how the rules are written.
First, the users are different. Terrestrial 5G is concentrated where carriers already have capacity and many alternatives. Satellite downlinks reach places fixed and mobile networks do not: rural homes, ships, and aircraft. The order's named use cases, consumer terminals on planes and ships, are exactly the customers terrestrial networks cannot serve. Putting spectrum toward unserved users is where proportionate regulation yields the most per megahertz.
Second, the increase is large for the satellite side. The FCC's draft order described the 12.7 GHz addition alone as "a more than 25 percent increase" in downlink spectrum available to satellite operators. Terrestrial 5G, by contrast, would have had to share a band that already carries terrestrial fixed links, which CircleID reports made sharing and interference protections the central issue of the proceeding. A mobile allocation would have meant clearing or repacking those incumbents, which is slow and costly. The satellite path avoids a repack and leaves existing licensees in place under protection rules.
Third, the order is not an exclusive grant. According to CircleID, the rules do not reserve the spectrum for particular operators, which at least in principle lets competitors beyond SpaceX's Starlink use it. That design is the most pro-competitive feature of the item. Spectrum is a public resource, and the efficient default is access conditioned on technical limits rather than a license for one firm. One caveat is practical. Tesla North notes that SpaceX must still file a modification application, and that compatible satellites and dishes are needed before the new frequencies carry traffic. Open rules do not give every operator the same head start, and the incumbent with deployed hardware will use the band first.
What to watch
The 42-42.5 GHz allocation is the less contested half. CircleID describes it as largely undeveloped spectrum, and gateways are fixed sites that can be located and shielded. The consumer-terminal downlink at 12.7 GHz is the harder case, because millions of mobile and fixed terminals near terrestrial fixed links will test the interference protections in practice. Three things deserve scrutiny as implementation proceeds:
- Interference outcomes. If incumbent fixed-link operators report degraded service, the Commission should publish the data and adjust power or coordination limits, not defend the order on principle.
- Competitor access. A non-exclusive band only helps competition if a second or third operator can in fact file and deploy. Watch the number of modification and license applications over the next year.
- The terrestrial offset. The Commission should say where mid-band capacity for mobile will come from if not 12.7 GHz. Choosing satellite is defensible only alongside a credible pipeline for terrestrial spectrum elsewhere.
The further notices point the same direction. The first seeks comment on 1,450 MHz in the Ku and Ka bands and 138.25 GHz in the D-band for more intensive satellite use, and the second on new bands for spacecraft control and in-space servicing, assembly, and manufacturing, per the Benton summary. Those are proposals, not decisions. They allow stakeholders to submit evidence before rules are written, which is the right order of operations and a contrast with allocation by assertion.
The bottom line
The order is a reasonable bet that satellite broadband delivers more public value in this band than another slice of mid-band for terrestrial 5G. The bet has real support: the unserved users, the avoided repack, and the non-exclusive structure. It will pay off only if sharing rules protect incumbents in practice, competitors can in fact enter, and the FCC supplies mobile capacity elsewhere. A pro-innovation spectrum policy treats each of those as a measurable test and publishes the results.