The European Commission will adopt a decision tomorrow that privileges European satellite operators in a strategic move designed to limit Starlink's expansion across the continent, marking an attempt to assert technological independence from foreign corporate interests while navigating complex geopolitical tensions.
Thomas Regnier, the Commission's spokesperson for tech sovereignty, framed the decision as essential infrastructure: "Satellite connectivity is a key piece of our technological sovereignty, our security, and our defence, as also highlighted by IRIS²." He added, "In the changing geopolitical situation, EU-wide satellite connectivity becomes synonymous with resilience, security, and capability."
The Commission's decision tomorrow will determine operators for pan-European systems providing mobile satellite services using the 2 GHz radio spectrum frequency—the only band harmonized at the EU level. Since 2009, this bandwidth has been allocated to two European operators, Viasat and EchoStar, for limited use cases, primarily emergency calling when smartphone networks fail.
The Technology Shift and Market Threat
Technological developments now enable direct-to-device communications, allowing smartphones and other devices to connect directly to satellites. This capability represents a fundamental challenge to the existing European telecommunications infrastructure. Unlike current emergency-only applications, direct-to-device communications would allow companies like SpaceX and Amazon to compete directly with European mobile operators, providing space-based connectivity that could make terrestrial infrastructure obsolete.
The Commission's preference for European satellite operators reflects a deliberate choice to protect this infrastructure from foreign competition. European telecom operators prefer working with European satellite firms, viewing them as complementary partners rather than existential threats to their business models.
Navigating International Pressure
The decision arrives amid significant pressure from Washington. Two months ago, at the Mobile World Congress, Brendan Carr, chairman of the US Federal Communications Commission, directly warned the EU against favoring European providers. Carr stated, "Europe has national champion satellite providers that do substantial business in the US. And I think we have all benefited from a fair and even-handed approach. And whether we get to continue to do that, frankly, is in the hands of European regulators right now." He added a warning: "If Europe insists on going down a path of satellite sovereignty that excludes providers that are not based on the continent, then the US will have to be taking that into account with respect to the reciprocal treatment that we provide."
These remarks reflect pressure from the Trump administration, which returned to the White House last year and has demonstrated particular assertiveness in protecting American corporate interests abroad, including in Europe.
However, the Commission appears to have gained some diplomatic breathing room. Last week, EU policymakers reached a political agreement on the controversial EU-US trade deal, suggesting the worst-case scenario of immediate trade retaliation may have been avoided.
Internal Tensions Over Spectrum Allocation
The decision also reflects competing priorities within the Commission itself. The 2 GHz band sits at the intersection of commercial and military interests, creating tension between EU digital chief Henna Virkkunen, who is closer to telecom operator interests, and Defence Commissioner Andrius Kubilius. Last week, in an interview with the Financial Times, Kubilius advocated for IRIS²—the EU's strategic satellite initiative—to obtain a portion of satellite frequencies, a position not necessarily shared across the Commission.
Spectrum remains a scarce resource, and its allocation requires balancing multiple competing interests: commercial telecommunications, defence applications, and technological sovereignty. As the EU develops domestic technology solutions, striking the right balance while managing transatlantic tensions and accommodating security needs presents a particularly delicate challenge.
The Commission's decision tomorrow represents one of the first concrete steps in implementing its broader Tech Sovereignty Package, which the Commission is due to present next week.
Why This Matters: The EU's satellite spectrum decision reflects a broader institutional choice about whether democratic governments should actively shape technology markets to protect public infrastructure and domestic economic interests, or defer to market competition dominated by foreign corporations. The outcome affects not only which companies provide connectivity, but whether critical infrastructure remains under some form of democratic accountability or becomes dependent on decisions made by foreign private entities. For European citizens, this determines whether satellite connectivity—increasingly vital as terrestrial networks face capacity constraints—remains influenced by EU regulatory frameworks or becomes subject primarily to American corporate and governmental interests. The decision also signals whether the EU will pursue coordinated industrial policy to develop strategic technologies, or accept technological dependence on foreign providers. The geopolitical dimension is equally significant: as satellite connectivity becomes essential for defence and resilience, allowing foreign control could compromise security during crises. Simultaneously, the decision tests whether the EU can assert technological independence without triggering trade retaliation from Washington, a balance that will likely define European tech policy for years ahead.