Emerging market operators push for tighter LEO satellite rules as competitive tensions rise

Details: Manny Pham; Category: Satellite Networks; 18 March 2026; 18886 views

At Mobile World Congress 2026, a familiar narrative around satellite connectivity took on a sharper edge. While low Earth orbit (LEO) constellations promise to connect the hardest-to-reach communities, mobile operators in emerging markets are increasingly warning that the regulatory environment has not kept pace – and, in some cases, risks tilting the playing field.

Executives from groups including MTN Group, Axiata Group and Ooredoo Group were broadly aligned on one point: LEO players such as Starlink and Amazon Leo are welcome – but only if regulators move quickly to ensure fair competition, enforceable rules and consumer protections.

The message was not anti-satellite. It was, however, a clear call to governments: regulate now, or risk losing control later.

A regulatory gap in a fast-moving market

Michaela Angonius, head of policy and regulation at the GSMA, set the tone, pointing to a widening mismatch between technological progress and policy frameworks.

“There has been an increased focus on satellites over the last couple of years, with rapid expansion of LEO services,” she said. “But when it comes to policy and regulation, what we’ve seen is that it has not been updated. In many cases, the rules in place are still those from 20 or 30 years ago.”

That lag is creating confusion among policymakers. Angonius noted that regulators often misunderstand what satellite services can realistically deliver – particularly when LEO providers promote ambitions to “connect the unconnected”.

From the GSMA’s perspective, only around 4% of the global population lacks coverage entirely – the segment where satellite can make a meaningful difference. The much larger “usage gap”, she argued, is driven by affordability, not coverage.

“Satellite, at this point in time, is not a more affordable service than terrestrial networks,” she said. “So while it has a role, it’s not a silver bullet.”

Complement or competitor?

For operators, the nuance lies in how LEO services are deployed.

Chee Kheong Foong, chief regulatory and government affairs officer at Axiata Group, described direct-to-device (D2D) satellite connectivity as a “complementary service” that could help extend coverage beyond the 97–98% population reach typical in many markets.

“It gives us the ability to extend our coverage beyond what terrestrial networks can economically achieve,” he said. “There’s always that last few percent, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, where this can help.”

But that cooperative tone shifts when satellites move into direct-to-consumer territory.

Mike Silber, regulatory affairs executive at MTN Group, was candid: “We recognise that in certain areas, particularly direct-to-consumer broadband, these operators are going to compete with us.”

That competition is not the issue in itself. The concern is asymmetry.

“You can’t just take the good without the need for fair competition,” Silber said. “We welcome innovation, but we need regulatory parity between terrestrial and non-terrestrial networks.”

The parity problem

At the heart of the debate is a simple question: should satellite providers be subject to the same rules as mobile operators?

For emerging market players, the answer is an unequivocal yes.

Mobile operators typically operate under strict licensing regimes, pay significant spectrum fees, contribute to universal service funds and comply with obligations around lawful intercept, data privacy and consumer protection. LEO providers, by contrast, can often operate across borders with limited local presence.

Bertus Ehmke, head of technical regulation at MTN Group, highlighted the structural challenge: “In a mobile network, you manage a country-specific system. With satellites, those boundaries disappear. Issues like data sovereignty and cross-border traffic become much more complex.”

This creates both regulatory blind spots and enforcement challenges. As Silber put it, “In the case of terrestrial operators, regulators can go to the operator – there’s a CEO, there’s infrastructure. With satellites, the only way to enforce rules is often through the end user.”

That imbalance is particularly concerning in markets where telecoms infrastructure has been built through decades of heavy investment.

“We’re simply saying: recognise that difference and put appropriate rules in place,” Silber added. “Not to stop innovation, but to manage it.”

Consumer protection and legal presence

One of the most immediate concerns is consumer protection.

Angonius pointed to cases where satellite licences have been issued with little transparency or enforceability. “There were licences granted where no one could even access the details,” she said. “That’s not good for anyone – not for operators, not for consumers.”

A key GSMA recommendation is that satellite providers offering services directly to users must establish a legal presence in each market.

“If I’m a consumer, I don’t care whether my service comes from mobile, fibre or satellite,” Angonius said. “I just want it to work – and I want the same protection.”

The absence of a local entity raises practical questions. If a service fails, who is accountable? Which country’s laws apply? And where is user data actually processed?

“The traffic in LEO systems is bouncing between satellites,” Silber noted. “Where it lands is anybody’s guess. Is it even subject to national laws? These are the questions regulators need to grapple with.”

Law enforcement and security risks

Beyond consumer issues, operators also flagged risks around law enforcement and misuse.

Foong pointed to real-world examples in Southeast Asia, where satellite terminals have been used to enable cross-border cyber scams.

“In some cases, equipment is moved from one country to another and used for illegal activities,” he said. “That connectivity becomes very difficult to trace until authorities physically intervene.”

Such scenarios highlight a broader concern: that lightly regulated satellite services could create loopholes in national security frameworks.

“Law enforcement is a critical issue,” Foong added. “For us, we obey the law of the land. For satellite operators, it can be a grey area.”

Why regulators are behind

Despite these concerns, many governments – particularly in emerging markets – have been slow to act.

Angonius suggested part of the reason is the compelling narrative pushed by satellite providers.

“They’ve been extremely good at messaging around connecting the unconnected,” she said. “If you’re a government, it sounds like a no-brainer – here’s a solution to bridge the digital divide.”

But that enthusiasm can lead to shortcuts, including licences agreed at high political levels without full regulatory scrutiny.

Silber offered a more measured view: “It’s a question of competing priorities. Regulators are dealing with many issues, and this technology is moving faster than they’re used to.”

A narrow window to act

For operators, the urgency is clear. The LEO market is still developing, and there is an opportunity to shape it before dominant players become too entrenched.

“Let’s not wait for constellation operators to get so big that you can’t switch them off,” Silber warned. “Let’s set the rules now.”

The GSMA’s proposed framework centres on five principles: transparency, regulatory parity, spectrum harmonisation, consultation and enforceability. While not prescriptive, the aim is to provide a baseline for national regulators.

“There’s no single country that has got it completely right yet,” Angonius admitted. “But we’re starting to see good practices emerging.”

Coexistence, not conflict

Despite the tension, the overall tone from operators was pragmatic rather than defensive.

Bharat Vagadia, head of policy and regulatory affairs at Ooredoo Group, framed satellite as both opportunity and uncertainty.

“There are very specific use cases where we can see definite value,” he said. “But we’re still trying to work out the commercial models and how these partnerships will evolve.”

Partnerships between mobile operators and satellite providers – particularly for backhaul and resilience – are already delivering benefits. In these cases, existing regulatory frameworks largely hold.

The real challenge lies in direct-to-consumer models that bypass traditional telecom structures.

For now, one thing is certain: in emerging markets, the race between innovation and regulation is well underway – and operators are keen to make sure it doesn’t become a runaway satellite.