Joel Thayer and Matthew Wong: Space Policy Can’t Run on Dial-Up Speeds

The United States is launching more rockets and deploying more satellites than at any point in history. 15,296 active satellites are now in orbit (a more than tenfold increase from a decade ago); American companies operate more than 10,000 of those satellites, and American companies are launching more satellites than anyone else. In 2024, satellite services, manufacturing, and launch contributed $65.2 billion to the economy. In other words, commercial space is no longer a niche industry; it’s an American mainstay.

And yet, the regulatory framework on the ground remains stuck in a slower era. By February 2025, the backlog at the Federal Communications Commission’s Space Bureau had grown to 1,475 applications. When applications linger for months—or even years—projects stall. Capital becomes more expensive, smaller entrants get squeezed out, and companies begin looking abroad for more predictable regulatory environments.

Satellite filings have surged, yet outdated regulatory barriers have slowed processing, threatened investment, and delayed deployment—especially in rural and underserved areas where satellite broadband can be transformative. Industry stakeholders are increasingly clear: regulatory delay is both inefficient and a competitive disadvantage.

A 21^st-century industry requires a 21^st-century process. Satellite technology is iterative and fast-moving. Companies deploy constellations on tight timelines, continuously improve systems, and rely on regulatory certainty to secure financing. But the FCC’s review process has historically operated on its own timeline, eking out licenses at dial-up speeds.

Luckily, a bipartisan push to ensure American leadership in the New Space Age is targeting this bottleneck. The FCC has started to streamline its application review processes and late last year the Commission unanimously opened a rulemaking to revamp the satellite licensing system. And in January, Senators Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Peter Welch, D-Vermont, introduced the Satellite and Telecommunications (SAT) Streamlining Act with the express goal of modernizing the FCC’s satellite licensing process.

The FCC’s work and the SAT Streamlining Act go together like a hand and glove.

At the FCC, the historic process has required reams of paperwork, duplicative certifications, and in-depth, case-by-case judgments by staff. The result was delays and a plethora of bespoke conditions on practically every single license. FCC Chairman Brendan Carr has targeted the vague standards and open-ended paperwork requirements that created this environment—and the rulemaking promises to launch a new era of regulatory review. As he puts it, the FCC “shouldn’t be the arbiter of what technology works in space—and we shouldn’t be the constraint either.”

In a similar vein, the SAT Streamlining Act reflects a simple premise:  The FCC’s licensing system should keep pace with today’s space economy—without sacrificing safety, interference protection, or national security. What is more, agency-led reform has limits:  Even if the FCC successfully overhauls its rules, new leadership may take a different approach—rules can change, priorities can shift, and staff can be redirected elsewhere. That is why Congress plays such a critical role. By setting baseline expectations, lawmakers can provide durable guardrails while respecting the FCC’s technical expertise.

The SAT Streamlining Act is tightly focused to play that role—ensuring American leadership in space over the long term. The bill would establish clear “shot clocks” and streamlined reviews, ensuring that application processing is more timely and predictable. It requires closer coordination between the FCC and federal agencies, a key friction point. And it adopts a “regulatory restraint” principle that limits paperwork to only what is necessary.

The bill also puts guardrails in place. The framework preserves FCC discretion to deny, condition, or extend review where necessary—particularly in cases involving interference, orbital debris, national security, or foreign ownership. Similarly, the bill couples a sophisticated “automatic approval” process to goad timely action with direction to the FCC to develop eligibility criteria for such a process. This is what effective policymaking looks like:  Identify a real problem, propose a strong solution, and refine it with safeguards.

Taken together, these reforms are designed to create a more predictable system that allows companies to plan, invest, and deploy with greater confidence. That means accelerated broadband deployment, stronger network resilience, and more competition. In an economy built on connectivity, that matters far beyond the space industry.

Bipartisanship is too rare in Washington nowadays. But the burgeoning space economy has brought together left and right at the FCC and in Congress. Let’s hope the FCC swiftly completes its rulemaking—and that Congress locks in long-term reforms with the SAT Streamlining Act. America’s future in space depends on it.

Joel Thayer is president of the Digital Progress Institute and an attorney based in Washington. Digital Progress Institute is a nonprofit seeking to bridge the policy divide between telecom and tech.

Matthew Wong is a law student at George Mason University's Antonin Scalia Law School. He is interested in the intersection of technology, telecom, law, and policy. This Expert Opinion is exclusive to Broadband Breakfast.

Broadband Breakfast accepts commentary from informed observers of the broadband scene. Please send pieces to commentary@breakfast.media. The views expressed in Expert Opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect the views of Broadband Breakfast and Breakfast Media LLC.