Kristian Stout and Michael Calabrese: The FCC Lets Satellite Innovation Breathe

The Federal Communications Commission is finally catching up to the satellites orbiting above it. 

A pending FCC vote to modernize spectrum-sharing rules would replace a decades-old regime built for a different era. At stake are the Equivalent Power Flux Density (EPFD) limits—technical constraints drafted in the 1990s to manage how non-geostationary orbit satellites interact with legacy geostationary systems. Those rules assumed technologies that no longer exist. Today, they function less as safeguards than as a brake on capacity, especially for low-Earth-orbit constellations delivering high-speed, low-latency broadband to underserved areas.

The agency’s draft order marks a clear shift away from static, worst-case regulation toward a performance-based framework grounded in real-world outcomes. Instead of policing hypothetical interference, the FCC would evaluate actual effects on geostationary systems. That distinction matters. Modern satellite networks rely on tools such as adaptive coding and modulation, which dynamically manage signals in ways regulators couldn’t anticipate 30 years ago. Rules that ignore those capabilities waste spectrum and stifle innovation.

A performance-based approach does more than tidy up outdated policy. It aligns regulation with how these systems actually operate. Operators can adjust transmissions in real time, coordinate with one another and respond to changing conditions. A rigid, ex ante regime assumes none of that flexibility. The result has been a system that treats all interference as equally likely and equally harmful, even when it isn’t.

The economic upside of reform is substantial. The FCC estimates that modernizing EPFD limits could increase satellite broadband capacity by as much as sevenfold and generate more than $2 billion in value. Those gains would show up where they matter most: faster speeds, lower prices and more reliable connections in rural and remote communities. In places that are difficult or uneconomical to wire, satellite service often represents the only viable path to high-speed internet. Expanding capacity directly advances digital inclusion and economic opportunity.

Critics warn that loosening EPFD limits could expose incumbent geostationary operators to harmful interference. The concern is understandable. It also rests on a premise that no longer holds. The existing rules err on the side of extreme caution, effectively overprotecting a small number of legacy systems at the expense of a rapidly growing market for next-generation connectivity. The FCC’s proposal does not abandon safeguards. It recalibrates them. By tying protection to measurable outcomes, the agency preserves system integrity while allowing more efficient spectrum use.

That shift reflects a basic economic reality. Spectrum is scarce, but it is not fixed. Advances in technology can expand the effective supply by improving sharing and reducing interference. When regulation fails to adapt, it turns that potential into deadweight loss. The EPFD regime illustrates the problem. By locking in outdated assumptions, it has limited how much value the market can extract from available spectrum. A modern, performance-based framework treats spectrum as a dynamic resource—one that operators can optimize, rather than merely divide.

The stakes extend beyond domestic policy. The United States has long led in communications technology in part because it favors private-sector innovation over command-and-control regulation. Updating these rules strengthens that position in international bodies such as the International Telecommunication Union, where global standards take shape. If U.S. regulators can show that a performance-based model delivers both reliability and growth, they will have a stronger hand in shaping those standards. Clinging to obsolete rules would do the opposite.

Execution will matter. The new framework will require careful monitoring, credible data and good-faith coordination among operators. It will also demand continued engagement abroad to avoid mismatched global rules that undercut U.S. firms. No single order can settle those challenges. Still, the direction is right. A regulatory system designed for the satellite networks of the 1990s cannot govern the constellations of the 2020s.

This vote is about more than a technical tweak. It signals a broader philosophy: regulation should follow performance, not speculation. When policymakers let evidence guide them, they make room for innovation without sacrificing reliability. That balance has defined America’s edge in communications for decades. The FCC now has a chance to reaffirm it—and to ensure that the rules on the ground keep pace with the networks in the sky.

Kristian Stout serves as director of innovation policy at the International Center for Law & Economics. His work addresses competition, telecommunications, and artificial-intelligence policy, with a focus on how law & economics informs regulatory design. Alongside his ICLE role, Stout has been a partner and counsel at A & S Technologies. Earlier, he practiced law as of counsel at the Law Offices of Jeffrey Hoffman and held a fellowship at the Internet Law & Policy Foundry and the Eagleton Institute of Politics.

Michael Calabrese directs Wireless Future, which is part of New America’s Open Technology Institute. New America is a nonpartisan policy institute based in Washington DC. Calabrese focuses on spectrum policy, wireless broadband, satellite and digital equity issues more broadly. He has served on the US Department of Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee (CSMAC) since 2009 and frequently participates in FCC proceedings on behalf of a broad coalition of consumer and other public interest organizations. 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.