On April 30, 2026, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted an Order fundamentally revising how satellite systems share spectrum in the Ku and Ka bands, replacing the decades-old Equivalent Power Flux Density (EPFD) limits with a performance-based coordination framework for managing interference between geostationary (GSO) and non-geostationary (NGSO) satellite systems. By reforming the EPFD regime, the FCC has removed a longstanding regulatory constraint that was developed to protect GSO systems but has arguably limited NGSO operators’ ability to deliver high-speed, low-latency broadband services.

This alert discusses the key implications and questions around the new spectrum-sharing framework.

Key Takeaways

• The FCC Replaces Legacy EPFD Limits with a Performance-Based Framework. NGSO Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) operators are no longer required to certify compliance with the International Telecommunication Union’s (ITU) prescriptive EPFD limits in certain Ku- and Ka-band frequencies and may instead elect to operate under the FCC’s new performance-based coordination framework, which focuses on real-world service performance rather than static technical constraints.
• The New Framework Promotes Good-Faith Coordination Among GSO and NGSO Operators. Satellite operators are now expected—and effectively required—to negotiate private, voluntary spectrum sharing arrangements, with regulatory “backstops” to ensure NGSO systems do not cause unacceptable interference to GSO FSS and broadcasting-satellite service (BSS) networks.
• The New Sharing Regime Is Intended to Bring Particular Benefits for Certain Low Earth Orbit (LEO) Satellite Systems. Under the new framework, the FCC expects that NGSO FSS systems, particularly those operating in LEO, will be able to use more satellites to serve the same area, at potentially higher power, and over a wider portion of the visible sky.
• The FCC Moves Ahead of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Process. Rather than await the outcome of ongoing deliberations at the ITU—where EPFD limits have been a contentious issue slowed by procedural roadblocks, delays, and opposition from some GSO operators and countries—the FCC has moved forward with a domestic framework, signaling a willingness to act outside of the international process where it views reform as a policy priority.

What’s the Background Here?

Over the past few years, thousands of broadband-capable satellites have been deployed in LEO to deliver low-latency, high-speed connectivity, particularly in rural and underserved areas, while incumbent GSO operators have continued to launch more advanced, higher-capacity systems. These services operate in shared spectrum bands alongside terrestrial systems under a framework designed to ensure coexistence and protect GSO systems from unacceptable interference.

Historically, that framework has relied on prescriptive EPFD and other power limits—developed in the late 1990s—to protect GSO FSS and BSS networks, as well as terrestrial operations, from potential unacceptable interference caused by NGSO systems. Over time, stakeholders have increasingly argued that those limits are based on outdated assumptions and have become overly restrictive, effectively requiring NGSO FSS operators to overprotect GSO FSS systems at the expense of improving their ability to deliver higher-capacity, lower-latency broadband services.

EPFD limits have been a contentious topic in international fora, where certain GSO operators and countries have opposed changes on the grounds that they could disrupt existing services. The 2023 World Radiocommunication Conference considered—and declined to adopt—a proposal to review the EPFD limits at the 2027 World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC-27) and instead invited the ITU to conduct technical studies to inform WRC-27, without any clear regulatory objectives.

Against this backdrop—and at the request of SpaceX—the FCC initiated a domestic review of the EPFD limits in 2025, concluding that it was appropriate to move forward with revisiting the decades-old NGSO-GSO sharing regime rather than await the outcome of the ongoing ITU deliberations.

At a High Level, How Does the New Sharing Framework Work—and What Are the Technical Backstops?

In short, NGSO FSS operators are no longer required to certify compliance with the ITU’s EPFD limits in certain Ku- and Ka-band frequencies (10.7-12.7, 17.3-18.6, and 19.7-20.2 GHz). Instead, NGSO FSS operators may elect to operate under the FCC’s performance-based coordination framework, which considers actual service impacts—primarily (i) degraded throughput (i.e., reductions in data speeds) and (ii) increases in absolute unavailability (i.e., service disruptions)—rather than static power thresholds as the first-order criteria against which to evaluate interference.

Under this alternative option, an NGSO FSS applicant must, prior to commencing operations, either:

1. certify that it has entered into a coordination agreement with any operational co-frequency GSO satellite network, or
2. submit for FCC approval a compatibility showing demonstrating that its proposed operations will not cause unacceptable interference to any such GSO system.

Compatibility showings submitted pursuant to the second option must demonstrate—by using a degraded throughput methodology based on a set of GSO reference links—compliance with the following technical backstops adopted to protect GSO systems:

• a long-term protection criterion of 3 percent time-weighted average throughput degradation for GSO satellite links using adaptive coding and modulation (ACM);
• a short-term protection criterion of 0.1 percent absolute increase in link unavailability;
• a supplemental protection criterion of -10.5 dB interference-to-noise (I/N) for 80 percent of the time for GSO satellite links that do not use ACM (e.g., point-to-multipoint video transmissions); and
• a supplemental protection requirement for NGSO systems to observe a minimum 3-degree avoidance angle of the GSO arc.

NGSO license or market access applicants may, on an unprotected, non-interference basis, begin operating while any such compatibility showings are pending before the FCC, provided they operate in accordance with both the operational parameters reflected in the technical demonstrations and the 3-degree GSO-arc avoidance angle.

Why Does This Matter?

The new spectrum sharing regime reflects the FCC’s conclusion that prescriptive power limits are inflexible and risk overprotecting GSO FSS operations while constraining newer NGSO FSS systems and leaving available spectrum underutilized. The FCC expects the new NGSO-GSO sharing framework to deliver tangible benefits to American consumers, including faster and lower-cost broadband, improved service quality and reliability, and increased competition—particularly in rural and underserved areas.

More broadly, the shift underscores:

• The primacy of voluntary, private coordination. The FCC emphasizes that good-faith, operator-to-operator agreements and private bargaining—rather than prescriptive limits—offer the most effective mechanism for achieving efficient spectrum sharing, and that efficiency should be favored over absolute protection guarantees.
• A move toward technology-driven, performance-based standards. The FCC stresses that interference protections are intended to reflect actual operating conditions and keep pace with technological advancements, rather than rely on outdated assumptions and theoretical models.
• A willingness to act domestically. The FCC signals that it will move forward with spectrum policy reforms where warranted, rather than wait for the protracted and procedurally complex international processes to play out. The FCC also makes clear its view that domestic reforms can be implemented without altering the EPFD compliance obligations in other jurisdictions.

What Does This Mean for WRC-27?

The Order positions the U.S. to influence ongoing international discussions regarding NGSO-GSO spectrum sharing, even though EPFD limits are not currently slated for formal revision at WRC-27. By acting ahead of WRC-27, the FCC is effectively establishing a domestic framework with the hope that international deliberations will converge on a similar revision to the EPFD framework in the future.

The FCC anticipates that the record developed in this proceeding—including technical analyses and, over time, real-world implementation outcomes—will provide the U.S. delegation with a foundation to build support for similar reforms in advance of WRC-27. Thus, while EPFD reform is not currently on the formal WRC-27 agenda, the FCC’s approach may nonetheless shape the direction of international discussions and drive changes in the global framework.

When Will the New Rules Take Effect?

The Order is designed to implement the new framework as quickly as possible, applying the new rules to current NGSO license holders and market access grantees, as well as pending and future applicants as soon as the new rules come into effect.

However, as a practical matter, implementation will take time. The rules will become effective 60 days after publication in the Federal Register, but the core requirements—namely, a) the obligation to certify coordination or submit a compatibility showing, and b) the requirement that GSO and NGSO operators must coordinate in good faith—are subject to Office of Management and Budget review, a process that typically takes approximately three to six months.

Looking Ahead

The Order is expected to affect how satellite operators approach spectrum access, investment decisions, and licensing and market access strategies. In particular, the shift toward a coordination-based framework is likely to encourage more private, operator-to-operator negotiations, with the terms of any agreements becoming increasingly important in determining spectrum access and operational flexibility. The new framework is also expected to influence transaction activity across the sector more broadly as operators seek to secure more predictable access to spectrum resources. The option to forego compliance with EPFD limits in the U.S. also introduces an additional consideration for satellite operators when developing licensing and market access strategies, particularly as the global space industry continues to evolve and international discussions take place in parallel at the ITU.

For questions regarding any of the matters discussed, please reach out to Joshua Gruenspecht or Sophia Galleher, or another member of Wilson Sonsini’s Communications or NewSpace practice.