A new regulatory playbook from the GSMA argues that satellite broadband providers like Starlink should face the same consumer protection, security, and tax obligations as mobile operators. But the industry body acknowledged that the enforcement mechanism underpinning the entire framework could amount to little more than a single representative in-country.

Under the proposals outlined in the playbook, the industry trade group and Mobile World Congress (MWC) organizer wants low Earth orbit (LEO) satellite operators offering direct-to-user services to be subject to local establishment rules. Specifically, the 44-page guide for regulators calls for providers to maintain a local legal presence and “comply with foreign ownership rules to enable effective oversight and accountability.”

The rapid rise of direct-to-user services and the ever-increasing number of vendors entering the space looking to challenge Starlink, like Amazon Leo, AST SpaceMobile, and Eutelsat, has created regulatory gaps and competitive asymmetries with terrestrial providers, which the GSMA wants addressed.

The playbook defines requirements for local legal presences as either a locally incorporated subsidiary, a registered branch office of a foreign entity, or a formally appointed local representative or agent.

When asked by SDxCentral to outline what presences might actually look like, Michaela Angonius, head of policy and regulation at the GSMA, conceded that the concept could mean just a GDPR-style representative, where one person is notionally acting for a vendor.

“There need[s] to be clear rules if you are providing satellite services as if you were providing mobile services. If you do not have local presence, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to enforce those rules,” Angonius said. “Local presence can be similar to GDPR, for example, where you simply have someone representing the company locally, but that still means there is a local presence.”

“To ensure that the necessary service obligations are fulfilled in each country, we believe it is essential to have [a] local presence in the country,” she added.

The stakes of getting that local presence requirement right extend beyond corporate accountability. Speaking at a press roundtable, Angonius pointed to feedback from the head of India's telecoms regulator as a case in point that, without equivalent oversight obligations, satellite services risk becoming a blind spot for law enforcement.

“If the obligations that apply to other communication providers do not apply, you create an arbitrage. You create a possibility for satellite services to be used for criminal activities because there is no oversight of those services, law enforcement cannot get access to prevent crime or investigate crime,” Angonius said.

She outlined that the GSMA’s playbook also calls for satellite operators to comply with data governance rules, like data protection, retention, privacy, and localization, as well as cybersecurity requirements.

In addition, the trade body wants satellite providers to support lawful interception obligations, which would enable authorised access for law enforcement and national security purposes – an effort that would require technical implementations such as local gateways or routing arrangements to provide feasible interception “within national jurisdictions.”

The GSMA wants the regulatory gaps to be extended on the consumer protection side, also, with Angonius contending that whatever consumer obligations apply to mobile operators should also apply to satellite providers, adding: “At the end of the day, the technology providing the service should not really matter for the end user.”

“Quality of service obligations are something we have had many discussions about with both regulators and members. Personally, my view is that you should not have those obligations at all in any country,” Angonius opined.

“The countries with the highest quality of service tend to be those that enable the right kind of investment and rollout of mobile services. But if a country decides that it needs quality of service obligations, those should provide the same kind of output. The technology is different, so you cannot measure satellite and mobile in the same way, but the output should provide information to an end user so they can make an informed decision.”

The MNO perspective

The GSMA’s call for technology-neutral regulation was broadly backed by mobile network operators, who view the new market entrants as both partners and competitors.

“We have to live with the fact that we were disruptors and are now being disrupted, and we have to embrace it,” said Mike Silber, group executive for regulatory affairs at South African mobile operator, MTN. He stressed that MNOs should double down on delivering affordable services that meet local regulatory and compliance standards.

“Whether we become the distribution mechanism, as some of the models are, or whether we become a partner or a competitor, as long as the country, consumers, and fair competition are protected, we are comfortable that it helps evolve the telecommunications markets in which we operate,” he added.

Rahul Vatts, DG of regulatory affairs at Indian telecom giant Airtel, framed satellite connectivity as a complement to terrestrial networks rather than a threat, particularly in geographically vast markets where terrestrial coverage still falls short.

“Satellite is a good collaboration opportunity to cover large areas that are not connected in our country, such as deserts and mountains, and even backhaul to some of our own sites," he said, echoing similar sentiments expressed at MWC by infrastructure player Cellnex.

Airtel is among the carriers to have already collaborated with satellite companies, with Airtel Africa having signed on with SpaceX to launch Starlink direct-to-cell satellite connectivity across all 14 of its markets following trials in Kenya last year.

Such examples of operators already working with satellite providers had Vatts saying that the GSMA’s playbook provides “a roadmap for what needs to be done” for when carriers are mulling making similar moves, or “where the service outcomes are going to be similar.”