Satellite IoT Is Ready: Is Regulation Keeping Up?

Satellite IoT changes that. And in Europe at least, the regulatory path is now clearer than it has ever been.

What Satellite IoT Actually Does?

Most IoT connectivity today relies on terrestrial networks — LoRaWAN gateways, cellular networks or private networks. That can work well in cities and industrial zones where deployments of such networks are feasible in terms of economic point of view. Nonetheless, it doesn’t work in remote farmland, rural fields, open water, mountainous areas, or any of the other environments where monitoring matters most but coverage doesn’t reach.
Satellite IoT fills that gap with seamless coverage provided by LEO satellite networks. Using Low Power Device-to-Satellite (LPD-S) technology, IoT devices transmit their data directly to satellites in low Earth orbit, which store the messages and relay them to ground stations as they pass overhead. Devices themselves communicating with satellites are LoRaWAN-based standard and the same low-power sensors are used in terrestrial deployments.
The result is coverage that extends wherever a device can see the sky.

Europe Has Led the Way

The most significant recent development in satellite IoT regulation is ECC Decision (25)02, adopted at the 67th ECC meeting in Bled in June 2025. This decision harmonises the use of the 862–870 MHz band for satellite IoT communications across CEPT member countries, the same licence-exempt spectrum used by short-range devices (SRDs) on the ground. The framework is technically conservative by design. It establishes strict Power Flux Density (PFD) limits on satellite downlinks:

• In-band: −142 dBW/m² per 4 kHz within the 862–870 MHz band
• Out-of-band (OOBE): −146 dBW/m² per 1 MHz outside that range

Satellite operations under this framework must not cause harmful interference to terrestrial services, and cannot claim protection from them. It is a non-interference, non-protection model — satellite access on the same terms as any other user of licence-exempt spectrum.
Germany’s regulator BNetzA implemented this approach before the Decision was formally adopted. Denmark has since incorporated it into its licence-exempt framework. Türkiye has embedded it in its satellite frequency band plan. The EU’s Radio Spectrum Policy Group (RSPG) has acknowledged the model in its opinion on direct-to-device connectivity, referring to it as “IoT-NTN in SRD bands.”

How Does European LPD-S Regulation Compare to the D2D Frameworks of US and UK?

A natural question is whether the European framework is too cautious — or not cautious enough, relative to frameworks elsewhere.
We compared ECC Decision (25)02 against two other satellite connectivity frameworks: the FCC’s Supplemental Coverage from Space (SCS) rules in the United States, and Ofcom’s Direct-to-Device (D2D) framework in the United Kingdom. The comparison is instructive even though the contexts differ slightly — the FCC and Ofcom frameworks apply to licensed mobile spectrum (or IMT spectrum) for enabling D2D services, while ECC (25)02 applies to licence-exempt SRD bands. Nonetheless, they are in common for protecting services and applications operating in the same and adjacent bands. Additionally, OOBE PFD limits in ECC Decision (25)02 was developed to protect the IMT Networks operating in the adjacent bands.
The finding is clear: Europe’s LPD-S framework is substantially more stringent for protecting IMT Networks.

The OOBE limits adopted by both the FCC and Ofcom are approximately 26–27 dB less stringent than the ECC framework for protecting the same adjacent services. In-band limits fall within a narrow range of 1–5 dB of the European reference values for the worst-case scenarios. It should be noted that in-band PFD limits of D2D frameworks are developed to protect licensed services whereas in-band PFD limits of LPD-S framework was generated for protecting SRD applications that have more robust to work in a shared spectrum environment where interference continuously exists.
This matters for the next question: can the same technical approach be extended to other frequency bands?

The Case for Extending to 902–928 MHz

Not every country has the 862–870 MHz band available for licence-exempt use. In many jurisdictions outside Europe, the equivalent licence-exempt IoT spectrum is the 902–928 MHz band — widely used across the Americas, parts of Asia, and beyond.
The technical case for extending ECC Decision (25)02’s approach to this band is strong. SRD and ISM devices deployed globally are designed with harmonised receiver characteristics across both the 862–870 MHz and 902–928 MHz ranges, with only region-specific transmission adaptations. They are also inherently robust to interference, since they are designed for shared-spectrum environments.
Extending the ECC framework to 902–928 MHz would:

• Maintain protection for incumbent services
• Preserve national regulatory sovereignty
• Avoid introducing new interference risk
• Enable harmonised satellite IoT deployment across regions
In short: the same technical assumptions already validated in Europe would apply cleanly to devices operating in the 902–928 MHz band.

What About Licensed Spectrum?

Licence-exempt bands are not the only path. The 2 GHz MSS band (1980–2010 MHz / 2170–2200 MHz) is allocated to Mobile Satellite Services and supports 3GPP-based (NB-IoT) satellite connectivity — complementing cellular coverage with standards-based interoperability with 3GPP Release 17 and beyond compatible devices.
The challenge is that this spectrum is currently concentrated among a small number of operators, which limits competition and keeps costs high. Shared access arrangements, where multiple satellite IoT operators access a defined slice of the band on a non-exclusive basis , offer a practical solution.
Australia has already implemented this model: the last 5 MHz of the 2 GHz MSS band is shared among satellite operators providing narrowband or low-data-rate services, with a self-management regime for coexistence. The EU’s RSPG has included a similar option in its opinion on the use of the 1980–2010 / 2170–2200 MHz bands beyond 2027.
Reserving at minimum 2×5 MHz for shared satellite IoT use in this band would lower barriers to entry, promote competition, and prevent spectrum hoarding, without disrupting existing MSS allocations.

What Regulators Can Do?

The regulatory framework for satellite IoT in licence-exempt spectrum has advanced significantly. But uptake remains uneven across jurisdictions, and spectrum fragmentation risks limiting the cross-border applications — supply chain monitoring, maritime safety, disaster response — where satellite IoT delivers the clearest value.
The steps that would make the most practical difference:

1. Adopt ECC Decision (25)02 principles in jurisdictions where 862–870 MHz is available for licence-exempt use, applying the non-interference, non-protection framework.
2. Extend those principles to 902–928 MHz in jurisdictions where 862–870 MHz is not available, recognising that device characteristics and interference protection objectives are directly comparable.
3. Reserve shared 2 GHz MSS spectrum — at minimum 2×5 MHz — for satellite IoT on a non-exclusive basis, consistent with Australia’s model and RSPG recommendations.
4. Implement technology-neutral licensing frameworks that don’t create new barriers to entry or fragment spectrum access.
5. Promote international harmonisation to enable the cross-border deployments that create the most value.

The Technology Is Ready?

Smart meter monitoring in rural areas with no terrestrial coverage. Water level data from dams and irrigation channels. Asset tracking for vessels and heavy machinery beyond the range of any base station or coverage.
These are not future applications — they are operational today. The technology has been validated. The European regulatory framework has been established. The technical evidence for extending it is clear.
The remaining question is how quickly the rest of the world’s regulators will follow.

Written by Fazlı Kaybal