The Satellites Have Landed. And Brought a Lobbyist.

The MSSA white paper (available here) looks like an engineering report, sounds like a network optimization memo, and sells like a low-orbit pitch deck. Everything is perfectly aligned. Too perfectly. The tone? Calm. The data? Selective. The motive? Anything but neutral. It walks the reader toward a singular conclusion: mobile satellite services (MSS) should be the default for direct-to-device (D2D) connectivity. No arguments. No counterpoints. Just a long, soft push into regulatory capture.

They start with underserved areas, a reliable prop. Remote villages. Dead zones. The usual scenery. That’s the bait. The hook is revenue. Higher average revenue per user. Lower capital expense. No terrestrial infrastructure. The problem? MNOs can’t afford towers everywhere. The solution? Satellites, of course. But not just any satellites. MSS-based ones. Because if you can’t own the ground, you might as well gate the sky.

The interference section reads like a horror story for spectrum sharing. Intermodulation chaos. Signal degradation. Cross-border nightmares. It’s never just a challenge but always a threat. Everything about shared MNO spectrum becomes unworkable the moment MSS enters the frame. The message is clear. Terrestrial spectrum is dangerous. Shared control is risky. MSS spectrum is safe. Pre-regulated. Pre-coordinated. Pre-approved. No mess. No debate. No competition.

And yet, they never talk about what MSS spectrum actually is. Not in contrast to Fixed Satellite Services (FSS). Not in context of device compatibility. Not in terms of commercial viability. That’s intentional. FSS is bigger. FSS is faster. FSS is open. But FSS is also competitive. MSS comes with walls and gatekeepers. That’s the point.

FSS supports streaming. MSS supports paging. FSS scales. MSS restricts. FSS competes. MSS consolidates. But MSS has something FSS doesn’t, legacy regulation. Old rules. Old entitlements. Global approvals, locked in from an earlier era. That spectrum sits clean and cordoned, waiting for new use cases. Enter D2D. Enter the MSSA.

They don’t mention how few phones can connect to MSS bands. They don’t mention how expensive satellite data still is. They don’t mention that real-world latency doesn’t care about regulatory compliance. Instead, they cite Qualcomm studies like scripture. They quote ITU agenda items like prophecy. They don’t argue. They announce.

What they want is simple. They want regulators to read this paper and pre-decide. They want spectrum planners to treat MSS as the only viable D2D path. They want MNOs to look at interference charts and walk away. They want policymakers to forget FSS even exists.

And the timing? Not subtle. WRC-27 is coming. MSSA wants to set the frame before the meeting starts. Stake the claim. Move the goalposts. Paint the alternatives as infeasible, then ask for consensus.

This is market shaping.
This is spectrum gatekeeping.
This is regulatory capture with a satellite dish on top.