Brussels vs. Elon Musk: Who Will Control Europe’s Skies?

The connectivity dead zone of the future will not be in a valley, but above us. Satellites are expected to connect directly with mobile phones, bypassing terrestrial cell towers. Whoever secures access to the relevant frequencies will help determine Europe’s digital future. That is precisely why Brussels, Washington and one of the world’s most powerful entrepreneurs are currently locked in a dispute.

A frequency band controlled by two companies since 2009

At the centre of the debate is a section of radio spectrum around 2 gigahertz. It is particularly well suited to connecting smartphones directly to satellites. Since 2009, the band has been held by the US companies Viasat and EchoStar. The usage rights expire in May 2027, and the European Commission intends to establish a new allocation framework.

At the end of May 2026, Brussels presented a proposal to this effect. Two-thirds of the band would be reserved for European providers, including the EU’s own satellite project, IRIS². Companies from outside the EU would also be allowed to bid for the remaining third. Starlink and Amazon could therefore participate, but would have to make do with a smaller share.

Two-thirds for Europe, the rest for Musk?

Starlink is currently the world’s largest satellite internet provider, with more than 10,000 satellites in low Earth orbit. Its response has consequently been unequivocal. SpaceX warns that awarding the spectrum exclusively to European providers would increase the risk of service disruptions for users in Europe. It also argues that new European operating procedures could cause interference worldwide, including to emergency services.

Washington is also pushing back. In March, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr warned that the United States would take European protectionism into account when considering reciprocity. Put simply: those who close their markets to us should expect us to close ours to them.

Ukraine as a warning sign

Ukraine has become central to the debate over dependency. During the war, Starlink established itself as a critical communications tool there. At the same time, it became known that Musk could restrict access to the service. Supporters of the EU’s plans cite precisely this example: a service vital to a country at war should not be controlled by a single entrepreneur. German digital policy expert Thomas Jarzombek has likewise pointed to Ukraine as evidence of the dependency such technology can create.

Deutsche Telekom and its peers take positions

Deutsche Telekom, Vodafone, Orange and Telefónica intend to bid jointly for the frequencies. French President Emmanuel Macron had previously called for a European alliance in satellite technology.

The plan has an ironic dimension. In March 2026, Deutsche Telekom itself entered into a partnership with SpaceX. Starlink is expected to offer direct-to-device connectivity in ten European countries. In other words, the company intends to challenge Musk while simultaneously bringing him customers.

Sovereignty comes with a price tag

This is where the issue becomes uncomfortable. Europe finally wants to achieve greater independence and is building barriers to do so. That may look good in a summit photograph, but ultimately the customer in the coverage dead zone will pay the bill. If the European alternative is more expensive and performs worse, sovereignty will offer little practical benefit.

The EU is right to take dependencies seriously. But it is wrong to confuse protection with competition. Telecom operators have failed in recent years to eliminate coverage gaps reliably. Now spectrum rules are expected to do the job they themselves have been unable to accomplish. It is difficult to imagine a more convenient form of lobbying.

Anyone seeking sovereignty should earn it, not simply order it.