Sateliot asks the full FCC to overturn a one-paragraph dismissal of its satellite-IoT petition

FCC · GN Docket 23-135 · Application for Review · 2026-05-26
By

Sateliot, the U.S. arm of a Barcelona-based satellite-IoT company, is asking the full Federal Communications Commission to overturn a dismissal by its own Space Bureau. In an Application for Review filed May 26, 2026, the company says the Bureau threw out its petition for U.S. market access in an analysis that "occupies a single substantive paragraph," without ever evaluating the interference study at the center of the filing. The Bureau held that the 2 GHz mobile-satellite band is reserved to its incumbent licensee, so Sateliot's plan was "by its nature" not compatible with existing operations.

Sateliot wants to fly ten roughly 10-kilogram satellites at about 525 km, using one megahertz each way for NB-IoT traffic on a non-interference, unprotected basis. Its interference study claimed less than 1% capacity degradation on the incumbent network. Docket 23-135 has drawn filings from 27 distinct parties, including SpaceX, which is acquiring the incumbent's 2 GHz spectrum.

"The Bureau converted a compatibility standard into an entry-bar standard."

— Satelio IoT Services USA, Inc., FCC docket 23-135

Sources: Application for Review → · Orbit Sentinel (docket 23-135)

Filed underDocket 23-135Satellite IotSpectrum SharingFcc Space BureauSmallsatMss Spectrum

Questions & answers

What did the FCC Space Bureau decide?
On April 23, 2026 it dismissed Sateliot's petition for U.S. market access with prejudice, holding that the 2 GHz mobile-satellite band is reserved to its incumbent licensee, so Sateliot's plan was not "compatible with existing operations" under Section 25.122(c)(9).
What is Sateliot proposing?
An initial constellation of ten roughly 10-kilogram satellites at about 525 km, using one megahertz of uplink and one megahertz of downlink in the 2 GHz band to carry NB-IoT traffic wholesale to mobile operators, on a non-interference, unprotected basis.
Why does Sateliot say the dismissal was wrong?
It argues the Bureau never evaluated its interference study, which showed less than 1% capacity degradation on the incumbent network, and that a categorical bar conflicts with the 2019 SmallSat Order's rejection of per se exclusion.