Elon Musk’s SpaceX is intensifying competition over the radio spectrum, an invisible but highly valuable resource essential for wireless communications. As companies and governments vie for greater control, this contest has sparked a modern-day scramble reminiscent of historical land rushes, but taking place in the airwaves and extending into outer space.

Radio spectrum itself cannot be owned under international law. However, regulatory frameworks, particularly in the United States, create de facto property rights through licenses issued by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). These licenses, which allow the holder to use specific frequency bands, can be bought, sold, and leased with FCC approval and are typically renewed barring any serious violations. USTelecom, a telecommunications industry group, has noted that companies have collectively invested over US$230 billion in FCC auctions and around US$700 billion in network infrastructure, operating under the assumption that these licenses resemble traditional property.

The growing significance of spectrum rights is fueling concern among traditional phone and cable providers in the U.S., whose shares have recently faced pressure amid fears that SpaceX will acquire additional spectrum in a forthcoming auction. SpaceX plans to deploy it to expand its Starlink satellite network and eventually offer direct satellite-to-cellphone connectivity, potentially disrupting established operators.

Beyond Earth’s surface, there is also heightened competition for satellite communication frequencies regulated by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), a United Nations agency. The U.S. government applies for licenses on behalf of domestic companies under a first-come, first-served system, granting priority to early applicants like SpaceX, which has claimed a majority of available low-Earth orbit spectrum. New entrants can operate on the same bands only with coordination to avoid interference.

Notably, many other countries, including China, challenge this system. They argue for a more equitable international framework that treats spectrum as a shared resource rather than a form of property dominated by early filers. Chinese entities have submitted numerous late-stage applications at the ITU, pushing for balanced access to key frequency bands. This stance sets the stage for a diplomatic confrontation at the upcoming World Radiocommunication Conference scheduled for October and November 2027 in Shanghai.

The regulatory ambiguity surrounding space communications traces back decades. The 1967 Outer Space Treaty prohibits national claims of sovereignty over celestial bodies, but it does not clarify private ownership rights. Later efforts, including the 1979 Moon Treaty, sought to designate space as a common heritage but were not ratified by major spacefaring nations, including the United States. This has left a legal and policy gap that contemporary actors are now attempting to fill, often asserting property-like rights over spectrum and satellite operations.

During the Trump administration, U.S. policy strongly favored treating spectrum as private property, aiming to position the country as a global leader in space communications. David Redl, former head of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration and current executive director of SpaceConnect—a trade group representing major low-Earth orbit satellite operators such as Amazon’s Kuiper, Iridium, Telesat, and Globalstar—attributes the primary bottleneck to the complex international licensing processes rather than Washington’s domestic policies.

Global spectrum management has traditionally relied on international consensus through ITU’s World Radiocommunication Conferences, held every four years. Historically, countries avoided unilateral moves that could disrupt this balance. However, the current FCC leadership has increasingly pushed ahead with reforms domestically, outpacing international agreement. Advocates like Michael Calabrese of New America endorse continued U.S. leadership in these reforms, urging other nations to follow suit.

Experts note that the rapid advancements of private companies, coupled with intensified national rivalry, complicate efforts to establish globally accepted rules. “Now you have private-sector companies moving as quickly as possible, and you have rivalry between countries,” said telecom policy attorney Harold Feld. “Not only are there no rules, there's less incentive within the structure to create them.”

Meanwhile, SpaceX’s Starlink network dominates the market, accounting for about two-thirds of active satellites in low-Earth orbit, the prime zone for low-latency broadband services. Starlink generates roughly 60 percent of SpaceX’s revenue and comprises nearly all its operating income.

Despite these developments, advocates for a shared global approach to space resource management remain vocal. Hans-Joep Singh, a human rights lawyer and cofounder of the International Center for Advocates Against Discrimination, has warned that action is needed “before a few powerful states and companies are able to create norms that then just become the rules,” emphasizing the importance of equitable access and international cooperation in this emerging domain.