European lawmakers want stronger safeguards written into the bloc's telecom rules before SpaceX's satellite network becomes part of the backbone of Europe's phone and internet systems — and the argument over who controls that infrastructure has become a sovereignty fight.
🚨 European lawmakers are calling for stronger safeguards to prevent Elon Musk’s SpaceX from gaining too much influence over Europe’s telecommunications infrastructure. The concerns come as Starlink expands its satellite internet services and SpaceX explores new ways to connect mobile devices directly to satellites. EU lawmakers argue that Europe must protect its digital sovereignty and avoid becoming overly dependent on a single American company for essential communications.
The debate has also been shaped by Starlink’s role in Ukraine, where satellite connectivity has become important for military communications and civilian infrastructure. Restrictions or changes to access can highlight how much a country may depend on a privately operated network whose decisions are made outside its borders. European officials want to ensure that critical communications remain reliable and that Europe has the ability to make its own strategic decisions.
However, supporters of SpaceX and Starlink argue that the company has expanded internet access in remote areas, delivered connectivity during emergencies, and provided services that traditional telecom networks have struggled to match. They may also argue that competition from satellite providers can encourage innovation and improve connectivity for consumers.
The central issue is how Europe can benefit from SpaceX’s technology without allowing its communications infrastructure to become too dependent on one company. Lawmakers are pushing for safeguards, while the broader debate concerns the balance between innovation, market competition, national security, and European control over critical infrastructure.
The push now has a name and a face in Brussels. Michał Kobosko, the European Parliament's lead negotiator on the Digital Networks Act — the bloc's sweeping telecom overhaul — told the Financial Times that the EU must prevent the overhaul from opening a route to European market dominance for SpaceX, and he is preparing strict "sovereignty and resilience criteria" for pan-European spectrum licences in Parliament's draft position.
"Europe cannot just wake up and see that SpaceX is aiming to control fully the European market and we are doing nothing against it. That would be too far, that would be dangerous for us in Europe."
The immediate battleground is spectrum — the airwaves that let ordinary smartphones connect directly to satellites. SpaceX bought licences in the United States earlier this month that could support its own direct consumer mobile service, and the European Commission has proposed reserving part of the 2 GHz satellite-to-smartphone band for European operators. European carriers fear a similar SpaceX expansion into their home market: this week, four of the continent's biggest telecom groups — Deutsche Telekom, Orange, Vodafone and Telefónica — announced they are exploring a joint bid for satellite spectrum, saying the initiative supports Europe's ambition to strengthen "sovereignty, security and resilience in critical connectivity infrastructure."
Washington has pushed back hard. Andrew Puzder, the US ambassador to the EU, has warned that European companies could face "devastating" retaliation in the American market if Brussels restricts American satellite firms, telling the Financial Times: "You don't make European companies more competitive by making US companies less competitive." SpaceX itself has warned the spectrum plan could weaken connectivity in Ukraine. The Commission says its proposal diversifies Europe's suppliers while staying open to non-EU operators — and nothing is final: Parliament and the EU's member states must each settle their positions before the law can be negotiated.
As the post puts it, the central issue is how Europe can benefit from SpaceX's technology without allowing its communications infrastructure to become too dependent on one company. That argument is no longer just a debate — it is being written into draft law.