UK, France and US split over ITU's EPFD satellite interference rules

Ofcom has published its preferred route to updating the ITU's EPFD limits — a phased process that would deliver targeted fixes at or before WRC-27, then a "more fundamental review" at WRC-31. The paper, 'Reforming the ITU's EPFD framework: GSO and NGSO sharing in Ku and Ka bands', landed into a three-way regulatory split. The UK wants incremental reform, France wants the framework's principles preserved, and the US wants the limits scrapped outright.

EPFD has no formal agenda item at WRC-27. That hasn't stopped the debate reopening, driven by the FCC's April 2026 vote to remove EPFD limits from US domestic rules and by the rapid growth of the NGSO sector.

What are the EPFD limits, and why do they matter?

The limits sit in Article 22 of the ITU Radio Regulations. They cap interference from NGSO satellites into GSO earth stations and satellites, accounting for power levels, antenna patterns and satellite movement. WRC-2000 adopted them, which makes the rules more than 25 years old.

NGSO operators such as Amazon and SpaceX argue the limits are overly conservative, hold back innovation, and that relaxing them would make their systems more spectrum-efficient and cut operating costs. France, home of Eutelsat, insists any revision must keep GSO operators protected. Most regulators agree the rules need updating. They disagree sharply on how far and how fast.

UK: targeted fixes first

Martin Fenton, Ofcom's director of Non-Terrestrial Spectrum Engineering, says there are "obvious inconsistencies in the current rules" that should be fixed promptly to enable innovation and efficient spectrum sharing.

Ofcom's paper identifies two changes for WRC-27 or its run-up:

• Align downlink EPFD limits across the upper (19.7–20.2 GHz) and lower (17.8–18.6 GHz) Ka band. Ofcom sees "no enduring technical justification" for the difference between them, and suggests applying the least restrictive limit of each type across the whole band.
• Update ITU-R Recommendation S.1503, used to verify compliance, with more realistic assumptions on satellite geometry, antenna patterns and propagation.

Fenton calls the phased path pragmatic because it works within ITU rules and procedures. "EPFD isn't on the agenda for WRC-27," he said. "So, if you go into WRC-27 with proposals for significant, major changes to the regime, I'm not sure you'd get them. But if you go into WRC with some targeted updates that are evidence-based and would make a significant difference, coupled with more thorough proposals for a more thorough review [in the future], I think the chances of success are much better."

France: protect the principles

France's ANFR takes a more cautious line. Kévin Le Vot, the agency's head of spectrum engineering, believes "it is possible to proceed with some changes to EPFD limits while maintaining protection of GSO networks". His priority is preserving the framework's principles, which he says provide "a predictable environment" for both GSO and NGSO systems.

"We believe that this framework offers a double advantage with a verification of compliance to the limits by the Radiocommunication Bureau on the one hand and operational limits that need to be met during real life operations on the other hand," he explained. France wants technical modifications at WRC-27 "for the cases where it's appropriate" — provided the new values account for the variety of GSO networks in use.

US: scrap the limits

The US wants other administrations to follow its lead. In April 2026, the FCC voted to remove EPFD limits from its domestic rules, replacing them with performance-based protections for GSO networks and a structure promoting good-faith coordination between satellite operators.

Arpan Sura, senior counsel to FCC chairman Brendan Carr, calls EPFD limits a "one-size-fits-all requirement that has proven to be over restrictive in ways that really harm LEO broadband deployment". "Economic reports show that a more flexible coexistence based on good faith coordination and technical backstops can yield billions of dollars in innovation and investment," he said.

The US position echoes arguments from Amazon, and from Gerald Adams, a senior scholar at the International Center for Law and Economics who previously advised SpaceX. Adams agrees with the FCC's conclusion but not its reasoning. Where the commission points to technological breakthroughs, he attributes the shift to "a fairly extensive volume of technical studies that have validated a lot of the argumentation that's been made for at least the last four years".

He believes the evidence already justifies near-term reform. "There's a mountain of data to support the reform. The operators did the studies. Waiting another four years to get more studies doesn't necessarily do anything here. We have all the information we need."

Can the US model travel?

The UK and France both say parts of the US approach cannot or should not be copied. Fenton argues abandoning EPFD limits may make sense for the US, "a big country with a very big market" that can act unilaterally. "We're a much smaller market," he said. "If we make rules in the UK, will that have a significant impact? I don't know. But what it would do is fragment the global rules."

The ANFR points out that the US framework, which measures the impact of interference on victim systems, can be enforced by a well-resourced regulator like the FCC. Administrations without those capabilities would struggle. Critics also call the US coordination process slow and cumbersome.

Adams doesn't buy that objection. "Coordination among satellite systems is an arduous and painful process that I've seen firsthand. And in some ways it should be… Now, just because it's hard doesn't mean that the FCC's approach is impractical or problematic." Sura adds that good-faith coordination "has always been required in the United States as a regulatory principle", and reports positive feedback from satellite companies.

The run-up to WRC-27 will show whether EPFD reform remains a global, ITU-led exercise or fragments into national approaches.