Orbital congestion and satellite broadband competition: Oligopoly, innovation, and second-best regulation

Low Earth orbit (LEO) satellite systems are becoming an increasingly important component of global communications infrastructure, providing broadband access, enterprise connectivity, and direct-to-device services in competition with terrestrial networks. At the same time, orbital space is a congestible shared resource: satellite deployments increase conjunction risk and debris, imposing external costs on other operators. This paper analyses how these features interact by modelling LEO satellite broadband as a capacity-constrained oligopoly operating under an orbital congestion externality. We develop a two-stage model in which satellite operators first choose constellation size and research and development (R&D) investment, and subsequently compete in quantities subject to binding capacity constraints. Orbital congestion damages depend on aggregate satellite deployment, while operators are privately exposed to only a fraction of the resulting congestion risk. Three results emerge. First, oligopolistic competition and incomplete congestion internalisation generate distinct distortions: output and innovation are inefficiently low due to market power, while satellite deployment is excessive when firms do not face the full marginal social cost of congestion. Second, R&D interacts non-trivially with congestion risk through its effect on throughput per satellite, creating substitution between “more satellites” and “smarter satellites.” Third, regulatory instruments such as Pigouvian satellite charges or tradable conjunction-risk permits can correct deployment incentives but do not eliminate distortions arising from imperfect competition. These results highlight that congestion pricing and competition policy operate as complementary instruments in the governance of emerging satellite broadband markets, with implications for spectrum policy, launch regulation, and the management of shared orbital resources. • LEO satellite broadband is modelled as a capacity-constrained oligopoly. • Orbital congestion creates external costs that operators only partially internalise. • Market power can lead to excessive satellite deployment despite output constraints. • R&D incentives may amplify congestion and overinvestment in constellations. • Second-best regulation complicates Pigouvian taxes and tradable permits.

Publication Details

Journal
Telecommunications Policy
Published
2026-03-24
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2026.103198
Primary Topic
Satellite Communication Systems
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Orbital congestion and satellite broadband competition: Oligopoly, innovation, and second-best regulation

Telecommunications Policy
Satellite Communication Systems
article

Orbital congestion and satellite broadband competition: Oligopoly, innovation, and second-best regulation

article en

Abstract

Low Earth orbit (LEO) satellite systems are becoming an increasingly important component of global communications infrastructure, providing broadband access, enterprise connectivity, and direct-to-device services in competition with terrestrial networks. At the same time, orbital space is a congestible shared resource: satellite deployments increase conjunction risk and debris, imposing external costs on other operators. This paper analyses how these features interact by modelling LEO satellite broadband as a capacity-constrained oligopoly operating under an orbital congestion externality. We develop a two-stage model in which satellite operators first choose constellation size and research and development (R&D) investment, and subsequently compete in quantities subject to binding capacity constraints. Orbital congestion damages depend on aggregate satellite deployment, while operators are privately exposed to only a fraction of the resulting congestion risk. Three results emerge. First, oligopolistic competition and incomplete congestion internalisation generate distinct distortions: output and innovation are inefficiently low due to market power, while satellite deployment is excessive when firms do not face the full marginal social cost of congestion. Second, R&D interacts non-trivially with congestion risk through its effect on throughput per satellite, creating substitution between “more satellites” and “smarter satellites.” Third, regulatory instruments such as Pigouvian satellite charges or tradable conjunction-risk permits can correct deployment incentives but do not eliminate distortions arising from imperfect competition. These results highlight that congestion pricing and competition policy operate as complementary instruments in the governance of emerging satellite broadband markets, with implications for spectrum policy, launch regulation, and the management of shared orbital resources. • LEO satellite broadband is modelled as a capacity-constrained oligopoly. • Orbital congestion creates external costs that operators only partially internalise. • Market power can lead to excessive satellite deployment despite output constraints. • R&D incentives may amplify congestion and overinvestment in constellations. • Second-best regulation complicates Pigouvian taxes and tradable permits.

Telecommunications PolicyVol. 50(6)
Industry, innovation and infrastructure
Openalex Percentile: Top 9%
Satellite Communication Systems
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Orbital congestion and satellite broadband competition: Oligopoly, innovation, and second-best regulation · Telecommunications Policy (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS