Summary

  • WRC-27 agenda item 1.12 studies possible allocations for low-data-rate, non-geostationary satellite systems that support intermittent IoT messages, not ordinary phone calls.
  • One proposed band, 1880–1920 MHz, overlaps a UK plan already divided among DECT, railway communications and emergency gateways; another, 2010–2025 MHz, supports professional wireless video.

The frequency map for a satellite proposal can look empty if it is read only from orbit. Read it from the ground and the 1.9 GHz range is already crowded with different plans, users and dates.

The International Telecommunication Union’s Resolution 252 asks technical and regulatory groups to study possible new mobile-satellite service allocations for low-data-rate non-geostationary systems. Ofcom says the systems are intended for periodic or intermittent data, such as satellite-connected Internet of Things devices, rather than telephony. The proposed ranges include 1880–1920 MHz and 2010–2025 MHz. This is a study agenda, not a decision that UK users must vacate spectrum.

That distinction matters. The World Radiocommunication Conference revises the international Radio Regulations, but Ofcom also notes that states decide how spectrum is used within their own territories. A global allocation can shape equipment scale, cross-border coordination and national policy without itself switching off a domestic network. WRC-27 is scheduled for Shanghai from 18 October to 12 November 2027; Ofcom’s UK call for input is open until 24 November 2026 and asks for views on its provisional positions.

A band with a timetable

Ofcom says DECT communications use the lower part of 1880–1920 MHz in the UK. For the upper portion, its October 2025 band plan assigns 1900–1910 MHz to the Future Railway Mobile Communication System, or FRMCS, and 1910–1915 MHz in Great Britain to Emergency Services Network gateways. The plan showed 1915–1920 MHz as unallocated. These segments do not have the same operational role or legal status, so treating all 40 MHz as one vacant block would erase the conditions that determine whether sharing is feasible.

The emergency-services slice already has a useful real-world test of how difficult coexistence can be. In January 2026, Ofcom allowed ESN gateways to start using 1910–1915 MHz before 4 April 2029. Until that date, the gateways must operate on a non-interference, non-protection basis; the condition then falls away. Ofcom explains that the early-access decision followed concerns that waiting until 2029 could complicate ESN migration. It also records VodafoneThree’s concern that nearby railway sites might need filters, and assesses the risk in that particular case as small and temporary because gateway use is ad hoc and localized.

Those are not ready-made rules for a satellite service. They show why a broad promise of “sharing” is not enough. A mobile gateway that transmits occasionally from a vehicle, a railway system designed for regular nationwide operation and a satellite constellation with a different geometry present different interference and coordination questions. Each needs its own operating assumptions, protection criteria and party responsible for responding when those assumptions fail.

A second incumbent is easy to miss

Agenda item 1.12 also includes 2010–2025 MHz. Ofcom says UK programme-making and special-events users rely there on wireless video links and cordless cameras. The regulator describes those professional links as needing a very low risk of harmful interference, particularly for long-distance transmission or paths obstructed by buildings and trees. That use is distinct from DECT and rail, but it sits inside another range being studied for the same low-data-rate satellite service.

Ofcom’s treatment of the 1645.5–1646.5 MHz band offers a useful contrast. That narrow range is tied to maritime distress and safety rules, and Ofcom’s preliminary view is “No Change.” For the other bands, it says any new satellite allocation must adequately protect existing uses and asks stakeholders for views. The document does not say those other users matter less; it does show that protection needs to be argued and specified for each use rather than inferred from the word “allocation.”

The practical test is therefore more exact than satellite versus terrestrial. Which system transmits in which direction, under what power and geographic conditions? What receiver or adjacent-band protection is required? Who coordinates, measures interference and pays for mitigation? And do the answer and transition date preserve the service that already has a licence or a funded deployment plan?

Before the UK settles its WRC position, evidence from rail operators, emergency-service planners, DECT users and PMSE producers can make those answers concrete. The satellite proposal should be assessed as a new operating layer entering a band with a timetable, not as a blank space awaiting a more exciting technology.

Sources