Resources

1. Treat April 2026 as a Decision Point, Not a Checkpoint

WP 4A is under pressure to deliver:

• Mature EPFD and aggregate EPFD studies, which at a minimum will inform WRC-27 even if no regulatory action is taken at that Conference
• Updated working documents and agreed modeling baselines
• Preliminary CPM text on agenda item 1.5, and
• Liaison responses to SG 4 and other groups
• Final or near-final revisions to S.1503, and potential updates to BO.1443 and S.1428

By April, many technical options will effectively be “locked in,” even if bracketed text remains around values and technical language used to describe these options.

Action

• Confirm contribution deadlines with your administration or sector member entity
• Begin drafting by February 2026 to allow internal review and delegation coordination

2. Influence Technical Assumptions Before They Become Policy

Many of WP 4A’s most consequential outcomes in CPM text will flow from modeling assumptions, not explicit regulatory text developed prior to CPM text. Critical areas include:

• Sidelobe-to-sidelobe interference modeling
• Exclusion-zone assumptions for GSO protection
• NGSO tracking and beam-steering models
• Conservative vs realistic antenna patterns
• Time-varying and multi-mask transmission behavior
• Reference link selection for EPFD and aggregate EPFD limits

These choices will determine whether compliance frameworks reflect real systems or impose unnecessary operational constraints.

Action
Evaluate each assumption for:

• Alignment with your deployed and planned architecture
• Realistic operational behavio
• Worst-case assumptions that could disproportionately penalize your system

Support or submit contributions that ground studies in defensible, technically realistic parameters.

3. Prepare for Escalation in EPFD and Aggregate EPFD Debates

Article 22 EPFD

Three distinct camps have emerged, ranging from incremental refinement protecting GSO systems to fundamental overhaul favoring NGSO systems plus a middle-of-the-road approach offering a more balanced sharing regime between GSO-NGSO. The study conclusion direction remains unstable and could tip in any of these directions by concerted action from key players. While review of the Article 22 EPFD limits are not on the WRC-27 agenda, the studies are to be completed and results provided to the Conference, which remains sovereign to take any regulatory action it may wish.

Operators should:

• Decide whether to support realism-based refinement, strict consistency, or structural change
• Provide explicit data to support your preferred approach
• Anticipate political negotiation, not just technical debate

Resolution 76 – Aggregate EPFD

Two incompatible methodologies remain on the table, with materially different outcomes for NGSO systems.

Action

• Run internal simulations under both methodologie
• Identify operational advantages or disadvantages from each method
• Prepare targeted contributions demonstrating real-world impacts under both the legacy EPFD analysis process and the new methodology being considered, with the associated throughput and availability degradation metrics.

4. Anticipate Pressure on Terminal Control and Service-Area Enforcement

WP 4A and WP 4C discussions under Agenda Item 1.5 increasingly reflect political concern over unauthorized terminals and cross-border operations.

Operators should expect scrutiny on:

• Geofencing and service-area enforcement
• Geolocation accuracy
• Remote-disable mechanisms
• Network control architectures (centralized vs distributed)
• Beam footprint logic and spillover

Expectations may solidify through new Radio Regulations, reports, questionnaires, and national authorization practices.

Action
Prepare clear, technically honest descriptions of:

• Control capabilities
• Enforcement limitations
• Operational trade-offs

5. Secure Your Position in CPM Text Early

By May 2026, CPM text will be under strong consolidation pressure. Ideas not reflected in working documents by April may never appear in CPM options.

Action
Ensure your positions are present in:

• Working documents
• Annexes
• Preliminary CPM text
• Liaison statements

Building strong consensus with reliable partners with similar interests in outcomes will also yield a pivotal role in this consensus-based regulatory process. As such, the identification and alignment of positions with these partners will play an outsized role in obtaining favourable outcomes in this arena.

[1] AI 1.5 deals with development of regulatory measures to limit the unauthorized operations of non-geostationary-satellite orbit (non-GSO) earth stations in the fixed-satellite service (FSS) and mobile-satellite service (MSS)