By acquiring the right spectrum, Starlink positions itself not as a replacement for mobile network operators, but as a critical networking partner
Elon Musk’s $19 billion acquisition of DISH’s spectrum is more than a financial move. It signals a strategic bet on the convergence of satellite and terrestrial wireless. Musk himself has acknowledged that “carriers are not going away, and they have a lot of spectrum.” That recognition reflects the physics and economics of connectivity: Dense urban areas require terrestrial infrastructure and fiber backhaul that satellites cannot match. But by acquiring the right spectrum, Starlink positions itself not as a replacement for mobile network operators (MNOs), but as a critical partner that can extend and enhance their reach.
The spectrum asset in question
The assets in play are DISH’s AWS-4 and H-block licenses. These mid-band frequencies, around 2 GHz, are harmonized with global 3GPP standards and sit adjacent to incumbent MNO holdings. Unlike the higher-frequency Ka- or Ku-bands that Starlink currently uses for fixed broadband, AWS-4 is well suited for mobility and indoor penetration.
This spectrum gives Starlink terrestrial authority for building a hybrid network that blends satellites for wide-area coverage with terrestrial small cells for capacity. That was always DISH’s vision for its Ancillary Terrestrial Component (ATC) rights. Yet DISH struggled for more than a decade with the cost and logistics of execution. Starlink inherits not only valuable spectrum but also the operational challenge of making this hybrid model real.
Unlocking direct-to-device potential
Starlink is already piloting direct-to-device (D2D) messaging with T-Mobile over the latter’s PCS spectrum. The AWS-4 bands take this much further. They enable Starlink to support standard LTE and 5G connections to smartphones, creating the foundation for a wholesale offering that MNOs can integrate directly into their retail service.
The benefit is not headline speed. Link budgets for satellites remain limited, with constraints on power, beam reuse, and interference management. Instead, the value is in reliability and continuity. A customer can send a message, complete a voice call, or complete a transaction even when outside terrestrial coverage. The addition of AWS-4 spectrum enables Starlink to extend this beyond pilots into a scalable commercial platform.
Modeling the economics of partnership
To understand how spectrum changes the picture, we modeled capacity and per-user costs across environments. The key comparison is between Starlink’s current Ka/Ku performance, the potential uplift from AWS-4 spectrum, and the added advantage of partnering with T-Mobile, which brings complementary spectrum and terrestrial assets.
Table 1: Capacity per User by Environment (Mbps, Theoretical Averages)
| Environment | MNO (Terrestrial Mid-Band + Low-Band) | Starlink (Ka/Ku Current) | Starlink + AWS-4 Spectrum | Starlink + T-Mobile + AWS-4 |
| Urban | 50–150 | 5–10 | 10–20 | 75–120 |
| Suburban | 30–80 | 10–15 | 15–25 | 40–70 |
| Rural | 10–30 | 15–25 | 20–30 | 25–40 |
Table 2: Cost per User Served per Month (USD, Illustrative Estimates)
| Environment | MNO (Cost/User/Month) | Starlink (Cost/User/Month) | Starlink + AWS-4 Spectrum | Starlink + T-Mobile + AWS-4 |
| Urban | $8–12 | $25–30 | $18–22 | $10–14 |
| Suburban | $10–15 | $20–25 | $15–18 | $11–13 |
| Rural | $15–25 | $12–18 | $10–15 | $11–14 |
The analysis highlights three truths. First, Starlink alone cannot compete with MNOs in urban and suburban areas; its per-user costs remain higher and throughput lower. Second, the AWS-4 spectrum improves the picture by aligning Starlink with handset standards and improving efficiency, but not enough to close the gap alone. Third, in partnership with an MNO like T-Mobile, the economics and performance shift dramatically. Together, they can deliver cost and capacity levels that rival terrestrial-only networks, with the added advantage of ubiquitous coverage.
For MNOs, the hybrid model reduces the need for rural tower builds while improving coverage guarantees. For Starlink, it provides access to a mass-market customer base. The spectrum makes Starlink more attractive to MNOs not as a competitor, but as a complementary partner.
Complex global dynamics
While compelling in the U.S., this model is harder to replicate globally. Spectrum is a sovereign resource, and regulatory politics vary sharply.
United States – The U.S. is the most favorable environment. AWS-4 is harmonized with 3GPP, licensed by the FCC, and commercially plausible for D2D. Partnerships, however, are competitive minefields. AT&T is aligned with AST SpaceMobile, and T-Mobile’s partnership with Starlink could tilt the balance for years.
Europe – The EU emphasizes sovereignty with IRIS² and backs incumbents such as Eutelsat, SES, and Thales. A direct spectrum acquisition by Starlink is implausible. Any play would be through constrained partnerships.
Asia-Pacific – Japan and South Korea are technologically open and partnership-friendly. India is protectionist, with Reliance Jio and Bharti Airtel (via OneWeb) dominating the political landscape. China is closed, pursuing its own GuoWang constellation.
Africa, Middle East, and Latin America – These regions are pragmatic, prioritizing universal service. Spectrum ownership models are typically auction-based, limiting Starlink’s ability to acquire assets directly. Partnerships with dominant incumbents such as MTN Group, América Móvil, or Telefónica are the most likely path forward.
ITU-R and regulatory tensions
The ITU-R oversees international spectrum coordination. Deploying terrestrial components in satellite-licensed bands raises jurisdictional issues. Regulators may resist if they believe it circumvents national spectrum auctions or undermines sovereignty. This creates potential conflicts in regions such as Europe and India where industrial policy and sovereignty are paramount.
Strategic implications
This spectrum acquisition forces the industry to grapple with the convergence of satellite and terrestrial connectivity. The hybrid model reshapes roles:
- Starlink delivers a wholesale coverage layer, solving the rural gap.
- MNOs retain the customer relationship and urban capacity advantage.
- Competitive differentiation shifts from tower-building to choosing the right satellite partner.
Musk’s comments about carriers “not going away” reflect realism. Starlink cannot win alone in dense markets. The spectrum strengthens its hand as a partner to MNOs, making collaboration more attractive. Longer term, the possibility of deeper integration (or even acquisitions) cannot be ruled out. But the near-term value lies in partnership, not disintermediation.
The future will be defined by the interplay of spectrum, physics, and partnerships. Starlink’s acquisition of AWS-4 is not simply a bet on spectrum. It is a bet on the merging of space-based and terrestrial systems into a new fabric of connectivity.
