The Billion-Dollar Satellite Game: Africa Becoming an Equal Player
Africa’s challenges with orbital slot allocation stretch back nearly five decades to the establishment of the original satellite broadcasting plan in 1977. Since then, the continent has struggled to maintain access to allocated resources as the geostationary orbit has become increasingly congested. To make matters even worse, many of the resources became obsolete due to interference from other satellite networks and natural degradation. This scenario has left Africa working to secure its position in an increasingly competitive geostationary orbit, where technical requirements and financial capabilities determine success.
The challenge runs deeper than mere bureaucratic inefficiency. While Africa was once heavily dependent on satellites for international communications, the rapid expansion of submarine and terrestrial fibre-optic networks now carries the vast majority of traffic. Satellite connectivity remains crucial for remote areas, redundancy, and specialised applications. Yet the very system designed to ensure equitable access has become a barrier to African participation, creating a cycle where nations lose valuable spectrum resources before they can mobilise the financial and technical capacity to utilise them.
To understand the current dynamics shaping Africa’s satellite landscape, Space in Africa spoke with two industry experts: Mr Timothy Ashong, Director of the Regional African Satellite Communication Organisation (RASCOM), and Eng Kezias Kazuba Mwale, Director for Spectrum at the African Telecommunications Union (ATU). Their insights reveal both the systemic challenges facing the continent and the emerging strategies that could reshape Africa’s position in global satellite communications.
The Mathematics of Scarcity
The geostationary orbit presents a finite resource that belies its vast appearance from Earth’s surface. At 35,786 kilometres above the equator, advances in satellite technology have allowed operators to position satellites at two-degree spacing, providing approximately 180 slots per frequency band – a significant improvement from the three-degree separation required in the 1960s and 1970s, which limited capacity to just 120 slots per band. Each orbital position can accommodate a maximum of eight satellites. When combined with the limited radio frequency spectrum available for satellite communications, the constraints become even more pronounced.
“The orbital positions are limited, and the maximum that an operator is allowed to place into any one particular slot is about eight spacecraft,” explains Mr Timothy Ashong. “It is not just physical space that is limited. Radio frequencies are also limited. You have to share the radio spectrum with other users.”
The most developed countries of the world, including those in North America, Europe, and Asia, have launched several thousand satellites that have congested the geostationary orbit, leaving few or no slots for new entrants into the market. This congestion forces operators to seek higher frequency bands when traditional C-band and Ku-band allocations become saturated, pushing them into Ka-band and beyond, where equipment costs rise substantially, and technical challenges multiply.
The scarcity has created a particular burden for African nations, which often require C-band frequencies due to the continent’s heavy rainfall patterns in most areas. These lower frequencies can penetrate cloudy/rainy weather more effectively but require larger, more expensive ground equipment that strains already limited budgets.
When Good Intentions Meet Hard Realities
The International Telecommunication Union’s framework aims to strike a balance between equitable access and practical deployment requirements through a system that grants filing rights based on detailed technical submissions. Once a country files for an orbital position, it must coordinate with other countries to prevent interference, then bring a satellite into service within seven years or risk losing the slot.
“A country that files for a slot but fails to bring a satellite into service within the required timeframe risks losing that slot,” explains Eng Kezias. “This often affects developing nations that lack the resources to move quickly, leaving them vulnerable to forfeiting valuable orbital rights.”
The coordination process itself presents significant challenges. Countries may object to filings if they anticipate interference with their own operations, creating negotiations that can stretch for years. Smaller nations frequently find themselves disadvantaged, unable to match the legal and engineering resources that larger, more experienced players can deploy. Furthermore, the economic burden compounds these technical challenges. Although the ITU does not charge for filing orbital slots for some filings, the costs of preparation, legal support, and eventual satellite deployment can reach hundreds of millions of dollars. This reality has prompted some African governments to seek partnerships with private operators who can shoulder the financial burden in exchange for long-term usage rights.
“This is where consultants and intermediary companies come in,” notes Mr Timothy Ashong. “They help governments navigate the process, but the arrangement can sometimes favour the private partner more than the host country.”
The Silence Trap
“Imagine being given a plot of land but having to constantly prove you deserve to keep it,” Mr Timothy Ashong explains. “That’s essentially what’s happening with orbital slots. The ITU gives you a slot, but it’s up to you to defend it through constant technical and bureaucratic engagement.”
Perhaps the most pernicious aspect is what industry insiders call “the silence trap.” When commercial satellite operators file for nearby orbital positions, the ITU sends coordination notices to potentially affected nations.
“If you don’t respond, whether due to lack of expertise, bureaucratic delays, or simple oversight, your silence is interpreted as consent,” Ashong explains. “Suddenly, your pristine orbital slot is degraded by neighbouring satellites, often from wealthy nations or corporations with teams of lawyers and engineers.”
In fact, several African administrations have already seen early filings lapse in silence. Kenya, for instance, lost access to a C-band filing from the early 2000s after failing to respond to multiple coordination requests. Ghana, by contrast, adopted a policy of replying to every ITU notice, even before launching its first CubeSat. Ghana’s experience provides both a warning and a model. The West African nation successfully protected its orbital rights by making it policy to respond to every ITU notice, even before having its satellite programme. “But most African countries don’t have that capacity,” laments Mr Ashong. “We’re talking about understaffed agencies trying to monitor hundreds of technical notices annually, often without proper software or training.”
As Mr Ashong puts it, “Right now, the system doesn’t need villains to fail Africa. It just needs good intentions without follow-through. And that’s exactly what we’re seeing.” This pattern of theoretical equality masking practical disadvantage recurs throughout the orbital allocation process, as the next section will explore and examine Africa’s growing slot leasing crisis.
The Shadow Market: Leases, Brokers, and Deals
You don’t sell slots, but leasing is the next best thing.
The practice isn’t new, and Angola provides the African proof point. To secure a prime orbital position for its AngoSat communications satellite, Luanda reportedly paid around USD 18–25 million to Intersputnik (the Russian-led consortium) for an 18-year lease. The catch? That slot only guaranteed coverage for strategic African regions. Full continental reach, Mr Ashong estimates, would have cost a lot more.
Publicly available pricing data and market analyses indicate significant variability in satellite capacity costs, determined largely by frequency band, orbital footprint, and market demand. When converted from industry-reported per-MHz rates into a 36-MHz equivalent, whole-transponder leases range from several hundred thousand USD annually in low-demand regions to multiple millions in high-demand orbital hotspots. Within this spectrum, C-band capacity frequently commands rates in excess of USD 1 million per year in premium markets, while Ku-band and Ka-band generally fall within lower cost brackets, albeit with variability and exceptions depending on coverage requirements and service conditions
Nigeria’s ongoing experience highlights a common challenge for nations looking to put objects into orbit. After the failure of its first satellite, NigComSat-1, in 2008, the country successfully launched a replacement, NigComSat-1R, with Chinese support. As this satellite now nears the end of its operational life, Nigeria is actively planning its next replacement mission. A central part of its strategy has been to secure additional orbital slots to achieve broader continental coverage. However, this process is inherently complex; negotiations are often protracted as private lessors demand substantial upfront payments, a common hurdle that leaves national operators like NIGCOMSAT with a more limited reach than well-established global players.
Resolution 559: The Breakthrough That Changed Everything for Africa
The irreversible nature of orbital slot degradation adds urgency to Africa’s coordination efforts. Once a geostationary position is compromised through interference or abandoned through non-use, reclaiming it requires navigating the full ITU filing process, which typically takes seven years or more of technical submissions and coordination procedures. Few African nations possess the patience or expertise required for such extended bureaucratic campaigns.
Recent developments suggest that Africa has begun to address these systemic disadvantages through coordinated regional action. The ATU’s successful advocacy for the passage of Resolution 559 at the 2019 World Radiocommunication Conference represents a significant victory in this regard. This resolution paved the way for the replacement of lost satellite resources for 31 African countries and 14 outside of Africa. It is gratifying that ATU, working in close collaboration with the ITU Radiocommunications sector, successfully concluded the exercise during the 2023 World Radiocommunications Conference (WRC-23).
Beyond the replacement of lost resources, ATU championed the fixing of a critical flaw in the original allocation system. When orbital slots were initially distributed, countries that failed to respond to ITU public notices risked having other entities encroach on their allocated positions. The new rules now require explicit consent from the slot holder before any such encroachment can occur, effectively preventing the loss of resources due to administrative oversight or capacity limitations. The effect was immediate and significant. Countries that might previously have lost their slots through administrative silence were now shielded, buying time to develop projects or enter partnerships without fear of quiet displacement.
“Resolution 559 led to the opening of new orbital blocks, benefiting 31 African countries and 14 non-African countries,” explains Eng Kezias.
Another significant breakthrough came through Resolution 170, which permits groups of countries to collaborate on satellite development rather than requiring individual national efforts. The Southern African Development Community (SADC) has actively engaged with this possibility, and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) is contemplating similar initiatives. Africa has tested this model before. The Regional African Satellite Communication Organisation (RASCOM) was created precisely to pool orbital slots and build shared satellite capacity. The lesson is clear: collective filings are possible, but they demand sustained political and financial commitment from member states.
The Path Forward
The experts acknowledge that African countries have historically struggled with the effective utilisation of their allocated spectrum and orbital positions. Only a handful of nations, including Nigeria, Egypt, Angola, and Algeria, have successfully launched and operate satellite systems for commercial services. However, the regulatory changes achieved through collective advocacy now provide multiple pathways for exploitation.
Countries can now exploit their orbital slots independently, through partnerships with private entities or other nations, by leasing the positions, or through collaborative regional initiatives. The ATU has developed supporting infrastructure, including a simplified handbook on defending orbital resources and periodic certification courses on international satellite coordination. These developments go beyond technical victories. They signal Africa’s growing expertise in navigating global telecommunications governance and its willingness to challenge systems that perpetuate historical disadvantages. The continent’s success in securing Resolution 559 demonstrates that coordinated advocacy can reshape international frameworks that seemed immutable.
Yet regulatory success alone cannot address the fundamental capacity and financial constraints that continue to limit African participation in satellite communications. The continent must build technical expertise, strengthen regional cooperation mechanisms, and ensure that partnerships with private entities serve national rather than purely commercial interests. The current trajectory suggests grounds for cautious optimism. The regulatory framework now provides more flexibility and protection for African orbital resources. Regional organisations have demonstrated their ability to coordinate collective action effectively. The question remains whether African nations can translate these advantages into operational satellite systems that serve continental development needs.
The battle for orbital slots is a broader theme in international governance: showing how global frameworks can either perpetuate or challenge existing inequalities, and whether collective action by developing nations can reshape systems designed in an earlier era. Africa’s experience in satellite governance may well serve as a template for addressing similar challenges in other domains where technological advancement outpaces institutional adaptation. However, telecommunications is only part of the story. As satellite applications expand into earth observation, navigation, and emerging technologies, orbital access becomes increasingly central to economic competitiveness and national security. Africa’s success in managing its orbital heritage will determine whether the continent participates as a full partner in the global space economy or remains dependent on services controlled by others.
The continent continues preparing for future regulatory battles, with WRC-27 representing the next critical milestone where African interests must be defended and advanced through coordinated advocacy. The regulatory changes achieved through Resolutions 559 and 170 provide a foundation, but ongoing vigilance and technical capacity building remain essential for protecting these gains.
Early preparations for WRC-27 suggest that Africa will focus on securing Ka-band allocations, which are becoming critical as C-band congestion intensifies. The ATU has also started training national regulators and engineers in the complex procedures of satellite coordination, aiming to ensure that African delegations arrive better prepared for the technical negotiations that will define orbital access in the next decade.
For now, the momentum lies with those who recognise that Africa’s space ambitions require both technical capability and political sophistication. The orbital slots are there to be exploited. The regulatory framework has been improved. While the challenge now is execution, it is fair to say that Africa is becoming an equal player in the “Billion-Dollar Satellite Game.”