New Competition Above the Clouds: In-Flight Connectivity (IFC) – Anıl Akyol
Once considered a luxury add-on for passengers and a prestigious marketing tool for airlines, In-Flight Connectivity (IFC) has now evolved into a strategic necessity—becoming the backbone of operational efficiency and a new battleground for global telecommunications giants. As of 2024, this market has reached a valuation of USD 1.6 billion and is projected to climb to USD 2.87 billion within the next decade, driven by a compound annual growth rate (CAGR). This growth represents not only economic magnitude but also a convergence of normative domains such as space law, telecommunication law, national sovereignty, and cybersecurity.
This article, prepared for readers of Digital Life magazine, explores this complex ecosystem from multiple angles as technical infrastructure, legal frameworks, market competition, and Turkiye’s strategic moves. The new race in the skies spans from the physical tug-of-war between Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and Geostationary/Geosynchronous Orbit (GEO/GSO) to the legal tension between the 1944 Chicago Convention and the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, and from personal data protection to liability for cyberattacks. A key focus is how Turkiye’s national satellite operator Turksat strengthens its position through its own satellites and partnerships with Eutelsat/OneWeb, Chinasat, and Spacesail.
According to NBAA Connectivity Subcommittee data, reliable internet access for business jet users and commercial airline passengers is no longer a nice-to-have feature but a must-have for productivity. Airlines, in transforming their fleets into “connected aircraft,” effectively turn each plane into a flying data center and every passenger into a participant in cross-border data flows. This transformation challenges traditional boundaries of electronic communications law and makes the concept of a “digital sky” a legal reality.
The Battle of Orbits and Frequencies
The foundation of competition in the IFC market lies in the technical and economic struggle between orbital positions and frequency bands. This is not only about speed and capacity but also about cost, architecture, and efficiency. The market is split between traditional GEO giants and mega LEO constellations, with the future pointing toward hybrid models.
Geostationary and Geosynchronous Orbits (GEO and GSO) are located approximately 35,786 kilometres above the equator, where a satellite’s orbital motion is synchronized with Earth’s rotation, allowing it to remain fixed or quasi-fixed relative to a point on the ground. Satellites in these orbits constitute the backbone of national telecommunications infrastructures and have long served as the traditional foundation of aeronautical connectivity.
The most prominent advantage of GEO satellites is their ability to cover vast geographical areas with a single spacecraft while delivering very high capacity to specific regions, such as major aviation hubs or transoceanic flight corridors. Operators such as Viasat, Eutelsat, Intelsat, and Turksat provide uninterrupted service on intercontinental routes through GEO/GSO systems. These systems continue to be regarded as the industry standard in terms of capacity and reliability, particularly for long-haul flights, where the minimal tracking requirement of the aircraft antenna contributes significantly to connection stability.
In contrast to traditional wide-beam satellites, modern GEO spacecraft are based on High Throughput Satellite (HTS) technology. HTS architecture employs frequency reuse and multi-spot beam configurations to enable substantially more efficient use of spectrum resources.
- Ku-Band (12-18 GHz): Historically the most widely used band. It is more resilient to rain fade compared with Ka-band, yet it increasingly suffers from spectrum congestion.
- Ka-Bant (26.5-40 GHz): Operating at higher frequencies, it supports markedly higher data transmission rates. New-generation satellites such as Turksat 5B achieve gigabit-level throughput in this band. Ka-band also enables the use of smaller antennas, thereby reducing aerodynamic drag and fuel consumption on aircraft.
- Beyond Ku and Ka, the competitive dynamics are further shaped by the emergence of Q/V-band feeder links, the resilience of S-band architectures, the specialized role of X-band for government and dual-use aviation, and the long-term evolution toward EHF-based inter-satellite connectivity. These layers collectively demonstrate that the IFC market is not merely a contest between orbits, but a multifrequency, multi-architecture ecosystem in rapid transformation.
Low Earth Orbit (LEO) encompasses the region beginning at the minimum altitude at which an object can maintain orbital motion and extending through the first few thousand kilometres above Earth’s surface. Mega-constellation projects such as SpaceX’s Starlink, Eutelsat’s OneWeb, China’s Guowang, and Amazon’s Project Kuiper have generated both technological breakthroughs and regulatory concerns within this domain (see also my book Legal Issues Regarding Satellite Constellations in Space Law, Yetkin Publications, 2024).
The proximity of LEO satellites to Earth significantly reduces signal round-trip time (latency). While latency in geostationary (GEO) systems typically exceeds 600 milliseconds, LEO networks can lower this figure to the range of 30–50 milliseconds. Such a reduction enables seamless in-flight use of real-time, interactive services including video conferencing, cloud-based applications, and online gaming. Moreover, due to the orbital inclinations of LEO satellites, polar regions can be reliably served. This constitutes a major operational advantage for intercontinental flights traversing high-latitude Arctic routes.
Because LEO satellites move rapidly across the sky, completing an orbit roughly every 90 minutes, aircraft antennas must continually perform handovers from one satellite to the next. This requirement has rendered traditional mechanically steered antennas insufficient and has driven the development of Electronically Steerable Array (ESA) technologies. ESAs contain no moving mechanical parts, feature a flatter and more compact structure, and are capable of extremely rapid satellite switching, making them particularly suitable for dynamic aeronautical environments.
Market data clearly indicates that no single orbital architecture is capable of meeting all operational requirements. Forecasts based on a roughly decade-long horizon suggest a decisive shift toward hybrid solutions. Airlines are increasingly adopting multi-orbit strategies that combine the high-capacity bandwidth of GEO systems with the low latency performance of LEO constellations.
- Viasat–Inmarsat Merger: Representing one of the most significant consolidations in the sector, this merger can be viewed as an attempt to establish global dominance by integrating GEO and L-band capabilities under a single corporate structure. The UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) and the European Commission conducted detailed competition law assessments and ultimately approved the merger on the grounds that the IFC market remains dynamic and that emerging players such as Starlink exert sufficient competitive pressure.
- Eutelsat–OneWeb Combination: This merger brings together GEO operator Eutelsat and LEO operator OneWeb to deliver an integrated service offering for aviation customers. With Turksat also participating in this ecosystem, the initiative represents one of the most compelling examples of the hybrid multi-orbit model.
Table: Comparative Analysis of GEO and LEO Technologies in Aviation Applications
| Geostationary/Geosynchronous Orbit (GEO/GSO) | Low Earth Orbit (LEO) | Hybrid (Multi-Orbit) Models | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Orbital Altitude | ~35.786 km | 500 – 2000 km | Variable |
| Latency | High (~600ms+) | Very Low (<50ms) | Optimized |
| Coverage | Equatorial and Mid-Latitude Regions (Excluding Polar Areas) | Global (Including Polar Areas) | Fully Global |
| Capacity Distribution | Very High Concentration in Specific Regions (Hotspots) | Homogeneous Distribution | Dynamic |
| Antenna Requirements | Mechanical or Hybrid Antennas | Electronically Steerable Arrays (ESA) | Multi-Band / Multi-Modem |
| Capital Expenditure (CAPEX) | High Satellite Cost, Limited Number of Satellites | Low Unit Cost, Thousands of Satellites | Integrated Cost |
| Example | TURKSAT 6A | Starlink | Eutelsat-OneWeb |
Sovereignty and Regulatory Dimension
In-flight connectivity (IFC) represents one of the clearest examples of a technological domain in which innovation has outpaced the evolution of legal frameworks. While an aircraft in flight is subject to air law, the satellite enabling the connection operates within the domain of space law. This duality creates a complex legal matrix concerning frequency allocations, licensing procedures, and, ultimately, the exercise of sovereign rights.
The 1944 Chicago Convention which is widely regarded as the constitutional framework of aviation law grants states full and exclusive sovereignty over the airspace above their territory under Article 1. This confers upon states the authority to regulate, restrict, or prohibit all commercial activities, radio communications, and data flows within their airspace. By contrast, the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which governs activities in the realm in which satellites operate, prohibits national appropriation of outer space and denies any claim of sovereignty over it. Under the Treaty, outer space is characterized as the “province of all mankind,” a domain open to use by all states.
IFC services therefore facilitate the exchange of data between a legal domain not subject to sovereignty and one that is under complete sovereign control. This makes the concepts of landing rights and market access critically important. A satellite operator (e.g., Starlink) may be technically capable of projecting coverage over Türkiye; however, it cannot lawfully provide service to an aircraft within Turkish airspace without obtaining a licence from the competent national authority (BTK) acting under Türkiye’s sovereign regulatory powers. Absent such authorization, the transmission constitutes an unauthorized broadcast, giving the state the right to intervene.
Radio-frequency spectrum and satellite orbital positions are scarce natural resources, regulated by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), a specialized agency of the United Nations. As with all other areas of global electronic communications, the future of IFC is shaped by decisions adopted at the ITU’s World Radiocommunication Conferences (WRC).
Although ITU regulations are binding, their enforcement mechanisms are limited. Disputes regarding satellite operations are typically addressed through the Radio Regulations Board (RRB) or via bilateral negotiations. In regions affected by geopolitical tension, such as parts of Eastern Europe or the Middle East, intentional jamming or spoofing of GPS/GNSS signals has increasingly emerged as a hybrid warfare tactic, posing threats to civil aviation safety and exposing the limitations of ITU’s enforcement capabilities. ICAO, IMO, and ITU have issued joint declarations underscoring the risks that such interference poses to international civil aviation.
LEO ve GEO Arasındaki Enterferans Savaşı ve EPFD Limitleri
Article 22 of the ITU Radio Regulations sets the “Equivalent Power Flux-Density” (EPFD) limits which are the rules designed to prevent LEO and other non-GSO satellites from overpowering the signals of GEO satellites. These protections exist to ensure that the unique orbital position of GEO systems, along with the national communications infrastructures that rely on them, are not compromised by interference from rapidly expanding LEO constellations. At the 1st International Symposium on Space Law and Technologies held at Duzce University in February 2025, we presented a paper on this very issue together with Mr. Veli Yanikgonul from Turksat, highlighting the growing significance of the debate.
- The Challenge from Below: LEO operators such as SpaceX and Amazon argue that existing EPFD limits were written for an earlier technological era. They claim that these rules hold back the true potential of LEO networks and reduce overall spectral efficiency. As a result, they are pushing for a relaxation of these limits to be included on the agenda of WRC-27.
- The Pushback from Above: GEO operators including Turksat, Viasat, SES, and Eutelsat take the opposite position. Having invested billions of dollars and built decades-long customer ecosystems, they insist on maintaining strict protections. Their priority is ensuring that LEO systems do not compromise GEO signals, and they advocate firmly for preserving the current safeguard framework under Resolution 76.
In short, the LEO–GEO interference debate is no longer just a technical argument. It has become a geopolitical and economic tug-of-war over how the shared radio spectrum of outer space will be managed in the decades ahead.
ESIM Regulations (Earth Stations in Motion)
The antennas installed on aircraft are classified under ITU terminology as Earth Stations in Motion (ESIMs). At the WRC-23 Conference, Resolution 156 and Resolution 169 clarified the technical criteria that aviation ESIMs must comply with when operating in the Ka-band (27.5–30 GHz and 17.7–20.2 GHz).
These decisions define the limits for off-axis e.i.r.p. (the power emitted outside the main beam of the antenna) to ensure that ESIM operations do not interfere with the terrestrial services of neighboring countries (such as 5G networks) or with other satellite systems.
In addition, the resolutions introduced a requirement for operators to designate a Point of Contact so that, in the event of interference, the responsible party can be quickly identified and appropriate corrective measures can be taken.
Privacy, Security, and Liability Frameworks
The connectivity we casually describe as “above the clouds” is not merely a technical stream of data; it may also involve the flow of personal information, commercial secrets, and potential cyber threats. This creates significant challenges for data protection and cybersecurity law. The question of jurisdiction over data processed during an international flight, for example, is a genuine legal maze. According to IATA, more than 160 countries have their own data protection laws, many of which overlap or conflict.
Consider an Istanbul–Los Angeles flight: if a German passenger uses in-flight Wi-Fi and their data is processed or transmitted, that data is still protected by the GDPR due to its extraterritorial scope, even if the satellite operator is based in the United Kingdom. Both Turkish Airlines, as the carrier, and the satellite operator providing the IFC service may be subject to severe penalties. At the same time, THY qualifies as a “data controller” under Türkiye’s KVKK legislation. If the aircraft enters the airspace of countries such as Russia or China, their data-localization rules may, at least in theory, impose additional technical obligations that are nearly impossible to comply with in practice.
Liability rules offer a different layer of complexity. The Montreal Convention, which governs carrier liability in international air transport, provides compensation only in cases of “bodily injury” resulting from an “accident.” A cyberattack leading to the theft of a passenger’s credit card information, identity fraud, or even severe “digital distress” does not fall within the Convention’s traditional definition of bodily injury. U.S. courts (for example, Moore v. British Airways) and much of the international legal scholarship lean toward the conclusion that purely psychological or economic losses are not compensable under the Convention. As a result, passengers remain largely unprotected against “digital harms.”
Meanwhile, ICAO, EASA, and the FAA are developing new standards for aviation cybersecurity. The FAA’s special conditions for new aircraft designs require onboard networks to be isolated from unauthorized access, whether external or internal. EASA’s AMC 20-42 standard imposes similar protective objectives. Yet the cybersecurity posture of existing fleets, and the certification processes for software updates, remains a major point of debate and an ongoing regulatory challenge.
Latest Developments in Türkiye
Türkiye, through Turksat, is not a passive consumer in the global IFC market but increasingly positions itself as an active game-shaper. Its strategy is built on a hybrid model that blends national infrastructure (the Turksat satellite fleet) with international partnerships (Eutelsat/OneWeb, Chinasat, Spacesail, and others).
The most immediate and tangible outcome of these partnerships is Turkish Airlines’ (THY) digital transformation agenda. Türksat’s Director General, Ahmet Hamdi Atalay, has repeatedly emphasized that the primary goal of these collaborations is to provide seamless, worldwide internet access on THY and AJet aircraft.
THY, in its effort to differentiate the passenger experience, has adopted a fleet-wide policy of offering free and unlimited messaging/internet services.
- Capacity Challenge and Its Solution: On a single wide-body aircraft (such as a Boeing 777 or Airbus A350), dozens of passengers streaming video or accessing the internet simultaneously require substantial bandwidth. Traditional GEO satellites may struggle to support this level of demand in regions with heavy air traffic. Spacesail’s LEO architecture aims to overcome this bottleneck by delivering significantly higher per-aircraft capacity.
- Coverage Complementarity: THY holds the distinction of being “the airline flying to the most countries in the world”. No matter how capable Türksat 6A or earlier satellites may be, their coverage footprint is geographically limited. For routes in South America, the Far East, and Oceania, continuous internet connectivity appears achievable through the combined use of Chinasat (Asia-Pacific GEO) and Spacesail (global LEO).
Another important development is the directive issued by Türkiye’s Directorate General of Civil Aviation (SHGM). The “Cybersecurity Instruction for Civil Aviation Enterprises” (SHT-SIBER) requires airline operators (Group 1) to establish Corporate Cyber Incident Response Teams (SOME). In parallel, Türkiye’s new Cybersecurity Law was enacted this year, further strengthening the regulatory framework.
Conclusion
As the IFC market evolves from a passenger luxury into an essential component of airline operations, competition in the sector is no longer defined solely by bandwidth. Instead, it is increasingly shaped by multi-orbit strategies and hybrid network architectures. Operators capable of combining the wide-area coverage of GEO satellites with the low-latency advantages of LEO constellations will emerge as the true game-changers in this rapidly intensifying race.
Yet at this altitude where technology moves faster than law, critical regulatory questions remain unresolved: spectrum efficiency, data security, cross-border jurisdictional conflicts, and the contours of cyber sovereignty all demand coherent solutions. In such a dynamic global market, the strategic initiatives pursued by actors like Turksat serve as important examples of a multipolar balance that helps prevent sectoral monopolization.
Ultimately, the future of the sky will belong not only to those who deliver the fastest connectivity, but to those who can place these digital frontiers under robust legal and regulatory protection.
Contact: koc@hedefkoc.com
