SkyCommons Observatory Research
Around the world, authorisations for LEO satellite internet are being rushed past regulatory bodies—often by presidents and prime ministers in direct communication with Starlink.
Our research is about questioning the politics and processes—using open data and research methods—to examine the outcomes of this new method of connectivity. Is the public-interest being met? Do the marketing claims live up to scrutiny?
Our aim is for the SkyCommons Observatory to become a living research resource available to policy makers, journalists and civil society actors.
Above all, we want to help formulate a positive agenda for how to govern internet access that treats what happens in space as something that concerns everyone on Earth.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What is your research method?
- How did you calculate the public-interest score?
- What will you research next?
- Where did you get the LEO satellite data?
- How did you use AI for this project?
- How can I get involved?
What is your research method?
For this prototype, we worked with local researchers in six countries—Brazil, Fiji, Indonesia, Malaysia, Nigeria, and Ukraine—who each collected data about LEO satellite markets and politics in their countries. They collected data about the political players, the licensing, the costs and overall context for roll out to consumers. Each of the countries selected represents a distinct social and geographic context, including active conflict, and high and low internet connectivity rates. We then scored countries based on the key public-interest principles defined in the table below. Our findings will be shared and discussed through an open multistakeholder dialogue across several countries. Together, we can identify the patterns of the leading providers, common policy and regulatory pathways, as well as good policy and technical practices. In a context of rapid change with limited oversight, we want to help develop a positive agenda for satellite connectivity in the Global South.
How did you calculate the public-interest score?
We developed this score chart to map out what concerns us most about the current LEO satellite internet ecosystem, and to identify what we believe is needed for the public interest to be met. We based this on a combination of accumulated knowledge of best practices for internet connectivity along with challenges surfaced by country researchers. We invite scrutiny and feedback on this prototype in our discussion forum and in future meetings.
| Level of concern: | Minimal | Low | Moderate | High | Critical |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
| Competition | There is a real choice between LEO connectivity providers and consumers can switch easily. | There is some choice among providers, but one provider may be dominant. | Competition exists but alternatives are limited or access to them is difficult. | The market is close to monopolistic and consumers have little practical choice. | There is effectively no competition and just one provider |
| Affordability | Hardware and subscription costs are affordable for most people, and total cost of entry is not a significant barrier | The subscription costs are manageable for many people, but upfront hardware costs create a meaningful barrier. | Both hardware and subscription costs are affordable for urban middle-income users but unaffordable for rural low-income users. | Hardware costs are high and subscription costs a significant share of monthly income; the service is accessible only to a few in urban areas. | The subscription is not affordable for most people or pricing information is not credible. |
| Accessibility | LEO connectivity is available in both rural and urban areas with reliable quality. | LEO connectivity reaches most areas, but rural quality may be somewhat weaker than urban quality. | Rural areas have noticeably worse access or consistently lower service quality than urban areas. | Rural access is sporadic or unreliable and many rural users cannot depend on the service. | There is no credible evidence that rural areas can receive usable LEO connectivity. |
| Governance | Licensing and oversight are carried out through transparent and open processes with clear accountability. | Governance is mostly transparent, but some criteria or enforcement details are incomplete. | Governance shows mixed practice, and there are credible concerns about fairness or oversight. | Governance is unclear or opaque, and credible concerns about undue influence or weak accountability are common. | There is a high risk of corruption or undue influence and there is no credible open-process accountability. |
| Accountability | Authorization documents are published in full. There are binding compliance requirements with enforcement measures. | Key authorization documents are publicly available and some enforcement mechanisms exist. | Some authorization documents are publicly available but the enforcement is weak. | Authorization documents are unpublished, there are no compliance requirements or enforcement mechanisms. | Authorization documents are secret and there are no public oversight or enforcement mechanisms. |
| Overall |
What will you research next?
Our goal with this project is to encourage more oversight of the infrastructural, long term effects of satellite connectivity, investigating how meaningful connectivity in a country is affected when the entry of Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellites reshapes or preempts fiber infrastructure and disrupts the market and subsidy dynamics.
Subject to funding we hope to continue providing case study country research that is more comprehensive, covering the frameworks governing spectrum access, licensing, affordability, consumer protection and competition and how those are being shaped in real time. We would also like to see future stages of research disseminated nationally, regionally, and globally, as reliable evidence to increase the capacities of regulators to understand the long term implications of LEO satellite services for meaningful connectivity, resilience, digital equity and governance.
Where did you get the LEO satellite data?
Our LEO satellite dataset and visualisation combines three independent sources, each contributing a different piece of the picture:
- CelesTrak — orbital elements (altitude, inclination, eccentricity, mean motion, and other TLE-derived parameters) plus basic classification such as orbit and constellation type.
- Space-Track (the official U.S. Space Force satellite catalog, SATCAT) — launch date, international designator, operating status, country of registration, radar cross-section size, and launch site.
- Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) Satellite Database — ownership and operational detail such as operator, users, purpose, mass, and expected lifetime.
We merge the three datasets by matching each object's NORAD catalog ID, the unique identifier assigned to every tracked object in Earth orbit. If you are aware of new open datasets, please let us know. If you know of proprietary data sets covering the issue that should be open, also share them with us.
How did you use AI in this project?
We used Notebook LM and Claude Code for data gathering, data exploration, website development, and bug fixing in the satellite globe visualisation.
We used a satellite data import script created with Claude Code to access the public satellite data for the first prototype. Claude Code also helped us generate observable plot js charts during data exploration. Finally, Claude Code was used to implement a web worker, which allows the satellite animation to run in the background, improving efficiency.
How can I get involved?
We started a thread in the a thread in the Open Knowledge Forum for feedback on everything related to the SkyCommons project. Please join us there, and we look forward to your input. In September, we will have a community call, which we expect to be hosted regularly, to gather additional feedback and think about the future of the project together. Long term, we would love to see a community evolve around this project with regular meetings and updates about satellite internet connectivity around the world.
You can also email us on info@okfn.org and a team member will reply.