Thailand’s NBTC vs. ITU: Navigating Telecom Rules with a Local Twist

Thailand Telecommunications: Does the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission align with the International Telecommunications Union Guidelines?

Although the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC) (see https://fosrlaw.com/2021/thailands-telecommunications-business-act/) considers the guidelines of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), it often aligns with these guidelines. However, this is not always true. For example, while the NBTC references the ITU Table of Frequency Allocations, it does not strictly adhere to those allocations. 

This is evidenced in the:

NBTC Notification: Master Plan on Frequency Allocation (ฉบับที่ 2 พ.ศ. 2563 / 2020 Revision)

This notification explicitly states that:

“The NBTC may deviate from the ITU’s frequency allocation table where necessary, in accordance with national interest, public benefit, security, or to accommodate market needs.”


Key NBTC Divergences from ITU

  1. Custom Band Designations
    • The NBTC reclassifies certain frequency bands for different services than those prescribed by the ITU, especially for mobile broadband and digital TV.
    • Example: Portions of the C-band and Ku-band are reallocated or prioritized for terrestrial 5G or government use, rather than satellite broadcasting.
  2. Non-harmonized Spectrum for 5G
    • Thailand opened parts of the 700 MHz and 26 GHz bands for 5G earlier than some ITU harmonization timelines, based on local auction and rollout strategies.
  3. Government Reserve Bands
    • Some frequency ranges are reserved exclusively for government or military use, regardless of ITU recommendations.
  4. Use of “National Interest” Clauses
    • The NBTC holds the legal authority, as stated in the Frequency Allocation Act B.E. 2553 (2010), to override ITU recommendations in cases related to national security, disaster response, or infrastructure projects.

Legal Basis for ITU / NBTC Divergence

This flexibility is provided by:

  • Section 27(3) of the Frequency Allocation Act, which permits the NBTC to designate spectrum in a manner that “benefits the public and national interest”.
  • NBTC Master Plan (2020 update): formally notes that ITU guidelines are advisory rather than binding, and Thailand reserves the right to modify allocations to prioritize domestic needs.

Conclusion

The NBTC does not strictly follow the ITU National Table of Frequency Allocations.

Instead, it maintains a Thai-specific NTFA, which is derived from ITU guidance but adapted through legal authority to meet national needs. This indicates:

  • ITU serves as a framework, not a rulebook.
  • Operators must always refer to NBTC’s official National Table of Frequency Allocation and Master Plan, not just ITU references, when planning satellite, mobile, or broadcasting services.

About the Authors: 

Authors

  • Naytiwut Jamallsawat is a partner at Formichella & Sritawat and heads the firm’s Corporate and Regulatory practice. He advises multinational and Thai clients on complex regulatory and transactional matters, with particular emphasis on telecommunications, satellite services, media, data privacy, cybersecurity, energy, and foreign investment. His work includes market-entry structuring, licensing and regulatory compliance, regulated transactions, and conventional and renewable energy projects.
    Naytiwut is ranked Band 2 for TMT by Chambers Asia-Pacific and a Leading Partner for TMT by The Legal 500. He holds an LL.B. from Chulalongkorn University and LL.M. degrees from the University of Kent and the University of Dundee.

  • John Formichella

    John Formichella is a founding partner of Formichella & Sritawat and leads the firm’s Technology, Media, and Telecommunications (TMT) group. He has more than 27 years of telecommunications and technology experience across Asia, including serving as Vice President and General Counsel of a NASDAQ-listed telecommunications company. His work focuses on international market-entry strategy, telecommunications infrastructure, spectrum policy, and cross-border TMT developments, working alongside the firm’s Thai-licensed lawyers on matters involving Thailand. Earlier in his career, he contributed to work concerning the telecommunications provisions of the proposed United States-Thailand Free Trade Agreement. He is admitted to practice law in Washington, D.C.