Recent reporting that Thailand will not permit a wholly foreign-owned low Earth orbit (“LEO”) satellite telecommunications operation has focused attention on the country’s foreign ownership rules. The issue has also entered Thailand’s trade discussions with the United States, with Vice Commerce Minister Kirida Bhaopichitr describing LEO telecommunications as a sovereignty issue.
That has produced an understandable shorthand: Thailand will not allow 100% foreign ownership of a LEO telecommunications business.
The shorthand is incomplete.
Thailand’s telecommunications framework does not require every function involved in delivering a satellite service to sit within one company. The foreign satellite operator, the Thai entity authorized to use the foreign satellite capacity, the licensed network operator and the company selling telecommunications services to customers can perform different functions under different licenses and authorizations.
For market entrants, the ownership percentage therefore tells only part of the story. The regulatory consequences depend on what the company actually proposes to do.
Thailand Separates the Regulated Functions
Satellite connectivity may appear to the customer as a single service, but several regulated layers can sit behind it.
At the top is the foreign satellite operator, which owns and operates the constellation. Use of foreign satellite capacity in Thailand is then subject to the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (“NBTC”) framework governing foreign satellite capacity and landing rights.
Clause 4 of the current NBTC Notification is important in this respect. It provides that a telecommunications or broadcasting operator, or another person wishing to use foreign satellite transponder capacity, must obtain that capacity through a licensee authorized under the Notification, subject to specified exceptions.
The rule therefore contemplates foreign satellite capacity entering the Thai regulatory structure through an authorized local operator before supporting services are provided further downstream.
In simplified form, the structure can look like this:
Foreign satellite operator → Thai landing-rights/network operator → downstream telecommunications provider → customer
Each participant may have a different regulatory role.
A network operator provides the underlying telecommunications capacity. A non-facilities-based operator can acquire telecommunications service from another licensed operator and resell it to customers in its own name.
FOSR has previously discussed this distinction in Foreign Telcos and Type I Licensing in Thailand. A Type I operator does not own its own telecommunications network, but it can market, contract for and provide telecommunications services using capacity supplied by an appropriately licensed network operator.
That distinction is central to the current LEO discussion.
Why 100% Ownership Is the Wrong Measure
Foreign ownership becomes critical where the foreign investor wants to own or operate regulated telecommunications infrastructure in Thailand.
The Telecommunications Business Act distinguishes non-facilities-based services from activities involving ownership and operation of telecommunications networks. Facilities-based operators are subject to ownership and regulatory requirements that do not apply in the same way to a Type I reseller.
The foreign-satellite regime adds another layer. Under the existing framework, the landing-rights licensee must comply with the NBTC’s requirements governing use of foreign satellite capacity and, under the conventional model, maintain the prescribed satellite gateway or uplink arrangements in Thailand.
That is a network function. It is materially different from selling a telecommunications service to customers.
A downstream Type I operator does not own or operate the underlying network. It purchases telecommunications capacity or service from the licensed network operator and resells the service in its own name. The same facilities-based versus non-facilities-based distinction exists elsewhere in Thailand’s telecommunications framework and is discussed in FOSR’s article on FBA Reform and Telecommunications Infrastructure.
The consequence is straightforward. A restriction on foreign ownership of the facilities-based operator does not automatically determine who may participate elsewhere in the service chain.
A wholly foreign-owned Type I reseller must still satisfy the Foreign Business Act position applicable to its activities, including any licensing requirement or available exemption. That is a separate foreign-business question. It should not be confused with the ownership restrictions applying to facilities-based telecommunications operators.
The distinction matters because the current public debate often treats the ownership of the network layer as though it determines ownership throughout the entire commercial structure.
It does not.
D2D Makes the Distinction Easier to See
Direct-to-Device (“D2D”) satellite services make the functional separation particularly visible.
With D2D, a compatible handset or other device communicates directly with the satellite system rather than relying on the conventional terrestrial path between the device and a mobile base station. The technical architecture changes, but the Thai regulatory framework still has to allocate responsibility for the activities occurring within its jurisdiction.
The foreign constellation can remain owned and operated outside Thailand. Within Thailand, the relevant questions concern use of foreign satellite capacity, telecommunications service provision, spectrum and radiocommunication requirements, customer relationships and other regulated functions.
There is no need for one Thai company to own the satellites, operate every technical component and sell the service to the end user merely because those activities form part of one commercial offering.
FOSR examined this point in Unregulated by Name, Regulated in Substance: Direct-to-Device Satellite in Thailand. The absence of a license category specifically called “D2D” does not place the technology outside Thailand’s existing telecommunications framework. The analysis follows the functions being performed and the role assigned to each participant.
The same approach applies to ownership. A foreign constellation operator need not control the entire Thai license stack. What matters is whether the Thai-regulated functions sit with entities holding the licenses and authorizations required for them.
Thailand Is Still Developing a Route for Foreign Satellite Services
The distinction between ownership and market access is also reflected in current policy developments.
At the same time that Thailand has reiterated its objection to a wholly foreign-owned LEO telecommunications operation, the government has continued work on a framework through which foreign satellite operators can provide services in Thailand.
Recent Thai reporting states that the National Space Policy Committee is advancing a landing-rights framework intended to accommodate foreign satellite services while preserving Thai regulatory oversight. The Committee’s August 17 meeting formed part of a broader effort to develop Thailand’s space economy and update the rules governing foreign satellite participation.
Those developments help explain the government’s position.
Thailand can retain ownership restrictions over particular categories of regulated telecommunications infrastructure while allowing foreign satellite systems to supply capacity and services into the Thai market. The landing-rights framework exists precisely because the foreign satellite operator and the domestic regulated operator do not have to be the same entity.
FOSR has examined that framework in more detail in Foreign Satellite Landing in Thailand.
Seen in that context, the current policy is narrower than some of the headlines suggest. Thailand is preserving a particular regulatory and ownership structure for the domestic network layer while continuing to develop the mechanisms through which foreign satellite systems may serve the market.
Thailand has rejected one ownership model. It has not rejected the service.
What Market Entrants Should Actually Examine
For a foreign LEO operator considering Thailand, the analysis should start with the operating model.
The first issue is where the foreign satellite capacity enters the Thai regulatory structure and which entity holds the relevant landing rights and network authority. From there, the parties need to determine who buys the underlying telecommunications service, who contracts with the customer, and whether the customer-facing entity owns a network or operates on a non-facilities-based basis.
The contractual structure should reflect that allocation. So should the licenses.
The final question is whether each participant actually performs the role assigned to it. A Thai landing-rights or network operator cannot simply lend its regulatory status while the regulated function is performed elsewhere.
Once those functions are mapped, the ownership analysis becomes much clearer.
For LEO operators assessing Thailand, 100% foreign ownership is therefore the wrong measure of market access. The more useful inquiry is how the service is structured, which entity performs each regulated function, and whether that entity is legally qualified to do so.
Disclaimer
This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The application of Thai telecommunications, satellite, foreign investment, and related regulations depends on the particular service, technical architecture, and operating structure. Specific legal advice should be obtained before implementing any market-entry structure.
© 2026 Formichella & Sritawat Attorneys at Law
