Intelligence. Accountability. Analysis.
Est. 2022 · Washington, D.C.
The Congressional Times
★★★
We follow the data, not the narrative
◆ Live Intelligence
Loading...
Analysis Loading today's analysis...
federal-policy

SpaceX Seeks Access to 80,000 U.S. Cell Sites for Ground Network

SpaceX Seeks Access to 80,000 U.S. Cell Sites for Ground Network

If finalized, the deal would position SpaceX's Starlink service to compete directly with established U.S. Wireless carriers by combining satellite coverage with terrestrial infrastructure, a...

Gab-E Intelligence Platform · October 22, 2026

SpaceX is in active negotiations to access a minimum of 80,000 cell sites across the United States, according to a Bloomberg report published October 22, 2026. The company is in discussions with at least one major cellular infrastructure company to reach that threshold, according to people familiar with the matter cited by Bloomberg. The names of the infrastructure partners and the financial terms of any potential agreement were not disclosed in the report.

The scale of the proposed network access is significant in the context of U.S. Wireless infrastructure. According to the Federal Communications Commission's 2024 Broadband Data Collection, the United States has approximately 418,000 cell sites registered nationwide. Access to 80,000 sites would represent roughly 19 percent of total U.S. Cell site infrastructure.

SpaceX already operates the Starlink satellite broadband service, which as of its most recent public disclosure to the FCC held authorization to operate a constellation of thousands of low-earth-orbit satellites providing broadband to residential and commercial customers across the country. Adding terrestrial cell site access would allow SpaceX to offer a hybrid satellite-to-cellular product, potentially reaching customers in areas where either satellite or ground-based coverage alone is insufficient.

The FCC regulates both satellite communications and terrestrial wireless spectrum. Any agreement that involves licensed spectrum sharing or transfer would require FCC approval or notification depending on the specific regulatory classification of the arrangement. Whether the reported talks involve licensed spectrum, tower co-location agreements, or other infrastructure-sharing mechanisms is not stated in the Bloomberg report. An FCC filing, if required, would be the public record that would clarify the structure of any final deal.

SpaceX has an existing regulatory and political profile in Washington. The company has registered lobbying activity disclosed through the Senate Office of Public Records under the Lobbying Disclosure Act. SpaceX's LDA filings list federal telecommunications policy and FCC proceedings among its lobbying issue areas. The dollar amounts of those filings are available in the public LDA database maintained at lda.senate.gov.

The reported talks come at a moment when SpaceX's relationship with federal agencies is already under scrutiny across multiple dimensions. The company holds contracts with NASA, the Department of Defense, and other federal entities, the values of which are publicly listed in USASpending.gov records. Those existing federal relationships could become a consideration for regulators evaluating any expansion of SpaceX's domestic telecommunications footprint.

For context on the competitive landscape, the three largest U.S. Wireless carriers by subscriber count are Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile, each of which owns or leases tens of thousands of cell sites. Cell tower infrastructure companies, including American Tower Corporation, Crown Castle, and SBA Communications, collectively manage the majority of U.S. Tower assets and are the most likely counterparties in the type of negotiation Bloomberg described, though Bloomberg did not name any specific company.

The proposed network also intersects with federal universal service and rural broadband policy. The FCC administers the Universal Service Fund, which includes programs such as the Enhanced Alternative Connect America Cost Model and the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund, both of which have allocated funding to SpaceX's Starlink service for rural broadband deployment. Whether a terrestrial cell site network would affect SpaceX's eligibility or obligations under those programs is not addressed in the Bloomberg report and would depend on FCC interpretation of its own program rules.

From a congressional perspective, the Senate Commerce Committee and the House Energy and Commerce Committee both hold jurisdiction over FCC activities and telecommunications policy. Neither committee has issued a public statement regarding the reported SpaceX negotiations as of October 22, 2026.

Several material facts remain unknown. The identity of the cellular infrastructure company or companies in talks with SpaceX has not been publicly disclosed. The financial terms, spectrum arrangements, and timeline of any potential agreement are not part of the public record. Whether SpaceX has filed or intends to file any application with the FCC in connection with this network has not been confirmed. A public FCC application, an LDA lobbying disclosure update, or a press release from an infrastructure partner would be the documents most likely to fill those gaps.

Today's Analysis
Loading...
★
Latest Intelligence
Congressional Intelligence
Loading...
★
Financial Intelligence
Loading...
★
Geopolitical Intelligence
Loading...
★
Follow the MoneyGab-E Political Intelligence Investigation
Loading...
Opinion & Analysis
Loading...
Archive
Loading...
About
Our Mission

We Follow the Data, Not the Narrative

The Congressional Times exists because public records are public — and the analysis built from them should not be exclusive to those who can afford $60,000-a-year intelligence subscriptions.

Every story published in The Congressional Times is sourced to a verifiable public record: a court filing, a Senate lobbying disclosure, an FEC contribution record, a USASpending contract, or a verified news report. We state our sources inline. We show our math. When we are wrong, we say so publicly.

We do not editorialize in news coverage. We do not use loaded language. Both political parties are held to identical standards.

The Follow the Money investigations are the heart of this publication. Each begins with Gab-E Political Intelligence running against 10+ million government records before a single word of editorial is written.

Powered by Gab-E, an elite global intelligence platform built to democratize political and financial intelligence.

Editorial Policy
Editorial Standards & Corrections Policy

How We Source, Verify, and Correct Our Work

Every factual claim in a Congressional Times story is checked against a primary source: a government filing, a court record, a direct quote, before publication. When a claim can't be verified or doesn't hold up as originally reported, we drop it or reframe it. We do not publish disputed claims as settled fact.

When we get it wrong: we correct the story directly, note the correction and date at the bottom of the piece, and update the record. We do not quietly edit and move on.

Bylines: stories with a named byline are written and fact-checked by that person. Stories without a byline are sourced from Gab-E Political Intelligence, our automated research platform, and are labeled as such.

Ownership: The Congressional Times is published by Gab-E Holdings LLC. Gab-E, our intelligence platform, powers our sourcing and research pipeline.

Corrections or concerns: support@gab-e.com