In its 2023 report, the digital rights group Access Now documented 283 internet shutdowns across 39 countries. While this figure includes targeted platform blocking rather than just total national blackouts, it highlights a stark reality: various state actors and conflicting parties hold the ultimate trump card. They can simply issue administrative orders to local telecom operators to restrict routing or suspend connectivity.

Web3 developers have spent years bulletproofing consensus mechanisms and peer-to-peer storage. Yet, if the physical fiber-optic cables belong to a state monopoly, software encryption cannot protect network availability. Furthermore, even when physical lines remain active, governments can compel ISPs to execute software-level blocks like SNI (Server Name Indication) filtering. Whether through severing physical connections or enforcing digital filters at the ISP level, access to even the most decentralized dApp becomes severely restricted for average users.

This physical bottleneck highlights the core motivation behind Decentralized Physical Infrastructure Networks (DePIN). Projects in the satellite space, including Spacecoin, are engineering architectures to decouple network access from terrestrial telecoms. However, bypassing legacy ISPs is not an absolute cure for censorship—it merely shifts the battleground from software firewalls to hardware logistics.

The Corporate Chokepoint of Centralized Satellites

Many assume that orbital networks bypass terrestrial laws entirely, but Starlink’s recent legal battle in Brazil illustrates the limitations of centralized physical infrastructure.

After the Brazilian Supreme Court ordered X (formerly Twitter) blocked, Starlink initially refused to comply. After Justice Alexandre de Moraes froze Starlink's local accounts over potential liability for fines owed by X, Starlink notified the telecom regulator that it would comply with the court's blocking order. While Starlink publicly maintained that the asset freeze was illegal, this chronological sequence of events underscores how operating as a centralized corporate entity with a vulnerable financial footprint creates distinct compliance chokepoints.

Web3 infrastructure projects aim to solve this by separating the coordination protocol from physical data routing. However, it is crucial to distinguish between protocol decentralization and physical hardware ownership. According to deployment updates, Spacecoin's CTC-0 nanosatellite launched in December 2024, followed by three CTC-1 satellites in November 2025. These satellites are physically owned and operated by a traditional corporate entity (Space Telecommunications Inc.).

The Spacecoin protocol does not decentralize the physical satellite ownership. Instead, its technical roadmap outlines a separation of capabilities. According to Spacecoin's official updates, its protocol is designed to manage authorization, authentication, and accounting across the decentralized infrastructure, while smart contracts and crypto payments support bandwidth coordination. However, the extent to which these capabilities are operational in the deployed satellite network remains distinct from the protocol's stated design.

On October 1, 2025, Spacecoin claimed a successful demonstration using its CTC-0 satellite to transmit secured data over 7,000 kilometers between Chile and the Azores. While Spacecoin has since announced regional connectivity pilots and commercial partnerships in 2026, a globally resilient, independently accessible satellite internet service remains a different milestone from its initial proofs of concept.

How States Can Still Choke Orbital Networks

Treating orbital networks as an instant bypass for censorship ignores how physical infrastructure is regulated. Moving the internet to an orbital mesh introduces distinct vectors for state control.

1. The Reality of Spectrum Regulation

Space is borderless, but RF (Radio Frequency) spectrum is strictly policed. Transmitting high-speed data to orbit typically involves licensed spectrum, such as Ku, Ka, L, or S bands. Legally utilizing these frequencies requires two distinct regulatory processes: international coordination through the ITU for frequency assignments and orbital positions—including procedures intended to prevent harmful interference—and separate national authorizations granted by local communications regulators within their jurisdictions. If a decentralized project operates outside authorized spectrum allocations or exceeds the technical limits applicable to license-exempt ISM bands, state actors may treat the transmissions as unlawful. Governments do not necessarily need to attack the blockchain; they can confiscate unauthorized hardware or, in specific scenarios, attempt to deploy localized radio jamming equipment to disrupt targeted frequencies.

While downloading data via a passive receiver can sometimes go unnoticed, two-way satellite internet requires user terminals to transmit data back to orbit. These uplink transmissions emit RF signatures that, with specialized equipment, can potentially be detected and localized. Regimes can outlaw the import and possession of unauthorized satellite terminals. If customs agencies seize the hardware at the border, it can severely restrict network deployment before a single node comes online.

3. Capital and Supply Chain Consolidation

Launching nanosatellites and manufacturing custom RF receivers requires massive upfront capital. If a decentralized network relies on a small number of aerospace launch providers or hardware manufacturers to deploy its infrastructure, those companies become the new chokepoints. A state actor merely needs to apply regulatory pressure on the hardware manufacturers or impose import restrictions to cripple the network's expansion.

Changing the Price of Suppression

Decentralized physical infrastructure does not erase state control. Instead, it forces a shift in the logistics of executing it.

Today, restricting internet access is a relatively straightforward administrative task that relies on legal mandates enforced through local regulators, government agencies, and compliant telecom operators. Censoring a blockchain-coordinated satellite network, however, expands the required enforcement toolkit. It creates a scenario where a state might be forced to strictly police domestic hardware supply chains and import channels, actively track localized RF uplinks, or seize physical terminals.

A decentralized physical internet does not stop governments from using inexpensive software blocks; rather, it introduces a reality where regimes may have to supplement digital firewalls with highly visible, financially exhausting physical enforcement.

References: