Summary Bullets:

• Fast-growing use of agentic AIs within organizations has triggered agentic orchestration/governance prioritization among platform providers

• Controversy remains over two distinct approaches to orchestration: control plane construct or orchestration frameworks

Enterprises deploying AI in 2026 are turning their attention from deployment of agentic AIs to the management of growing numbers of agents being released across organizations. Companies are struggling with how to manage the hundreds or thousands of individual agents built within their organizations–agents built by different teams, running on different platforms, with inconsistent security and governance. This is problematic, considering most organizations lack visibility into agent inventory, purpose, and authorization.

The practice of addressing agentic orchestration at the control plane platform layer is moving to the forefront of the conversation, spurred by the lack of visibility, security, and management associated with agentic sprawl. Control planes sit above the agent layer, governing, observing, and enforcing policy across agents regardless of where they originated. The advantage is in their ability to ensure identity and security enforcement and enable cross-vendor interoperability regardless of what framework they use for coordinating agents. This approach contrasts with orchestration frameworks which are features of agentic solutions that simply coordinate agents.

GlobalData’s research captures the scale of the agentic market, and therefore the urgency of the situation. The report “Market Opportunity Forecasts to 2029: Agentic AI” puts the global agentic AI market at a 50.6% CAGR for 2024–2029, reaching $45.4 billion by 2029, driven by enterprise demand for autonomous decision-making, multi-agent orchestration, and scalable cloud-native AI infrastructure. GlobalData reports that early adopters are even replacing traditional robotic process automation (RPA) with goal-driven, self-adapting agent systems — and that the shift from pilots to production-grade systems is accelerating.

Vendor Strategies

A control plane market is emerging, positioned as framework-agnostic. Leading AI and platform providers are announcing strategies and solutions to address this evolving branch of agent orchestration:

• IBM is positioning the next generation of watsonx Orchestrate as an agentic control plane for the multi-agent era. It supports IBM-native agents alongside LangGraph, Langflow, and agents built on the open A2A protocol, with consistent policy enforcement.

• Salesforce has built its orchestration strategy on MuleSoft’s Agent Fabric. This has been helped by its ability to consolidate multiple data sources into a single source following Salesforce’s Informatica acquisition last November. A trust and data security layer serves as the key component of its new Agent Fabric control plane.

• ServiceNow is featuring its AI Control Tower as the governance layer spanning every AI agent, model, and action running across the enterprise, regardless of which vendor built them. The company is repositioning from being a workflow automation vendor to an enterprise AI operating system, shored up by its recent acquisition of IT/OT security provider Armis, which leans heavily into its new AI Control Tower solution.

• Boomi’s control plane approach is addressed via the Boomi Enterprise Platform, which sits between disparate systems, agents, frontier models, and data sources. Boomi’s acquisition of Lunar.dev, AI/MCP gateway, plays heavily into its strategy as the prompt routing layer for governing MCP servers and access.

Yet controversy over how to govern the fast-growing agentic AI market segment remains. Some rival platform providers are taking a different tact and keeping agentic orchestration within the confines of their own platforms and product ecosystems. They are not positioned as supporting cross-vendor governance layers in the same way as competitors:

• Microsoft has been reshaping Copilot Studio from an agent-building tool into an agent governance layer. It describes the new governance features as having centralized policy enforcement, agent lifecycle oversight, and cross-ecosystem governance spanning Microsoft 365 and partner-built agents. However, Microsoft’s architecture is embedded in and distributed across its popular platforms, including Power Platform and Azure, versus a discrete, specific control plane layer that sits above disparate agents.

• Oracle OCI’s strategy for management and governance also currently bypasses a control plane architectural model and remains within the confines of its own ecosystem. OCI Enterprise AI embeds agentic orchestration natively as a feature across the Oracle technology layers rather than positioning a discrete governance layer above them. Enterprise AI’s three integration layers are: Enterprise AI Models, Enterprise AI Agents, and Enterprise AI Governance.

Summary
The concept of a control plane architecture construct is still being defined by the market. Vendors operating in the agentic orchestration space have varying opinions and product strategies. Pioneering activities and offerings suggest this type of AI operating system will quickly become the fundamental layer for agentic AI. Operational guardrails are critical for bringing to production environments that are built around ambitious agentic AI projects.

It is worth noting that players in this market segment have generally adopted or endorsed MCP and A2A as the underlying interoperability layer, serving as the common protocol layer, while the control planes above it remain proprietary and competitive. Therefore, much of the agentic AI battle will be won or lost according to who controls the management, orchestration, and governance of disparate agents across enterprise environments.

For more on this topic and other cloud trends including escalating cloud costs, please see Cloud Watch Q2 2026: Reassessing On-Demand Economics in the Era of Escalating Cloud Costs

The post Lack of AI Agent Oversight Brings Dueling Approaches appeared first on IT Connection.

Summary Bullets:

• The EU’s MSS 2 GHz proposal strengthens regulation, security, and competition, but implementation through 2027–2029 will be phased, not immediate.
• Small spectrum block sizes favor IoT, messaging, emergency services; large-bandwidth applications face bottlenecks.

When the European Commission unveiled its plan late last month to reassign the 2 GHz mobile satellite service (MSS) spectrum at EU-level, it initiated more than a regulatory proposal. With the dust now settled on the announcement, it is clear that this represents a geopolitical and commercial realignment. Signals in the market suggest the framework is firming up around core principles: sovereignty, security, restricted eligibility, spectrum caps, and wholesale access. But beneath those pillars lies a battlefield of interests that will define not just who wins licenses, but which services Europe values the most – IoT or in-flight broadband, messaging or full-fledged device-to-device (D2D) connectivity.

Implementation is no longer a reactive guesswork exercise; it is becoming a long game. While the proposal’s two-year incumbency extension mitigates the cliff edge in May 2027 (when existing licenses expire), it also reveals the commission’s understanding: that legislative processes, spectrum allocation, compliance criteria, and defining “EU provider” are unlikely to be resolved by that deadline. Toward end-2027 and into 2028, observers should expect spectrum awards, provisional licenses, and a cascade of certification, rollouts, and enforcement activities stretching well into 2029. This also coincides with ITU’s WRC-27 conference, in which key spectrum allocations – including MSS – and updates to radio regulations are expected to be finalized and will offer clarity on the international trajectory of spectrum allocations for MSS.

Commercial implications are now emerging with greater clarity. The planned 30 MHz paired allocation in 5 + 5 MHz blocks is modest; sufficient for low-bandwidth IoT, messaging, and emergency services, yet wholly inadequate for high-throughput, low-latency use cases such as in-flight broadband or widespread D2D applications. Telcos and satellite operators should be preparing for trade-offs: either focus on niche verticals where limited spectrum suffices, or scale via partnerships, capacity leasing, or wholesale models. The missing “IoT reservation” is not a bug; rather, it is a structural risk: IoT may get parceled out only where extra capacity exists, and only if stakeholders ensure selection criteria explicitly to protect it. D2D has won primacy as per the initial tone of the Commission in its press release.

Definitions will matter, especially in the case of the term “EU Provider,” which is morphing into a fulcrum for competition. The 2 GHz is currently occupied by two US firms: Viasat for European inflight connectivity, and EchoStar for IoT and mobile connectivity. Post-May 2027, such entities will need to operate through European-owned subsidiaries or JVs. AST SpaceMobile has already localized itself via Satellite Connect Europe and is expected to qualify. But expectation of strict control over decision-making, governance, and spectrum transfer will push non-EU-based providers – SpaceX (which owns EchoStar spectrum), Viasat, and Amazon Leo – to engineer complex JV structures or seek regulatory exemption. In the case of the latter, GlobalData expects both litigation and political pressure from incumbents based in the US, particularly via the US government or trade bodies, and especially within the incumbent Trump administration window. Retaliation against European satcos is also a possibility, though it is unlikely that the bloc will collectively budge.

For telcos, the strategic moment is now. Whether to bid directly, partner with incumbents, or secure wholesale access depends on scale, access to capital, regulatory risk appetite, and technical readiness. Device certification, security compliance, antenna deployment, and supply chain capacity remain gating factors. By late-2028, the winners will be those who have not only secured licenses or partnerships, but who align with the EU’s overriding narrative: resilience, sovereignty, and competition.

The post EU Proposal for MSS Spectrum Seeks to Balance Bloc’s Commercial and Sovereignty Aspirations appeared first on IT Connection.