The Telco Ascension to the Sky.

It’s 2045. Earth is green again. Free from cellular towers and the terrestrial radiation of yet another G, no longer needed to justify endless telecom upgrades. Humanity has finally transcended its communication needs to the sky, fully served by swarms of Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellites.

Millions of mobile towers have vanished. No more steel skeletons cluttering skylines and nature in general. In their place: millions of beams from tireless LEO satellites, now whispering directly into our pockets from orbit.

More than 1,200 MHz of once terrestrially-bound cellular spectrum below the C-band had been uplifted to LEO satellites. Nearly 1,500 MHz between 3 and 6 GHz had likewise been liberated from its earthly confines, now aggressively pursued by the buzzing broadband constellations above.

It all works without a single modification to people’s beloved mobile devices. Everyone enjoyed the same, or better, cellular service than in those wretched days of clinging to terrestrial-based infrastructure.

So, how did this remarkable transformation come about?

THE COVERAGE.

First, let’s talk about coverage. The chart below tells the story of orbital ambition through three very grounded curves. On the x-axis, we have the inclination angle, which is the degree to which your satellites are encouraged to tilt away from the equator to perform their job. On the y-axis: how much of the planet (and its people) they’re actually covering. The orange line gives us land area coverage. It starts low, as expected, tropical satellites don’t care much for Greenland. But as the inclination rises, so does their sense of duty to the extremes (the poles that is). The yellow line represents population coverage, which grows faster than land, maybe because humans prefer to live near each other (or they like the scenery). By the time you reach ~53° inclination, you’re covering about 94% of humanity and 84% of land areas. The dashed white line represents mobile cell coverage, the real estate of telecom towers. A constellation at a 53° inclination would cover nearly 98% of all mobile site infrastructure. It serves as a proxy for economic interest. It closely follows the population curve, but adds just a bit of spice, reflecting urban density and tower sprawl.

This chart illustrates the cumulative global coverage achieved at varying orbital inclination angles for three key metrics: land area (orange), population (yellow), and estimated terrestrial mobile cell sites (dashed white). As inclination increases from equatorial (0°) to polar (90°), the percentage of global land and population coverage rises accordingly. Notably, population coverage reaches approximately 94% at ~53° inclination, a critical threshold for satellite constellations aiming to maximize global user reach without the complexity of polar orbits. The mobile cell coverage curve reflects infrastructure density and aligns closely with population distribution.

The satellite constellation’s beams have replaced traditional terrestrial cells, providing a one-to-one coverage substitution. They not only replicate coverage in former legacy cellular areas but also extend service to regions that previously lacked connectivity due to low commercial priority from telecom operators. Today, over 3 million beams substitute obsolete mobile cells, delivering comparable service across densely populated areas. An additional 1 million beams have been deployed to cover previously unserved land areas, primarily rural and remote regions, using broader, lower-capacity beams with radii up to 10 kilometers. While these rural beams do not match the density or indoor penetration of urban cellular coverage, they represent a cost-effective means of achieving global service continuity, especially for basic connectivity and outdoor access in sparsely populated zones.

Conclusion? If you want to build a global satellite mobile network, you don’t need to orbit the whole planet. Just tilt your constellation enough to touch the crowded parts, and leave the tundra to the poets. However, this was the “original sin” of LEO Direct-2-Cellular satellites.

THE DEMAND.

Although global mobile traffic growth slowed notably after the early 2020s, and the terrestrial telecom industry drifted toward its “end of history” moment, the orbital network above inherited a double burden. Not only did satellite constellations need to deliver continuous, planet-wide coverage, a milestone legacy telecoms had never reached, despite millions of ground sites, but they also had to absorb globally converging traffic demands as billions of users crept steadily toward the throughput mean.

This chart shows the projected DL traffic across a full day (UTC), based on regions where local time falls within the evening Busy Hour window (17:00–22:00) and are within satellite coverage (minimum elevation ≥ 25°). The BH population is calculated hourly, taking into account time zone alignment and visibility, with a 20% concurrency rate applied. Each active user is assumed to consume 500 Mbps downlink in 2045. The peak, reaching over
This chart shows the uplink traffic demand experienced across a full day (UTC), based on regions under Busy Hour conditions (17:00–22:00 local time) and visible to the satellite constellation (with a minimum elevation angle of 25°). For each UTC hour, the BH population within coverage is calculated using global time zone mapping. Assuming a 20% concurrency rate and an average uplink throughput of 50 Mbps per active user, the total UL traffic is derived. The resulting curve reflects how demand shifts in response to the Earth’s rotation beneath the orbital band. The peak, reaching over

The radio access uplink architecture relies on low round-trip times for proper scheduling, timing alignment, and HARQ (Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request) feedback cycles. The propagation delay at 350 km yields a round-trip time of about 2.5 to 3 milliseconds, which falls within the bounds of what current specifications can accommodate. This is particularly important for latency-sensitive applications such as voice, video, and interactive services that require low jitter and reliable feedback mechanisms. In contrast, orbits at 550 km or above push latency closer to the edge of what NR protocols can tolerate, which could hinder performance or require non-standard adaptations. The beam geometry also plays a central role. At lower altitudes, satellite beams projected to the ground are inherently smaller. This smaller footprint translates into tighter beam patterns with narrower 3 dB cut-offs, which significantly improves frequency reuse and spatial isolation. These attributes are important for deploying high-capacity networks in densely populated urban environments, where interference and spectrum efficiency are paramount. Narrower beams allow D2C operators to steer coverage toward demand centers while minimizing adjacent-beam interference dynamically. Operating at 350 km is not without drawbacks. The satellite’s ground footprint at this altitude is smaller, meaning that more satellites are required to achieve full Earth coverage. Additionally, satellites at this altitude are exposed to greater atmospheric drag, resulting in shorter orbital lifespans unless they are equipped with more powerful or efficient propulsion systems to maintain altitude. The current design aims for a 5-year orbital lifespan. Despite this, the shorter lifespan has an upside, as it reduces the long-term risks of space debris. Deorbiting occurs naturally and quickly at lower altitudes, making the constellation more sustainable in the long term.

THE CONSTELLATION.

The satellite-to-cellular infrastructure has now fully matured into a global-scale system capable of delivering mobile broadband services that are not only on par with, but in many regions surpass, the performance of terrestrial cellular networks. At its core lies a constellation of low Earth orbit satellites operating at an altitude of 350 kilometers, engineered to provide seamless, high-quality indoor coverage for both uplink and downlink, even in densely urban environments.

To meet the evolving expectations of mobile users, each satellite beam delivers a minimum of 50 Mbps of uplink capacity and 500 Mbps of downlink capacity per user, ensuring full indoor quality even in highly cluttered environments. Uplink transmissions utilize the 600 MHz to 1800 MHz band, providing 1200 MHz of aggregated bandwidth. Downlink channels span 1500 MHz of spectrum, ranging from 2100 MHz to the upper edge of the C-band. At the network’s busiest hour (e.g., around 20:00 local time) across the most densely populated regions south of 53° latitude, the system supports a peak throughput of 60,000 Tbps for downlink and 6,000 Tbps for uplink. To guarantee reliability under real-world utilization, the system is engineered with a 25% capacity overhead, raising the design thresholds to 75,000 Tbps for DL and 7,500 Tbps for UL during peak demand.

Each satellite beam is optimized for high spectral efficiency, leveraging advanced beamforming, adaptive coding, and cutting-edge modulation. Under these conditions, downlink beams deliver 4.5 Gbps, while uplink beams, facing more challenging reception constraints, achieve 1.8 Gbps. Meeting the adjusted peak-hour demand requires approximately 16.7 million active DL beams and 4.2 million UL beams, amounting to over 20.8 million simultaneous beams concentrated over the peak demand region.

Thanks to significant advances in onboard processing and power systems, each satellite now supports up to 5,000 independent beams simultaneously. This capability reduces the number of satellites required to meet regional peak demand to approximately 4,200. These satellites are positioned over a region spanning an estimated 45 million square kilometers, covering the evening-side urban and suburban areas of the Americas, Europe, Africa, and Asia. This configuration yields a beam density of nearly 0.46 beams per square kilometer, equivalent to one active beam for every 2 square kilometers, densely overlaid to provide continuous, per-user, indoor-grade connectivity. In urban cores, beam radii are typically below 1 km, whereas in lower-density suburban and rural areas, the system adjusts by using larger beams without compromising throughput.

Because peak demand rotates longitudinally with the Earth’s rotation, only a portion of the entire constellation is positioned over this high-demand region at any given time. To ensure 4,200 satellites are always present over the region during peak usage, the total constellation comprises approximately 20,800 satellites, distributed across several hundred orbital planes. These planes are inclined and phased to optimize temporal availability, revisit frequency, and coverage uniformity while minimizing latency and handover complexity.

The resulting Direct-to-Cellular satellite constellation and system of today is among the most ambitious communications infrastructures ever created. With more than 20 million simultaneous beams dynamically allocated across the globe, it has effectively supplanted traditional mobile towers in many regions, delivering reliable, high-speed, indoor-capable broadband connectivity precisely where and when people need it.

When Telcos Said ‘Not Worth It,’ Satellites Said ‘Hold My Beam. In the world of 2045, even the last village at the end of the dirt road streams at 500 Mbps. No tower in sight, just orbiting compassion and economic logic finally aligned.

THE SATELLITE.

The Cellular Device to Satellite Path.

The uplink antennas aboard the Direct-to-Cellular satellites have been specifically engineered to reliably receive indoor-quality transmissions from standard (unmodified) mobile devices operating within the 600 MHz to 1800 MHz band. Each device is expected to deliver a minimum of 50 Mbps uplink throughput, even when used indoors in heavily cluttered urban environments. This performance is made possible through a combination of wideband spectrum utilization, precise beamforming, and extremely sensitive receiving systems in orbit. The satellite uplink system operates across 1200 MHz of aggregated bandwidth (e.g., 60 channels of 20 MHz), spanning the entire upper UHF and lower S-band. Because uplink signals originate from indoor environments, where wall and structural penetration losses can exceed 20 dB, the satellite link budget must compensate for the combined effects of indoor attenuation and free-space propagation at a 350 km orbital altitude. At 600 MHz, which represents the lowest frequency in the UL band, the free space path loss alone is approximately 133 dB. When this is compounded with indoor clutter and penetration losses, the total attenuation the satellite must overcome reaches approximately 153 dB or more.

Rather than specifying the antenna system at a mid-band average frequency, such as 900 MHz (i.e., the mid-band of the 600 MHz to 1800 MHz range), the system has been conservatively engineered for worst-case performance at 600 MHz. This design philosophy ensures that the antenna will meet or exceed performance requirements across the entire uplink band, with higher frequencies benefiting from naturally improved gain and narrower beamwidths. This choice guarantees that even the least favorable channels, those near 600 MHz, support reliable indoor-grade uplink service at 50 Mbps, with a minimum required SNR of 10 dB to sustain up to 16-QAM modulation. Achieving this level of performance at 600 MHz necessitated a large physical aperture. The uplink receive arrays on these satellites have grown to approximately 700 to 750 m² in area, and are constructed using modular, lightweight phased-array tiles that unfold in orbit. This aperture size enables the satellite to achieve a receive gain of approximately 45 dBi at 600 MHz, which is essential for detecting low-power uplink transmissions with high spectral efficiency, even from users deep indoors and under cluttered conditions.

Unlike earlier systems, such as AST SpaceMobile’s BlueBird 1, launched in the mid-2020s with an aperture of around 900 m² and challenged by the need to acquire indoor uplink signals, today’s Direct-to-Cellular (D2C) satellites optimize the uplink and downlink arrays separately. This separation allows each aperture to be custom-designed for its frequency and link budget requirements. The uplink arrays incorporate wideband, dual-polarized elements, such as log-periodic or Vivaldi structures, backed by high-dynamic-range low-noise amplifiers and a distributed digital beamforming backend. Assisted by real-time AI beam management, each satellite can simultaneously support and track up to 2,500 uplink beams, dynamically allocating them across the active coverage region.

Despite their size, these receive arrays are designed for compact launch configurations and efficient in-orbit deployment. Technologies such as inflatable booms, rigidizable mesh structures, and ultralight composite materials allow the arrays to unfold into large apertures while maintaining structural stability and minimizing mass. Because these arrays are passive receivers, thermal loads are significantly lower than those of transmit systems. Heat generation is primarily limited to the digital backend and front-end amplification chains, which are distributed across the array surface to facilitate efficient thermal dissipation.

The Satellite to Cellular Device Path.

The downlink communication path aboard Direct-to-Cellular satellites is engineered as a fully independent system, physically and functionally separated from the uplink antenna. This separation reflects a mature architectural philosophy that has been developed over decades of iteration. The downlink and uplink systems serve fundamentally different roles and operate across vastly different frequency bands, with their power, thermal, and antenna constraints. The downlink system operates in the frequency range from 2100 MHz up to the upper end of the C-band, typically around 4200 MHz. This is significantly higher than the uplink range, which extends from 600 to 1800 MHz. Due to this disparity in wavelength, a factor of nearly six between the lowest uplink and highest downlink frequencies, a shared aperture is neither practical nor efficient. It is widely accepted today that integrating transmit and receive functions into a single broadband aperture would compromise performance on both ends. Instead, today’s satellites utilize a dual-aperture approach, with the downlink antenna system optimized exclusively for high-frequency transmission and the uplink array designed independently for low-frequency reception.

In order to deliver 500 Mbps per user with full indoor coverage, each downlink beam must sustain approximately 4.5 Gbps, accounting for spectral reuse and beam overlap. At an orbital altitude of 350 kilometers, downlink beams must remain narrow, typically covering no more than a 1-kilometer radius in urban zones, to match uplink geometry and maintain beam-level concurrency. The antenna gain required to meet these demands is in the range of 50 to 55 dBi, which the satellites achieve using high-frequency phased arrays with a physical aperture of approximately 100 to 200 m². Because the downlink system is responsible for high-power transmission, the antenna tiles incorporate GaN-based solid-state power amplifiers (SSPAs), which deliver hundreds of watts per panel. This results in an overall effective isotropic radiated power (EIRP) of 50 to 60 dBW per beam, sufficient to reach deep indoor devices even at the upper end of the C-band. The power-intensive nature of the downlink system introduces thermal management challenges (describe below in the next section), which are addressed by physically isolating the transmit arrays from the receiver surfaces. The downlink and uplink arrays are positioned on opposite sides of the spacecraft bus or thermally decoupled through deployable booms and shielding layers.

The downlink beamforming is fully digital, allowing real-time adaptation of beam patterns, power levels, and modulation schemes. Each satellite can form and manage up to 2,500 independent downlink beams, which are coordinated with their uplink counterparts to ensure tight spatial and temporal alignment. Advanced AI algorithms help shape beams based on environmental context, usage density, and user motion, thereby further improving indoor delivery performance. The modulation schemes used on the downlink frequently reach 256-QAM and beyond, with spectral efficiencies of six to eight bits per second per Hz in favorable conditions.

The physical deployment of the downlink antenna varies by platform, but most commonly consists of front-facing phased array panels or cylindrical surfaces fitted with azimuthally distributed tiles. These panels can be either fixed or mounted on articulated platforms that allow active directional steering during orbit, depending on the beam coverage strategy, an arrangement also called gumballed.

No Bars? Not on This Planet. In 2045, even the Icebears will have broadband. When satellites replaced cell towers, the Arctic became just another neighborhood in the global gigabit grid.

Satellite System Architecture.

The Direct-to-Cellular satellites have evolved into high-performance, orbital base stations that far surpass the capabilities of early systems, such as AST SpaceMobile’s Bluebird 1 or SpaceX’s Starlink V2 Mini. These satellites are engineered not merely to relay signals, but to deliver full-featured indoor mobile broadband connectivity directly to standard handheld devices, anywhere on Earth, including deep urban cores and rural regions that have been historically underserved by terrestrial infrastructure.

As described earlier, today’s D2C satellite supports up to 5,000 simultaneous beams, enabling real-time uplink and downlink with mobile users across a broad frequency range. The uplink phased array, designed to capture low-power, deep-indoor signals at 600 MHz, occupies approximately 750 m². The DL array, optimized for high-frequency, high-power transmission, spans 150 to 200 m². Unlike early designs, such as Bluebird 1, which used a single, large combined antenna, today’s satellites separate the uplink and downlink arrays to optimize each for performance, thermal behavior, and mechanical deployment. These two systems are typically mounted on opposite sides of the satellite and thermally isolated from one another.

Thermal management is one of the defining challenges of this architecture. While AST’s Bluebird 1 (i.e., from mid-2020s) boasted a large antenna aperture approaching 900 m², its internal systems generated significantly less heat. Bluebird 1 operated with a total power budget of approximately 10 to 12 kilowatts, primarily dedicated to a handful of downlink beams and limited onboard processing. In contrast, today’s D2C satellite requires a continuous power supply of 25 to 35 kilowatts, much of which must be dissipated as heat in orbit. This includes over 10 kilowatts of sustained RF power dissipation from the DL system alone, in addition to thermal loads from the digital beamforming hardware, AI-assisted compute stack, and onboard routing logic. The key difference lies in beam concurrency and onboard intelligence. The satellite manages thousands of simultaneous, high-throughput beams, each dynamically scheduled and modulated using advanced schemes such as 256-QAM and beyond. It must also process real-time uplink signals from cluttered environments, allocate spectral and spatial resources, and make AI-driven decisions about beam shape, handovers, and interference mitigation. All of this requires a compute infrastructure capable of delivering 100 to 500 TOPS (tera-operations per second), distributed across radiation-hardened processors, neural accelerators, and programmable FPGAs. Unlike AST’s Bluebird 1, which offloaded most of its protocol stack to the ground, today’s satellites run much of the 5G core network onboard. This includes RAN scheduling, UE mobility management, and segment-level routing for backhaul and gateway links.

This computational load compounds the satellite’s already intense thermal environment. Passive cooling alone is insufficient. To manage thermal flows, the spacecraft employs large radiator panels located on its outer shell, advanced phase-change materials embedded behind the DL tiles, and liquid loop systems that transfer heat from the RF and compute zones to the radiative surfaces. These thermal systems are intricately zoned and actively managed, preventing the heat from interfering with the sensitive UL receive chains, which require low-noise operation under tightly controlled thermal conditions. The DL and UL arrays are thermally decoupled not just to prevent crosstalk, but to maintain stable performance in opposite thermal regimes: one dominated by high-power transmission, the other by low-noise reception.

To meet its power demands, the satellite utilizes a deployable solar sail array that spans 60 to 80 m². These sails are fitted with ultra-high-efficiency solar cells capable of exceeding 30–35% efficiency. They are mounted on articulated booms that track the sun independently from the satellite’s Earth-facing orientation. They provide enough current to sustain continuous operation during daylight periods, while high-capacity batteries, likely based on lithium-sulfur or solid-state chemistry, handle nighttime and eclipse coverage. Compared to the Starlink V2 Mini, which generates around 2.5 to 3.0 kilowatts, and the Bluebird 1, which operates at roughly 10–12 kilowatts. Today’s system requires nearly three times the generation and five times the thermal rejection capability compared to the initial satellites of the mid-2020s.

Structurally, the satellite is designed to support this massive infrastructure. It uses a rigid truss core (i.e., lattice structure) with deployable wings for the DL system and a segmented, mesh-based backing for the UL aperture. Propulsion is provided by Hall-effect or ion thrusters, with 50 to 100 kilograms of inert propellant onboard to support three to five years of orbital station-keeping at an altitude of 350 kilometers. This height is chosen for its latency and spatial reuse advantages, but it also imposes continuous drag, requiring persistent thrust.

The AST Bluebird 1 may have appeared physically imposing in its time due to its large antenna, thermal, computational, and architectural complexity. Today’s D2C satellite, 20 years later, far exceeds anything imagined two decades earlier. The heat generated by its massive beam concurrency, onboard processing, and integrated network core makes its thermal management system not only more severe than Bluebird 1’s but also one of the primary limiting factors in the satellite’s physical and functional design. This thermal constraint, in turn, shapes the layout of its antennas, compute stack, power system, and propulsion.

Mass and Volume Scaling.

The AST’s Bluebird 1, launched in the mid-2020s, had a launch mass of approximately 1,500 kilograms. Its headline feature was a 900 m² unfoldable antenna surface, designed to support direct cellular connectivity from space. However, despite its impressive aperture, the system was constrained by limited beam concurrency, modest onboard computing power, and a reliance on terrestrial cores for most network functions. The bulk of its mass was dominated by structural elements supporting its large antenna surface and the power and thermal subsystems required to drive a relatively small number of simultaneous links. Bluebird’s propulsion was chemical, optimized for initial orbit raising and limited station-keeping, and its stowed volume fit comfortably within standard medium-lift payload fairings. Starlink’s V2 Mini, although smaller in physical aperture, featured a more balanced and compact architecture. Weighing roughly 800 kilograms at launch, it was designed around high-throughput broadband rather than direct-to-cellular use. Its phased array antenna surface was closer to 20–25 m², and it was optimized for efficient manufacturing and high-density orbital deployment. The V2 Mini’s volume was tightly packed, with solar panels, phased arrays, and propulsion modules folded into a relatively low-profile bus optimized for rapid deployment and low-cost launch stacking. Its onboard compute and thermal systems were scaled to match its more modest power budget, which typically hovered around 2.5 to 3.0 kilowatts.

In contrast, today’s satellites occupy an entirely new performance regime. The dry mass of the satellite ranges between 2,500 and 3,500 kilograms, depending on specific configuration, thermal shielding, and structural deployment method. This accounts for its large deployable arrays, high-density digital payload, radiator surfaces, power regulation units, and internal trusses. The wet mass, including onboard fuel reserves for at least 5 years of station-keeping at 350 km altitude, increases by up to 800 kilograms, depending on the propulsion type (e.g., Hall-effect or gridded ion thrusters) and orbital inclination. This brings the total launch mass to approximately 3,000 to 4,500 kilograms, or more than double ATS’s old Bluebird 1 and roughly five times that of SpaceX’s Starlink V2 Mini.

Volume-wise, the satellites require a significantly larger stowed configuration than either AST’s Bluebird 1 or SpaceX’s Starlink V2 Mini. While both of those earlier systems were designed to fit within traditional launch fairings, Bluebird 1 utilizes a folded hinge-based boom structure, and Starlink V2 Mini is optimized for ultra-compact stacking. Today’s satellite demands next-generation fairing geometries, such as 5-meter-class launchers or dual-stack configurations. This is driven by the dual-antenna architecture and radiator arrays, which, although cleverly folded during launch, expand dramatically once deployed in orbit. In its operational configuration, the satellite spans tens of meters across its antenna booms and solar sails. The uplink array, built as a lightweight, mesh-backed surface supported by rigidizing frames or telescoping booms, unfolds to a diameter of approximately 30 to 35 meters, substantially larger than Bluebird 1’s ~20–25 meter maximum span and far beyond the roughly 10-meter unfolded span of Starlink V2 Mini. The downlink panels, although smaller, are arranged for precise gimballed orientation (i.e., a pivoting mechanism allowing rotation or tilt along one or more axes) and integrated thermal control, which further expands the total deployed volume envelope. The volumetric footprint of today’s D2C satellite is not only larger in surface area but also more spatially complex, as its segregated UL and DL arrays, thermal zones, and solar wings must avoid interference while maintaining structural and thermal equilibrium. Compared to the simplified flat-pack layout of Starlink V2 Mini and the monolithic boom-deployed design of Bluebird 1.

The increase in dry mass, wet mass, and deployed volume is not a byproduct of inefficiency, but a direct result of very substantial performance improvements that were required to replace terrestrial mobile towers with orbital systems. Today’s D2C satellites deliver an order of magnitude more beam concurrency, spectral efficiency, and per-user performance than its 2020s predecessors. This is reflected in every subsystem, from power generation and antenna design to propulsion, thermal control, and computing. As such, it represents the emergence of a new class of satellite altogether: not merely a space-based relay or broadband node, but a full-featured, cloud-integrated orbital RAN platform capable of supporting the global cellular fabric from space.

CAN THE FICTION BECOME A REALITY?

From the perspective of 2025, the vision of a global satellite-based mobile network providing seamless, unmodified indoor connectivity at terrestrial-grade uplink and downlink rates, 50 Mbps up, 500 Mbps down, appears extraordinarily ambitious. The technical description from 2045 outlines a constellation of 20,800 LEO satellites, each capable of supporting 5,000 independent full-duplex beams across massive bandwidths, while integrating onboard processing, AI-driven beam control, and a full 5G core stack. To reach such a mature architecture within two decades demands breakthrough progress across multiple fronts.

The most daunting challenge lies in achieving indoor-grade cellular uplink at frequencies as low as 600 MHz from devices never intended to communicate with satellites. Today, even powerful ground-based towers struggle to achieve sub-1 GHz uplink coverage inside urban buildings. For satellites at an altitude of 350 km, the free-space path loss alone at 600 MHz is approximately 133 dB. When combined with clutter, penetration, and polarization mismatches, the system must close a link budget approaching 153–160 dB, from a smartphone transmitting just 23 dBm (200 mW) or less. No satellite today, including AST SpaceMobile’s BlueBird 1, has demonstrated indoor uplink reception at this scale or consistency. To overcome this, the proposed system assumes deployable uplink arrays of 750 m² with gain levels exceeding 45 dBi, supported by hundreds of simultaneously steerable receive beams and ultra-low-noise front-end receivers. From a 2025 lens, the mechanical deployment of such arrays, their thermal stability, calibration, and mass management pose nontrivial risks. Today’s large phased arrays are still in their infancy in space, and adaptive beam tracking from fast-moving LEO platforms remains unproven at the required scale and beam density.

Thermal constraints are also vastly more complex than anything currently deployed. Supporting 5,000 simultaneous beams and radiating tens of kilowatts from compact platforms in LEO requires heat rejection systems that go beyond current radiator technology. Passive radiators must be supplemented with phase-change materials, active fluid loops, and zoned thermal isolation to prevent transmit arrays from degrading the performance of sensitive uplink receivers. This represents a significant leap from today’s satellites, such as Starlink V2 Mini (~3 kW) or BlueBird 1 (~10–12 kW), neither of which operates with a comparable beam count, throughput, or antenna scale.

The required onboard compute is another monumental leap. Running thousands of simultaneous digital beams, performing real-time adaptive beamforming, spectrum assignment, HARQ scheduling, and AI-driven interference mitigation, all on-orbit and without ground-side offloading, demands 100–500 TOPS of radiation-hardened compute. This is far beyond anything that will be flying in 2025. Even state-of-the-art military systems rely heavily on ground computing and centralized control. The 2045 vision implies on-orbit autonomy, local decision-making, and embedded 5G/6G core functionality within each spacecraft, a full software-defined network node in orbit. Realizing such a capability requires not only next-gen processors but also significant progress in space-grade AI inference, thermal packaging, and fault tolerance.

On the power front, generating 25–35 kW per satellite in LEO using 60–80 m² solar sails pushes the boundary of photovoltaic technology and array mechanics. High-efficiency solar cells must achieve conversion rates exceeding 30–35%, while battery systems must maintain high discharge capacity even in complete darkness. Space-based power architectures today are not yet built for this level of sustained output and thermal dissipation.

Even if the individual satellite challenges are solved, the constellation architecture presents another towering hurdle. Achieving seamless beam handover, full spatial reuse, and maintaining beam density over demand centers as the Earth rotates demands near-perfect coordination of tens of thousands of satellites across hundreds of planes. No current LEO operator (including SpaceX) manages a constellation of that complexity, beam concurrency, or spatial density. Furthermore, scaling the manufacturing, testing, launch, and in-orbit commissioning of over 20,000 high-performance satellites will require significant cost reductions, increased factory throughput, and new levels of autonomous deployment.

Regulatory and spectrum allocation are equally formidable barriers. The vision entails the massively complex undertaking of a global reallocation of terrestrial mobile spectrum, particularly in the sub-3 GHz bands, to LEO operators. As of 2025, such a reallocation is politically and commercially fraught, with entrenched mobile operators and national regulators unlikely to cede prime bands without extensive negotiation, incentives, and global coordination. The use of 600–1800 MHz from orbit for direct-to-device is not yet globally harmonized (and may never be), and existing terrestrial rights would need to be either vacated or managed via complex sharing schemes.

From a market perspective, widespread device compatibility without modification implies that standard mobile chipsets, RF chains, and antennas evolve to handle Doppler compensation, extended RTT timing budgets, and tighter synchronization tolerances. While this is not insurmountable, it requires updates to 3GPP standards, baseband silicon, and potentially network registration logic, all of which must be implemented without degrading terrestrial service. Although NTN (non-terrestrial networks) support has begun to emerge in 5G standards, the level of transparency and ubiquity envisioned in 2045 is not yet backed by practical deployments.

While the 2045 architecture described so far assumes a single unified constellation delivering seamless global cellular service from orbit, the political and commercial realities of space infrastructure in 2025 strongly suggest a fragmented outcome. It is unlikely that a single actor, public or private, will be permitted, let alone able, to monopolize the global D2C landscape. Instead, the most plausible trajectory is a competitive and geopolitically segmented orbital environment, with at least one major constellation originating from China (note: I think it is quit likely we may see two major ones), another from the United States, a possible second US-based entrant, and potentially a European-led system aimed at securing sovereign connectivity across the continent. This fracturing of the orbital mobile landscape imposes a profound constraint on the economic and technical scalability of the system. The assumption that a single constellation could achieve massive economies of scale, producing, launching, and managing tens of thousands of high-performance satellites with uniform coverage obligations, begins to collapse under the weight of geopolitical segmentation. Each competitor must now shoulder its own development, manufacturing, and deployment costs, with limited ability to amortize those investments over a unified global user base. Moreover, such duplication of infrastructure risks saturating orbital slots and spectrum allocations, while reducing the density advantage that a unified system would otherwise enjoy. Instead of concentrating thousands of active beams over a demand zone with a single coordinated fleet, separate constellations must compete for orbital visibility and spectral access over the same urban centers. The result is likely to be a decline in per-satellite utilization efficiency, particularly in regions of geopolitical overlap or contested regulatory coordination.

2045: One Vision, Many Launch Pads. The dream of global satellite-to-cellular service may shine bright, but it won’t rise from a single constellation. With China, the U.S., and others racing skyward, the economics of universal LEO coverage could fracture into geopolitical silos, making scale, spectrum, and sustainability more contested than ever.

Finally, the commercial viability of any one constellation diminishes when the global scale is eroded. While a monopoly or globally dominant operator could achieve lower per-unit satellite costs, higher average utilization, and broader roaming revenues, a fractured environment reduces ARPU (average revenue per user). It increases the breakeven threshold for each deployment. Satellite throughput that could have been centrally optimized now risks duplication and redundancy, increasing operational overhead and potentially slowing innovation as vendors attempt to differentiate on proprietary terms. In this light, the architecture described earlier must be seen as an idealized vision. This convergence point may never be achieved in pure form unless global policy, spectrum governance, and commercial alliances move toward more integrated outcomes. While the technological challenges of the 2045 D2C system are significant, the fragmentation of market structure and geopolitical alignment may prove an equally formidable barrier to realizing the full systemic potential. While a monopoly or globally dominant operator could achieve lower per-unit satellite costs, higher average utilization, and broader roaming revenues, a fractured environment reduces ARPU (average revenue per user). It increases the breakeven threshold for each deployment. Satellite throughput that could have been centrally optimized now risks duplication and redundancy, increasing operational overhead and potentially slowing innovation as vendors attempt to differentiate on proprietary terms. In this light, the architecture described earlier must be seen as an idealized vision. This convergence point may never be achieved in pure form unless global policy, spectrum governance, and commercial alliances move toward more integrated outcomes. While the technological challenges of the 2045 D2C system are significant, the fragmentation of market structure and geopolitical alignment may prove an equally formidable barrier to realizing the full systemic potential.

Heavenly Coverage, Hellish Congestion. Even a single mega-constellation turns the sky into premium orbital real estate … and that’s before the neighbors show up with their own fleets. Welcome to the era of broadband traffic … in space.

Despite these barriers, incremental paths forward exist. Demonstration satellites in the late 2020s, followed by regional commercial deployments in the early 2030s, could provide real-world validation. The phased evolution of spectrum use, dual-use handsets, and AI-assisted beam management may mitigate some of the scaling concerns. Regulatory alignment may emerge as rural and unserved regions increasingly depend on space-based access. Ultimately, the achievement of the 2045 architecture relies not only on engineering but also on sustained cross-industry coordination, geopolitical alignment, and commercial viability on a planetary scale. As of 2025, the probability of realizing the complete vision by 2045, in terms of indoor-grade, direct-to-device service via a fully orbital mobile core, is perhaps 40–50%, with a higher probability (~70%) for achieving outdoor-grade or partially integrated hybrid services. The coming decade will reveal whether the industry can fully solve the unique combination of thermal, RF, computational, regulatory, and manufacturing challenges required to replace the terrestrial mobile network with orbital infrastructure.

POSTSCRIPT – THE ECONOMICS.

The Direct-to-Cellular satellite architecture described in this article would reshape not only the technical landscape of mobile communications but also its economic foundation. The very premise of delivering mobile broadband directly from space, bypassing terrestrial towers, fiber backhaul, and urban permitting, undermines one of the most entrenched capital systems of the 20th and early 21st centuries: the mobile infrastructure economy. Once considered irreplaceable, the sprawling ecosystem of rooftop leases, steel towers, field operations, base stations, and fiber rings has been gradually rendered obsolete by a network that floats above geography.

The financial implications of such a shift are enormous. Before such an orbital transition described in this article, the global mobile industry invested well over 300 billion USD annually in network CapEx and Opex, with a large share dedicated to the site infrastructure layer, construction, leasing, energy, security, and upkeep of millions of base stations and their associated land or rooftop assets. Tower companies alone have become multi-billion-dollar REITs (i.e., Real Estate Investment Trusts), profiting from site tenancy and long-term operating contracts. As of the mid-2020s, the global value tied up in the telecom industry’s physical infrastructure is estimated to exceed 2.5 to 3 trillion USD, with tower companies like Cellnex and American Tower collectively managing hundreds of billions of dollars in infrastructure assets. An estimated $300–500 billion USD invested in mobile infrastructure represents approximately 0.75% to 1.5% of total global pension assets and accounts for 15% to 30% of pension fund infrastructure investments. This real estate-based infrastructure model defined mobile economics for decades and has generally been regarded as a reasonably safe haven for investors. In contrast, the 2045 D2C model front-loads its capital burden into satellite manufacturing, launch, and orbital operations. Rather than being geographically bound, capital is concentrated into a fleet of orbital base stations, each capable of dynamically serving users across vast and shifting geographies. This not only eliminates the need for millions of distributed cell sites, but it also breaks the historical tie between infrastructure deployment and national geography. Coverage no longer scales with trenching crews or urban permitting delays but with orbital plane density and beamforming algorithms.

Yet, such a shift does not necessarily mean lower cost, only different economics. Launching and operating tens of thousands of advanced satellites, each capable of supporting thousands of beams and running onboard compute environments, still requires massive capital outlay and ongoing expenditures in space traffic management, spectrum coordination, ground gateways, and constellation replenishment. The difference lies in utilization and marginal reach. Where terrestrial infrastructure often struggles to achieve ROI in rural or low-income markets, orbital systems serve these zones as part of the same beam budget, with no new towers or trenches required.

Importantly, the 2045 model would likely collapse the mobile value chain. Instead of a multi-layered system of operators, tower owners, fiber wholesalers, and regional contractors, a vertically integrated satellite operator can now deliver the full stack of mobile service from orbit, owning the user relationship end-to-end. This disintermediation has significant implications for revenue distribution and regulatory control, and challenges legacy operators to either adapt or exit.

The scale of economic disruption mirrors the scale of technical ambition. This transformation could rewrite the very economics of connectivity. While the promise of seamless global coverage, zero tower density, and instant-on mobility is compelling, it may also signal the end of mobile telecom as a land-based utility.

If this little science fiction story comes true, and there are many good and bad reasons to doubt it, Telcos may not Ascend to the Sky, but take the Stairway to Heaven.

Graveyard of the Tower Titans. This symbolic illustration captures the end of an era, depicting headstones for legacy telecom giants such as American Tower, Crown Castle, and SBA Communications, as well as the broader REIT (Real Estate Investment Trust) infrastructure model that once underpinned the terrestrial mobile network economy. It serves as a metaphor for the systemic shift brought on by Direct-to-Cellular (D2C) satellite networks. What’s fading is not only the mobile tower itself, but also the vast ancillary industry that has grown around it, including power systems, access rights, fiber-infrastructure, maintenance firms, and leasing intermediaries, as well as the telecom business model that relied on physical, ground-based infrastructure. As the skies take over the signal path, the economic pillars of the old telecom world may no longer stand.

FURTHER READING.

Kim K. Larsen, “Will LEO Satellite Direct-to-Cellular Networks Make Traditional Mobile Networks Obsolete?”, A John Strand Consult Report, (January 2025). This has also been published in full on my own Techneconomyblog.

Kim K. Larsen, “Can LEO Satellites close the Gigabit Gap of Europe’s Unconnectables?“ Techneconomyblog (April 2025).

Kim K. Larsen, “The Next Frontier: LEO Satellites for Internet Services.” Techneconomyblog (March 2024).

Kim K. Larsen, “Stratospheric Drones & Low Earth Satellites: Revolutionizing Terrestrial Rural Broadband from the Skies?” Techneconomyblog (January 2024).

Kim K. Larsen, “A Single Network Future“, Techneconomyblog (March 2024).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.

I would like to acknowledge my wife, Eva Varadi, for her unwavering support, patience, and understanding throughout the creative process of writing this article.

Will LEO Satellite Direct-to-Cell Networks make Terrestrial Networks Obsolete?

THE POST-TOWER ERA – A FAIRYTAIL.

From the bustling streets of New York to the remote highlands of Mongolia, the skyline had visibly changed. Where steel towers and antennas once dominated now stood open spaces and restored natural ecosystems. Forests reclaimed their natural habitats, and birds nested in trees undisturbed by the scaring of high rural cellular towers. This transformation was not sudden but resulted from decades of progress in satellite technology, growing demand for ubiquitous connectivity, an increasingly urgent need to address the environmental footprint of traditional telecom infrastructures, and the economic need to dramatically reduce operational expenses tied up in tower infrastructure. By the time the last cell site was decommissioned, society stood at the cusp of a new age of connectivity by LEO satellites covering all of Earth.

The annual savings worldwide from making terrestrial cellular towers obsolete in total cost are estimated to amount to at least 300 billion euros, and it is expected that moving cellular access to “heaven” will avoid more than 150 million metric tons of CO2 emissions annually. The retirement of all terrestrial cellular networks worldwide has been like eliminating the entire carbon footprint of The Netherlands or Malaysia and leading to a dramatic reduction in demand for sustainable green energy sources that previously were used to power the global cellular infrastructure.

INTRODUCTION.

Recent postings and a substantial part of commentary give the impression that we are heading towards a post-tower era where Elon Musk’s Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellite Starlink network (together with competing options, e.g., ATS Spacemobile and Lynk, and no, I do not see Amazon’s Project Kuiper in this space) will make terrestrially-based tower infrastructure and earth-bound cellular services obsolete.

T-Mobile USA is launching its Direct-to-Cell (D2C) service via SpaceX’s Starlink LEO satellite network. The T-Mobile service is designed to work with existing LTE-compatible smartphones, allowing users to connect to Starlink satellites without needing specialized hardware or smartphone applications.

Since the announcement, posts and media coverage have declared the imminent death of the terrestrial cellular network. When it is pointed out that this may be a premature death sentence to an industry, telecom operators, and their existing cellular mobile networks, it is also not uncommon to be told off as being too pessimistic and an unbeliever in Musk’s genius vision. Musk has on occasion made it clear the Starlink D2C service is aimed at texts and voice calls in remote and rural areas, and to be honest, the D2C service currently hinges on 2×5 MHz in the T-Mobile’s PCS band, adding constraints to the “broadbandedness” of the service. The fact that the service doesn’t match the best of T-Mobile US’s 5G network quality (e.g., 205+ Mbps downlink) or even get near its 4G speeds should really not bother anyone, as the value of the D2C service is that it is available in remote and rural areas with little to no terrestrial cellular coverage and that you can use your regular cellular device with no need for a costly satellite service and satphone (e.g., Iridium, Thuraya, Globalstar).

While I don’t expect to (or even want to) change people’s beliefs, I do think it would be great to contribute to more knowledge and insights based on facts about what is possible with low-earth orbiting satellites as a terrestrial substitute and what is uninformed or misguided opinion.

The rise of LEO satellites has sparked discussions about the potential obsolescence of terrestrial cellular networks. With advancements in satellite technology and increasing partnerships, such as T-Mobile’s collaboration with SpaceX’s Starlink, proponents envision a future where towers are replaced by ubiquitous connectivity from the heavens. However, the feasibility of LEO satellites achieving service parity with terrestrial networks raises significant technical, economic, and regulatory questions. This article explores the challenges and possibilities of LEO Direct-to-Cell (D2C) networks, shedding light on whether they can genuinely replace ground-based cellular infrastructure or will remain a complementary technology for specific use cases.

WHY DISTANCE MATTERS.

The distance between you (your cellular device) and the base station’s antenna determines your expected service experience in cellular and wireless networks. The longer you are away from the base station that serves you, in general, the poorer your connection quality and performance will be, with everything else being equal. As the distance increases, signal weakening (i.e., path loss) grows exponentially, reducing signal quality and making it harder for devices to maintain reliable communication. Closer proximity allows for more substantial, faster, and more stable connections, while longer distances require more power and advanced technologies like beamforming or repeaters to compensate.

Physics tells us how a signal loses its signal strength (or power) over a distance with the square of the distance from the source of the signal itself (either the base station transmitter or the consumer device). This applies universally to all electromagnetic waves traveling in free space. Free space means that there are no obstacles, reflections, or scattering. No terrain features, buildings, or atmospheric conditions interfere with the propagation signal.

So, what matters to the Free Space Path Loss (FSPL)? That is the signal strength over a given distance in free space:

  • The signal strength reduces (the path loss increases) with the square of the distance (d) from its source.
  • Path loss increases (i.e., signal strength decreases) with the (square of the) frequency (f). The higher the frequency, the higher the path loss at a given distance from the signal source.
  • A larger transmit antenna aperture reduces the path loss by focusing the transmitted signal (energy) more efficiently. An antenna aperture is an antenna’s “effective area” that captures or transmits electromagnetic waves. It depends directly on antenna gain and inverse of the square of the signal frequency (i.e., higher frequency → smaller aperture).
  • Higher receiver gain will also reduce the path loss.

$PL_{FS} \; = \; \left( \frac{4 \pi}{c} \right)^2 (d \; f)^2 \; \propto d^2 \; f^2$

$$FSPL_{dB} \; = 10 \; Log_{10} (PL_{FS}) \; = \; 20 \; Log_{10}(d) \; + \; 20 \; Log_{10}(f) \; + \; constant$$

The above equations show a strong dependency on distance; the farther away, the larger the signal loss, and the higher the frequency, the larger the signal loss. Relaxing some of the assumptions leading to the above relationship leads us to the following:

$FSPL_{dB}^{rs} \; = \; 20 \; Log_{10}(d) \; – \; 10 \; Log_{10}(A_t^{eff}) \; – \; 10 \; Log_{10}(G_{r}) \; + \; constant$

The last of the above equations introduces the transmitter’s effective antenna aperture (\(A_t^{eff}\)) and the receiver’s gain (\(G_r\)), telling us that larger apertures reduce path loss as they focus the transmitted energy more efficiently and that higher receiver gain likewise reduces the path loss (i.e., “they hear better”).

It is worth remembering that the transmitter antenna aperture is directly tied to the transmitter gain ($G_t$) when the frequency (f) has been fixed. We have

$A_t^{eff} \; = \; \frac{c^2}{4\pi} \; \frac{1}{f^2} \; G_t \; = \; 0.000585 \; m^2 \; G_t \;$ @ f = 3.5 GHz.

From the above, as an example, it is straightforward to see that the relative path loss difference between the two distances of 550 km (e.g., typical altitude of an LEO satellite) and 2.5 km (typical terrestrial cellular coverage range ) is

$\frac{PL_{FS}(550 km)}{PL_{FS}(2.5 km)} \; = \; \left( \frac {550}{2.5}\right)^2 \; = \; 220^2 \; \approx \; 50$ thousand. So if all else was equal (it isn’t, btw!), we would expect that the signal loss at a distance of 550 km would be 50 thousand times higher than at 2.5 km. Or, in the electrical engineer’s language, at a distance of 550 km, the loss would be 47 dB higher than at 2.5 km.

The figure illustrates the difference between (a) terrestrial cellular and (b) satellite coverage. A terrestrial cellular signal typically covers a radius of 0.5 to 5 km. In contrast, a LEO satellite signal travels a substantial distance to reach Earth (e.g., Starlink satellite is at an altitude of 550 km). While the terrestrial signal propagates through the many obstacles it meets on its earthly path, the satellite signal’s propagation path would typically be free-space-like (i.e., no obstacles) until it penetrates buildings or other objects to reach consumer devices. Historically, most satellite-to-Earth communication has relied on outdoor ground stations or dishes where the outdoor antenna on Earth provides LoS to the satellite and will also compensate somewhat for the signal loss due to the distance to the satellite.

Let’s compare a terrestrial 5G 3.5 GHz advanced antenna system (AAS) 2.5 km from a receiver with a LEO satellite system at an altitude of 550 km. Note I could have chosen a lower frequency, e.g., 800 MHz or the PCS 1900 band. While it would give me some advantages regarding path loss (i.e., $FSPL \; \propto \; f^2$), the available bandwidth is rather smallish and insufficient for state-or-art 5G services (imo!). From a free-space path loss perspective, independently of frequency, we need to overcome an almost 50 thousand times relative difference in distance squared (ca. 47 dB difference) in favor of the terrestrial system. In this comparison, it should be understood that the terrestrial and the satellite systems use the same carrier frequency (otherwise, one should account for the difference in frequency), and the only difference that matters (for the FSPL) is the difference in distance to the receiver.

Suppose I require that my satellite system has the same signal loss in terms of FSPL as my terrestrial system to aim at a comparable quality of service level. In that case, I have several options in terms of satellite enhancements. I could increase transmit power, although it would imply that I need a transmit power of 47 dB more than the terrestrial system, or approximately 48 kW, which is likely impractical for the satellite due to power limitations. Compare this with the current Starlink transmit power of approximately 32 W (45 dBm), ca. 1,500 times lower. Alternatively, I could (in theory!) increase my satellite antenna aperture, leading to a satellite antenna with a diameter of ca. 250 meters, which is enormous compared to current satellite antennas (e.g., Starlink’s ca. 0.05 m2 aperture for a single antenna and total area in the order of 1.6 m2 for the Ku/Ka bands). Finally, I could (super theoretically) also massively improve my consumer device (e.g., smartphone) to receive gain (with 47 dB) from today’s range of -2 dBi to +5 dBi. Achieving 46 dBi gain in a smartphone receiver seems unrealistic due to size, power, and integration constraints. As the target of LEO satellite direct-to-cell services is to support commercially available cellular devices used in terrestrial, only the satellite specifications can be optimized.

Based on a simple free-space approach, it appears unreasonable that an LEO satellite communication system can provide 5G services at parity with a terrestrial cellular network to normal (unmodified) 5G consumer devices without satellite-optimized modifications. The satellite system’s requirements for parity with a terrestrial communications system are impractical (but not impossible) and, if pursued, would significantly drive up design complexity and cost, likely making such a system highly uneconomical.

At this point, you should ask yourself if it is reasonable to assume that a terrestrial communication cellular system can be taken to propagate as its environment is “free-space” like. Thus, obstacles, reflections, and scattering are ignored. Is it really okay to presume that terrain features, buildings, or atmospheric conditions do not interfere with the propagation of the terrestrial cellular signal? Of course, the answer should be that it is not okay to assume that. When considering this, let’s see if it matters much compared to the LEO satellite path loss.

TERRESTRIAL CELLULAR PROPAGATION IS NOT HAPPENING IN FREE SPACE, AND NEITHER IS A SATELLITE’S.

The Free-Space Path Loss (FSPL) formula assumes ideal conditions where signals propagate in free space without interference, blockage, or degradation, besides what would naturally be by traveling a given distance. However, as we all experience daily, real-world environments introduce additional factors such as obstructions, multipath effects, clutter loss, and environmental conditions, necessitating corrections to the FSPL approach. Moving from one room of our house to another can easily change the cellular quality and our experience (e.g., dropped calls, poorer voice quality, lower speed, changing from using 5G to 4G or even to 2G, no coverage at all). Driving through a city may also result in ups and downs with respect to the cellular quality we experience. Some of these effects are tabulated below.

Urban environments typically introduce the highest additional losses due to dense buildings, narrow streets, and urban canyons, which significantly obstruct and scatter signals. For example, the Okumura-Hata Urban Model accounts for such obstructions and adds substantial losses to the FSPL, averaging around 30–50 dB, depending on the density and height of buildings.

Suburban environments, on the other hand, are less obstructed than urban areas but still experience moderate clutter losses from trees, houses, and other features. In these areas, corrections based on the Okumura-Hata Suburban Model add approximately 10–20 dB to the FSPL, reflecting the moderate level of signal attenuation caused by vegetation and scattered structures.

Rural environments have the least obstructions, resulting in the lowest additional loss. Corrections based on the Okumura-Hata Rural Model typically add around 5–10 dB to the FSPL. These areas benefit from open landscapes with minimal obstructions, making them ideal for long-range signal propagation.

Non-line-of-sight (NLOS) conditions increase additionally the path loss, as signals must diffract or scatter to reach the receiver. This effect adds 10–20 dB in suburban and rural areas and 20–40 dB in urban environments, where obstacles are more frequent and severe. Similarly, weather conditions such as rain and foliage contribute to signal attenuation, with rain adding up to 1–5 dB/km at higher frequencies (above 10 GHz) and dense foliage introducing an extra 5–15 dB of loss.

The corrections for these factors can be incorporated into the FSPL formula to provide a more realistic estimation of signal attenuation. By applying these corrections, the FSPL formula can reflect the conditions encountered in terrestrial communication systems across different environments.

The figure above illustrates the differences and similarities concerning the coverage environment for (a) terrestrial and (b) satellite communication systems. The terrestrial signal environment, in most instances, results in the loss of the signal as it propagates through the terrestrial environment due to vegetation, terrain variations, urban topology or infrastructure, weather, and ultimately, as the signal propagates from the outdoor environment to the indoor environment it signal reduces further as it, for example, penetrates windows with coatings, outer and inner walls. The combination of distance, obstacles, and material penetration leads to a cumulative reduction in signal strength as the signal propagates through the terrestrial environment. For the satellite, as illustrated in (b), a substantial amount of signal is reduced due to the vast distance it has to travel before reaching the consumer. If no outdoor antenna connects with the satellite signal, then the satellite signal will be further reduced as it penetrates roofs, multiple ceilings, multiple floors, and walls.

It is often assumed that a satellite system has a line of sight (LoS) without environmental obstructions in its signal propagation (besides atmospheric ones). The reasoning is not unreasonable as the satellite is on top of the consumers of its services and, of course, a correct approach when the consumer has an outdoor satellite receiver (e.g., a dish) in direct LoS with the satellite. Moreover, historically, most satellite-to-Earth communication has relied on outdoor ground stations or outdoor dishes (e.g., placed on roofs or another suitable location) where the outdoor antenna on Earth provides LoS to the satellite’s antenna also compensating somewhat for the signal loss due to the distance to the satellite.

When considering a satellite direct-to-cell device, we no longer have the luxury of a satellite-optimized advanced Earth-based outdoor antenna to facilitate the communications between the satellite and the consumer device. The satellite signal has to close the connection with a standard cellular device (e.g., smartphone, tablet, …), just like the terrestrial cellular network would have to do.

However, 80% or more of our mobile cellular traffic happens indoors, in our homes, workplaces, and public places. If a satellite system had to replace existing mobile network services, it would also have to provide a service quality similar to that of consumers from the terrestrial cellular network. As shown in the above figure, this involves urban areas where the satellite signal will likely pass through a roof and multiple floors before reaching a consumer. Depending on housing density, buildings (shadowing) may block the satellite signal, resulting in substantial service degradation for consumers suffering from such degrading effects. Even if the satellite signal would not face the same challenges as a terrestrial cellular signal, such as with vegetation, terrain variations, and the horizontal dimension of urban topology (e.g., outer& inner walls, coated windows,… ), the satellite signal would still have to overcome the vertical dimension of urban topologies (e..g, roofs, ceilings, floors, etc…) to connect to consumers cellular devices.

For terrestrial cellular services, the cellular network’s signal integrity will (always) have a considerable advantage over the satellite signal because of the proximity to the consumer’s cellular device. With respect to distance alone, an LEO satellite at an altitude of 550 km will have to overcome a 50 thousand times (or a 47 dB) path loss compared to a cellular base station antenna 2.5 km away. Overcoming that path loss penalty adds considerable challenges to the antenna design, which would seem highly challenging to meet and far from what is possible with today’s technology (and economy).

CHALLENGES SUMMARIZED.

Achieving parity between a Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellite providing Direct-to-Cell (D2C) services and a terrestrial 5G network involves overcoming significant technical challenges. The disparity arises from fundamental differences in these systems’ environments, particularly in free-space path loss, penetration loss, and power delivery. Terrestrial networks benefit from closer proximity to the consumer, higher antenna density, and lower propagation losses. In contrast, LEO satellites must address far more significant free-space path losses due to the large distances involved and the additional challenges of transmitting signals through the atmosphere and into buildings.

The D2C challenges for LEO satellites are increasingly severe at higher frequencies, such as 3.5 GHz and above. As we have seen above, the free-space path loss increases with the square of the frequency, and penetration losses through common building materials, such as walls and floors, are significantly higher. For an LEO satellite system to achieve indoor parity with terrestrial 5G services at this frequency, it would need to achieve extraordinary levels of effective isotropic radiated power (EIRP), around 65 dB, and narrow beamwidths of approximately 0.5° to concentrate power on specific service areas. This would require very high onboard power outputs, exceeding 1 kW, and large antenna apertures, around 2 m in diameter, to achieve gains near 55 dBi. These requirements place considerable demands on satellite design, increasing mass, complexity, and cost. Despite these optimizations, indoor service parity at 3.5 GHz remains challenging due to persistent penetration losses of around 20 dB, making this frequency better suited for outdoor or line-of-sight applications.

Achieving a stable beam with the small widths required for a LEO satellite to provide high-performance Direct-to-Cell (D2C) services presents significant challenges. Narrow beam widths, on the order of 0.5° to 1°, are essential to effectively focus the satellite’s power and overcome the high free-space path loss. However, maintaining such precise beams demands advanced satellite antenna technologies, such as high-gain phased arrays or large deployable apertures, which introduce design, manufacturing, and deployment complexities. Moreover, the satellite must continuously track rapidly moving targets on Earth as it orbits around 7.8 km/s. This requires highly accurate and fast beam-steering systems, often using phased arrays with electronic beamforming, to compensate for the relative motion between the satellite and the consumer. Any misalignment in the beam can result in significant signal degradation or complete loss of service. Additionally, ensuring stable beams under variable conditions, such as atmospheric distortion, satellite vibrations, and thermal expansion in space, adds further layers of technical complexity. These requirements increase the system’s power consumption and cost and impose stringent constraints on satellite design, making it a critical challenge to achieve reliable and efficient D2C connectivity.

As the operating frequency decreases, the specifications for achieving parity become less stringent. At 1.8 GHz, the free-space path loss and penetration losses are lower, reducing the signal deficit. For a LEO satellite operating at this frequency, a 2.5 m² aperture (1.8 m diameter) antenna and an onboard power output of around 800 W would suffice to deliver EIRP near 60 dBW, bringing outdoor performance close to terrestrial equivalency. Indoor parity, while more achievable than 3.5 GHz, would still face challenges due to penetration losses of approximately 15 dB. However, the balance between the reduced propagation losses and achievable satellite optimizations makes 1.8 GHz a more practical compromise for mixed indoor and outdoor coverage.

At 800 MHz, the frequency-dependent losses are significantly reduced, making it the most feasible option for LEO satellite systems to achieve parity with terrestrial 5G networks. The free-space path loss decreases further, and penetration losses into buildings are reduced to approximately 10 dB, comparable to what terrestrial systems experience. These characteristics mean that the required specifications for the satellite system are notably relaxed. A 1.5 m² aperture (1.4 m diameter) antenna, combined with a power output of 400 W, would achieve sufficient gain and EIRP (~55 dBW) to deliver robust outdoor coverage and acceptable indoor service quality. Lower frequencies also mitigate the need for extreme beamwidth narrowing, allowing for more flexible service deployment.

Most consumers’ cellular consumption happens indoors. These consumers are compared to an LEO satellite solution typically better served by existing 5G cellular broadband networks. When considering a direct-to-normal-cellular device, it would not be practical to have an LEO satellite network, even an extensive one, to replace existing 5G terrestrial-based cellular networks and the services these support today.

This does not mean that LEO satellite cannot be of great utility when connecting to an outdoor Earth-based consumer dish, as is already evident in many remote, rural, and suburban places. The summary table above also shows that LEO satellite D2C services are feasible, without too challenging modifications, at the lower cellular frequency ranges between 600 MHz to 1800 MHz at service levels close to the terrestrial systems, at least in rural areas and for outdoor services in general. In indoor situations, the LEO Satellite D2C signal is more likely to be compromised due to roof and multiple floor penetration scenarios to which a terrestrial signal may be less exposed.

WHAT GOES DOWN MUST COME UP.

LEO satellite services that provide direct to unmodified mobile cellular device services are getting us all too focused on the downlink path from the satellite directly to the device. It seems easy to forget that unless you deliver a broadcast service, we also need the unmodified cellular device to directly communicate meaningfully with the LEO satellite. The challenge for an unmodified cellular device (e.g., smartphone, tablet, etc.) to receive the satellite D2C signal has been explained extensively in the previous section. In the satellite downlink-to-device scenario, we can optimize the design specifications of the LEO satellite to overcome some (or most, depending on the frequency) of the challenges posed by the satellite’s high altitude (compared to a terrestrial base station’s distance to the consumer device). In the device direct-uplink-to-satellite, we have very little to no flexibility unless we start changing the specifications of the terrestrial device portfolio. Suppose we change the specifications for consumer devices to communicate better with satellites. In that case, we also change the premise and economics of the (wrong) idea that LEO satellites should be able to completely replace terrestrial cellular networks at service parity with those terrestrial cellular networks.

Achieving uplink communication from a standard cellular device to an LEO satellite poses significant challenges, especially when attempting to match the performance of a terrestrial 5G network. Cellular devices are designed with limited transmission power, typically in the range of 23–30 dBm (0.2–1 watt), sufficient for short-range communication with terrestrial base stations. However, when the receiving station is a satellite orbiting between 550 and 1,200 kilometers, the transmitted signal encounters substantial free-space path loss. The satellite must, therefore, be capable of detecting and processing extremely weak signals, often below -120 dBm, to maintain a reliable connection.

The free-space path loss in the uplink direction is comparable to that in the downlink, but the challenges are compounded by the cellular device’s limitations. At higher frequencies, such as 3.5 GHz, path loss can exceed 155 dB, while at 1.8 GHz and 800 MHz, it reduces to approximately 149.6 dB and 143.6 dB, respectively. Lower frequencies favor uplink communication because they experience less path loss, enabling better signal propagation over large distances. However, cellular devices typically use omnidirectional antennas with very low gain (0–2 dBi), poorly suited for long-distance communication, placing even greater demands on the satellite’s receiving capabilities.

The satellite must compensate for these limitations with highly sensitive receivers and high-gain antennas. Achieving sufficient antenna gain requires large apertures, often exceeding 4 meters in diameter for 800 MHz or 2 meters for 3.5 GHz, increasing the satellite’s size, weight, and complexity. Phased-array antennas or deployable reflectors are often used to achieve the required gain. Still, their implementation is constrained by the physical limitations and costs of launching such systems into orbit. Additionally, the satellite’s receiver must have an exceptionally low noise figure, typically in the range of 1–3 dB, to minimize internal noise and allow the detection of weak uplink signals.

Interference is another critical challenge in the uplink path. Unlike terrestrial networks, where signals from individual devices are isolated into small sectors, satellites receive signals over larger geographic areas. This broad coverage makes it difficult to separate and process individual transmissions, particularly in densely populated areas where numerous devices transmit simultaneously. Managing this interference requires sophisticated signal processing capabilities on the satellite, increasing its complexity and power demands.

The motion of LEO satellites introduces additional complications due to the Doppler effect, which causes a shift in the uplink signal frequency. At higher frequencies like 3.5 GHz, these shifts are more pronounced, requiring real-time adjustments to the receiver to compensate. This dynamic frequency management adds another layer of complexity to the satellite’s design and operation.

Among the frequencies considered, 3.5 GHz is the most challenging for uplink communication due to high path loss, pronounced Doppler effects, and poor building penetration. Satellites operating at this frequency must achieve extraordinary sensitivity and gain, which is difficult to implement at scale. At 1.8 GHz, the challenges are somewhat reduced as the path loss and Doppler effects are less severe. However, the uplink requires advanced receiver sensitivity and high-gain antennas to approach terrestrial network performance. The most favorable scenario is at 800 MHz, where the lower path loss and better penetration characteristics make uplink communication significantly more feasible. Satellites operating at this frequency require less extreme sensitivity and gain, making it a practical choice for achieving parity with terrestrial 5G networks, especially for outdoor and light indoor coverage.

Uplink, the consumer device to satellite signal direction, poses additional limitations to the frequency range. Such systems may be interesting to 600 MHz to a maximum of 1.8 GHz, which is already challenging for uplink and downlink in indoor usage. Service in the lower cellular frequency range is feasible for outdoor usage scenarios in rural and remote areas and for non-challenging indoor environments (e.g., “simple” building topologies).

The premise that LEO satellite D2C services would make terrestrial cellular networks redundant everywhere by offering service parity appears very unlikely, and certainly not with the current generation of LEO satellites being launched. The altitude range of the LEO satellites (300 – 1200 km) and frequency ranges used for most terrestrial cellular services (600 MHz to 5 GHz) make it very challenging and even impractical (for higher cellular frequency ranges) to achieve quality and capacity parity with existing terrestrial cellular networks.

LEO SATELLITE D2C ARCHITECTURE.

A subscriber would realize they have LEO satellite Direct-to-Cell coverage through network signaling and notifications provided by their mobile device and network operator. Using this coverage depends on the integration between the LEO satellite system and the terrestrial cellular network, as well as the subscriber’s device and network settings. Here’s how this process typically works:

When a subscriber moves into an area where traditional terrestrial coverage is unavailable or weak, their mobile device will periodically search for available networks, as it does when trying to maintain connectivity. If the device detects a signal from a LEO satellite providing D2C services, it may indicate “Satellite Coverage” or a similar notification on the device’s screen.

This recognition is possible because the LEO satellite extends the subscriber’s mobile network. The satellite broadcasts system information on the same frequency bands licensed to the subscriber’s terrestrial network operator. The device identifies the network using the Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) ID, which matches the subscriber’s home network or a partner network in a roaming scenario. The PLMN is a fundamental component of terrestrial and LEO satellite D2C networks, which is the identifier that links a mobile consumer to a specific mobile network operator. It enables communication, access rights management, network interoperability, and supporting services such as voice, text, and data.

The PLMN is also directly connected to the frequency bands used by an operator and any satellite service provider, acting as an extension of the operator’s network. It ensures that devices access the appropriately licensed bands through terrestrial or satellite systems and governs spectrum usage to maintain compliance with regulatory frameworks. Thus, the PLMN links the network identification and frequency allocation, ensuring seamless and lawful operation in terrestrial and satellite contexts.

In an LEO satellite D2C network, the PLMN plays a similar but more complex role, as it must bridge the satellite system with terrestrial mobile networks. The satellite effectively operates as an extension of the terrestrial PLMN, using the same MCC and MNC codes as the consumer’s home network or a roaming partner. This ensures that consumer devices perceive the satellite network as part of their existing subscription, avoiding the need for additional configuration or specialized hardware. When the satellite provides coverage, the PLMN enables the device to authenticate and access services through the operator’s core network, ensuring consistency with terrestrial operations. It ensures that consumer authentication, billing, and service provisioning remain consistent across the terrestrial and satellite domains. In cases where multiple terrestrial operators share access to a satellite system, the PLMN facilitates the correct routing of consumer sessions to their respective home networks. This coordination is particularly important in roaming scenarios, where a consumer connected to a satellite in one region may need to access services through their home network located in another region.

For a subscriber to make use of LEO satellite coverage, the following conditions must be met:

  • Device Compatibility: The subscriber’s mobile device must support satellite connectivity. While many standard devices are compatible with satellite D2C services using terrestrial frequencies, certain features may be required, such as enhanced signal processing or firmware updates. Modern smartphones are increasingly being designed to support these capabilities.
  • Network Integration: The LEO satellite must be integrated with the subscriber’s mobile operator’s core network. This ensures the satellite extends the terrestrial network, maintaining seamless authentication, billing, and service delivery. Consumers can make and receive calls, send texts, or access data services through the satellite link without changing their settings or SIM card.
  • Service Availability: The type of services available over the satellite link depends on the network and satellite capabilities. Initially, services may be limited to text messaging and voice calls, as these require less bandwidth and are easier to support in shared satellite coverage zones. High-speed data services, while possible, may require further advancements in satellite capacity and network integration.
  • Subscription or Permissions: Subscribers must have access to satellite services through their mobile plan. This could be included in their existing plan or offered as an add-on service. In some cases, roaming agreements between the subscriber’s home network and the satellite operator may apply.
  • Emergency Use: In specific scenarios, satellite connectivity may be automatically enabled for emergencies, such as SOS messages, even if the subscriber does not actively use the service for regular communication. This is particularly useful in remote or disaster-affected areas with unavailable terrestrial networks.

Once connected to the satellite, the consumer experience is designed to be seamless. The subscriber can initiate calls, send messages, or access other supported services just as they would under terrestrial coverage. The main differences may include longer latency due to the satellite link and, potentially, lower data speeds or limitations on high-bandwidth activities, depending on the satellite network’s capacity and the number of consumers sharing the satellite beam.

Managing a call on a Direct-to-Cell (D2C) satellite network requires specific mobile network elements in the core network, alongside seamless integration between the satellite provider and the subscriber’s terrestrial network provider. The service’s success depends on how well the satellite system integrates into the terrestrial operator’s architecture, ensuring that standard cellular functions like authentication, session management, and billing are preserved.

In a 5G network, the core network plays a central role in managing calls and data sessions. For a D2C satellite service, key components of the operator’s core network include the Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF), which handles consumer authentication and signaling. The AMF establishes and maintains connectivity for subscribers connecting via the satellite. Additionally, the Session Management Function (SMF) oversees the session context for data services. It ensures compatibility with the IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS), which manages call control, routing, and handoffs for voice-over-IP communications. The Unified Data Management (UDM) system, another critical core component, stores subscriber profiles, detailing permissions for satellite use, roaming policies, and Quality of Service (QoS) settings.

To enforce network policies and billing, the Policy Control Function (PCF) applies service-level agreements and ensures appropriate charges for satellite usage. For data routing, elements such as the User Plane Function (UPF) direct traffic between the satellite ground stations and the operator’s core network. Additionally, interconnect gateways manage traffic beyond the operator’s network, such as the Internet or another carrier’s network.

The role of the satellite provider in this architecture depends on the integration model. If the satellite system is fully integrated with the terrestrial operator, the satellite primarily acts as an extension of the operator’s radio access network (RAN). In this case, the satellite provider requires ground stations to downlink traffic from the satellites and forward it to the operator’s core network via secure, high-speed connections. The satellite provider handles radio gateway functionality, translating satellite-specific protocols into formats compatible with terrestrial systems. In this scenario, the satellite provider does not need its own core network because the operator’s core handles all call processing, authentication, billing, and session management.

In a standalone model, where the LEO satellite provider operates independently, the satellite system must include its own complete core network. This requires implementing AMF, SMF, UDM, IMS, and UPF, allowing the satellite provider to directly manage subscriber sessions and calls. In this case, interconnect agreements with terrestrial operators would be needed to enable roaming and off-network communication.

Most current D2C solutions, including those proposed by Starlink with T-Mobile or AST SpaceMobile, follow the integrated model. In these cases, the satellite provider relies on the terrestrial operator’s core network, reducing complexity and leveraging existing subscriber management systems. The LEO satellites are primarily responsible for providing RAN functionality and ensuring reliable connectivity to the terrestrial core.

REGULATORY CHALLENGES.

LEO satellite networks offering Direct-to-Cell (D2C) services face substantial regulatory challenges in their efforts to operate within frequency bands already allocated to terrestrial cellular services. These challenges are particularly significant in regions like Europe and the United States, where cellular frequency ranges are tightly regulated and managed by national and regional authorities to ensure interference-free operations and equitable access among service providers.

The cellular frequency spectrum in Europe and the USA is allocated through licensing frameworks that grant exclusive usage rights to mobile network operators (MNOs) for specific frequency bands, often through competitive auctions. For example, in the United States, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulates spectrum usage, while in Europe, national regulatory authorities manage spectrum allocations under the guidelines set by the European Union and CEPT (European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations). The spectrum currently allocated for cellular services, including low-band (e.g., 600 MHz, 800 MHz), mid-band (e.g., 1.8 GHz, 2.1 GHz), and high-band (e.g., 3.5 GHz), is heavily utilized by terrestrial operators for 4G LTE and 5G networks.

In March 2024, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted a groundbreaking regulatory framework to facilitate collaborations between satellite operators and terrestrial mobile service providers. This initiative, termed “Supplemental Coverage from Space,” allows satellite operators to use the terrestrial mobile spectrum to offer connectivity directly to consumer handsets and is an essential component of FCC’s “Single Network Future.” The framework aims to enhance coverage, especially in remote and underserved areas, by integrating satellite and terrestrial networks. The FCC granted SpaceX (November 2024) approval to provide direct-to-cell services via its Starlink satellites. This authorization enables SpaceX to partner with mobile carriers, such as T-Mobile, to extend mobile coverage using satellite technology. The approval includes specific conditions to prevent interference with existing services and to ensure compliance with established regulations. Notably, the FCC also granted SpaceX’s request to provide service to cell phones outside the United States. For non-US operations, Starlink must obtain authorization from the relevant governments. Non-US operations are authorized in various sub-bands between 1429 MHz and 2690 MHz.

In Europe, the regulatory framework for D2C services is under active development. The European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations (CEPT) is exploring the regulatory and technical aspects of satellite-based D2C communications. This includes understanding connectivity requirements and addressing national licensing issues to facilitate the integration of satellite services with existing mobile networks. Additionally, the European Space Agency (ESA) has initiated feasibility studies on Direct-to-Cell connectivity, collaborating with industry partners to assess the potential and challenges of implementing such services across Europe. These studies aim to inform future regulatory decisions and promote innovation in satellite communications.

For LEO satellite operators to offer D2C services in these regulated bands, they would need to reach agreements with the licensed MNOs with the rights to these frequencies. This could take the form of spectrum-sharing agreements or leasing arrangements, wherein the satellite operator obtains permission to use the spectrum for specific purposes, often under strict conditions to avoid interference with terrestrial networks. For example, SpaceX’s collaboration with T-Mobile in the USA involves utilizing T-Mobile’s existing mid-band spectrum (i.e., PCS1900) under a partnership model, enabling satellite-based connectivity without requiring additional spectrum licensing.

In Europe, the situation is more complex due to the fragmented nature of the regulatory environment. Each country manages its spectrum independently, meaning LEO operators must negotiate agreements with individual national MNOs and regulators. This creates significant administrative and logistical hurdles, as the operator must align with diverse licensing conditions, technical requirements, and interference mitigation measures across multiple jurisdictions. Furthermore, any satellite use of the terrestrial spectrum in Europe must comply with European Union directives and ITU (International Telecommunication Union) regulations, prioritizing terrestrial services in these bands.

Interference management is a critical regulatory concern. LEO satellites operating in the same frequency bands as terrestrial networks must implement sophisticated coordination mechanisms to ensure their signals do not disrupt terrestrial operations. This includes dynamic spectrum management, geographic beam shaping, and power control techniques to minimize interference in densely populated areas where terrestrial networks are most active. Regulators in the USA and Europe will likely require detailed technical demonstrations and compliance testing before approving such operations.

Another significant challenge is ensuring equitable access to spectrum resources. MNOs have invested heavily in acquiring and deploying their licensed spectrum, and many may view satellite D2C services as a competitive threat. Regulators would need to establish clear frameworks to balance the rights of terrestrial operators with the potential societal benefits of extending connectivity through satellites, particularly in underserved rural or remote areas.

Beyond regulatory hurdles, LEO satellite operators must collaborate extensively with MNOs to integrate their services effectively. This includes interoperability agreements to ensure seamless handoffs between terrestrial and satellite networks and the development of business models that align incentives for both parties.

TAKEAWAYS.

Ditect-to-cell LEO satellite networks face considerable technology hurdles in providing services comparable to terrestrial cellular networks.

  • Overcoming free-space path loss and ensuring uplink connectivity from low-power mobile devices with omnidirectional antennas.
  • Cellular devices transmit at low power (typically 23–30 dBm), making it difficult for uplink signals to reach satellites in LEO at 500–1,200 km altitudes.
  • Uplink signals from multiple devices within a satellite beam area can overlap, creating interference that challenges the satellite’s ability to separate and process individual uplink signals.
  • Developing advanced phased-array antennas for satellites, dynamic beam management, and low-latency signal processing to maintain service quality.
  • Managing mobility challenges, including seamless handovers between satellites and beams and mitigating Doppler effects due to the high relative velocity of LEO satellites.
  • The high relative velocity of LEO satellites introduces frequency shifts (i.e., Doppler Effect) that the satellite must compensate for dynamically to maintain signal integrity.
  • Address bandwidth limitations and efficiently reuse spectrum while minimizing interference with terrestrial and other satellite networks.
  • Scaling globally may require satellites to carry varied payload configurations to accommodate regional spectrum requirements, increasing technical complexity and deployment expenses.
  • Operating on terrestrial frequencies necessitates dynamic spectrum sharing and interference mitigation strategies, especially in densely populated areas, limiting coverage efficiency and capacity.
  • Ensuring the frequent replacement of LEO satellites due to shorter lifespans increases operational complexity and cost.

On the regulatory front, integrating D2C satellite services into existing mobile ecosystems is complex. Spectrum licensing is a key issue, as satellite operators must either share frequencies already allocated to terrestrial mobile operators or secure dedicated satellite spectrum.

  • Securing access to shared or dedicated spectrum, particularly negotiating with terrestrial operators to use licensed frequencies.
  • Avoiding interference between satellite and terrestrial networks requires detailed agreements and advanced spectrum management techniques.
  • Navigating fragmented regulatory frameworks in Europe, where national licensing requirements vary significantly.
  • Spectrum Fragmentation: With frequency allocations varying significantly across countries and regions, scaling globally requires navigating diverse and complex spectrum licensing agreements, slowing deployment and increasing administrative costs.
  • Complying with evolving international regulations, including those to be defined at the ITU’s WRC-27 conference.
  • Developing clear standards and agreements for roaming and service integration between satellite operators and terrestrial mobile network providers.
  • The high administrative and operational burden of scaling globally diminishes economic benefits, particularly in regions where terrestrial networks already dominate.
  • While satellites excel in rural or remote areas, they might not meet high traffic demands in urban areas, restricting their ability to scale as a comprehensive alternative to terrestrial networks.

The idea of D2C satellite networks making terrestrial cellular networks obsolete is ambitious but fraught with practical limitations. While LEO satellites offer unparalleled reach in remote and underserved areas, they struggle to match terrestrial networks’ capacity, reliability, and low latency in urban and suburban environments. The high density of base stations in terrestrial networks enables them to handle far greater traffic volumes, especially for data-intensive applications.

  • Coverage advantage: Satellites provide global reach, particularly in remote or underserved regions, where terrestrial networks are cost-prohibitive and often of poor quality or altogether lacking.
  • Capacity limitations: Satellites struggle to match the high-density traffic capacity of terrestrial networks, especially in urban areas.
  • Latency challenges: Satellite latency, though improving, cannot yet compete with the ultra-low latency of terrestrial 5G for time-critical applications.
  • Cost concerns: Deploying and maintaining satellite constellations is expensive, and they still depend on terrestrial core infrastructure (although the savings if all terrestrial RAN infrastructure could be avoided is also very substantial).
  • Complementary role: D2C networks are better suited as an extension to terrestrial networks, filling coverage gaps rather than replacing them entirely.

The regulatory and operational constraints surrounding using terrestrial mobile frequencies for D2C services severely limit scalability. This fragmentation makes it difficult to achieve global coverage seamlessly and increases operational and economic inefficiencies. While D2C services hold promise for addressing connectivity gaps in remote areas, their ability to scale as a comprehensive alternative to terrestrial networks is hampered by these challenges. Unless global regulatory harmonization or innovative technical solutions emerge, D2C networks will likely remain a complementary, sub-scale solution rather than a standalone replacement for terrestrial mobile networks.

FURTHER READING.

  1. Kim K. Larsen, “The Next Frontier: LEO Satellites for Internet Services.” Techneconomyblog, (March 2024).
  2. Kim K. Larsen, “Stratospheric Drones & Low Earth Satellites: Revolutionizing Terrestrial Rural Broadband from the Skies?” Techneconomyblog, (January 2024).
  3. Kim K. Larsen, “A Single Network Future“, Techneconomyblog, (March 2024).
  4. T.S. Rappaport, “Wireless Communications – Principles & Practice,” Prentice Hall (1996). In my opinion, it is one of the best graduate textbooks on communications systems. I bought it back in 1999 as a regular hardcover. I have not found it as a Kindle version, but I believe there are sites where a PDF version may be available (e.g., Scribd).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.

I greatly acknowledge my wife, Eva Varadi, for her support, patience, and understanding during the creative process of writing this article.