How Climate Change is Quietly Reshaping Low Earth Orbit—and Why It Matters for Satellites

When we think about climate change, we often focus on its effects on Earth—rising sea levels, extreme weather, and melting ice caps. But a groundbreaking study published in Nature Sustainability(Parker et al., 2025) reveals a surprising and critical consequence of climate change that extends far beyond our planet’s surface: the shrinking of Earth’s upper atmosphere, which is directly impacting the sustainability of low Earth orbit (LEO), where most satellites operate.

What’s Happening in the Upper Atmosphere?

The thermosphere, a layer of the atmosphere that extends into LEO (200–1,000 km above Earth), is cooling and contracting due to the buildup of greenhouse gases (GHGs) like carbon dioxide (CO2). While GHGs trap heat in the lower atmosphere (causing global warming), they have the opposite effect in the upper atmosphere. Here, CO2 absorbs and radiates heat away into space, leading to a cooling effect. Over time, this cooling causes the thermosphere to shrink, reducing the density of the atmosphere at satellite altitudes.This might sound like a good thing—less atmospheric drag means satellites can stay in orbit longer. But there’s a catch: this same reduction in drag also allows space debris to remain in orbit for much longer, increasing the risk of collisions and the potential for a catastrophic chain reaction known as theKessler Syndrome.

The Growing Threat of Space Debris

Space debris—fragments of defunct satellites, rocket stages, and other objects—has been a growing concern for decades. In LEO, atmospheric drag naturally slows down debris, causing it to re-enter and burn up in Earth’s atmosphere. However, as the thermosphere contracts and density decreases, this natural cleanup process slows dramatically. Debris that would have deorbited in a few years could now remain in orbit for decades or even centuries.This creates a dangerous situation. With more debris lingering in orbit, the likelihood of collisions increases. Each collision generates even more debris, which can trigger a cascading effect where the orbital environment becomes so cluttered that it’s no longer safe for satellites to operate. This is the essence of the Kessler Syndrome, a scenario that could render parts of LEO unusable for future generations.

How Bad Could It Get?

The study used climate models to project the effects of different CO2 emission scenarios on the thermosphere and LEO’s carrying capacity—the maximum number of satellites that can safely operate without triggering runaway debris growth. The results are alarming:

• By 2100, the satellite carrying capacity of LEO could decrease by 50–66% under high-emission scenarios.

• The most significant reductions in capacity are expected at higher altitudes (above 400 km), where debris already takes longer to deorbit.

• Even under moderate emission scenarios, the carrying capacity of LEO is projected to shrink significantly, making it harder to sustain the growing number of satellites being launched.

Why This Matters for the Satellite Industry

LEO is the backbone of modern satellite operations, supporting everything from global communications and navigation to weather forecasting and Earth observation. The rapid expansion of satellite constellations, such as SpaceX’s Starlink and Amazon’s Project Kuiper, has already increased the density of objects in orbit. If we don’t address the combined challenges of space debris and climate-driven changes to the thermosphere, we risk overloading this critical region of space.For satellite operators, this means more frequent collision avoidance maneuvers, higher insurance costs, and stricter regulations on satellite deorbiting and debris mitigation. The U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has already reduced the recommended deorbit timeline for defunct satellites from 25 years to just 5 years, but these measures may not be enough if the thermosphere continues to shrink.

A Call for Unified Action

The study underscores the need for a unified approach to tackle two interconnected challenges: climate change and space sustainability. Reducing GHG emissions won’t just benefit life on Earth—it will also help preserve the orbital environment by slowing the contraction of the thermosphere. At the same time, the satellite industry must adopt more aggressive debris mitigation strategies, such as active debris removal, improved tracking systems, and better coordination between operators.As the authors of the study point out, “Climate change and orbital debris accumulation are two pressing issues of inextricable global concern requiring unified action.” The future of LEO—and the countless services it supports—depends on our ability to address these challenges together.

This blog post is based on the findings of Parker et al. (2025) in Nature Sustainability. You can read the full study here:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-025-01512-0.

Expanded Impact of Starship Failures on Launch Capacity Shortages

SpaceX has established itself as the global leader in launch services, primarily due to its innovative technologies and the reliability of its Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy rockets. However, the recent failures of the Starship program could exacerbate the existing shortage of launch capacity in the industry, which is already facing significant demand from various satellite operators.

Increased Demand for Launch Services

The demand for satellite launches has surged in recent years, driven by the proliferation of satellite internet constellations like Starlink, Telesat Lightspeed, and Amazon Kuiper. Telesat has contracted 14 launches with SpaceX starting in mid-2026 to deploy its entire Lightspeed broadband constellation, while Amazon has also secured multiple launches for its Kuiper project. These contracts highlight the reliance on SpaceX for timely and efficient satellite deployment. However, with the Starship program facing setbacks, the ability of SpaceX to fulfill these commitments could be compromised, leading to delays in satellite deployments.

Reliance on a Single Provider

The current landscape of the launch industry shows a heavy reliance on SpaceX as a primary launch provider. While Telesat and Amazon have sought to diversify their launch options, many alternative providers lack the capacity or technology to meet the growing demand. For instance, Amazon has contracted with multiple launch companies, but many of these companies do not possess the rockets capable of launching their satellites effectively. This situation underscores the precariousness of the market, where a single provider's setbacks can ripple through the entire ecosystem.

Drawbacks of Relying on Falcon 9

If SpaceX must continue relying on the Falcon 9 launch vehicle, several drawbacks could arise:

1. Payload Limitations: The Falcon 9 has a lower payload capacity compared to the intended capabilities of Starship. This means that launching larger batches of satellites, as needed for extensive constellations, would take longer and require more launches, which could delay deployment timelines.

2. Higher Launch Frequency: To compensate for the reduced capacity, SpaceX would need to increase the frequency of Falcon 9 launches. This could lead to scheduling conflicts and logistical challenges, especially if other customers are also vying for launch slots.

3. Increased Costs: While Falcon 9 is already known for its cost-effectiveness, the need for more frequent launches could drive up overall costs for satellite operators. This may lead to higher prices for end consumers who rely on satellite internet services.

4. Limited Innovation: Relying on Falcon 9 for an extended period could slow down the pace of innovation and development of the Starship program. The focus on maintaining Falcon 9 operations might divert resources and attention away from advancing technologies that could benefit future missions.

Potential for Increased Launch Costs and Delays

As SpaceX grapples with the challenges of the Starship program, the potential for increased launch costs and delays becomes more pronounced. If SpaceX cannot deliver on its launch commitments, satellite operators may be forced to seek alternative providers, which could lead to bidding wars and inflated prices. Additionally, delays in launching satellites could hinder the rollout of critical services, impacting not only the companies involved but also the consumers relying on these services for internet access.

Final Word

The failures of the Starship program could significantly impact the already strained launch capacity in the industry. With SpaceX being a key player in the satellite launch market, any disruptions in its operations could lead to delays and increased costs for satellite operators like Telesat and Amazon. Furthermore, the continued reliance on the Falcon 9 launch vehicle presents its own set of drawbacks, including payload limitations and increased costs. As the demand for satellite launches continues to grow, the industry must address these challenges to ensure a reliable and competitive launch environment.

Satellite vs. Terrestrial: Complementary or Competitive?

The world is more connected than ever, and the demand for reliable, high-speed internet continues to grow. From urban centers to the most remote corners of the globe, connectivity is no longer a luxury—it’s a necessity. Two key players in this space, satellite internet and terrestrial networks, are often portrayed as competitors. Add to this the buzz around "direct-to-device" satellite connectivity, and the conversation becomes even more muddled.But is this competition real? Or are these technologies better viewed as complementary solutions? And what about the hype surrounding direct-to-device connectivity—are we expecting too much, too soon? Let’s explore these questions and level-set expectations while examining how satellite and terrestrial networks can work together to meet the world’s connectivity needs.

The Promise and Challenges of Satellite Internet

Satellite internet has been making headlines, especially with the rise of Low Earth Orbit (LEO) constellations like SpaceX’s Starlink and OneWeb. These systems promise to bring high-speed internet to places where traditional infrastructure is impractical or too expensive to build. For rural communities, remote industries, and even disaster-stricken areas, satellite internet offers a lifeline.What makes satellite internet stand out?
Its biggest strength is global coverage. Satellites can reach areas that terrestrial networks simply can’t, such as remote villages, ships at sea, or planes in the sky. Additionally, satellite systems are resilient—they’re less vulnerable to natural disasters or infrastructure failures, making them a reliable option in emergencies.But satellite internet isn’t without its challenges. Latency, while improving with LEO satellites, is still higher than terrestrial networks, which can be a dealbreaker for applications like gaming or real-time financial transactions. Cost is another factor. Deploying and maintaining satellite constellations is expensive, and that cost often trickles down to consumers, making it less accessible for widespread use.

Terrestrial Networks: The Backbone of Connectivity

Terrestrial networks, on the other hand, dominate urban and suburban areas. These systems rely on infrastructure like fiber-optic cables, cell towers, and microwave links to deliver high-speed, low-latency internet. For densely populated regions, terrestrial networks are the go-to solution.Their strengths are clear: low latency, high speeds, and cost-effectiveness in areas with existing infrastructure. Fiber-optic networks, in particular, offer unmatched performance for bandwidth-intensive applications like streaming and video conferencing.However, terrestrial networks have their own limitations. Building infrastructure in remote or rural areas is often cost-prohibitive, leaving many regions without reliable connectivity. Additionally, terrestrial systems are vulnerable to natural disasters—hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods can knock out service for days or even weeks.

Direct-to-Device: Overhyped or the Next Big Thing?

One of the most talked-about developments in satellite communications is direct-to-device connectivity. The idea of connecting your smartphone directly to a satellite without additional hardware sounds revolutionary. Companies like AST SpaceMobile and Lynk are working to make this a reality, and the potential use cases—emergency communications, rural connectivity—are exciting.But let’s be honest: direct-to-device connectivity has been overhyped. The technology is still in its infancy and faces significant hurdles. For one, most current smartphones aren’t equipped to communicate directly with satellites, meaning hardware upgrades or specialized devices may be required. Spectrum allocation is another challenge—ensuring satellites and terrestrial networks can share spectrum without interference is no small feat. And even if these hurdles are overcome, direct-to-device connections are unlikely to match the speed and reliability of terrestrial networks anytime soon.While it’s an exciting development, direct-to-device connectivity is not a replacement for terrestrial or traditional satellite networks. Instead, it’s a complementary solution for specific scenarios, like emergency communications in remote areas.

Competition or Collaboration?

The narrative of competition between satellite and terrestrial networks often overshadows the reality: these systems are increasingly complementary. Yes, there’s competition in certain markets—satellite providers like Starlink are disrupting traditional telecom markets by offering broadband services directly to consumers, particularly in underserved areas. Meanwhile, terrestrial networks, especially with the rollout of 5G, continue to dominate urban markets with faster speeds and lower costs.But the real potential lies in collaboration. Hybrid networks, which combine the global coverage of satellites with the speed and reliability of terrestrial systems, are already emerging as a powerful solution. For example, industries like aviation and maritime primarily rely on satellite systems for connectivity in remote areas, such as over oceans or during flights. However, terrestrial networks play a role when these operations are near or within populated areas, such as ports, coastal regions, or airports, where high-bandwidth terrestrial infrastructure is available.

The Future of Connectivity

Looking ahead, the future of global connectivity lies in the convergence of satellite and terrestrial networks. As technologies like 5G and beyond continue to evolve, the integration of these systems will become even more critical. Hybrid models, such as Space-Air-Ground Integrated Networks (SAGIN), are already being developed to provide seamless communication across land, sea, and air.Emerging technologies like artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) will further optimize these hybrid networks, enabling efficient spectrum management, predictive maintenance, and autonomous operations. Additionally, advancements in satellite miniaturization and reusable launch technologies are driving down costs, making satellite internet more accessible to consumers.

Final Thoughts

Satellite internet and terrestrial networks each have unique strengths that make them indispensable in the quest for global connectivity. While competition exists in certain markets, their true potential lies in collaboration. By integrating these systems, we can create a world where everyone, regardless of location, has access to reliable, high-speed internet.As for direct-to-device connectivity, it’s an exciting development, but it’s not the silver bullet some make it out to be. It’s a niche solution that will complement, not replace, existing networks. By leveling expectations and focusing on the complementary nature of satellite and terrestrial systems, we can better understand how to leverage their strengths to build a more connected future.The question isn’t whether satellite and terrestrial networks are complementary or competitive—it’s how we can use both to meet the growing demand for connectivity in a way that’s sustainable, reliable, and accessible for all.

Elon Musk, the New US Administration, and the Future of Satellite Communications

The satellite communications industry, particularly Low Earth Orbit (LEO) services, stands on the cusp of transformative change. At the center of this shift is Elon Musk, whose Starlink network has redefined satellite broadband. With the incoming Trump administration and its alignment with Musk, the regulatory environment for satellite communications could undergo a significant overhaul—ushering in both opportunities and challenges for the sector.

Favorable Regulatory Environment

One of the most notable changes is the appointment of Brendan Carr as the new chair of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Carr has been a vocal advocate for Musk and his ventures, often opposing restrictions and penalties levied against SpaceX and Starlink. Under Carr’s leadership, the FCC is expected to create a more favorable regulatory climate for LEO operators. This could include easing restrictions on Effective Power Density and out-of-band emissions, which currently limit satellite capacity.

The Push for Deregulation

Musk has long sought regulatory reforms to enable the expansion of Starlink’s capabilities. The pro-deregulation stance of the Trump administration could accelerate these efforts, allowing for greater operational flexibility. By addressing power and interference limits, the FCC might enable SpaceX to advance its ambitions for Aero and Direct-to-Device (D2D) services, unlocking new revenue streams for Starlink.

Legal Challenges and Opposition

However, any relaxation of regulations is likely to face significant opposition. Established players like SES, Viasat, and major telecommunications companies such as AT&T and Verizon have consistently opposed regulatory changes benefiting Starlink. These companies argue that increased emissions or higher power density levels could disrupt their operations. Legal battles over such changes could delay their implementation for years, leaving Musk’s plans in limbo.

Impact on LEO Competition

If Musk successfully navigates regulatory hurdles, Starlink could further solidify its dominance in the LEO market. Competitors like Amazon’s Kuiper and Telesat may find it harder to compete if Starlink is allowed to operate with fewer restrictions. However, an expanded LEO market could lead to oversupply, driving down broadband prices. While this benefits consumers, it poses profitability challenges for all operators.

Advancing Direct-to-Device Services

One of the most exciting prospects under the new regulatory regime is the accelerated rollout of Direct-to-Device (D2D) services. This innovation allows mobile devices to connect directly to satellites, bypassing traditional cell towers. For Musk, this represents a significant growth opportunity, particularly in underserved regions. Yet, competition looms, with Apple’s $1.7 billion investment in Globalstar signaling its intent to capture a share of the space-based communications market.

Starlink’s Competitive Edge

Starlink’s greatest advantage remains its ability to control its entire value chain, from satellite production to launch capabilities. SpaceX’s reusable rockets provide a cost advantage that competitors cannot easily replicate, reinforcing Starlink’s leadership in the LEO space.

The Future of Rural Broadband

A shift in broadband policy under the new administration could further benefit Starlink. The Trump administration may reverse the Biden-era Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program, which focused on funding traditional fiber infrastructure. Such a reversal could create opportunities for Starlink to expand its presence in rural and underserved areas.

Potential Conflicts of Interest

Critics have raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest within the Trump administration. Jared Isaacman, a close ally of Musk and commander of two SpaceX commercial flights, has been tapped to lead NASA. While his selection could strengthen collaboration between SpaceX and NASA, it also raises questions about fairness and impartiality in awarding contracts and shaping policy.

International Implications

The regulatory shift in the US will likely ripple across the global satellite industry. Nations like Australia and Thailand are investing in alternatives to Starlink to maintain sovereignty in their communications infrastructure. Meanwhile, disputes like the one between Starlink and Brazil’s Supreme Court—where Starlink’s bank accounts were temporarily frozen—highlight the complexities of operating in diverse regulatory environments.

A Transformative Moment for Satellite Communication

Elon Musk’s close relationship with the Trump administration, coupled with the leadership of Brendan Carr at the FCC, could redefine the satellite communications landscape. While Starlink stands to gain significantly, the industry at large faces increased competition, regulatory uncertainty, and the prospect of legal battles. Whether these changes will spur innovation or consolidate power in the hands of a few remains to be seen. What is clear, however, is that the satellite industry is entering a new era, with Musk once again at its epicenter...whether you like it or not.

Direct to Device Satellite Connectivity: Hype vs. Reality - Is IoT the Real Growth Driver?

Direct-to-Device Satellite Connectivity: IoT, Not Consumers, May Drive the Market

The direct-to-device (D2D) satellite market is being hailed as a transformative step in global connectivity, with much of the hype centered on its potential to bring satellite connectivity directly to consumer devices like smartphones. While this vision is exciting, it raises an important question: is there really enough consumer demand to justify the massive investment required?

As the industry grapples with these uncertainties, a more promising and tangible opportunity emerges—the Internet of Things (IoT).D2D’s ability to transmit small data packets cost-effectively makes it ideal for IoT applications, which may prove to be the true growth engine of this market.

Consumer Market: A Risky Bet?

The idea of staying connected anywhere in the world, even in the most remote locations, is appealing. However, translating that appeal into a viable business model is far from straightforward.

Challenges with Consumer Adoption:

1. Limited Initial Capabilities: The current phase of D2D technology is far from delivering broadband speeds. Instead, it supports basic messaging and low-speed data, primarily suited for emergencies. This limitation dampens its appeal to average consumers accustomed to high-speed connectivity.

2. Market Size Uncertainty: Will enough consumers value this limited connectivity to drive mass adoption? For most people, existing terrestrial networks already meet their needs, especially as terrestrial coverage expands to more remote areas.

3. Investment vs. ROI: Building dedicated satellite constellations is capital-intensive, and the consumer segment alone may struggle to generate sufficient revenue to justify the cost.

While the consumer market generates excitement and headlines, its economic viability remains a big question mark.

IoT: The Real Opportunity

In contrast to the uncertain consumer market, IoT presents a much clearer and more immediate business case for D2D technology. The sector’s need for reliable, low-cost, small-packet data transmission aligns perfectly with D2D’s capabilities.

Why IoT is a Better Fit for D2D:

1. Small Data Transmission: IoT devices often require minimal bandwidth to send updates—exactly what D2D services can provide.

2. Massive Scale: Industries like logistics, agriculture, and utilities are deploying IoT devices in the millions, creating a large and growing market.

3. Remote Coverage Needs: D2D can bridge gaps in terrestrial coverage, enabling applications like remote meter reading, environmental monitoring, and asset tracking.

Balancing Consumer Hype with IoT Reality

While the consumer market may remain uncertain, IoT could act as the stabilizing force that drives the D2D market forward. The ability to deliver reliable, cost-effective connectivity for IoT applications provides a clear path to revenue and growth.

Questions to Consider:

• Is Consumer Appetite Enough? Even if consumer adoption grows, will it generate enough revenue to sustain the large-scale investment needed for D2D infrastructure? Early applications suggest it may take years for consumer demand to mature.

• Can IoT Scale Sustainably? IoT’s reliance on small, frequent transmissions makes it a more predictable and scalable source of revenue for D2D operators.

Market Outlook: The Case for Diversification

The future of the D2D satellite market likely hinges on a diversified approach that serves both consumers and industries, with IoT leading the charge in the near term.

Growth Drivers for IoT:

• Global Utility: From agriculture to logistics, IoT applications rely on connectivity in remote locations, a need D2D is uniquely positioned to address.

• Cost Efficiency: Advancements in small-form-factor devices are making D2D economically viable for IoT deployments.

• Vertical Integration: Many satellite operators are moving closer to end users, offering IoT-specific solutions that bundle hardware, software, and connectivity.

In parallel, consumer-focused D2D services may gradually evolve, driven by technological advancements that make high-speed broadband a reality. However, this evolution could take years, making IoT the more immediate priority.

Last Word: IoT First, Consumers Later?

The direct-to-device satellite market holds transformative potential, but its immediate success may not rest with consumers. While the idea of connecting directly to smartphones is exciting, the economic feasibility of this market remains unproven. Will consumer demand be strong enough to warrant further investment? That remains an open question.

Meanwhile, IoT offers a clear, scalable, and profitable use case for D2D technology. By focusing on industries that rely on small, cost-effective data transmissions—like utilities, agriculture, and logistics—D2D providers can create a stable foundation for growth while consumer applications mature.

In the long run, the success of D2D may depend on its ability to strike the right balance: addressing immediate IoT needs while continuing to invest in the consumer dream.

#SatelliteConnectivity

#IoTInnovation

#FutureOfTech

How to Compete Against Starlink in 5 Easy Steps! Not really…

Starlink, SpaceX’s disruptive LEO satellite constellation, has flipped the satellite communications world on its head. High speeds, low costs, and terminals so simple you half expect a child with a wrench to install them—it’s no wonder they’ve grabbed market share across sectors. Starlink isn’t perfect, though. Weak customer support? Check. A sometimes frosty relationship with their value-added resellers (VARs)? Double check. And yet, despite those challenges, they’re winning. Why? Because they’re executing, while many competitors are still stuck in the strategy phase.

Knowing the playbook—better support, hybrid networks, specialized solutions—isn’t the problem. Actually delivering on it is. So here’s a guide to competing with Starlink: move past the PowerPoint stage and make it happen.

1. Customer Support: Starlink’s Weak Spot (Sort Of)

We’ve all heard it: “Our customer support will beat Starlink.” Sure, Starlink’s DIY support model leaves plenty to be desired, but they’ve gotten smarter. Enter the VAR network—overworked, underappreciated, and often successful despite Starlink’s attitude. These resellers are bundling service with real human support, and customers are eating it up.

If you want to win here, you have to be better than the VARs Starlink tolerates:

• No Middlemen Maze: VARs are patching up Starlink’s holes, but they’re still VARs. Give customers one point of contact—fast, knowledgeable, and dedicated to solving the problem, not bouncing them around.

• Proactive Problem Solving: Don’t wait for a call at 3 a.m. about an outage. Monitor, anticipate, and fix it before they even know there’s an issue. Starlink can’t match that.

• Vertical Expertise: First responders? Oil rigs? Government agencies? Know their needs, speak their language, and deliver support tailored to their environments.

Competitors say they’re better at support, but prove it—and don’t make customers do the heavy lifting.

2. Hybrid Solutions: It’s Not as Simple as “Add Cellular”

Starlink loves its single-orbit approach. It’s fast, but when congestion hits, customers notice. Competitors love to shout “multi-orbit hybrid networks!” as if saying it is enough. It’s not. Combining LEO, GEO, (or MEO) and cellular networks into a seamless, resilient system takes actual skill and execution.

• Add Cellular, But Do It Right: Partner with Mobile Network Operators (MNOs) for handoffs so smooth that customers don’t even notice when they switch from terrestrial to satellite.

• Traffic Management That’s Smart, Not Buzzwordy: AI-driven optimization sounds great. Deliver it—real-time, flawless failovers that keep critical operations online without anyone breaking a sweat.

• Reliability as a Differentiator: When Starlink slows down in congested areas, you’ll shine. Make resilience your calling card.

3. Specialize, Don’t Generalize

Starlink’s broad appeal is its strength and its Achilles’ heel. Enterprise customers in niche markets—first responders, government agencies, energy platforms—don’t want “one size fits most.” They want solutions that fit them perfectly...a.k.a. give them what they want.

• First Responders: Yes, they love Starlink’s price tag, but when the next disaster hits, price means nothing if the network goes down. Offer them rugged, portable systems with hybrid failover and 24/7 dedicated support.

• Defense and Government: Starlink isn’t exactly winning awards for secure, hardened communications. Encrypted networks, hardened terminals, and compliance-ready systems? That’s your edge.

• Heavy Industries: Mining, oil & gas, and utilities need connectivity that integrates seamlessly with SCADA systems, IoT platforms, and remote monitoring tools. Don’t sell them bandwidth—sell them operational reliability.

4. Treat Partnerships Like Actual Partnerships

Starlink’s relationship with VARs isn’t exactly a love story. They’re undercut, controlled, and often left to fend for themselves. Resellers make it work because they have to, not because Starlink makes it easy. That’s an opening.

• Align Incentives: Treat your partners like true collaborators, not glorified sales teams. If they win, you win.

• Build Solutions Together: VARs know their markets better than you do. Leverage that expertise to co-develop specialized offerings that Starlink can’t touch.

• Support the Supporters: Starlink makes VARs scramble. You? Be the partner who empowers them—tools, training, and shared success.

5. SLA Rollout: The Clock Is Ticking

Starlink’s SLA-backed services are coming in 2025, ( I know...we've heard this since day one)and when they arrive, competitors will lose their favorite talking point. The time to preempt that is now.

• Offer SLAs That Deliver: Don’t just slap a guarantee on a slide deck—prove you’re reliable with real uptime data, real redundancy, and real customer stories.

• Build Trust Before Starlink Does: Enterprise customers want more than guarantees—they want confidence. Deliver for them now, and when Starlink shows up with its shiny new SLAs, they’ll already be locked into your network.

Execution Beats Strategy Every Time...mostly

Here’s the thing: Starlink isn’t winning because they’re perfect. They’re winning because they execute—and when their solutions fall short, their VARs pick up the slack. Competitors know the playbook, but talking about strategy doesn’t win customers. Executing it does.

The companies that win will be the ones who stop telling customers how much better they could be and start showing them they already are. Starlink isn’t unbeatable—they’re just beating everyone who’s still stuck at the starting line.

Now stop planning, and go execute.

Having said all that, if your prospect or customer is stuck in the Elon Musk reality distortion field....GOOD LUCK!

The Proposed SES-Intelsat Merger: Strategic Response or Risky Bet?

The satellite communications industry is undergoing rapid transformation, with traditional geostationary orbit (GEO) operators facing growing challenges. The proposed merger between SES and Intelsat seeks to address these pressures, aiming for cost synergies, operational efficiencies, and innovation. However, critics question whether these goals are achievable for companies deeply rooted in the GEO orbit paradigm, especially in the face of fierce competition from low-earth orbit (LEO) providers.

The Rise of LEO Systems: A Game-Changer for Satellite Communications

One of the most significant disruptions in the satellite communications industry is the emergence of LEO systems, including SpaceX’s Starlink and OneWeb. Offering lower latency and enhanced broadband performance, these systems have become synonymous with agility and innovation. The competition is set to intensify further with Amazon’s Kuiper constellation, expected to launch in 2025, and Telesat’s Lightspeed network, slated for 2026.

For traditional GEO operators like SES, Intelsat, and others, these developments have exposed significant competitive gaps. LEO systems not only offer technical advantages but are also backed by substantial financial resources and faster deployment cycles. As a result, GEO operators must navigate a market where the speed of innovation and cost efficiency define success.

Adding to the complexity, GEO operators are increasingly reliant on partnerships with LEO providers to meet customer demands. Until SES or Intelsat can deploy their own LEO constellations—a daunting and capital-intensive endeavor—they must collaborate with competitors to offer multi-orbit solutions. While such partnerships may provide short-term flexibility, they also underscore the challenges GEO operators face in maintaining long-term independence and competitiveness.

Cost Synergies: Aspirational or Realistic?

SES has projected that the merger could yield annual cost savings of $1 billion within three years of closing. The merger aims to streamline operations, eliminate redundant infrastructure, and achieve economies of scale. These cost efficiencies, the companies argue, will free up resources for reinvestment into innovation and next-generation technologies.

However, achieving these synergies is far from guaranteed. GEO operators have historically been burdened by high fixed costs, long satellite development cycles, and bureaucratic inertia. The integration of two large, complex organizations could introduce additional inefficiencies, potentially offsetting the anticipated savings. Moreover, while cost reductions may improve financial stability, they are unlikely to bridge the technological gap between GEO and LEO systems in the short term.

Innovation Challenges: Stuck in the GEO Paradigm?

Innovation is another area where GEO operators have struggled to keep pace. While LEO providers have driven advancements such as software-defined satellites, modular designs, and rapid deployment techniques, GEO innovation has largely been incremental. The SES-Intelsat merger seeks to address this by creating a combined entity capable of investing in multi-orbit solutions that integrate GEO, medium-earth orbit (MEO), and LEO systems.

However, critics remain skeptical. The bureaucratic culture of GEO operators, coupled with the high costs and long timelines of GEO satellite projects, has historically stifled innovation. The necessity of partnering with LEO providers further highlights the limitations of GEO-centric strategies. Unless SES and Intelsat can accelerate their innovation cycles and establish their own LEO constellations, they risk remaining dependent on external players for competitive multi-orbit solutions.

Growing Dependence on LEO Partnerships

Until SES and Intelsat can develop their own LEO capabilities, they will need to rely heavily on partnerships with established LEO providers. This dependence comes with strategic risks. While partnerships may allow GEO operators to offer multi-orbit connectivity, they also place them in a subordinate position, with less control over pricing, service quality, and market direction.

Such reliance could undermine the competitive advantage SES and Intelsat hope to gain through their merger. Rather than driving innovation from within, they may find themselves perpetually reacting to the initiatives of LEO players. Developing their own LEO constellations would require significant capital investment and a departure from the GEO-centric mindset, but it is increasingly seen as a necessity for long-term survival.

The Competitive Landscape: LEO Ascendance

The competitive pressures from LEO systems are not limited to technology. Companies like SpaceX and Amazon bring a culture of innovation and speed that traditional satellite operators have struggled to replicate. The entry of Kuiper and Lightspeed will further accelerate the shift toward LEO dominance, leaving GEO operators scrambling to remain relevant.

The SES-Intelsat merger is an attempt to address these challenges, but it may fall short unless the new entity can match the agility and cost efficiency of its LEO competitors. While SES’s O3b MEO network offers a stepping stone toward multi-orbit solutions, true competitiveness will likely require a LEO presence—an area where SES and Intelsat currently lag.

Implications for the Industry

The SES-Intelsat merger reflects the growing urgency for consolidation in an industry under pressure. While it offers the promise of cost synergies and innovation, the reality may be more complicated. The merged entity’s reliance on LEO partnerships highlights its vulnerability in a market increasingly driven by LEO systems. Without significant investment in their own LEO capabilities, SES and Intelsat may struggle to achieve the independence and competitiveness they seek.

If successful, the merger could pave the way for a more integrated, multi-orbit future. If not, it may serve as a cautionary tale about the limitations of GEO operators in an era of LEO ascendance.

Conclusion: A Necessary But Risky Move

The SES-Intelsat merger represents a necessary step for two GEO giants trying to adapt to a rapidly evolving market. However, the challenges of achieving cost synergies, fostering innovation, and navigating dependence on LEO partnerships cast doubt on its ability to deliver the desired outcomes. In an industry increasingly defined by speed and agility, the success of the merger will depend on whether the combined entity can break free from its GEO legacy and position itself as a true competitor in the multi-orbit era. Without meaningful progress toward deploying its own LEO capabilities, SES-Intelsat risks remaining a step behind the disruptive forces reshaping the industry.

#satellitecommunications #mergersandacquisitions #spaceeconomy #satcom #industryinsights