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