Topic: Viasat
The Role of 3GPP Standards in Advancing Cross-Border Asset Tracking
Even in the age of eSIM technology, there remain challenges in tracking road, rail and ocean freight across borders. This post focuses on a key challenge: connectivity. Less than 40 percent of the Earth’s land surface is covered by mobile networks. This figure drops to just 12 percent when oceans are taken into account. So, assets moving out of cellular coverage have had two options: accept gaps in tracking, or utilize satellite connectivity.
The former isn’t an appealing option; freight is vulnerable to theft, adverse weather conditions, damaged infrastructure (roads, bridges etc.), breakdowns etc., all of which can be mitigated, or at least dealt with rapidly, if real-time, global monitoring is available.
The latter – satellite connectivity – has been a mainstay of high value freight for many years, but the relatively high cost of satellite tracking devices, plus airtime, has meant that some organizations with extensive asset inventories or limited budgets haven’t been able to take advantage of the technology.
3GPP standards are poised to lower the cost barrier to satellite connectivity, both directly and indirectly, unlocking truly global asset tracking capabilities to the benefit of logistics, agriculture, manufacturing, healthcare, and many other industries.
3GPP’s Impact on Connectivity
3GPP is an initiative to create global standards for telecommunications, ensuring that a device developed and operated in North America would be able to connect to networks in Asia, Europe, Africa etc. As the name suggests, its original mission was to develop specifications for 3G mobile phones, but it has since created the specifications for 4G and 5G, with 6G in development.
Each revised version of the standards has a release number, and Release 17 was the first to accommodate non-terrestrial networks, or NTN. It was completed quite recently – Q3 2022 – and it will take time before devices utilizing this standard start hitting the market in volume.
What this means in this context is that a tracking device could use a single SIM to talk to both terrestrial and satellite constellations. There are several benefits from this:
- There are millions more ‘terrestrial’ tracking devices than there are satellite-enabled ones, and because of these economies of scale, they’re generally much lower cost. If these devices are made with the ability to connect to both terrestrial and non-terrestrial networks, these same economies of scale will persist, and the cost of a satellite-enabled tracker will be lower.
- Satellite networks haven’t really, until the advent of 3GPP, had to compete with one another, in the respect that if you want to use satellite connectivity, you need to buy a proprietary modem that communicates with a single satellite network only. Once it’s in place, if you want to change the network, you would physically need to change the modem. But if you have a standards-based SIM, in theory, you can switch your airtime to a different satellite constellation remotely, with the likely impact being that airtime costs will be more competitively priced.
- Data analysis should be simpler; if your tracker is using the same networking language across multiple networks, for example, NB-IoT or LTE Cat-1, the ease with which you can integrate that data with your existing ERP, CRM or inventory management system is greatly enhanced.
Challenges With Implementing 3GPP
There are two ways to enable satellites to ‘speak’ the same language as terrestrial networks. The first is to modify the satellite, and the second is to modify the terrestrial device.
There is a limit to how much modification can be done to satellites that are already in orbit – some as far away as 35,786 kilometers from Earth. So the first option is currently the preserve of companies launching new satellite constellations. The key players here are Starlink, AST SpaceMobile, and Lynk. They are all in the process of launching satellites that are compatible with unmodified LTE-compatible devices. Their largest market is going to be cellphone users, but they’re all anticipating offering an IoT variation; Starlink is likely to be the first to market with this, some time in 2025.
However, they have a key challenge which restricts the global accessibility of these services; they don’t have access to the radio frequencies best suited to IoT and tracking applications. Licensed radio spectrum has been allocated for many years; for satellite network operators it’s called MSS (Mobile Satellite Service) spectrum, and for terrestrial network operators, it’s called MNO spectrum.
In the absence of licensed spectrum, the new satellite network operators have to collaborate with terrestrial network operators to use their spare spectrum. Starlink has agreements with T-Mobile to provide service to the USA, for example, whereas AST SpaceMobile has agreements with AT&T and Verizon. But if your truck or train traveled into Mexico, where Starlink does not, at the time of writing, have an MNO partner, the service would no longer be available.
Given that not all MNOs have spare spectrum – consider Europe and parts of Asia, where networks are already congested – it is unlikely that global service will be available in the next few years.
The second way to implement 3GPP is to update the terrestrial devices that talk to the satellites, and this is the preferred option of the legacy satellite network operators (SNOs). Viasat (previously Inmarsat) and Iridium are the leading SNOs exploring this; they have the advantage of having licensed spectrum, so their services will be globally available from launch.
But, and there’s a big ‘but’ here, they are looking at NB-IoT as their networking language rather than LTE, most probably because it is better suited to existing satellites which weren’t designed for high volumes of high bandwidth traffic. There are far fewer IoT and tracking devices that utilize NB-IoT than there are LTE-enabled devices, so it will take time for the device manufacturers to catch up.
Further, because not all of the satellite network operators have adopted the same networking language, a future in which you can negotiate on price with your SNO because there are several competitors vying for your business is further away.
However, having options to patch the gaps in cellular coverage, particularly as operators are turning off 2G, is a clear positive. If your device has a limited power source – solar or battery – LTE Cat-1 may well not be suitable. So a global in-fill of NTN NB-IoT – which is ideal for low power devices – overcomes the challenge of restricted roaming, and patchy terrestrial LTE-M and NB-IoT.
Where Does Direct-to-Device Come Into Play?
This is sometimes confused / used interchangeably with 3GPP standards-based communication, but it’s not the same thing. D2D refers to the ability for an unmodified terrestrial device to speak to a satellite, but it doesn’t have to be communicating using a standards-based language like LTE or NB-IoT.
The most well-known example of a non-standards-based D2D solution is Globalstar’s collaboration with Apple; Apple updated its handsets to speak to the Globalstar constellation, but they can’t ‘roam’ on to other satellite networks; it’s a proprietary, rather than a standards-based, solution.
Speaking of Proprietary Solutions…
It’s important to stress that proprietary-enabled tracking devices – such as those that use Iridium, Viasat or Globalstar for connectivity – are far from ‘over’. For a start, they already use the most efficient means of communication with satellites, because the devices were designed in conjunction with the satellites. They can send more data, and offer greater flexibility in terms of how that data is transmitted (i.e. IP-based, messages etc.), than standards-based propositions.
Because the narrative around 3GPP standards is chiefly around lower costs, this has already had an impact on satellite connectivity. For the first time, SNOs are enabling their proprietary modems to be incorporated into mass-produced chipsets. This will, through simple economies of scale, lead to a lower price for proprietary modems, making this an increasingly viable option for tracking trucks, trains, ships etc.
As an example, the incredibly small and light, solar-powered and satellite-enabled GSatSolar asset tracking device retails at just $199, with airtime costing <$5 per month (depending on the number of locations you want transmitting).
What Should You Consider for Your Asset Tracking Application?
Firstly, while standards-based devices promise much in the way of cost-savings and ease of implementation, it will be several years before this promise is realized. Mass deployment of devices and adequate supplier competition to influence airtime pricing is unlikely to happen before 2026-27. Further, it’s not clear how the new satellite constellations will overcome their spectrum challenges; although, where there’s a will, there’s usually a way!
In the short to medium-term, the good news is that existing proprietary satellite tracking solutions have, and continue to, come down in price. Our recommendation is to place inquiries and find out what the art of the possible is for your application.
Can we help you with your asset tracking project?
As a company that’s designed and built asset tracking solutions for over 20 years, Ground Control is well placed to help you navigate the dizzying array of options; get in touch – we’re here to help.
Complete the form, or email hello@groundcontrol.com, and we’ll come back to you within one working day.
How Direct-to-Device (D2D) is Shaping the Future of Satellite IoT Connectivity
The Internet of Things (IoT) market is set to grow globally by 18.8% over the next five years, fueled by advancements in 5G and AI technologies, rising demand for automation, and the expanding application of IoT across various industries.
For IoT applications in remote areas beyond the reach of 5G cellular towers, such as environmental monitoring and asset tracking in isolated regions, mountainous terrains, open oceans, and across multiple borders, continuous connectivity remains a challenge. In these scenarios, businesses often turn to satellite IoT, but the perceived high cost and apparent lack of interoperability with terrestrial networking technology may present barriers.
Direct-to-Device (D2D) technology is emerging as a transformative solution to these challenges, poised to revolutionize the IoT marketplace. But before we get to that, let’s clarify what’s meant by the various “direct-to-cell, direct-to-device, direct-to-mobile” terms being bandied about.
What is Direct-to-Cell?
Direct-to-Cell (D2C) is a form of satellite connectivity that enables smartphone users to perform basic functions like texting, calling and basic internet browsing when outside of cellular coverage, with no modifications needed to their cell phone.
This service can be provided in one of two ways: firstly, the satellite network operator (SNO) may partner with a mobile network operator (MNO), and provide the service using the MNO’s licensed terrestrial radio frequencies. In order to do this, both the SNO and the MNO need to use the same waveform technology, e.g. 4G/LTE. This requires the satellites to be designed and deployed with this capability; effectively, it is the satellite that is modified to work with the device, rather than the device being modified to work with the satellite. An example of this is Starlink’s partnership with T-Mobile in the USA.
Secondly, cell phone manufacturers can update their devices to allow them to talk to satellite constellations. This can either be delivered through proprietary solutions – i.e. the handset is updated to allow it to ‘talk’ to a single satellite constellation only (for example, Globalstar’s partnership with Apple) – or via a standards-based solution which can talk to multiple compatible networks, i.e. 5G NTN (NR, NB-IoT, eMTC).
In the case of the latter – where the necessary adjustments are made on the cell phone rather than the satellite – there are a limited number of smartphones that have been made compatible with 5G NTN, including the Google Pixel 9; we’d expect to see this increase in the future.
Image credit: Peter Kibutu, Advanced 5G NTN Technology Lead, TTP
What is Direct-to-Device?
Direct-to-Device (D2D) enables unmodified IoT devices, such as asset tracking beacons and temperature sensors, to transmit data over satellite when cellular is not available. This means that no extra hardware or software is needed to deploy a sensor outside of cellular coverage, or to monitor an asset moving in and out of cellular connectivity.
The difference between Direct-to-Cell and Direct-to-Device is simply the device being connected; in the case of the former it refers to cell phones; in the case of the latter, to IoT devices. They are often used interchangeably – Starlink, for example, refers to both phone and IoT device connectivity as Direct to Cell, whereas analysts Deloitte refer to both as Direct to Device.
For the purposes of this post, we’ll be focusing on IoT applications, and will stick to ‘Direct to Device’.
How Does D2D Work?
Similarly to D2C, there are two ways to deliver D2D. The first is to launch new satellites specifically designed to talk to existing IoT devices, and the second is to add an inexpensive chip to IoT devices so that they can talk to existing satellite networks. This could either be a proprietary chip, which allows the device to speak to a single satellite network, or a standards-based chip, which, in theory, would allow the device to roam on to any network built to the same standards.
There are pros and cons to each approach; in the case of purpose-built satellites, the main plus is that there is a large market of existing devices. However, as we will see, there are performance, spectrum, funding and regulatory challenges to overcome. In the case of new chipsets, whether standards-based or proprietary, it will take time for these to be developed and deployed at scale.
“What technical approach will predominate—one where chipsets in smartphones power satellite communication or where satellites act more as space-based cell towers enabled by network-on-the-edge architecture? In either case, advancement in both satellite and smartphone technology will likely be necessary to enable the full potential of D2D.” – Deloitte Center for Technology, Media & Telecommunications
What Role do Standards-Based Technologies Have to Play in D2D?
There are three cellular-based technologies designed for widespread IoT devices: NB-IoT, LTE-M, and LTE Cat 1. There are lots of blog posts dedicated to the pros and cons of each technology; as a very quick summary, NB-IoT and LTE-M use less power than LTE Cat 1, but LTE Cat 1 has higher data rates and lower latency.
LTE Cat 1 is available wherever there is a 4G LTE network; which covers most of the Earth’s population centers. LTE-M and NB-IoT network technologies are less widely available; 253 mobile network operators have launched NB-IoT or LTE-M networks in 81 countries, of which 173 operators have focused on NB-IoT, and 80 have focused on LTE-M (source).
The satellite network operators working on the delivery of D2D have not all chosen the same cellular technology. Starlink, AST Space Mobile and Lynk have all selected LTE Cat 1, whereas Iridium and Viasat have chosen NB-IoT.
This is probably because the more power-hungry LTE Cat 1 technology would create too great a resource drain on legacy satellite constellations which were not built for high volumes of high speed internet traffic. Equally, where there is no cellular infrastructure, there is often no power source, so an NB-IoT device that can last for years on a single battery is an appealing proposition.
Ultimately, systems integrators will need to make an informed decision about the most suitable technology for their requirements, based on service availability, data volume, latency, and power supply; this will then determine on to which networks their devices can roam.
Who are the Satellite Operators in the Direct-to-Device Market?
LTE Services:
- Starlink: As a major disruptor, Starlink is poised to play a significant role in the D2D market. With the capability to build and launch its own satellites via SpaceX, Starlink has already deployed over 100 D2D satellites and plans to launch over 7,500 more. This will support their goal of providing high-speed, low-latency global connectivity for both mobile and IoT technologies.
- AST SpaceMobile: AST SpaceMobile is making strides with plans to launch its first five commercial satellites in Autumn 2024. AST SpaceMobile has established agreements with over 40 mobile network operators. Backed by strategic investments from giants like Google, AT&T, Vodafone, and Verizon, AST has the potential to be a significant player in the D2D market.
- Lynk: Lynk has already launched satellites and secured relationships with mobile network operators in over 50 countries. Like Starlink and AST SpaceMobile, Lynk uses LTE standards to deliver 5G space-based connectivity directly to existing smartphones.
NTN NB-IoT Services:
- Viasat: Viasat, which now combines Viasat and Inmarsat satellites under the same brand, has satellites in geostationary orbit; 37,785 Km above the Earth. This means that the latency – the time taken for a data packet to be sent, received, and sent back to the ground station – is longer than satellites in Low Earth Orbit.
On the other hand, NTN NB-IoT is well suited to devices that are stationary, and send data several times a day, rather than needing a real-time connection. Viasat’s satellites have good capacity and fewer power limitations than satellites in LEO, so this is a company well placed to deliver on NTN NB-IoT in the near future.
- Iridium: Iridium’s Project Stardust signals their intention to move away from solely proprietary satellite IoT solutions towards standards-based solutions. Iridium aims to enhance its D2D strategy by leveraging its established low Earth orbit (LEO) satellite network for 5G standards-based IoT and NTN services. Iridium aims to collaborate with OEMs and MNOs to integrate satellite capabilities into IoT devices.
Challenges in Rolling out Direct-to-Device
Radio Spectrum Allocation. Long-standing satellite network operators like Viasat and Iridium have licensed L-band spectrum which is ideal for IoT applications; it doesn’t require a large antenna, and is resistant to rain-fade. They can choose to allocate some of this spectrum to enable D2D.
New satellite network operators like Starlink, AST SpaceMobile and Lynk, however, need to forge partnerships with mobile network operators – T-Mobile, Verizon, Telefónica etc. – so that some of their licensed spectrum can be allocated to satellite connectivity.
This means that, for these SNOs, D2D service is only available where partnerships exist. Starlink, for example, has agreements with T-Mobile for the USA, Optus for Australia, Rogers for Canada, and several more; but is very far away from having global coverage.
There also needs to be ‘spare’ MNO spectrum available for use. In larger land masses with dispersed populations like Australia and Canada (respectively, the 6th and 9th least densely populated countries on Earth), this doesn’t present a huge issue. But consider parts of Europe or Asia; the new SNOs will have a much greater challenge gaining partnerships in densely populated countries.
Performance. As briefly mentioned earlier, the “legacy” satellite constellations of Viasat and Iridium weren’t conceived with high volumes of high speed traffic in mind. Hence the choice of NB-IoT as the networking technology, as NB-IoT’s waveform can be transmitted efficiently via satellites, with far less power required than LTE Cat 1bis – both on the device side and on the satellites themselves.
This doesn’t mean that Starlink, AST SpaceMobile etc. have a free-for-all in terms of capacity. Starlink coverage over the USA, for example, is, according to Elon Musk, anticipated to be 7 MB per beam (and the beams are very large). All users – both IoT devices and cell phone users – share that capacity, so congestion and bandwidth limitations are possibilities.
Regulatory. This is a challenge for the new satellite constellations, leveraging MNO spectrum. As Device-to-Device (D2D) communication extends beyond national borders, it poses significant challenges to existing regulatory frameworks and spectrum management practices. Since D2D users can operate in remote regions where traditional mobile networks don’t reach, their activity may span across countries. This makes it essential for neighboring nations to collaborate closely on spectrum management.
Additionally, roaming regulations, licensing, and authorizations may need to adapt, as D2D service providers are no longer confined to one country. This could lead to the development of regional or international licensing systems and potentially even an international regulatory body (source).
Funding. Companies taking the route of launching satellites compatible with terrestrial waveform technologies have a huge CapEx challenge; in order to provide service, they need to launch many satellites, at no small expense, and then bank on subscribers turning up in their tens of thousands in order to recoup their costs.
The business case for D2D purely in the context of IoT is that these new constellations will be able to communicate with unmodified cellular IoT devices – which are far lower cost than current satellite IoT devices – thus unlocking a new, lower price point for hardware. But lower costs means more subscribers need to be found before the SNO is profitable.
Existing satellite IoT applications are often mission-critical and need sureties of data delivery and speeds that D2D may not be able to deliver; thus D2D isn’t likely to dramatically cannibalize the existing satellite IoT market. New use cases need to be found, and use cases with thousands, if not tens of thousands, of endpoints.
This is a bit of a gamble when almost all of the costs have to be incurred before service can be delivered. It is possible that some of the new entrants will run out of steam before their services are commercially available.
When Will Direct-to-Device Services Be Available?
In the context of cellphones, D2D is already available, through Globalstar’s partnership with Apple. In this case, the manufacturer modified the cellphone to talk to Globalstar’s satellite network. However, this proprietary approach has proven unpopular; Iridium and Qualcomm took a similar proposition to market and ultimately shelved the project.
In terms of a standards-based D2D service, there are some early solutions being tested as we write (in September 2024). Notably Skylo, leveraging Viasat and Ligado’s satellite constellations, have partnered with several device manufacturers to develop chipsets that can be added to terrestrial devices to deliver D2D functionality.
Taking the opposite approach – with satellites built for D2D, and needing no changes to devices – Starlink have announced that they intend to offer IoT services at some point in 2025. These will be limited to the areas where Starlink has an MNO partner.
With several technical hurdles still to overcome, it’s our view that we’ll start to see larger deployments of D2D IoT devices no earlier than 2026. In the meantime, however, the buzz around lower hardware pricing is already starting to impact proprietary solutions, with Iridium and Viasat for the first time allowing mass chipset manufacturers to build hybrid devices with their modems. These economies of scale should see proprietary satellite IoT hardware reducing in price, unlocking new applications for satellite IoT long before standards-based D2D becomes a reality.
Additional sources:
Can we help?
It’s an exciting time to be working on a remote IoT or tracking application, but with the greater volume of choice comes more uncertainty about the right service provider and networking technology for you.
We can help. We work with multiple satellite network operators with both standards-based and proprietary technology, and will provide you with unbiased, expert advice.
Complete the form or email hello@groundcontrol.com and we’ll get back to you within one working day.
Will Non-Terrestrial Networks (NTN) Change Offshore Wind Connectivity?
Offshore wind farms represent the frontier of clean energy, located far from shore where the winds are strongest and most consistent. However, these remote locations present significant challenges for connectivity.
While wired connections to wind farms are frequently in place, integrating a wireless system alongside an existing wired connection for wind farms offers significant benefits, including easier sensor deployment, cost savings, and faster data acquisition.
Indeed, according to Turbit, a dedicated wireless SCADA network enhances data resilience, security, and transmission speed, allowing near real-time updates that can boost output by up to 5%.
Wireless Networking Options for Offshore Wind Farms
Adding a wireless network, though, isn’t always straightforward. If your wind farm is within 12 nautical miles of the mainland, you can use appropriately secured 4G/LTE. Over 12 miles, and you’re looking at either a private cellular network, or a satellite-enabled Low Power Wide Area Network (LPWAN).
Private cellular networks, although very cost-effective once set up, are expensive and time-consuming to get started with. A more agile option is to explore LPWAN technologies, and this is where the advent of standards-based networks has the potential to unlock new applications.
To start with, the current options for setting up an LPWAN for your offshore wind farm (this also applies to the Offshore Support Vessels, USVs and buoys that support your operation) are:
1. Use an LPWAN such as LoRa to locally network your sensors, aggregate the data in a gateway, then use a satellite IoT transceiver to transmit the aggregated data.
Pros of a LoRa-Based LPWAN
- No cellular connectivity is required for a LoRa network
- Most turbines don’t need a dedicated transceiver to communicate with the satellite network; only the turbine hosting the gateway needs this. This reduces the hardware costs
- Moving data within a LoRaWAN is very low cost
- Either the gateway or the transceiver should have edge computing capabilities, so that the aggregated data can be processed, and only the necessary information transmitted. This ensures that costs are minimized.
Cons of a LoRa-Based LPWAN
- The data rate for LoRaWAN is limited to 50 Kbps, which may constrain applications
- If you have the option of using a commercial operated LoRaWAN, it’s more expensive to transmit data than if you set up a private LoRa network
- Setting up a private LoRa network is resource-hungry: you’ll need to purchase the gateway(s) and a network server, write the firmware, and create the connections.
2. Individually connect your sensors to a satellite IoT transceiver to form a satellite LPWAN.
Pros of a Satellite-Based LPWAN
- No cellular infrastructure is required for satellite IoT connectivity
- There’s no limitation in the distance between your sensors; your OSVs, USVs and data buoys can all be connected, even if they’re many miles apart
- There is no impact on the reliability of transmissions in extreme weather conditions
- It’s very secure: data is hard to intercept while in space, and firewalls, VPNs and private lines protect your data once it’s earth-bound again
- Depending on your choice of transceiver, data rates can be as high as 464 Kbps
- It’s fast and easy to get started with – satellite modems can communicate with most programming languages.
Cons of a Satellite-Based LPWAN
- Cost. Both the transceivers and the airtime are higher cost than purchasing LoRa transceiver radio modules, and using a LoRa network.
So, network engineers have a choice: commit the time, effort and money to build a LoRa network paired with a single satellite IoT transceiver, and enjoy long-term low costs. Or, accept that the operating expenditure will be higher, and move more quickly with a satellite LPWAN.
What we tend to find is that the selection depends on the number of sensors: if there are relatively few, engineers like the speed, ease and flexibility of a satellite LPWAN. If there are many, the long-term cost-saving benefits of a LoRa network coupled with a satellite transceiver win out.
But what if the cost of each satellite IoT transceiver was lower? This would mean that more sensors could be individually paired with a transceiver, while costs remained within budget.
Lower module costs is one of the benefits expected to materialize from 3GPP standards-based technology, so let’s get into it.
What is 3GPP?
3GPP (3rd Generation Partnership Project) is a global collaboration aimed at standardizing telecommunications infrastructure. Established in 1998, it ensures that developers worldwide follow a unified approach in cellular technology development. One of its key achievements, “Release 17” in 2021, introduced satellite connectivity into the mix.
If a satellite network complies with 3GPP standards, a device – which could be a cellphone or an IoT device – equipped with a compatible 3GPP modem can seamlessly switch from cell tower coverage to satellite connectivity without any service interruption or the need for additional hardware. This is usually referred to as direct to cell (in the context of cellphones), or direct to device (in the context of everything else).
How Will 3GPP Standards-Based Technology Impact IoT Connectivity?
1. Lower Cost of Modems
There are millions more cellular-based IoT connections than there are satellite connections. So if you only need to buy one modem to communicate with your device, many more dual-function modems will be manufactured than satellite-only modems. Customers should, therefore, benefit from economies of scale, and a lower cost modem.
An important adjacent effect of 3GPP here is that incumbent satellite network operations like Iridium and Viasat have begun enabling chip manufacturers to incorporate their proprietary standards into mass production chips. That means that the cost of proprietary satellite modems is coming down too, again because of economies of scale.
2. Supplier Switching
Today’s satellite-only modems each talk to a specific satellite network. The ST6100, for example, talks to Viasat’s geostationary satellites. RockBLOCK 9603 communicates with the Iridium Low Earth Orbit satellite constellation. GSatSolar talks to the Globalstar network. If you want to change your satellite network, you’ll need a new modem – these are proprietary systems.
Conversely, the 3GPP standards-based modems will, in principle, talk to any satellite network that’s 3GPP-compatible. Meaning you could switch your airtime supplier without needing to replace any hardware. This may have the effect of making airtime rates more predictable, as competition to retain customers’ business will force greater pricing transparency.
Which Satellite Networks Will Support 3GPP Standards-Based Modules?
In this context, it’s helpful to structure the satellite network operators (SNOs) into three ‘classes’:
1. Established SNOs, which include Viasat and Iridium.
These operators have an advantage in that they have licensed radio spectrum in the L-Band frequency (perfect for IoT data transmissions), and global landing rights. This means their services are very widely available, and are extremely reliable, as their bandwidth is not heavily contested.
However, they need to retro-fit their satellites to support this new technology, and that’s not trivial. Viasat, via their partnership with Skylo, can connect with NB-IoT modems in North America and Europe, but have work to do to make their services more widely available. Iridium are working towards a release date of 2027 (anticipated to also be NB-IoT compatible).
2. Well-funded new constellations; chief among them Starlink.
Starlink’s best-known service is, of course, broadband internet for residential purposes. The satellites that serve these requirements are not the same as the satellites Starlink has launched since January 2024 to serve direct to cell.
The new Starlink direct to cell satellites are compatible with LTE devices back on Earth – specifically CAT-1, CAT-1 Bis, and CAT-4 modems – and service is expected at some point in 2025. Starlink does, however, have a challenge that the longer-established satellite network operators don’t have; it doesn’t have licensed radio spectrum. So Starlink partners with mobile network operators like T-Mobile in the USA and Optus in Australia to lease some of their licensed radio spectrum. Service is restricted to where these partnerships exist.
3. Innovative start-ups like Sateliot and OQ Technologies.
These companies were founded to capitalize on standards-based technology, and their satellites have been designed for this purpose. Currently, these start-ups are limited by the number of satellites they have in orbit; according to NewSpace Index, Sateliot have five, and OQ have 10 in Low Earth Orbit. This means that your sensor will need to wait for a satellite to pass overhead, perhaps once or twice a day, before it can send its data.
It’s early days, however, and both are planning to launch more satellites over the coming years. In the meantime, they are inviting people to join their early adopters program, and building partnerships with mobile network operators in much the same vein as Starlink; to leverage their licensed spectrum in areas not served by terrestrial infrastructure.
When Will Standards-Based Modems be Available?
Non-Terrestrial Network (NTN) NB-IoT modems are available now, but with limitations on coverage and bandwidth. The full promise of these advancements will be realized when there are multiple global providers, but there are issues to work out – for example, the power drain on a satellite that previously had 50,000 devices talking to it at any given time, now needing to move the data for 10, even 100 times, the number of devices.
There’s also the need for partnerships between the new satellite network and terrestrial network operators to establish global coverage – so we estimate that 2027 onwards is when we’ll see widespread adoption.
That said, as mentioned above, we’re already experiencing some of the benefits of this innovation, in that SNOs like Iridium and Viasat are set to both adopt the standards but more importantly enable their proprietary modems to be made by mass chip manufacturers, enabling price reductions from their scale.
So the shift, in some respects, is already here; you can more economically connect individual sensors using proprietary systems. As airtime and device pricing for standards-based modems becomes clearer in the coming years, you’ll have to make a choice about the best technology for your project; but the impact of standards on affordability is being felt today.
What are the Advantages of Proprietary Systems?
Proprietary systems – e.g. where an Iridium modem talks to an Iridium satellite only – are likely to remain, as they will retain advantages over standards-based systems.
“From a technical perspective, there is no definitive conclusion as to which protocol strategy is better – using proprietary systems, 3GPP standards, or other standards-based systems such as LoRa. All have their advantages and disadvantages.” – Analysys Mason
The main advantages of a proprietary system are capacity and reliability. As any cell phone user knows, when there’s a lot of traffic in the system, cell phone service slows down or even stops. Managing substantial additional demand through a finite number of solar-powered satellites is likely to present similar challenges. Conversely, licensed waveforms will not be overwhelmed by traffic, which means that when you need complete confidence that your data will be transmitted, in as close to real-time as possible, they’ll remain the preferred choice.
For Offshore Wind companies, and indeed in most cases, some data are more critical than others. You need to know if a turbine has developed a fault in real-time; but you may be able to wait a few hours to find out what your data buoys are reporting in the respect of location, wave height, temperature, salinity etc. You need to be able to communicate in real-time with a UAV / unmanned vessel, but you can probably cope with receiving data from your vibration sensors a couple of times a day.
How to Choose the Best Satellite IoT Network
This is where a trusted IoT connectivity partner comes in. Companies like Ground Control, who work with multiple satellite network operators and networking protocols, can help you choose the most appropriate solution based on data rates, criticality, security, device mobility, and location.
We are on the beta test programs for several standards-based modems, and we’re constantly exploring new partnerships from both standards-based and proprietary system providers. We test every modem in-house so we can provide our customers with objective, expert advice.
Satellite IoT is exploding with new choices; it’s our role to simplify those choices so that you benefit from the most cost-effective, easy to implement and reliable connectivity for your application.
Get in Touch
We don’t operate a satellite network ourselves, but we do design, build and test satellite IoT hardware and supporting software solutions. This gives us an expert and objective view on the best networks and networking technology for your application.
Email us at hello@groundcontrol.com or complete the form, and we’ll be in touch within one working day.
Satellite-Enabled LPWAN: What Network To Choose, When, and Why
LPWAN – Low Power Wide Area Networks – enable users to connect sensors / endpoints over large distances. They’re lower cost and consume less power than cellular, and while their data capacity rates are lower, there’s enough bandwidth for most IoT applications.
This article focuses on satellite-enabled LPWAN. Satellite comes into the equation when the sensors you’re connecting are so remote there’s no cellular infrastructure at all. At the moment, that leaves you with two options:
- Use an unlicensed LPWAN technology such as LoRaWAN, mioty or Sigfox to connect your sensors, then backhaul the aggregated gateway data via a satellite transceiver;
- Or, connect your sensors individually to a satellite transceiver.
The Differences Between Licensed and Unlicensed LPWAN
Before we settle into the main topic, some readers may find a quick explanation of licensed / unlicensed LPWAN helpful. The former leverages licensed radio frequency spectrum, which means connections use dedicated frequencies, making them more reliable. They also offer higher data capacity rates than unlicensed spectrum. Currently the best known networks – NB-IoT, LTE-M – rely on cellular infrastructure. Because of this dependency, they’re not used for extremely remote applications.
However, satellite LPWAN also falls into this category – services like Iridium’s Short Burst Data (SBD) and Certus 100, and Viasat’s IoT Nano and Iot Pro, all leverage licensed spectrum. Satellite LPWAN has no dependency on terrestrial infrastructure, so is usually deployed where there isn’t any – i.e. outside of population centers.
Unlicensed networks share frequencies with all other unlicensed users, so reliability in high-traffic areas may be an issue. They also have capacity issues because of the frequency spectrum they operate in – which is only suitable for very small amounts of data (LoRa has a maximum data rate of 50 Kbps). However, unlicensed LPWAN is lower cost, and devices generally require a little less power than networks operating in a licensed spectrum, although both perform well. For example, NB-IoT devices will typically operate for up to 10 years, and LoRa devices for up to 15 years, using battery power.
LoRa is the most widely adopted and well known unlicensed LPWAN, but there are many more here, including SigFox, Helium, RPMA and mioty. In the case of LoRaWAN, there are commercially operated networks that you can buy into, or you can set up your own private network.
If you’re in an area with cellular infrastructure, you can weigh up the pros and cons of licensed and unlicensed networks, and choose the solution best suited to your needs from a long list of options. In a remote area without cellular, you’re back to the choice we posed at the beginning: connecting individual sensors via licensed satellite LPWAN, or using an unlicensed LPWAN to aggregate many endpoints, which has no dependency on cellular infrastructure.
In terms of projected market share, China’s state-wide adoption of NB-IoT makes it the global leader; remove China, however, and the competing technologies are more evenly distributed (data from IoT Analytics). In this chart, which looks ahead to 2027, LoRa is the leader with 36% market share, followed by LTE-M at 35%, and NB-IoT at 23%. LoRa is on the way down from its peak, however, and NB-IoT shows the strongest growth.
How Unlicensed LPWAN Works with Satellite
While there are many options for unlicensed LPWANs, because of its dominance, we’re focusing on LoRa.
LoRa networks require a gateway, or several gateways, depending on the size of the network, where the sensor data is aggregated. If the gateway is within cellular coverage, cellular can be used for data backhaul, but in remote applications, satellite is the best option for backhauling the aggregated sensor data. Co-locating your gateway(s) with a satellite transceiver like RockREMOTE ensures you can communicate with your sensors from anywhere on the planet, as long as you have a clear view of the sky.
NB: LoRa is a communication technology. LoRaWAN is a media access control (MAC) layer protocol which makes it easier and more secure to manage communication between gateways and endpoint devices (read a better explanation). So while LoRa can be, and is, used without the MAC layer, in the context of a wide area network, LoRaWAN is far more likely to be utilized.
LoRaWAN:
- Has a maximum data rate of 50 Kbps
- Works better for stationary applications
- Works best in open, flat areas such as farmland
- Is license free, therefore low cost
- Drains very little power – battery life can be up to 15 years
- Has strong security measures, with built-in end-to-end AES-128 encryption
- Can be built independently of terrestrial networks and commercial providers
- Works well when gateways are co-located with a satellite IoT transceiver
- Is tried, tested, and in use today for remote IoT applications.
When to use Individually Connected Devices
The main advantage of LoRaWAN is that it’s very low cost, but that cost increases if you’re using a commercially operated LoRaWAN. If you don’t, you’ll need to build the network yourself, which involves purchasing gateways and a network server, writing firmware, and creating the connections (read how to build a private LoRa network).
This could well be worth the effort, but it depends on the number of sensors you’re connecting, and their location. LoRaWAN is a ‘single-hop’ technology; each connected sensor communicates directly with the gateway or hub. If there’s a long distance between device and hub, or there are geographical features like mountains or forests, this can impede the signal. So, there are instances where individually connecting sensors to a satellite modem is faster, more reliable, quite possibly cheaper when time and expertise is factored in, and more efficient.
For example, American Signal Corporation has hundreds of tsunami warning stations positioned off the coast of Thailand, to prevent a repeat of the Boxing Day Tsunami that claimed hundreds of thousands of lives.
These stations are located in the ocean, far from cellular infrastructure and mains power, and need to be both completely reliable and able to transmit their data in as close to real-time as possible. The latency and reliability issues of LoRaWAN make it unsuited to this application – as does the fact that some of the sensors are positioned well over 10 km apart.
Instead, each station has its own satellite transceiver – the RockBLOCK Plus – which uses the Iridium Short Burst Data airtime service. This checks all the boxes: it’s a low cost, low power, reliable, low latency means of transmitting data from anywhere on Earth with a clear view of the sky.
This solution is being used in many scenarios like this where the data must get through, and there’s no cellular infrastructure, and building a LoRa network (or similar) would be cost and/or time-prohibitive.
Satellite LPWAN:
- Works well in both mobile and stationary applications
- Has no limitation on the distance between your sensors – they can be positioned as far apart as your application requires
- Has a huge amount of flexibility in terms of data rates – up to 464 Kbps (although the lowest power consumption comes from the message-based services of Iridium Short Burst Data, and Viasat IoT Nano)
- Can operate on a solar powered battery for 10 years (depending on data rates and frequency of transmission)
- Is secure by design – it’s very hard to intercept the data while it’s in space, and firewalls, VPNs and private lines protect the data once it’s earth-bound again
- Has no dependency on terrestrial infrastructure
- Will work in any location, including mountains and forests, as long as there is a clear view of the sky
- Is not affected by extremes of temperature or adverse weather conditions.
Coming Soon: NTN NB-IoT
This is developing technology, with the goal of offering a single SIM to work on multiple cellular and satellite networks.
While the technology exists today to seamlessly switch between cellular and satellite networks, the devices enabled with this technology are using proprietary modems that only communicate with a single satellite network. Relatively few are produced, and they’re more expensive than their cellular-only counterparts. Moreover you’re tied into that satellite network, and if you wanted to use an alternative satellite network, you would need to buy a completely different device.
3GPP standardization is poised to disrupt this model. Firstly, there are many more cellular IoT-connected devices than there are satellite IoT-connected devices, and so production of these dual-function modems would benefit from economies of scale. They are likely to be lower cost than today’s proprietary satellite IoT modems.
The other potential benefit will be the ability to switch between satellite network operators in much the same way as you can switch between cellular networks today. Every satellite network that is 3GPP compatible with coverage in your area should be able to offer you service. It’s by no means certain, but we think this is likely to increase competition and lower pricing.
So, the impact will be to make NTN NB-IoT not just possible but also cost-competitive over the long term. That said, it will still be a more expensive solution than an unlicensed LPWAN – and for good reason, as it retains the higher data capacity rates and reliability benefits of licensed spectrum.
The lower cost modules may well move the tipping point between individually connected endpoints / sensors vs. building a LoRa network. Individually connected endpoints, as we’ve already discussed, have the benefit of being easy to set up, reliable and low latency. The number and location of the endpoints determine the choice of network today, and that will be true with NTN NB-IoT, too. But as the cost will be lower, the point at which it makes sense to use LoRa (or similar) will, we anticipate, come at a higher number of endpoints than it does today.
It may also open up new use cases for geographically dispersed endpoints that could utilize satellite IoT today, but the proprietary modems make this cost-prohibitive. Applications in Agriculture, Utilities, Mining and Oil & Gas are likely to emerge as the device and airtime costs decrease.
NTN NB-IoT:
- Has a maximum data rate of 159 Kbps up, 106 Kbps down
- Works well for stationary and slower-moving mobile applications
- Offers greater reliability as the network is more exclusive
- Strong support for user identity confidentiality, authentication and integrity
- Doesn’t require a gateway, but you will need – once available – a dual mode satellite and cellular SIM card in each device
- Will no longer need terrestrial cellular infrastructure once Satellite Network Operators (SNOs) make their satellites compatible with the 3GPP standard
- Should support route switching in the future, keeping costs low and predictable.
What is 3GPP?
3GPP is a global initiative to basically stop telecommunication infrastructure developers from all doing their own thing. Since 1998, they’ve successfully driven standardization across cellular development. Release 17, in 2021, included satellite connectivity to the technology mix for NB-IoT delivery – often referred to as NTN (non-terrestrial network).
If an orbiting satellite network meets the 3GPP standard, someone, or something, on Earth that has a similarly 3GPP-compliant modem in their device could pass out of cell tower range, and immediately switch to satellite, with no interruption of service, and no need for separate hardware. All the excitement about direct-to-device technology stems from this, but “Rel-17” also unlocks NB-IoT’s use in extremely remote locations, with satellites performing the task of cell towers.
What About Non-Terrestrial LTE-M?
LTE-M is, like NB-IoT, a licensed LPWAN designed to operate on cellular networks. It’s a little more expensive because it offers higher bandwidth transmissions, and supports roaming: it was designed to work for mobile and fixed IoT applications, vs. NB-IoT that is best used in fixed IoT applications. Both are part of the broader 3GPP standard, and so the structure exists to use satellites to perform the role of cell towers in space.
At the time of writing, the satellite network operators moving the fastest towards NTN architecture are using NB-IoT as their preferred technology. However, Starlink will use a form of LTE when it brings an IoT proposition to market, and other satellite network operators may well follow suit.
What’s Best for Your Remote Application?
There is a lot of hype around 3GPP standards-based technology, and when it comes to fruition, users will benefit from lower cost modems and possibly, because of increased competition, lower cost and more predictable airtime bills. Many major satellite network operators – Iridium, Inmarsat, Viasat, Starlink – have announced plans to support a form of this technology (either NTN NB-IoT or LTE) in the future.
There are companies already offering this service, but at the time of writing, they have patchy coverage, and data capacity rates are very low. The full value of this technology will be realized when there is global availability and multiple service providers – which is currently looking like 2026-27.
If you’re building your remote application right now, your choice of LPWAN depends on your application. If your devices are very widespread, LoRaWAN may not be your best choice given the higher risk of packet loss between the sensors and the gateway(s). It is cost-effective, particularly when paired with a satellite transceiver like RockREMOTE which supports edge computing, thus allowing you to optimize your transmissions. If you can manage with a degree of data delivery uncertainty (due to the capacity challenges in the unlicensed radio frequency spectrum), it’s a good choice.
For devices spread over a wide geographical area, connecting each sensor or sensor array to a satellite IoT transceiver ensures that you will receive your data, with no dependencies on terrestrial infrastructure, and no reliability issues due to contested spectrum. If you choose a service like Iridium Short Burst Data, or Viasat IoT Nano, you’ll receive your data in close to real-time, too. Connecting sensors in this way costs more, but even now is less expensive than people imagine. For mission-critical applications, it’s the most reliable, fast and secure means of capturing your widespread remote sensor data.
Can we help you with your remote application?
If you’re connecting endpoints in remote locations, we hope you’ve found this article useful. We are experts in satellite connectivity, and work with multiple satellite network operators to ensure our customers get the best combination of coverage, reliability, price and latency.
If you’d like to speak to one of our team, please complete the form, or email hello@groundcontrol.com. We’ll come back to you within one working day.
IP vs Messaging for Satellite IoT Data Transmission
Sending data over satellite is more expensive than sending it over terrestrial networks. It’s become less expensive – the gap has shrunk, and continues to do so – but we won’t see complete parity of service and price soon – if ever.
So, when you’re capturing data from remote assets, the first consideration is how much data you need to send. We often come across companies used to using cellular, for example, and having very few constraints on their data transmissions. That mindset needs a little adjustment for satellite transmissions.
It’s a worthwhile exercise to dig into the art of the possible here: do you have some edge processing capabilities that would allow you to report by exception, for example? Time spent up front minimizing your data will pay back in far lower ongoing airtime fees.
This leads on to the next question: can you optimize your data sufficiently to use a messaging service rather than an IP-based service? This article seeks to explain why this is such an important question in the context of satellite IoT, and help you choose the best service for your application.
First things first: many people reading this will know how IP works. If that’s you, jump to the ‘What’s the Problem with IP’ section. If not, a basic understanding of IP is helpful to understand the pros and cons of this as a means of sending data over satellite.
The Basics of Internet Protocol (IP)
IP is the most common means by which packets of data are transferred from one machine to another. Machines are called ‘hosts’, and the IP network simply sends the data from the source host to the destination host. Both hosts are identified by an IP address which usually looks something like 192.158.1.38.
Data is divided into packets and sent over the network by the most efficient path, which could well see packets going over different routes. They’re reassembled at the destination host . However, IP is quite a basic, unacknowledged transfer mechanism; the source host isn’t notified if the transmission succeeds or fails.
So another layer in the tech stack is needed to make IP function reliably: it’s usually TCP (Transmission Control Protocol). TCP is built on top of IP to check that data is successfully delivered, and in the same condition in which it was sent. It’s so fundamental to the functioning of IP that you’ll often see the two layers combined as TCP/IP and used interchangeably with the individual terms.
What’s the Problem with TCP/IP as a Means of Communication Over Satellite?
That’s a bit of a provocative subheading because there isn’t a problem, per se. But there are some challenges that can be overcome in several ways – one of which is to not use an IP-based connection method at all (more on this later).
The main challenge is that TCP/IP is inefficient when it comes to transmitting very low volumes of data, and it’s relatively resource-hungry. In the example opposite, you can see how much data is passed back and forth in order to send just a single byte of useful data (thank you to Nick vs Networking’s blog post for this great illustration).
Not only are you paying for the extra packaging and overhead, it might also require more power to transmit than if you were simply transmitting the useful data. Not an issue if your asset / sensor is powered, but it could be if your asset is unmanned, and needs to run off a battery for several years in between maintenance visits.
If you want a more efficient means of passing data because you need to throttle back on cost, and/or your device needs to conserve power, you have four options.
- Optimize your data transmissions
- Explore UDP/IP as an alternative to TCP/IP
- Consider using a more efficient protocol designed for IoT such as MQTT
- Look at a message-based option instead
1. Optimize Your Data Transmissions
We briefly touched on this earlier; it’s popular because – unlike some other options – you don’t have to change the underlying network. Two of the best known satellite airtime options that work on a TCP/IP network are Viasat’s Iot Pro, and Iridium’s Certus 100 service. If all of your other systems use IP, you can effectively plug-and-play to send your data over satellite using these airtime options.
Think carefully about how much of the data you’re routinely transmitting contains information you actually need. Our previous blog post identified five key ways to reduce your satellite IoT connectivity costs. In short, by efficiently managing data usage, adjusting settings based on application requirements, and leveraging edge computing capabilities, you can use TCP/IP more effectively, and reduce your overall satellite airtime costs.
2. Explore UDP/IP-based Applications
If your application can tolerate some missing data, UDP can be a much more efficient means of working with IP. Packets (or ‘datagrams’) are sent via a ‘best effort’ communication method, which doesn’t require that the destination host has ‘accepted’ the data transfer. It’s faster and less resource heavy, but less reliable – delivery is not guaranteed – and there are security challenges too.
Hologram.io has a great blog post outlining the differences between TCP and UDP in more detail. Applications built on UDP tend to favour limited networks with low bandwidth and low availability – CoAP (Constrained Application Protocol) is probably the best known of these.
3. Use a TCP/IP-based Application Designed for IoT
Both HTTP and MQTT use TCP/IP; they layer over additional features specific to the applications that they serve. However, HTTP isn’t optimized for IoT; it’s designed for two machines to talk, not for networking many sensors, and is pretty noisy / talkative when used for the latter. If that’s your only option, circle back to point 1 and see what you can do to optimize your data for transmission.
MQTT, on the other hand, was written specifically for IoT; it uses a publish/subscribe pattern which allows for efficient and reliable data transfer. Individual sensors publish data to a broker, and multiple ‘clients’ can subscribe to receive that data from the broker.
MQTT delivers data with a very low overhead by using a binary format that minimizes message size. You can also choose varying levels of ‘QoS’ – Quality of Service – which allows you to speed up or slow down message delivery, and increase / decrease the certainty of the message being delivered. Basically, fast = less reliable delivery, and slow = very reliable delivery. All of this means your device is using TCP/IP very efficiently and therefore will consume less data.
Among the criticisms of MQTT are security concerns – it doesn’t include a defined security mechanism, relying instead on the underlying network’s security – and a lack of built-in error handling. It’s worth noting that a number of companies working with MQTT have built platforms to manage these specific concerns, including Ground Control’s own Satellite IoT Gateway.
4. Look at a Message-based Option Instead
However efficient your application layer – and MQTT is very efficient – IP, whether UDP or TCP enabled, is still relatively overhead-heavy. If you can avoid using IP altogether, you can further minimize the volume of data delivered, and in doing so, spend less money on airtime, while keeping your battery powered device running longer.
In the cellular industry, this is called (very logically) Non IP Data Delivery (NIDD), and it’s a message-based transmission protocol. With messaging, 100% of the data that is transmitted can contain useful application-related information, and the transmission lasts only as long as it takes to send that data. Compared to IP, it’s like the difference between a text message and a phone call; NIDD is the text message, and IP is the phone call – the latter delivers real time, two-way communication, but is more resource-hungry.
In the satellite industry, a similar principle has been operated very successfully for over 20 years – message-based transmissions that are sent either at predefined intervals, or when requested, or when there has been an ‘event’. Iridium’s Short Burst Data (SBD) and Iridium Messaging Transport (IMT), plus Viasat’s IoT Nano are all message-based.
It’s an extremely efficient way to use satellite airtime: send only what you need, when you need it, with no costly overhead. It does present a data compression (or compaction) challenge for developers: the message sizes are minute, with SBD sending just 320 bytes, and receiving 270 bytes. That can take some creativity to work with – but necessity is the mother of invention! Our SBD-based tracking devices convey date, time, position, altitude, course, speed, battery percentage, temperature, precision in just 17 bytes.
Iridium Messaging Transport – a Game-Changer?
Some of these size restrictions were lifted in late 2022 when Iridium launched IMT. This is still a message-based platform but it allows messages to be sent of up to 100 KB, a vast increase on the previously available options. This allows you to send compressed images and multiple sensors’ data, and so opens the door to message-based transmissions for far more use cases than was previously possible.
Formatting Your Data for a Message-Based Transmission
If you use SBD, you can transmit your data as either ASCII or Binary messages in packets of up to 340 bytes, while receiving packets of up to 270 bytes. Depending on your service provider, you can then deliver messages to your application using a wide variety of protocols. Ground Control’s customers gain access to Cloudloop Data, which supports our HTTP Webhook API, email or integration with public cloud services like AWS SQS. You can find all of the Cloudloop Data documentation here.
If you decide to use IMT, great news: our engineering team have created a Satellite IoT Gateway which allows you to transmit your data using MQTT, but taking advantage of the cost- and power-benefits of the message-based transmission.
This system uses the RockREMOTE family of satellite IoT hardware. As per the diagram, you can communicate with RockREMOTE using MQTT, and it will transmit the data via IMT, managing the connection, message queuing, retries etc. automatically. It’s then reconstituted on to a secure, cloud-based MQTT broker which you can connect to your MQTT client or library, allowing your cloud application to consume the messages.
Why Would You Use Anything Else?
The main drawback is that, simply, IP-based communication is more common, so if your remote systems – sensors, gateways etc. – utilize IP, you’ll need to do some engineering work to switch to messaging.
Here at Ground Control, we’re invested in making sure our customers use the most cost-effective means of reliably and securely communicating with their remote assets. If your application or protocol expects an interactive, two-way IP connection (i.e. SSH, SFTP, TCP/IP sockets, web browsing etc.), then something like Iridium Certus 100 or Viasat IoT Pro is probably the best fit.
If, however, you’re using MQTT, you can explore IMT; and if you have very small data requirements, you can unlock the most affordable solutions available. We’re here to help, so get in touch if you have any questions about this post, or you’d like some impartial advice.
Can We Help?
If you have a remote data transfer challenge, we would love to help you solve it. Our expertise, in-house hardware, Cloudloop platform and long-standing relationships with satellite network operators and hardware providers gives us the means to tackle challenges with creativity.
We’re not invested in selling you a specific product or connections, just the best solution for your needs. If you prefer to speak to someone directly, call us on +44 (0) 1452 751940 (Europe, Asia, Africa) or +1.805.783.4600 (North and South America).
Elevating emergency operations: SATCOM’s role in transforming public safety
First responders – firefighters, paramedics, police, all public safety agencies – must have communication certainty. Why?
- Timely instructions reaching field teams can mean the difference between a life saved and a life lost.
- In distress situations, personnel staying connected is essential.
But 81% of emergency managers have experienced communication failures. During an emergency, traditional infrastructure may be unavailable, destroyed or overloaded. This is why satellites play such an important role in public safety operations. In just one example, the FBI and other emergency response teams relied on satellite phones throughout the Boston Marathon Bombing aftermath because cellular service was unreliable due to congestion.
SATCOM products and services provide reliable and resilient connectivity, enabling critical communication links when LTE and radios are down. With the ability to provide connectivity in remote, disaster-stricken, or otherwise challenging environments, SATCOM has already revolutionized how first response agencies operate.
How SATCOM has transformed public safety operations
Situational Awareness
Leveraging satellites, incident commanders have a reliable means of communicating with personnel in the field. This ensures real-time dissemination of information, so commanders’ can maintain situational awareness – vital for shaping a timely, appropriate response.
Emergency Response Planning
Ground personnel rely on vital information regarding population density, infrastructure, and environmental conditions. Satellite connectivity enables efficient data collection, analysis, and modeling, aiding effective response strategies and resource allocation.
Asset tracking and Management
Real time satellite-based asset tracking systems provide constant updates on the location and status of vehicles, equipment, and personnel. This optimizes resource management, boosts operational efficiency, and improves the safety of field team members.
Video and Data Transmission
Satellites facilitate seamless transmission of HD video and vital data from Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and sensors, plus access to extensive reports, images and maps. Allowing real-time collaboration, swift decision-making, and remote guidance for on-site personnel.
Today, SATCOM aids tactical operators with natural disaster response both as a primary and failover means of communication. It empowers wildfire response teams operating in remote forests with real-time communication, data analysis, and information retrieval. It enables field hospitals to access medical histories, transmit imagery, and provide telemedicine services on-site.
However, in a competitive market with a growing number of players, choosing the right SATCOM service and equipment can be difficult. Using our 20+ years experience supporting first responders, we’ve outlined key considerations to help guide public safety agencies define their SATCOM requirements.
Navigating the world of SATCOM: Important factors to consider
Coverage & Availability
As SATCOM systems leverage specific satellite constellations and services, it’s crucial to assess your agency’s operational zone to determine coverage and availability needs.
Coverage will depend on factors like satellite orbit position, antenna pointing accuracy, frequency used, and potential signal obstacles such as tall buildings or valleys. Key players like Iridium, Starlink, and Viasat offer global coverage (the latter excluding polar regions).
However, Starlink can suffer congestion-related slowdowns, while newer constellation OneWeb consistently covers the 35th parallel north, encompassing Canada, southern Europe, and northern USA, without speed fluctuations.
Bandwidth & Latency
Effective communication for first responders often extends beyond voice calls. Thus, teams must assess whether their SATCOM devices require capabilities like live video transmission. In such cases, prioritizing sufficient potential bandwidth and, where needed, low latency becomes essential.
Both Iridium and OneWeb constellations operate within Low Earth Orbit (LEO), resulting in reduced ping times due to closer satellite proximity to Earth’s surface. With latency as low as 70ms, emergency responders experience near real-time collaboration.
Viasat, SES and Intelsat support high bandwidth applications like video calling, but with constellations situated in geostationary orbit, there is a slight impact on latency.
Ruggedness & Mobility
First responders often navigate challenging and unpredictable environments. Fortunately, SATCOM equipment can be ruggedized to endure demanding and rapidly changing conditions. Look for robust IP (ingress protection) ratings, and operating temperatures to ensure steadfast performance during critical moments.
If you need extremely swift deployment and setup, consider a case-based device like the MCD-4800, which allows responders to establish communications within seconds during emergencies.
The Kymeta Hawk u8 LEO, which attaches to vehicles, offers Satcom-on-the-move capabilities—an essential feature given that a recent survey showed 37% of first responders consider connected vehicles a top priority within the next five years.
Interoperability
Seamless communication between different agencies remains a top concern for our public safety officials, with 47% of surveyed first responders recognizing the significance of interoperability. Coordinated communication among federal, state, and local agencies is essential to prevent duplication and delays in rescue efforts.
With SATCOM systems, agencies can achieve interoperability in two main ways: 1. Employing an “interoperability gateway” or crossband repeater. 2. Utilizing Mission-Critical Push-to-Talk (MCPTT) devices. Planning the “how” is essential from the outset.
Security
The transmission of sensitive data is a crucial aspect of first responder operations. To safeguard this information, the chosen SATCOM service should prioritize network security and provide robust encryption features, to ensure the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the transmitted information.
Look for systems and services that offer end-to-end encryption, secure communication channels, and authentication mechanisms to protect data from unauthorized access. For instance, OneWeb’s service boasts military-grade network security, and some ground stations are even located within military installations.
Survey referenced above: Frontline Public Safety Communications
SATCOM equipment is a tool; selecting the right tool can make a substantial difference. And with first response teams expecting their job to require even more connected devices in the next five years, the better agencies understand their needs, the better companies like Ground Control can match agencies with the best possible tool (SATCOM equipment).
For more detailed comparisons of our popular portable and mobile satellite communication equipment, refer to – Comparing SATCOM solutions for public safety agencies. Likewise if you would prefer to discuss your requirements with one of our experienced team, email us at sales@groundcontrol.com.
Ready to take the next step?
With Ground Control, our customers have access to individuals who have not only been working in SATCOMS for over 20 years, but those who have been working alongside first responders for over 20 years. Some of us were even first responders in a previous life.
So if you are reviewing satellite communication equipment and would like some objective advice, simply fill in the form and one of our expert team will get back to you.
SmallSats, Big Impact, and the Future of Connectivity in Water and Waste Water Processing
Satellite IoT is exploding right now, with new entrants left, right and centre, and some huge names throwing their hats into the ring: Starlink for one, and Amazon’s Kuiper for another. This incredible proliferation of satellite network operators is driving innovation at an unprecedented speed, but there’s also a lot of hype. In this post, aimed at sensor manufacturers supporting the water and waste water industry, we’re going to explore what’s currently available, what’s coming soon, and what we think the next five to 10 years looks like – with some myth-busting along the way.
Satellite networks launched between 1965 and 2011
This timeline shows the launch dates of the “old guard” of satellite network operators; and while they’re unquestionably well established, don’t take old as meaning redundant here. These companies have stood the test of time; their services are highly reliable, and they’ve repeatedly updated their networks over the decades. Between them they serve the gamut of satellite internet applications, from Iridium’s Short Burst Data, designed for tiny amounts of IoT data, through to Viasat’s broadband internet service with speeds of up to 100 Mbps.
Satellite networks launched between 2018 and 2024
As mentioned, in recent years, more and more companies have started to build satellite networks; all are in Low Earth Orbit (LEO), and almost all are using what are called “SmallSats”. Here we’re using the term for any satellite weighing less than 180 kg and measuring between the size of a kitchen fridge and a Rubik’s cube. It’s this smaller size that has, in part, allowed for this growth – it’s much cheaper to put a SmallSat into Low Earth Orbit than it is to put a large satellite (over 1,000 kg) into Geostationary orbit.
Coupled with the trend for SmallSats and Low Earth Orbit, the other major reason for the increased number of new entrants is the lowered cost of putting satellites into space. From $85,000 per KG in the 1980s, to just $1,000 per KG in 2020 (source); for that you can largely thank SpaceX.
About satellite orbit heights
A quick explanation about the significance of orbit heights in satellite connectivity. Satellites in Low Earth Orbit (or LEO) are much closer to Earth than Geostationary satellites, which means that the time it takes to send data to the satellite and back to Earth is reduced – usually less than 1 second.
If you need real-time data transmission for your systems to operate smoothly, this is a welcome and necessary benefit. However, for this to be realized in practice, there needs to be a satellite overhead at the point at which you transmit; we’ll touch on the challenges new entrants have in this respect shortly.
What are the implications for water sensor manufacturers?
1. Lower cost
Firstly, cost: these networks cost less to establish, so the operators have less costs to recoup! That in turn has forced the established players to diversify their services to compete. This is great news as the relatively high cost of sending data over satellite previously made some use cases non-viable – but no longer. If you need to capture data from your remotely deployed sensors, cost is rarely, if ever, a prohibiting factor now.
Reservoirs
Water levels, precipitation, air and water temperature, relative humidity
Pipelines
Leak detection, Third Party Intrusion, broken wires, storm water ingress
Treatment Plants
Water levels and flows, energy consumption, water quality, equipment status
2. Smaller antenna size
Secondly, antenna size and power. This has always been variable depending on the amount of data needing to be transmitted: a large amount needs a large antenna and a decent amount of power. Small amounts of sensor data, however, can be sent to satellites in Low Earth Orbit using absolutely tiny antennas such as the patch antenna included with the RockBLOCK 9603.
This connects to the Iridium network, which was one of the first LEO networks launched. This low-power-by-design modem can be powered by a battery for many years, and the same is true for many of the devices which connect to the new space entrants.
3. The convergence of satellite and 5G
The next step in the evolution of Satellite IoT is the convergence of cellular and satellite networks. The telecommunications industry is working on several ideas that will enable seamless data transfer between these networks. A key application of this convergence is to extend the reach of 5G which in comparison to its predecessors, provides limited coverage. If satellites can function as “cell towers” in space, it would unlock the full potential of 5G, providing global coverage from anywhere on the planet. 3GPP’s latest release – Release 17 – included technical specifications for direct-to-device 5G over satellite. This release also extended interoperability, Integrated Access and Backhaul (IAB), and network slicing to support Non-Terrestrial Networks (NTNs). Read more about 5G and satellite technology.
Things to be aware of
It’s not all good news, though. It takes time and money to build a reliable satellite constellation, and every one of the new entrants is still in the process of establishing their network – including Starlink and Swarm.
That means that you can suffer from high latency – i.e. there simply isn’t a satellite overhead for your device to send data to, so you will need to wait until there is. To give you a real-life example, if you connect your sensor to the Swarm network from North America, it can take from 2 minutes to 2 hours for your data to be intercepted by a satellite, and then delivered back to Earth. For Iridium, those parameters are 10 seconds to 15 minutes. And bear in mind Swarm (acquired by SpaceX in 2021) is one of the best established of the new entrants; newer and less well funded companies will have much longer delays.
Similarly coverage can be spotty; there is still only one satellite company that delivers 100% global coverage, and that’s Iridium. The established geostationary satellite operators usually have great coverage, and just miss out the polar regions.
The new networks also suffer from congestion: demand can outstrip supply, leading to failed transmissions and higher costs as data packets are re-sent; plus slower speeds when the network is busy. That’s plaguing Starlink right now – they’ll fix it, for sure, but just now it could be problematic.
However, if your instruments or sensors are within the coverage of one of these networks, and you can cope with receiving data once or twice a day, with the promise that this will speed up as they launch more satellites, then there is a huge amount of choice available to you, and the cost is really very low.
Our recommendations for water sensor satellite connectivity
For critical national infrastructure like water utilities, we continue to recommend established networks like Eutelsat, Iridium and Viasat with millions of subscribers, who’ve proven they can manage spikes in demand; who’ve got redundancy services baked in; who have very high levels of coverage and still benefit from very low latency.
What about data security?
“Water utilities are the third most targeted sector for hackers in the United States”
– Journal of Environmental Engineering
Water terrorism is on the rise and is likely to get worse as clean, safe water becomes an increasingly scarce resource. In 2022, hackers claimed to have access to the SCADA data of Thames Water (oddly, while they thought they’d hacked Thames Water, they’d actually hacked South Staffordshire Water; and in neither case were they actually able to access SCADA systems).
The hackers claimed to have the ability to tamper with the safety of drinking water, a terrifying prospect for the general public (source). While this incident blew over with basically no harm done, there are state-sponsored cyber warfare units who will be vastly more capable, should they be tasked with targeting national infrastructure.
To be clear, sending your data via satellite isn’t risk-free. But it is much harder to intercept data going from a sensor to a satellite, then back to a ground station, than it is to intercept data that’s using public infrastructure like the internet. And if that ground station is physically on your premises – that’s an air-gapped solution that’s about as secure as data transfer gets. This private satellite network is called TSAT and we don’t know of any more secure way to transmit mission critical data.
And while TSAT represents the highest tier of security capabilities within satellite IoT, by default, satellite data traffic is relatively secure, meeting most military and government security standards.
Further, at Ground Control, we’ve built Cloudloop, a delivery network for Iridium and Viasat traffic, which allows us to have full control over our certified, cutting-edge data paths, while securely delivering traffic.
We built this because we wanted to deliver additional security for our customers’ data, and offer optional public static IPs and completely configurable firewalls to assist in securely moving your data from A to B.
To summarize: satellite IoT has transformed in the last five years: prices have come down, transceivers are smaller, power requirements have lessened, and security has improved. And with Amazon’s Kuiper satellite network scheduled for launch in 2024, the pace of change is not going to slow.
We’re here to help you make sense of all of this. We keep on top of all of these developments so we can make expert recommendations to you, and ensure that a system you implement today will remain viable 5, 10 or 15 years into the future.
Would you like to know more?
We partner with sensor / instrumentation manufacturers to deliver end to end solutions for water companies across the world. If you design and build sensors, we’d love to hear from you to talk about working together. If you’re a water utilities company and looking for a connectivity bridge for your remote sites, we can help!
Call or email us, or complete the online form, and we’ll come back to you within one working day.
Communicating effectively during major incidents: 3 challenges facing first responders
Did you know that 81% of emergency managers have experienced communication failures during emergencies?
Whether a major incident is caused by a natural disaster, accident or malicious intent, first responders have to contend with a constantly evolving situation where priorities can change from minute to minute. Adding to the complexity is communication, which is made particularly challenging when multiple agencies need to communicate in order to respond effectively; when an incident takes place in a remote area, or if bandwidth gets constrained.
None of these issues are easy to resolve, but we’ve written this blog post to outline some potentially overlooked, affordable and easy-to-deploy solutions which can help tackle the three core issues of interoperability, network congestion, and coverage in remote areas.
1. Interoperability
“During incidents like 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina, cell phone towers were destroyed and overloaded, and first responders’ radios were incompatible, making life-saving communications almost nonexistent when they were needed most.” – United States Army
“The inability of responders from different departments and jurisdictions to communicate over their various radio systems during the event… was determined to have been a factor in the inability to evacuate 343 firefighters from the World Trade Center buildings, who all perished as a result.” – Dereck Orr, NIST
Why were the radios incompatible? Because public safety departments across the US are free to choose their own radio systems from different manufacturers, which sometimes operate on different radio bands. But forced standardization of radio systems isn’t the answer, as allowing agencies to select their providers encourages competition, driving innovation and lowering costs.
Two options present themselves: firstly, using an “interoperability gateway” otherwise known as a crossband repeater – technology designed to transmit and receive on different parts of the radio spectrum. These devices can be quickly deployed to allow agencies using different radio systems to talk to each other, in addition to other frequently used devices like satellite phones and VoIP desk phones.
Secondly, using Mission-Critical Push-to-Talk (MCPTT) enabled devices. This is a newly developed protocol that several telecommunication companies are building into their applications, including Ericsson, Qualcomm, ESChat and Motorola. If you’re using software built to the MCPTT specification, irrespective of the network or handset being used, you can communicate with other agencies using MCPTT. Currently this technology isn’t interoperable with LMR, but this is a known requirement that’s being worked on (source).
2. Network congestion
For people caught up in an emergency, it’s a natural reaction to try and reach friends and family, but this can, and frequently does, lead to network congestion. And that can have catastrophic consequences for emergency responders and the people they’re trying to save.
Cognizant of this, two communications companies took the initiative to create networks exclusively for the use of first responders: AT&T’s FirstNet, and Verizon’s Frontline. Both provide a choice of different phones, tablets, laptops and routers compatible with the service, and cover up to 2.71 million square miles. This helpful article provides a more detailed comparison and pricing.
It’s not a perfect solution: users of FirstNet have reported poor signal coverage, while users of Frontline report frustration with saturated networks. One workaround is to use an app like ESChat, which supports multiple terrestrial networks, but also offers a satellite option, Iridium Certus, which provides 100% global coverage. That’s a highly valuable failsafe if cell phone towers are damaged or congested, or terrestrial infrastructure is wilfully targeted, as was seen at the Nashville bombing in 2020.
ESChat partnered with Thales to make this satellite solution available. If you’re a first responder with a MissionLINK 200, MissionLINK 700 or MCD-MissionLINK device, or its maritime equivalent, the VesseLINK 200 or VesseLINK 700 (the differences are the data speeds available), you’ll be able to subscribe to the ESChat service and benefit from low-latency PTT from your smartphone or tablet.
Satellite systems in general are a great failsafe should terrestrial networks be damaged, destroyed or overloaded; and the proliferation of new satellite constellations over the last few years has created more choice and lower prices for users.
Do satellite networks suffer from network congestion too?
As satellite grows in popularity thanks to companies like Starlink, congestion on satellite networks needs to be considered. Like terrestrial networks, some satellite network operators provide dedicated bandwidth for emergency response traffic, whereas with others, you’re sharing the network with commercial users. Starlink for example has grown its user base so quickly that the demand is outpacing the capacity of the network, causing speeds to slow right down when many customers try to connect at the same time.
The best advice is to do your research, and ideally speak to someone who understands the satellite industry very well before deciding on a satellite partner.
3. Coverage in remote areas
While FirstNet and Frontline cover 77% of the landmass of the United States, that still leaves 800,000 square miles where there is no cellular coverage. These dead zones are naturally removed from population centers but are no less at risk from wildfires, hurricanes, earthquakes, landslides or flooding, which can cause huge damage to critical infrastructure like oil, gas and water utilities, plus farms, forestry and mining operations.
Sending emergency responders into areas like this presents a new set of challenges around communication, as neither cellular nor radio networks are likely to be consistently available. Satellite systems perform highly effectively in these circumstances, providing instant infrastructure that’s independent of terrestrial networks.
Portable, battery-operated devices like the MCD-4800 “The Football” or the MCD-MissionLINK create a WiFi hotspot of up to 1,000ft, providing broadband internet for up to 12 connected devices.
This delivers reliable access to email, text messages, Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS), and mapping. It enables the tracking of manpower and equipment, and access to GIS data; as well as the ability to upload drone data and to monitor local TV news coverage.
Even a simple handheld device like the RockSTAR can save lives. This highly ruggedized equipment provides real-time tracking of your personnel, and can transmit IoT data such as their temperature and heart-rate.
Two-way text messaging is possible both via the device and via a Bluetooth-connected smartphone, and there are alert features if the device is dropped, or the person moves out of a pre-agreed trajectory.
Effective communication during major incidents is a tough nut to crack, but the technology exists today to overcome interoperability challenges, and the emerging MCPTT protocol holds great promise to banish this issue altogether. But it remains important to have options, like satellite, that don’t rely on terrestrial infrastructure. Terrestrial infrastructure – including that which supports LMR – will always be the default, but that makes it a high priority target for terrorist attacks. Plus, it remains vulnerable to natural disasters, and is absent from 23% of the US’ landmass.
Objective, expert advice
Ground Control is a satellite communications expert, having supplied emergency responders with solutions for over 20 years.
We work with multiple satellite network operators and partner with companies like Thales, Hughes, Cobham and Starlink to make sure you get the best possible solution for your circumstances. We’re here to help with objective, expert advice when you need it.
Conquering Infrastructure Obstacles in Sustainable Development Projects
The World Economic Forum’s IoT Guidelines for Sustainability report states that 84% of IoT deployments are addressing, or have the potential to address, the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. These SDGs include combating climate change, sustainable production patterns and ensuring availability of clean water.
But as the report points out, “No services are possible without the infrastructure in place. Particularly in the case of IoT, at some point in the future revenues may come from the services associated with data, but without addressing the infrastructure solutions first, that day is still far away.”
In this post, we’re exploring challenges that are preventing the roll-out of IoT solutions in the areas that need it most, and offering some ideas to resolve these issues. It’s not a fully comprehensive list of challenges. We’ve left out the issue of national and municipal government buy-in, and conflict / war zones, as while they’re unquestionably barriers, we’re realistic about the ability of a blog post to provide a practical solution to them!
The two barriers to IoT infrastructure we’re addressing are affordability and geography.
Where in the world is the lack of IoT infrastructure most acute?
This graphic illustrates the impact of the digital divide. This relates to the gap between demographics and regions that have access to modern information and communications technology, and those that don’t. The statistics are shocking: 43% of Africans can use the internet, compared to 93% of Americans and 88% of Europeans. Even in more developed regions like the Americas, four out of 10 Latin Americans in rural areas have no way to connect to the internet (source) – because terrestrial networks are prohibitively expensive to set up in non-densely populated areas.
And the digital divide doesn’t only affect individuals’ access to the internet. The lack of infrastructure also means businesses and governments can’t deliver the benefits of IoT connectivity: improvements in energy efficiency; healthcare outcomes; public safety; environmental monitoring; transport planning; agriculture sustainability – the list goes on.
As just mentioned, the main reason for this is that cellular networks rely on a dense network of base stations and antennas to provide coverage, which is expensive and challenging to deploy, and there’s limited financial incentive for the private sector to support this outside of urban areas.
One proposed solution to the IoT connectivity challenge is to create coverage through LPWAN technology. A group of academics in the United States received funding for just such a project in 2021, with the goal of enabling small communities in upstate New York to benefit from IoT applications including remote meter readings for utility firms; traffic monitoring; real-time road and flood monitoring; crop and livestock monitoring for farmers, and building management.
Early returns for the latter indicated energy cost savings of between 15-30%; great news for the bill payer and the environment alike (source).
While there’s a lot to recommend this, there are a couple of additional considerations: firstly, the gateway that controls the network and aggregates the data from the nodes needs to be able to connect to the cloud, and for that it needs another means of connectivity. If you can position your gateway within cellular coverage, adding a cellular modem to your gateway will resolve this challenge. If you are out of cell tower range, a satellite modem such as Ground Control’s RockREMOTE will have the same effect.
The second consideration is mobility: neither of the two most popular LPWAN technologies – NB-IoT and LoRaWAN – were intended for mobile applications such as fleet monitoring or animal tracking. LoRaWAN can be used to connect moving sensors, but there’s a greater risk of transmission interference as a result of signal collision if a large number of nodes are connected (read more). This has an associated effect of increasing the energy consumption as packets are retransmitted, and changes in device location sometimes resulting in a higher spreading factor (SF).
To solve the mobility issue in areas with no terrestrial infrastructure, you may want to explore satellite transceivers, but be sure to look for devices with omni-directional antennas with no requirement to ‘point’ them at the satellite network overhead. The tiny RockBLOCK 9603, which transmits very small packets over the Iridium network, is ideal for sensor data transmission from animal tracking collars, UAVs, and drifting data buoys. If you need to send and receive higher volumes of data, something like the RockREMOTE Rugged works well for heavy machinery monitoring and control, including autonomous tractors and mobile generators.
But isn’t satellite IoT prohibitively expensive?
Satellite IoT has experienced a huge growth in demand and service providers as – largely thanks to Space X – the cost of launching a satellite has decreased from $85K per KG in the 80s to just $1K per KG in 2020 (source). This means plenty of competition and service diversification, which has driven down costs. As an example of this, a customer of ours, Synnefa, facilitates remote farming for smallholders in Kenya.
By providing them with accurate, real-time data on soil moisture, temperature, nutrient levels in the soil, and light intensity, Synnefa enables these remote farmers to optimise productivity while reducing waste, and it’s working:
- 50% Water savings
- 41% reduction in fertiliser usage
- 30% increased production.
Synnefa uses terrestrial connectivity where available, and Kenya is better connected than much of Africa, but as the map shows, there are huge swathes of agricultural land that have no access to cellular networks. So the Synnefa team ship their FarmShield device with a RockBLOCK 9602; if the sensor is out of terrestrial communication range, it can use satellites to send data.
But the critical point here is that Synnefa charge their customers no more for cellular than they do for satellite; there is a difference in cost to Synnefa, but it’s not so significant that they have to pass it on. Synnefa’s customers can benefit from more sustainable and productive farming wherever their farm is located.
Satellite connectivity continues to get more affordable, and we’re excited to watch the progress of SatelioT who are in the process of launching nanosatellites into Low Earth Orbit just 500 KM above us; that’s so close they don’t even need an antenna to create terrestrial connectivity. The purpose of these nanosatellites is to act as telephone towers in space, extending the reach of 5G NB-IoT connectivity to basically anywhere on Earth. So in principle, and hopefully soon in practice, you’ll be able to connect your IoT device to this Non-Terrestrial-Network (NTN) without needing an additional transceiver or antenna. This would be a huge step forwards for isolated communities, and with no new hardware needed, would greatly speed up the introduction of remote monitoring applications.
As with all of these newer entrants, including Swarm (now owned by SpaceX), who’s probably the best known of the nanosatellite manufacturers, it’s worth noting that for at least the next 2-3 years, the frequency with which your device will be able to send and receive data will be much slower than established satellite constellations like Iridium or Inmarsat. This is because there are simply fewer satellites overhead, so you’ll need to wait longer before your device signal is picked up. And you’ll also need to check if the region you’re aiming to connect is covered by an orbiting satellite, as few satellite operators have truly global coverage. But if you have coverage, and your application can manage with store-and-forward delivery, these are low cost options that may hold the key to unlocking some missing infrastructure and financing challenges.
IoT can help combat climate change – but climate change is making it harder to create IoT infrastructure
Another barrier to leveraging IoT for sustainable development is the increased frequency, duration and magnitude of extreme events, including droughts, flooding and extreme heat. And the countries most likely to be affected by these conditions are often the countries with the least ability to adapt. Projections indicate that Sub-Saharan Africa will bear the brunt of climate change impacts on food security, due to its reliance on rain-fed agriculture. Projects such as solar irrigation, rainwater harvesting and irrigation systems will be essential to enhance water availability, but their efficacy is limited without sensors.
Knowing what resources you have, where they are, and where and when they’re most needed is fundamental to the successful deployment of smart irrigation technology. You can send someone to gather and report sensor data, or you can utilise IoT to get real-time data, and vastly speed up your reaction time to new data, while better modelling future needs. Sub-Saharan Africa, however, has some of the most limited terrestrial network coverage in the world. Connecting Africa reports that 47% of the world’s uncovered population is in SSA (source).
Further, terrestrial networks where they do exist are susceptible to natural disasters; flooding, hurricanes and earthquakes and ensuing landslides can create power outages and damage cell towers; fibre ducts can become waterlogged; repairs can be delayed due to road damage. In 2022, 1,200 cell towers were impacted in South Africa alone due to a prolonged spell of heavy rain and the ensuing flooding and landslides (source). In developing countries, infrastructure such as the electricity grid and piped water are often the responsibility of county-level or national government, and it can take years before damage is rectified. One study in Kenya found that 62% of electrical grid failures caused by floods were never repaired (read more). This presents massive challenges for IoT deployment that relies on terrestrial communication networks like BLE, WiFi and Cellular.
So, we turn again to the twin options of LPWAN – specifically LoRaWAN here, because of its independence from 4G / 5G cellular tower infrastructure – and satellite; sometimes deployed separately but often combined to provide low cost coverage over a wide area, with no dependency on terrestrial networks for data backhaul.
Neither of these options are immune to damage but they are more resilient. LoRaWAN gateways are, of course, much smaller than cell towers, and the signal is largely unaffected by wind and rain. They’re available in IP68 rated enclosures with automated leak detection and remote configuration options – essential if you’re not going to be able to reach the device for long periods of time.
Similarly, satellite transceivers are often built into highly ruggedised enclosures, or are shipped with such enclosures. Some are solar powered; others will work off a single battery for years. Devices like the RockREMOTE Rugged also support Over The Air (OTA) device configuration. Paired with a sensor array or data logger, you’ve got a IoT solution that is highly resilient against adverse weather, as the transmission is going to, or being received from, satellites orbiting far above the Earth (some not as far as they used to be, but still well out of trouble!). The ground stations used by satellite network operators are carefully chosen for their stability and security; it’s why satellite connectivity is so often deployed in emergency situations, when terrestrial networks have failed.
Leading renewable energy provider RWE has installed hydrology stations which monitor water levels, precipitation, air and water temperatures, and relative humidity, to detect excess rainfall in remote parts of Wales, UK. These hydrology stations are located at hydroelectric power stations; reservoirs which pipe water through turbines to supply renewable energy to the grid.
If there’s excessive rainfall, the operators can push more water through the turbines, which provides more green energy; and there’s a huge added benefit in that this also greatly reduces the chances of localised flooding, as the reservoir’s capacity to absorb more water grows.
In the complete absence of cell towers – this being a particularly beautiful and remote part of the UK – these hydrology stations use satellite connectivity, in this case Viasat IoT Pro, to transmit the data in real-time back to the operations centre. The cost is managed through edge computing, which allows the frequency of transmission to be increased to every 15 minutes if data falls outside of normal parameters, but is usually set to transmit every 3 hours.
In summary, the places that would benefit the most from IoT to help with sustainable development goals are often the places most under-served by terrestrial networks – because it’s too difficult, too expensive, or too risky to install them. Outside of urban areas, coverage in Africa, Asia and Oceania is extremely limited, and yet these regions are some of the most at-risk from rising sea levels, drought, flooding and other extreme weather conditions.
In order to bridge the digital divide, we need to look to low cost, resilient and easy to deploy connectivity solutions. Some are available today – LoRaWAN and satellite IoT, both combined and independent of each other, are entirely viable options. And it’s very exciting to see what’s coming in the next few years from innovations which will bring satellite and cellular networks together.
Would you like to know more?
If you have an IoT project with connectivity challenges, you’re absolutely in the right place to get expert help. Call or email us, or complete the form and we’ll be happy to talk through your options.
We design and build our own satellite transceivers, and also work with trusted third parties to offer a wide range of connectivity options and airtime partners.
Satellite Asset Trackers: Choosing the Right Device for Your Requirements
The importance of asset tracking
In today’s connected world, asset trackers have become an essential tool for businesses to enable effective monitoring and management of their assets across the globe. Whether you’re running a logistics company, managing a fleet of vehicles, or overseeing a construction project, having real-time visibility and control over your assets is essential.
Terrestrial asset tracking via BLE, WiFi, LPWAN and cellular has numerous benefits but is not without its drawbacks and limitations. In scenarios where assets operate in remote areas or face signal interruptions, as is often the case in mining, forestry and sea freight, for example, satellite asset tracking becomes essential to ensure uninterrupted monitoring and prevent downtime.
In contrast to terrestrial services, satellite asset tracking provides reliable coverage and continuous visibility from anywhere on the planet with a clear view of the sky; there’s no dependency on proximity to mobile phone masts. This makes it indispensable for applications where reliable asset monitoring is paramount, such as in the case of construction equipment or specialized machinery, where even slight discrepancies in location can have significant consequences. However, with a wide range of solutions available in the market, selecting the optimum satellite device for business and operational needs can be a challenge. Considerations such as coverage, data speed, battery life, accuracy, and cost will ultimately guide buyers’ decisions.
Whether you need real-time tracking or periodic updates, selecting the right device will ensure effective asset management and operational optimization. Using our guide about how to choose the right satellite enabled device will ensure you make the right asset tracker choice. Be sure to consider the key five criteria outlined here.
Choosing the right satellite device for asset tracking
1. Assess your needs
Before determining the asset tracking device required, it’s crucial to understand what needs to be achieved by the tracking solution. Considering the types of assets that need to be tracked – such as vessels at sea, a remote workforce, or aircraft – the geographical areas the assets will be located in, and the level of tracking accuracy required are just three considerations to make.
Another crucial factor to consider is the level of tracking accuracy required. Some applications demand real-time and precise location updates, such as high-value shipments or sensitive equipment. In such cases, a device that offers high accuracy and frequent data transmission will be essential. On the other hand, if periodic location updates are sufficient, a device with longer battery life and less frequent data transmission would be more suitable.
2. Evaluate coverage options
Armed with a clear view of your essential requirements, your next consideration when choosing a satellite asset tracking device is coverage. A satellite network operator’s coverage depends on the number of satellites they have in orbit, and the height of those satellites relative to the Earth.
It’s certainly not the case that all satellite operators offer 100% global coverage, and you should check carefully to ensure that the tracking device you’re looking at has good, stable coverage in every region your asset operates in.
Iridium offers complete global coverage; Viasat covers most of the globe, but service degrades towards the polar regions. Globalstar works well in the Americas, Western Europe and much of the Asia-Pacific region.
Use our coverage maps to view the different satellite networks and select a network that ensures seamless connectivity for your assets, regardless of their location.
3. Battery life and power management
Many tracking devices use your vehicle’s electrical system as their principle power source, connected via 9-30v input or USB; cars, trucks, boats, aircraft etc. If this applies to you, you’ll have a wide choice of devices and don’t need to be particularly concerned with the power draw, even if you’re transmitting a location signal very regularly.
However, for assets that have limited access to power sources, extended battery life is essential. Satellite asset trackers consume power to transmit location data, and their battery life can vary significantly depending on the device and usage frequency. If real-time tracking and monitoring are required, buyers should opt for devices with longer battery lives, solar power options or power-saving features. Alternatively, if reporting only on exception or low-frequency updates is sufficient, there are tracking devices available with extended battery life lasting weeks or even months.
4. Data accuracy, speed and management
It goes without saying that frequent and fast data transmission enables more precise asset tracking. Knowing the location and status of your assets in close to real time helps you make informed decisions, optimize logistics, and provide reliable information to customers or stakeholders. That said, data points always require context to be meaningful.
So, a robust satellite asset tracking solution should not only provide accurate, real-time location information but also deliver data management capabilities. Cloudloop is Ground Control’s cloud-based platform for subscription and device management, and, new for 2023, device tracking. There are a number of key tracking features of the platform, including:
- Real-time visibility of your assets, with multiple mapping options
- View the location, speed and heading of your assets, wherever they are on the planet
- Instant notifications of driver-issued alerts
- Historical position reporting and device events.
5. Cost and scalability
As well as the upfront costs, when selecting a tracker, it’s important to consider ongoing airtime and/or service charges. There are various pricing models available, from pay-as-you-go where you top up your device’s airtime as needed; monthly fixed payments based on your estimated usage; or post-pay invoicing based on actual usage (note: while this sounds appealing, they’re often more expensive than having a monthly fixed payment).
You can also pay per asset, or in some cases, use ‘pooled’ data so that all assets are drawing from the same data allowance (this gives you flexibility if assets’ tracking requirements change week on week, or month on month, while still having a fixed monthly payment).
Ground Control offers very flexible pricing models, and is competitive on airtime too. Our most popular tracking airtime services include Iridium Short Burst Data (SBD) and Viasat IoT Pro.
Ready to select your asset tracking device?
Having partnered with satellite network providers such as Iridium and Inmarsat for well over a decade, we have access to competitively priced tariffs, and can also be very flexible in terms of bundled data – saving you money.
So if you are working on upgrading your existing solution, or tracking your assets for the first time and would like some no pressure, objective advice, simply fill in the form and one of our expert team will get back to you.
Navigating Obstacles: Tips for Successful Satellite IoT Implementation
Consulting firm McKinsey has projected that the Internet of Things (IoT) could enable global value between $5.5 trillion – $12.6 trillion by 2030. This estimation encompasses the value derived by consumers using IoT products and services. However, it is predicted that around 65% of this value will come from business-to-business (B2B) applications. And within the B2B sector, the primary drivers of value projected are operation optimisation (41%) and condition-based maintenance (12%).
2030 is still some time away, but how close are we to realising this value?
The IoT has already connected over 14 billion devices worldwide, but being a relatively new technology, it faces its share of challenges and obstacles. According to a recent survey on IoT deployments, only 42% of companies considered their projects successful. However, it’s important to consider that 50% of those surveyed were in the trial or pilot phase, which provides valuable insights into identifying barriers to success. Encouragingly, when compared to the 2020 survey results, the 2023 survey indicates a notable 28% increase in success rates. Additionally, research from ABI reveals that satellite IoT projects have a comparable but increased success rate, with approximately 50% of participants considering their projects successful.
As the adoption and success of IoT continues to accelerate, demonstrating a positive return on investment (ROI) becomes increasingly essential. Here at Ground Control, we are privileged to work on a wide range of IoT deployments every day. Our projects span various industries, from operators seeking to minimise downtime in the Oil and Gas sector, to those in Utilities handling mission-critical data, and even those facilitating telehealth via medical drone deliveries and remote nurse tracking. Drawing on these experiences, we’ve created this article to highlight the challenges we most commonly see and potential solutions to guide you on the path to success. But first…
How to define IoT project success
Defining IoT project success involves aligning project goals with overall objectives, setting specific and measurable KPIs, and quantifying expected benefits and ROI. Establishing baselines and targets, tracking progress, and analysing data against the defined metrics are crucial. In our experience, customers often focus on immediate challenges and short-term gains and this can lead to issues regarding scalability and the ability to adapt to future needs further down the line. When embarking on an IoT installation, regular iteration and improvement can mark the difference between success or not. In short, for many IoT projects success is dependent on companies being proactive.
5 common IoT deployment challenges and potential solutions to overcome them
- Security and privacy concerns
- Connectivity reliability
- Interoperability and integration
- Data management and analytics
- Scalability
1. Challenge: Security and privacy concerns
Within the vast IoT ecosystem, the extensive network of interconnected devices creates numerous potential entry points for cyberattacks. Each connected device becomes a potential vulnerability that malicious actors can exploit. The sheer volume of data generated and transmitted by IoT devices raises significant concerns about privacy. Safeguarding personal information and ensuring data protection become of paramount importance in this interconnected landscape.
From a technical perspective, security emerges as the foremost obstacle in IoT deployments. As IoT solutions continue to evolve, security measures must also advance. It is an ongoing and dynamic process that requires continuous improvement and this inherent characteristic poses significant challenges.
These concerns are further emphasised by notable cyberattacks that have made headlines. In 2021, a cyberattack on Colonial Pipeline forced a temporary shutdown of 5,500 miles of pipeline, impacting critical infrastructure. In another instance, an attempt was made to tamper with the levels of sodium hydroxide in Oldsmar, Florida’s water supply. Additionally, the ‘AcidRain‘ malware attack in 2022 caused severe and prolonged disruptions on a mass scale. This attack targeted and disabled Viasat’s KA-SAT broadband service’s satellite modems, affecting thousands of users in Ukraine and across Europe.
Potential solutions: Secure network design and data encryption
Addressing the security concerns in IoT deployments requires a multi-layered approach to IoT security. Implementing secure network architectures, employing data encryption, practicing best access control practices, and leveraging private network solutions, all strengthen organizations overall security posture in IoT deployments.
- Secure Network Architecture: A robust and secure network architecture is crucial in addressing IoT security concerns. Companies should design their networks with measures such as network segmentation, firewalls, and intrusion detection systems. By dividing the network into segments and implementing firewalls and intrusion detection systems, the impact of potential breaches can be contained, and real-time threat identification and mitigation can be achieved.
- Data Encryption: Protecting IoT data through encryption is paramount. Strong encryption algorithms and secure key management practices should be employed to ensure the confidentiality of sensitive information. By encrypting data at rest and in transit, organizations can significantly enhance the security of their IoT deployments.
- Best Practice Access Control: Implementing best practices for access control and identity management is a simple yet effective way to strengthen IoT security. Regularly reviewing access privileges, promptly revoking access for former employees or compromised accounts, and monitoring for suspicious activities all contribute to an enhanced security posture, mitigating potential risks.
- Private and Secure Networks: Depending on the nature of the data handled by an IoT application, a completely secure and private network may be necessary. Solutions like SCADASat provide secure, private networks for handling sensitive data, ensuring end-to-end security and protecting against unauthorized access.
2. Challenge: Connectivity reliability
The success of IoT relies heavily on reliable connectivity. Without a consistent means of transmitting data, the value of IoT is diminished. Obtaining a comprehensive view of operations is crucial for making informed business decisions. Fragmented data can lead to inaccurate insights, resulting in suboptimal business decisions.
Currently, only 25% of the world’s landmass is covered by cell towers. While 5G deployment is underway and will be able to support a much larger volume of devices, the shorter wavelengths mean 5G has a much shorter range than its predecessor. For some deployments, cellular coverage will be sufficient. But for those with assets in remote locations whereby cellular may be intermittent or unavailable, challenges arise; and a staggering 75% of businesses reported struggling with connectivity issues when trialling IoT projects.
Potential solutions: diversify connectivity portfolio, implement redundant network architectures and regular maintenance
Diversifying your connectivity portfolio involves adopting multiple connectivity technologies, including cellular, satellite, and LPWAN, to create a more resilient network infrastructure. By leveraging diverse connectivity options, organisations can minimise the impact of network outages, ensure continuous data transmission and balance costs. Just one example and one we’re increasingly seeing is satellite alongside LoRaWAN. Typically, sensors connected via LoRaWAN transmit data to a hub; the hub then optimises the data payload to reduce transmission costs, and from there transmits the data packet via cellular where and when available, and satellite when LTE is unavailable.
Implementing redundant network architectures is another effective strategy. This entails establishing backup systems and redundant connections to provide alternate pathways for data transmission. Redundancy mitigates the risk of single points of failure and enhances the reliability of the IoT network, ensuring uninterrupted connectivity even during network disruptions. One of our largest clients actually have satellite implemented as their third failover (cellular first, fibre second). Their satellite setup hasn’t failed once in 27 years and is the system they consider the most reliable.
What’s more, regular maintenance is vital for sustaining reliable connectivity. Conducting regular inspections, monitoring network performance, and performing necessary updates and maintenance tasks help identify and resolve potential issues proactively.
3. Challenge: Interoperability and integration
IoT projects encounter hurdles in achieving interoperability and integration across devices and systems. Inconsistent protocols, standards, and proprietary technologies create barriers to seamless data exchange and collaboration. These challenges result in data fragmentation, scalability limitations, and increased complexity in managing integrated IoT environments.
Potential solutions: APIs, middleware and gateway devices
Despite some really promising and exciting developments, it’s likely that widespread, tried and tested, and truly seamless interoperability – including device and connectivity – is a few years away. So many companies will still need to either utilize multiple SIM cards, and/or devices to make their network work for their IoT deployment. But open standards and protocols play a crucial role in addressing interoperability and integration challenges. By adopting open standards, organizations can ensure compatibility and seamless communication between different IoT devices and systems.
Additionally implementing robust APIs facilitates smooth integration and interoperation, enabling data exchange and interoperability across diverse components. Moreover, leveraging middleware solutions and gateway devices helps bridge the gap between incompatible technologies, enhancing interoperability and integration capabilities.
4. Challenge: Data management and analytics
Data management and analytics pose critical challenges in IoT projects. The sheer volume and diversity of data generated by connected devices make it daunting to collect, store, process, and derive meaningful insights. Organisations struggle to handle the velocity and real-time processing requirements of IoT data. Ensuring data quality, integrity, and security across heterogeneous data sources is another significant challenge. Furthermore, scalability issues arise as the number of devices and data sources increases.
Potential Solutions: Data management platforms, analytics tools and machine learning algorithms
Organisations can address data management and analytics challenges in IoT projects by adopting comprehensive data management platforms. These platforms facilitate efficient data collection, integration, and storage from diverse sources, ensuring data quality and reliability. Advanced analytics tools empower organisations to process and analyse IoT data efficiently and effectively, extracting valuable insights for informed decision-making.
What’s more, machine learning algorithms and predictive analytics can be used to identify patterns and drive actionable intelligence. When used appropriately, these can ensure companies can drive true value from their data and thus IoT deployment.
5. Challenge: Scalability
When scaling an IoT project, various challenges become more pronounced. The costs associated with scaling can be significant, including expenses for hardware, connectivity, data storage, and maintenance. Managing and maintaining the project also becomes more complex and expensive as the number of devices and systems increases.
Battery life and power consumption pose significant challenges in scaled IoT projects. With more devices consuming more power, effectively managing power consumption and extending battery lives becomes crucial.
Scaling also intensifies challenges in data interoperability, security, and management. Ensuring interoperability and compatibility between devices and systems becomes more complex as numbers increase. Robust security measures must be implemented to protect against the growing risks of security breaches. Additionally, managing and processing the vast amounts of data generated by IoT devices becomes a significant challenge that requires suitable infrastructure and tools.
Potential Solutions: Prioritize scalable architecture, carefully consider device choices and leverage edge computing
Often scale is where in-house server infrastructure falls short for IoT applications. Cloud infrastructure for IoT applications encompasses not only traditional data processing and storage services but also gateway services that facilitate data collection and device interaction. These include HTTP/MQTT servers and WebSocket servers. Scalability is a crucial factor when designing cloud infrastructure for IoT. As your device count increases, your cloud infrastructure must seamlessly scale alongside it. IoT cloud platforms offer superior scalability compared to physical servers maintained in-house. Leading cloud service providers including AWS, Azure, GCP, or Macrometa can all provide robust and scalable solutions.
Implementing edge computing can also alleviate the burden on centralised cloud infrastructure and enhance scalability. By performing data processing and analysis at the edge of the network, closer to the IoT devices, you can reduce latency, minimise bandwidth requirements, and improve overall system performance.
Additionally, it’s important to evaluate network providers that can support your scaling requirements and ensure seamless connectivity across your IoT ecosystem. We’d recommend considering solutions such as low power, wide area networks (LPWAN) or satellite as both offer extended range and scalability.
To address challenges of increased power consumption, companies can explore energy-efficient IoT devices, implement power-saving features such as sleep modes, and utilise power management techniques to prolong battery life. Moreover, alternative power sources, such as solar or kinetic energy, can prove key for long-term sustainability.
Security should always be a top priority, but as mentioned, when scaling this is even more crucial. Companies can strengthen security by adopting a multi-layered approach. Incorporate encryption techniques, secure authentication protocols, and regular security audits. Implement secure coding practices and provide ongoing training to your team to enhance security awareness and ensure compliance with industry best practices.
The above list is by no means exhaustive, but we hope it highlights the importance of staying proactive. By acknowledging the evolving nature of IoT, the improving success rates, and the valuable insights gained during pilot phases, organisations can overcome hurdles and capitalise on the immense potential offered by IoT deployments.
Want some advice on your IoT project?
Navigate to IoT success with Ground Control’s expertise and global support.
As a trusted partner for IoT projects worldwide, we have helped businesses across diverse industries achieve their goals. Complete the form below to start your journey with us.
Unlocking the Full Potential of IoT: How Satellite Modules are Redefining Connectivity
Satellite IoT modules are transforming the way companies interact with their customers, increase operational efficiency, and gain insights into their business operations. Delivering truly global, reliable coverage, these modules enable organisations to unlock the full potential of the Internet of Things (IoT).
The latest research from IoT Analytics estimates that by the end of 2023, the IoT will be responsible for 16 billion active devices. But given the importance of reliable connectivity, how many of these devices will be satellite-enabled?
Source: IoT Analytics Research, State of IoT 2023
Note from authors: IoT connections do not include any computers, laptops, fixed phone, cellphones, or consumers’ tablets. Counted are active nodes/devices or gateways that concentrate the end-sensors, not every sensor/actuator. Simple one-directional communications technology not considered (e.g. RFID, NFC). Wired includes ethernet and fieldbuses (e.g. connected industrial PLCs or I/O modules); Cellular includes 2G, 3G, 4G, 5G; LPWA includes unlicensed low-power networks; WPAN includes Bluetooth, Zigbee, Z-Wave or similar, WLAN includes Wi-Fi and related protocols; WNAN includes non-short-range mesh, such as Wi-SUN; Unclassified proprietary networks include any range.
As you might expect, IoT connectivity continues to be dominated by Wi-Fi, Bluetooth and cellular IoT. But interestingly, the CAGR for each of these is predicted to decrease, in some cases significantly (cellular from 200% to 87%) by 2027. In contrast, satellite IoT connections are projected to grow from 6 million to 22 million (at a CAGR of 25%).
What are satellite IoT modules?
Satellite IoT modules or modems are specialised hardware components that enable devices to communicate with satellites and access global connectivity. These modules are designed to be power-efficient, compact, and compatible with existing IoT device architectures. Typically they are used in areas of IoT networks where traditional cellular networks or other forms of terrestrial connectivity are either unavailable or unreliable, such as remote or rural areas.
How do they work?
Simply, satellite IoT modules work by leveraging satellite networks to establish communication between IoT devices and the central infrastructure.
IoT devices such as sensors or trackers are equipped with satellite modems (e.g. the RockBLOCK) that transmit data to satellites orbiting the Earth. Data is sent to a satellite, in this case a satellite within Iridium’s constellation, the satellite then relays the received data down to the ground station.
The ground station serves as a gateway to bridge the communication between the satellite and the Network Operations Centre (NOC), forwarding the data on to the appropriate destination. This can be a cloud platform, a server, or any designated system that collects and manages the IoT data.
How do satellite and terrestrial IoT modules compare?
Terrestrial and satellite IoT modules share many similarities. They both offer the necessary connectivity and processing power for devices to exchange data and come in multiple form factors depending on the deployment requirements. From PCBs intended to be built-in to the sensor array, to fully ruggedised and waterproof devices with integrated processing, storage and security features.
What’s more, all IoT modems require an antenna, the size of which will depend on the signal strength needed. Satellite IoT devices can have surprisingly small antennas if the orbiting satellite service operates in a high frequency, like Iridium (see the patch antenna on the RockBLOCK 9603, which measures just 25 x 25 x 4mm). Other satellite network operators leverage lower frequencies, which require larger, external antennas – Swarm, for example, needs a 20cm antenna to communicate with its satellites.
Terrestrial and satellite IoT modules also exhibit distinct differences that set them apart:
Connectivity Coverage
Satellite IoT modules use satellite networks to provide connectivity, whereas other IoT modules typically rely on cellular networks, Wi-Fi, or other forms of terrestrial connectivity. This allows devices equipped with satellite IoT modules to communicate from virtually anywhere on the planet, even in areas with limited or no cellular coverage.
Module Cost
Satellite IoT modules can be more expensive than other IoT modules due to the specialized hardware and software required to enable satellite connectivity. However, as the technology matures and the demand for satellite IoT applications grows, costs have already, and are likely to continue to, come down.
Communication Latency
Due to the time taken for signals to travel to and from satellites in space, satellite IoT modules can experience higher latency than their terrestrial counterparts. However with Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellite constellations, for example Iridium, latency can be less than one second, providing high-quality, low-latency communication.
Further benefits to Satellite IoT
Security and Data Privacy
Satellite IoT networks employ robust security measures to protect data transmission and ensure privacy. Encryption and authentication protocols are implemented to safeguard data integrity and prevent unauthorised access. Firewalls and VPNs are leveraged when data travels over public infrastructure like the internet, but this can be completely circumnavigated with either private lines or a private satellite network like TSAT.
Reliable and Resilient
Satellite networks are designed to be highly reliable and resilient. They are less susceptible to environmental factors, natural disasters, or infrastructure failures that can disrupt terrestrial networks. Typically offering high reliability and uptime, satellite IoT ensures consistent data transmission and device communication even in challenging and remote environments.
Scalability
Satellite IoT networks offer scalability to accommodate a large number of connected devices. Businesses can scale their IoT deployments without concerns about network capacity limitations or infrastructure upgrades. This scalability is crucial for projects that require the connection of a large number of sensors, devices, or assets spread across vast areas.
Rapid Deployment
Satellite IoT modules enable rapid deployment, especially in remote or temporary setups. They eliminate the need for building new terrestrial infrastructure or relying on existing networks. Companies can quickly establish IoT connectivity in remote or disaster-stricken areas, facilitating faster response times and data collection.
The Future of IoT modules
The previously mentioned research from IoT Analytics, also noted that the integration of satellite connectivity options into LPWA chipsets, spearheaded by companies like Qualcomm, has the potential to accelerate the adoption of hybrid IoT devices. Sony Semiconductor has already introduced ALT1350, the first cellular IoT LPWA chipset with satellite connectivity, expanding the communication capabilities of IoT devices beyond conventional network limitations. This significant development paves the way for new possibilities in the IoT landscape. By incorporating satellite connectivity into LPWA chipsets, further innovation and growth are projected. Until then however, the combination of satellite and terrestrial networks still delivers organisations the flexibility to realise the full potential of their IoT deployments.
Choosing the right Satellite IoT modules
The majority of satellite IoT modules are proprietary technology. Simply, they are designed to leverage a specific satellite network, for example, Viasat, and often a specific airtime service, for instance, IoT Pro. As each satellite network offers different coverage, reliability, latency and so on, and each service allows different data rates, message sizes and more, its key companies evaluate their connectivity needs thoroughly. Satellite connectivity can be expensive (see our post on how to reduce satellite connectivity costs), so typically businesses will only use this for areas of their IoT network where they are struggling with connectivity, or for the purposes of failover or backhaul. In any case, businesses should assess their data transmission requirements and select the most appropriate satellite airtime service for their application, before considering their hardware options.
If you do have any specific queries related to airtime, please don’t hesitate to get in touch. We’ve been doing this for over 20 years and though we have significant relationships with both Iridium and Viasat we’re not tied to any one provider, just helping you find the best solution for your project and budget.
Once companies have selected their preferred airtime service, it’s important to consider the interfaces and integration options provided by the satellite IoT modules. It is important to determine if the modules support the necessary interfaces (e.g., UART, SPI, I2C) for seamless connectivity with IoT devices or sensors. Additionally, assessing compatibility with standard IoT protocols (e.g., MQTT, HTTP) is vital to ensure smooth integration within your existing IoT infrastructure.
Another aspect that businesses need to assess is the size and form factor of the satellite IoT modules. Consider any space limitations, weight restrictions, and physical constraints that may be relevant. For instance, if your application requires burying sensors or housing them within an enclosure, antenna options must be considered. Depending on factors such as the enclosure material, an external antenna may be required to enhance signal strength. This improves communication reliability and can help facilitate clear line-of-sight with geostationary satellite networks.
Moreover, companies must verify that the satellite IoT modems comply with relevant certifications and regulatory standards applicable to their target markets. Compliance with certifications like FCC, CE, and RoHS ensures adherence to quality, safety, and environmental standards. For those with deployments spanning larger geographical areas, it’s prudent to ensure that there are no local restrictions for satellite connectivity; some countries such as India restrict use without prior government approval.
Additionally, it is important to assess the cost considerations associated with the satellite IoT modules. This includes evaluating module pricing, airtime costs, and any additional fees or licensing requirements. Considering the total cost of ownership over the desired lifespan of the IoT project will provide a comprehensive understanding of the financial implications.
Finally, though satellite IoT modules are designed to be power efficient, it is necessary to evaluate power consumption. Depending on the deployment scenario, it might be worthwhile to consider modules that can leverage alternative power sources such as solar power, like the Iridium Edge Solar.
By carefully considering these factors, companies can make informed decisions when selecting satellite IoT modules, ensuring optimal integration, performance, and cost-effectiveness for their specific IoT projects.
Overall, satellite connectivity is a game-changer for IoT, enabling devices to operate in previously unreachable areas and opening up new possibilities for businesses and industries. By choosing the right satellite IoT module and airtime service, businesses can unlock the full potential of IoT and drive innovation in their respective fields.
Unlimit your IoT deployment today
As industry leaders that have been designing and manufacturing satellite devices for over 20 years, with strong partnerships with top satellite providers like Inmarsat and Iridium, we have the expertise, experience, and access to competitive satellite airtime rates to make your IoT initiatives a success.
Don’t let geographical limitations hold back your IoT ambitions. Let our team of experts guide you towards achieving your goals. Fill in the form below and take the next step towards unlocking the full potential of your IoT project.