Cellular, Proprietary Satellite, and NTN in Remote Environmental Monitoring

If you integrate remote environmental monitoring systems, you will eventually encounter a site where connectivity becomes the dominant uncertainty. Sensors continue to sample correctly. Local electronics remain operational. Yet data delivery becomes intermittent or unpredictable. In many cases, the issue is not outright loss of coverage, but changing network conditions at sites that were always near the edge of what terrestrial connectivity could reliably support.

At that point, the problem shifts. It is no longer about sensor selection or firmware optimization. It becomes a system design question: how do you maintain low power operation and predictable data delivery when network behavior cannot be assumed to be stable over time? This is where system integrators typically start comparing architectural options rather than individual bearers.

The first of these options is terrestrial cellular, using LTE-M or NB-IoT, where coverage is stable and well characterised over time. The second is proprietary satellite connectivity, where coverage reach and low duty cycle operation are prioritized over throughput. The third, emerging option is Non Terrestrial Network (NTN) NB-IoT, defined in 3GPP Release 17, which aims to extend cellular standards beyond terrestrial infrastructure using satellite networks.

Each model behaves differently at the system level. None is universally good or bad. The challenge for the system integrator is determining which operating envelope matches the realities of a given deployment.

EnviroBlog-Diagram-1 System stack - remote environmental monitoring

A Practical Decision Framework for Remote Monitoring Sites

In practice, connectivity decisions are best framed around a small number of system-level criteria:

  • How stable is coverage over seasons, vegetation cycles, and weather, not just at installation?
  • How defensible does the connectivity choice need to be over a multi-year deployment?
  • Is the team building a custom node, or does it prefer an integrated monitoring device?
  • How constrained is power, and how expensive is site access if batteries deplete early?
  • What is the expected payload size per reporting interval?
  • How often does the device need to wake and transmit, and how tolerant is the application to latency?

In remote environmental monitoring, these questions are often more predictive of long term system than headline bandwidth figures or nominal coverage maps. They surface how connectivity behaves over time, how often radios wake, and how energy is actually consumed under real site conditions.

Technical Connectivity Matrix

The matrix below helps match connectivity options to their most defensible operating envelopes, and is most useful when applied to site conditions rather than connectivity technologies in isolation. In marginal or variable RF, devices may spend longer acquiring the network and retrying transmissions, which increases energy consumption and reduces delivery reliability / latency predictability. Those risks can matter as much as nominal coverage.

Cellular NB-IoT

Proprietary Satellite*

NTN NB-IoT**

Primary Strength

Lowest cost per KB; high throughput

Global reach; predictable power profile

Converged hardware model; emerging reach

Coverage Stability

Variable at cell edges; sensitive to vegetation

High, assuming hemispherical sky view

Emerging; constellation dependent

Low Power Operating Modes and Sleep Opportunity

Supports PSM (very low average possible), but sleep opportunity depends on operator timers + coverage

Supports true deep sleep via power gating between scheduled bursts (system design dependent)

Early estimates ~10–50 µA

Transmit Load Profile

TX current is variable (uplink power control, coverage enhancement). Worst case energy / on time can increase due to repetitions, attach / resume behavior, and retries

TX is typically short burst transmissions with an implementation defined retry cap; peak can be amp class depending on module / rail, but event duration and attempt count can be tightly bounded

Low power operation expected; current figures are highly implementation- and network-dependent

Max Practical Payload

1,400-1,600 bytes

100 KB

1,200 bytes

Min Practical Payload

30-50 bytes

10 bytes

10-30 bytes

Typical Latency

~100 ms to several seconds

~10 seconds

Medium (10 - 60s); MVNO scheduling could increase this to 2 - 5 mins)

Risk Factors

Network maintenance signalling and retries in marginal RF

Relatively high peak current; antenna placement and sky visibility

Immature ecosystem; coverage and delivery reliability still variable / under validation (latency and transaction timing may be less predictable than terrestrial)

Deployment Status

Mature and ubiquitous

Mature and proven

Early commercial trials

*Based on Iridium Messaging Transport (IMT)

**Based on Viasat NB-NTN service – specification subject to change

 

Why Connectivity Dominates Lifetime Uncertainty

EnviroBlog-Lifecycle-1 Image System degradation remote monitoring

Long life environmental monitoring nodes are designed to sleep almost all the time because field power is expensive; whether that’s truck rolls for batteries or solar constrained by canopy, weather, latitude, and vandalism risk.

In most deployments, the sensing and compute workload is predictable and easy to budget. What’s harder to budget is communications: acquisition time, repetitions / retries, and delivery uncertainty can swing dramatically with site RF conditions and seasonality. That variability often becomes the biggest driver of both battery life uncertainty and operational reliability, more so than the sensor workload itself.

How Terrestrial Cellular Behaves in Remote Environments

Cellular connectivity performs well when coverage is stable and predictable. In those conditions, LTE-M and NB-IoT are often the most cost effective and operationally simple choice.

Challenges arise in remote environments where coverage quality fluctuates rather than failing completely. Field experience from utilities, water monitoring, and environmental telemetry deployments shows that link conditions at unattended sites often vary over time due to terrain, vegetation growth, weather, and seasonal effects, even when initial installation is successful.

From a power perspective, this variability matters. Under marginal coverage conditions, devices may attempt repeated attachment or transmission cycles before successful delivery. These retries consume energy without proportional data transfer.

Operationally, this can result in systems that appear functional but are difficult to predict. Batteries deplete faster than expected, and data gaps are harder to diagnose remotely. This does not mean cellular is unsuitable for remote monitoring. It highlights the importance of understanding how cellular behavior evolves within a specific deployment context, particularly at marginal coverage sites where energy risk can be as significant as coverage risk.

If your design needs predictable energy and diagnosability under uncertain RF, you may prefer a connectivity model that is explicitly scheduled and bounded: this is the key shift introduced by satellite IoT.

How Satellite IoT Architectures Change System Assumptions

Satellite IoT spans two broad architectural models: message-based services (store and forward / burst messaging) and IP-based services. Message-based links are naturally aligned to low duty cycles: devices wake on an application defined schedule to transmit a small payload, optionally open a short receive window, and then return to deep sleep. In this model there is no requirement for continuous “always-on” participation, and average energy use is closely coupled to reporting cadence, retry policy, and power domain design.

IP-based satellite terminals can provide richer connectivity and more interactive downlink, but may incur additional idle overhead to maintain readiness or session behavior, even when user traffic is low.

For long life environmental monitoring, the most defensible operating envelope is typically scheduled messaging with deep sleep between sessions, not continuous reachability. The remainder of this post therefore focuses on message-based satellite IoT, and on implementation patterns that make the comms link behave like any other managed subsystem with predictable states and budgets. We start with Iridium Messaging Transport (IMT) via RockBLOCK modules (particularly the 9704), as it fits naturally into a wake > transmit > sleep design.

Implementation path one: Message-based satcom as a managed subsystem (RockBLOCK 9704)

Message-based satcom as a management subsystem

RockBLOCK 9704 is built around the Iridium Certus 9704 module and uses Iridium Messaging Transport (IMT): a cloud connected, two way messaging service for small to moderate payloads (up to ~100 KB) designed for IoT devices rather than continuous IP sessions.

In a long life monitoring node, it’s best treated as a schedulable subsystem inside a wider embedded design. In practice, integrators typically:

  • Power-gate the modem (load switch/PMIC) so “off” is truly off
  • Wake it only after sampling / validation, when there’s something worth sending
  • Transmit in short, scheduled sessions, with an explicit retry policy
  • Return to deep sleep (or fully unpowered) immediately after the exchange.

The key engineering advantage is boundedness: reporting cadence, session timing, and retry limits are largely under host control, so you can model energy around a small set of well defined states (off / boot / transmit / receive window).

Peak transmit current can be high because closing a link to a LEO constellation requires substantial instantaneous RF power. In a messaging oriented design this draw occurs in short, intentional transmit bursts with bounded duration. The design trade shifts from minimising peak current to ensuring the power system comfortably supports short peaks (battery internal resistance, regulator headroom, local capacitance), while keeping average energy dominated by how often you transmit.

RockBLOCK 9704 doesn’t manage your sensor rails or MCU sleep states – those remain the job of the embedded design – so standard low power techniques (switched sensor rails, unpowered analog front ends outside measurement windows) still apply.

Because IMT is a two way messaging service, you can make delivery outcomes explicit at the application layer: buffer locally, send, then check for confirmation on the next scheduled wake window, without keeping the node awake. This keeps reliability mechanisms aligned with the same duty cycled philosophy as sensing. The important caveat is that network availability (constellation / service uptime) is not the same as guaranteed delivery in every installation: local RF conditions still dominate, i.e. sky view, canopy, terrain, enclosure losses, and antenna placement.

That integration pattern works well when you’re building your own node around a messaging modem. When you’d rather avoid custom hardware and firmware integration, the same principles can be applied at the system level:

Implementation path two: RockBLOCK RTU as an integrated low power monitoring device

RockBLOCK RTU Device Environmental monitoring

If you don’t want to integrate and power manage a satcom module inside your own node, RockBLOCK RTU packages the same sleep dominant principles at the system level: sensing, scheduling, local buffering, and messaging in one device. RockBLOCK RTU uses Iridium Short Burst Data (SBD), Iridium’s classic two way short-packet messaging service, so it naturally fits duty cycled environmental monitoring workloads.

RockBLOCK RTU is designed around a sleep dominant lifecycle:

  • Extended low power sleep as the default state
  • Wake events driven by schedule, thresholds, or external triggers
  • Short transmission windows
  • Immediate return to sleep.

Sensor power is explicitly controlled so sensors are energised only during measurement windows, eliminating standing analog bias currents. This mirrors best practice low power sensor design without requiring custom analog switching. Because message-based satellite operation can be scheduled without continuous reachability, RockBLOCK RTU avoids some of the standing ‘network-reachable’ overhead that can appear in terrestrial designs (depending on configuration and coverage).

In addition to sensing, RockBLOCK RTU provides system level control and observability that are often important in unattended deployments. Configurable digital outputs can switch sensor power rails or external loads, and analog inputs can monitor system voltages (battery, supply rails, excitation lines).

This enables remote verification of power health, detection of brownout conditions, and confirmation that sensors are energised only when expected, helping distinguish sensing issues, power delivery problems, and comms failures without site access.

Time Alignment and Operational Visibility

A recurring operational challenge in unattended monitoring is ambiguity: when data is missing, it’s often unclear whether the system failed to measure or failed to report. RockBLOCK RTU reduces this ambiguity with an internal clock and UTC-aligned timestamps (GNSS when available), making it easier to correlate measurements with expected reporting intervals and separate sensing gaps from delivery failures.

When Proprietary Messaging Satcom is Usually the Wrong Tool

Message-based proprietary satellite IoT is optimized for predictable, low duty telemetry – not high volume data or near real time streaming. Where cellular coverage is stable and power is plentiful, terrestrial LPWAN/cellular often remains the simplest and most cost effective option.

The interesting middle ground is NTN NB-IoT, which aims to extend cellular-style connectivity via satellite, so it’s worth understanding how much of the terrestrial behavior (and variability) it inherits.

NTN NB-IoT as an Emerging Option

Non-Terrestrial Network (NTN) NB-IoT, standardized in 3GPP Release 17, extends familiar NB-IoT device and core concepts to satellite links and is often framed as a bridge between terrestrial cellular and proprietary satellite IoT.

For environmental monitoring engineers, the key point is the capability shape: NTN NB-IoT is still fundamentally a low data, latency tolerant telemetry channel , not a streaming link , while aiming to preserve cellular style device models and tooling.

Commercially, it remains an emerging option: footprints, roaming models, and integration paths are operator and region dependent, and multi year public field data on power variance and failure modes is still limited compared with mature terrestrial PSM deployments. That doesn’t imply worse power performance; only that it’s harder (today) to treat it as a fully characterized default for unattended multi-year deployments.

Diagram-showing-3GPP-standards-enabled-IoT-devices

As an illustrative example, Viasat’s NB-NTN positioning is bidirectional messaging with practical payloads around 10–30 bytes up to ~1,200 bytes, typical latency on the order of 10–60 seconds (potentially minutes depending on scheduling), and cost optimized for very small monthly data volumes (e.g., <50 KB).

One implementation detail worth flagging is NIDD (Non-IP Data Delivery). Where supported end to end by the operator and device stack, NIDD can reduce protocol overhead for tiny messages versus UDP/IP, which can materially help battery life at scale; but it’s worth confirming early whether your chosen NTN integration path actually exposes it in practice.

RockBLOCK RTU and NTN Evaluation Paths

An NTN-enabled RockBLOCK RTU is being used in early programs on Viasat’s NB-NTN service. The point isn’t that NTN performance is already fully proven; it’s that you can test and measure it using a monitoring device with a known low power architecture and good instrumentation.

Because RockBLOCK RTU already implements a sleep-dominant lifecycle (scheduled wake, short transmit windows, controlled sensor power, UTC-aligned timestamps, and supply-voltage monitoring), it provides a consistent baseline for evaluating NTN energy use, delivery timing, and variability without redesigning the sensing node.

If you’re considering NTN NB-IoT for an environmental monitoring deployment, Ground Control can support trial deployments and share an evaluation plan.

Practical Implications for System Integrators

For system integrators working in remote environmental monitoring, connectivity decisions are rarely static. Alignment between duty cycle, power constraints, coverage stability, and operational risk tends to determine long term system performance.

Cellular, proprietary satellite messaging services, and NTN NB-IoT each occupy different operating envelopes. Understanding those differences enables decisions to be defended throughout the lifecycle of a deployment.

Where coverage stability cannot be assumed, satellite connectivity provides an architectural alternative that aligns well with how low power remote monitoring systems are typically designed to operate. NTN NB-IoT represents a promising but still emerging option, particularly in contexts where long-term unattended power and reliability characteristics are still being established.

Planning for Intermittent Connectivity is a System Decision.

If you’re assessing where proprietary satellite, NTN NB-IoT, or hybrid connectivity fits into your architecture, we can help you evaluate the trade offs early, before reliability or power becomes the constraint.

Complete the form, or email hello@groundcontrol.com and we’ll reply within one working day.

Name
Privacy Policy

GPS is so embedded in modern defense operations, commercial shipping, and aviation that it often fades into the background. It is assumed to be constant, accurate, and available, but GPS is not always guaranteed. It can be denied, degraded, jammed, or spoofed, and when that happens, the consequences are rarely limited to navigation problems; the expense can also be paramount.

Globally, over the last few years, there has been an alarming rise in deliberate GPS jamming and spoofing incidents. In 2024, over 1,000 commercial flights a day were affected by GPS spoofing, and in the Baltic Sea and Gulf of Finland, reports of jamming and spoofing incidents in 2025 increased by 127% in a three-month period.

In August 2025, the aircraft carrying European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen experienced GPS jamming over Bulgaria and required backup navigation to land safely. Subsequently, a joint statement from the International Maritime Organization (IMO), International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) warned about harmful interference, including jamming and spoofing, and called for action by Member States to strengthen the resilience of navigation, positioning, and timing systems.

As GNSS and GPS jamming and spoofing become more prevalent, organizations are increasingly operating blind and exposed to cascading costs relating to service disruption, safety hazards, regulatory non-compliance and reputational damage. This has accelerated the case for Assured Positioning, Navigation and Timing (A-PNT), a resilient, layered approach to sustaining trusted timing and positioning when GPS is disrupted. A-PNT can combine multiple independent sources and techniques (satellite, terrestrial, and onboard) to preserve continuity and confidence. Without A-PNT, organizations don’t just lose a signal, they lose confidence, and when confidence disappears, operations slow, costs increase, schedules unravel, and risk rises.

This blog examines the impact of GPS denial, its associated financial implications, and why A-PNT is increasingly viewed as an essential tool for military and defense users, merchant fleets, and aviators who need to maintain safe and predictable movements even when GPS is unavailable.

Uncertainty is a Cost Center

The business case for A-PNT becomes clear when you treat GPS denial as a cost center. Every minute spent slowing down, verifying, rerouting, holding, or diverting is money. Every missed slot, aborted mission, or extended transit is money. Every safety incident, near miss, or compliance failure can be catastrophic in terms of money. If a military unit has to slow or hold position while verifying navigation integrity, it may be exposed longer than planned.

If a merchant ship loses reliable position awareness, it may reroute unnecessarily, increasing transit time and risk. If an unmanned system can’t maintain navigation confidence, it may be pulled from the mission entirely. Every one of these outcomes has a financial expression, whether that’s wasted flight hours, increased maintenance burden, higher fuel usage, or the opportunity cost of assets not being where they need to be. A-PNT reduces these losses by keeping operations predictable under pressure.

Impact of GNSS Degradation in Unmanned Operations

For unmanned operators, GNSS loss or manipulation can translate into constraints and costs within minutes, because GNSS often underpins not just navigation, but also autonomy behaviors (e.g., route keeping, loiter/hold, return to home logic), geofencing and time synchronised data capture. As interference has risen in multiple regions, aviation and maritime safety bodies have issued increasingly prominent warnings about GNSS jamming/spoofing and the need to plan for disrupted environments.

When GNSS is degraded or unavailable, unmanned systems typically shift into more conservative modes: tighter operating areas, lower speeds, increased standoff distances, more manual oversight, or mission aborts. In UAV operations, especially BVLOS and infrastructure / corridor missions, GNSS degradation can also force a reversion to non-GNSS navigation sources (inertial, vision, map matching, etc.) and raise integrity management requirements, because the problem isn’t only position error, it’s whether the system can trust its own PNT well enough to continue safely.

The cost stack for unmanned operations then shows up as lost mission time, rescheduling and re-flight costs, additional personnel oversight, payload / data re-collection, and, at the sharp end, asset loss or third party risk if interference causes navigation faults. In maritime-adjacent unmanned work (USVs and vessels supporting unmanned operations), the same GNSS interference trend is being treated as a growing safety risk, with advisories urging operators to anticipate disruption, report incidents, and implement mitigations.

In time sensitive logistics and security contexts, the margin for error tightens further. Small GNSS-driven slips can break delivery windows, compromise chain of custody or data integrity, and degrade service-level commitments, while in defence and critical infrastructure missions, GNSS degradation becomes a mission assurance and deconfliction risk in contested or degraded environments. That’s why the case for layered A-PNT resilience is strengthening across unmanned platforms: not as a single replacement signal, but as an architecture that preserves confidence through diversity, detection, and graceful degradation.

The Price of Losing Trusted Positioning at Sea

For shipping and merchant fleets, predictable timing is often as valuable as speed. But the most damaging failure mode isn’t always GPS disappears; it’s when crews can’t trust position, course, or time because GNSS is being jammed or spoofed. Industry and security advisories have highlighted corroborated reports of GPS interference affecting vessels in key waterways, including the Strait of Hormuz, and recommend mitigations for navigation planning.

When GNSS integrity is in doubt, ships don’t simply carry on as normal: operators typically respond by increasing watchkeeping, leaning harder on radar and visual fixes, slowing down, widening margins, delaying pilotage / approaches, and sometimes holding or anchoring until confidence returns.

In mid June 2025, reporting and analysis around the Strait of Hormuz described widespread GPS interference and its safety implications, including a high profile collision where erratic positioning signals were observed beforehand and experts suspected jamming / spoofing as a contributing factor (even if causality remains under investigation).

Operational disruption like this cascades quickly into cost: missed berth windows, re-booking and port side fees, delayed cargo availability, and schedule breakage across liner and charterparty commitments. At the same time, GNSS interference elevates high severity safety risk – groundings, collisions, cargo damage – where a single incident can dwarf the costs of multiple disrupted transits.

APNT-position-compared-to-GNSS-position

War risk insurance is relevant here, because the same contested corridors where kinetic threats rise are often the places where electronic warfare (including GNSS interference) becomes part of the operating picture. In the London market, the Joint War Committee (JWC) publishes Listed Areas of perceived enhanced risk, which can trigger additional premium requirements depending on cover and voyage. In periods of heightened Red Sea risk, reported additional war risk pricing rose sharply, moving from low fractions of hull value to figures around the 0.5%-0.7% range by late 2023, with some quotes reported as high as ~1% in peak conditions. For a high value vessel, that translates into hundreds of thousands to over a million dollars for a single transit before knock on costs are counted.

That’s why A-PNT isn’t just a technical upgrade; it’s a mission/operations enabler. The goal is to retain a trusted position and timing solution even when GNSS is denied, jammed, or spoofed, so crews and operators can keep moving safely with managed risk, rather than defaulting to delay, disruption, or avoidable exposure when the RF environment turns hostile.

Reputation Cost

There’s also a reputational dimension that doesn’t often present itself as a cost center for the cost of GPS denial. Defense organizations are measured by readiness and reliability, commercial fleets are measured by service performance and operational professionalism, and aviation operators are measured by safety and predictability. When GPS denial causes repeated disruptions, customers, partners, and leadership can begin to ask harder questions. The organizations that can demonstrate resilience; the ones that can say “GPS went down and we continued safely and predictably”, are the ones that win trust and contracts.

Resilience Through an Alternative Satellite Network

Iridium PNT delivers a key advantage in degraded GPS environments, chiefly due to signal strength at the receiver. Because the Iridium constellation operates in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) – roughly 25× closer than GNSS satellites in Medium Earth Orbit (MEO) – its downlink can be received at ground level at around 1,000 times (≈30 dB) stronger than traditional GNSS signals.

That higher received power materially improves resilience in the real world: it raises the bar for interference, supports operation in more obstructed environments, and helps sustain trusted timing and position when GNSS is being jammed or manipulated. It complements GPS / GNSS as part of a layered A-PNT approach, restoring operational confidence by providing an independent, authenticated PNT path when GNSS integrity can’t be assumed.

RockFLEET Assured for Merchant Shipping A-PNT Solution for GPS-Denied Environments

For organizations that require positioning, navigation and timing solutions that can be deployed quickly, the RockBLOCK APNT and RockFLEET Assured devices provide a path to delivering a resilient solution by encapsulating Iridium PNT, without redesigning an entire platform. The devices are built around the reality that fleets and squadrons don’t have the luxury of multi-year integration timelines when the threat – and cost – of GPS jamming, spoofing and denial is already here.

A-PNT for Vehicles & Drones

RockBLOCK APNT is a rugged, self-contained satellite device that leverages Iridium PNT signals to deliver resilient positioning, navigation, and timing. Its form factor is well suited to mounted vehicle platforms, unmanned systems, and mobile assets where trusted position and timing are mission critical.

Housed in a compact, IP66-rated aluminum enclosure, RockBLOCK APNT is engineered to withstand harsh operational conditions across land and aerial deployments. Its low power consumption (under 200 mW idle) makes it suitable for persistent, remote, or battery powered platforms, including unmanned ground and aerial vehicles.

By combining a robust physical design with Iridium’s globally available, authenticated signals, RockBLOCK APNT helps maintain navigational integrity and timing continuity even when GPS cannot be trusted.

RockBLOCK-Pro-Web-2

A-PNT for Maritime

RockFLEET Assured integrates Iridium’s PNT service into a rugged, compact maritime solution designed to perform under real world navigational stress. Instead of relying solely on open GNSS signals, RockFLEET Assured outputs A-PNT-derived position and time in standard NMEA format, with configurable integrity monitoring and time difference checks to help identify anomalous conditions, supporting operations with more trustworthy navigation data when GNSS can’t be relied upon.

Commercial ships transiting spoofing hotspots can maintain position awareness even as GNSS degrades, supporting safe and confident bridge operations. Naval platforms operating in electronic warfare environments retain the dependable timing and navigation required for mission coordination. And because integrity is monitored and anomalies are flagged, operators can respond early – before bad PNT propagates into bad decisions.

RockFLEET-Assured-in-Triton-Case-More-Padding

Protecting Time, Revenue, and Reputation

Organizations often underestimate the financial impact of GPS denial because it is rarely captured as a single line item or cost center. Instead, it appears as scattered costs that add up rapidly: additional fuel consumption, extra days at sea, schedule recovery actions, personnel overtime, unplanned port charges, and operational inefficiencies that ripple through multiple departments.

A-PNT is the difference between navigating uncertainty and being governed by it. It reduces the financial impact of delays caused by GPS denial, protects schedules from such cascading disruption, and strengthens safety margins in environments where navigation integrity cannot be assumed.

RockBLOCK APNT and RockFLEET Assured are rugged, reliable, and deployable A-PNT solutions that support continuity of operations by enabling resilient PNT in the field and at sea. For commercial shipping operators, this means more stable ETAs, reduced exposure to costly port and network disruptions and lower AWRPs. For defense operators, it means maintaining tempo, reducing mission risk, and preserving synchronization across assets and units. For drone operators, it means improved navigation integrity in degraded environments and fewer operational compromises when GPS is unreliable. RockBLOCK APNT and RockFLEET Assured exist for the moments when GPS goes dark and the mission, schedule, or flight still has to continue.

Trusted A-PNT Expertise To Reduce The Cost Of GPS Denial

Ground Control brings more than 20 years of experience delivering resilient satellite solutions for unmanned, maritime and critical communications. We understand that no two vessels, convoys, or operating environments are the same, which is why we provide expert guidance on deploying the right mix of A-PNT capabilities and reliable satellite connectivity options to ensure trusted positioning, navigation, and timing anywhere in the world.

Complete the form, or email hello@groundcontrol.com and we’ll reply within one working day.

Name
Privacy Policy

When OEM teams discuss satellite connectivity for UAVs, the conversation often defaults to IP. It feels familiar, maps neatly to ‘internet-like’ thinking, and enables genuinely interactive workflows. And if your primary link is cellular, you’re usually already living in an IP world, so using an IP-based satellite service can look like the cleanest way to add failover comms without changing the application stack.

There’s also a second, equally valid pattern that many UAV architectures underuse: message-based transport. Used intentionally, it gives you a delivery oriented path for critical data, well suited to situations where connectivity can be variable and you want the system to behave calmly through brief fades. Further, if you’re tight on payload and battery, messaging can be the better fit in practice because the terminals are typically smaller, lighter, and lower power.

In real operations, links do get imperfect; often briefly, sometimes repeatedly. The question isn’t whether IP or messaging is better. The question is: what should your system do when connectivity becomes intermittent?

Intermittency is Normal in UAV Satcom

Irrespective of your choice of satellite network, satellite connectivity is shaped by installation choices and the operational environment. You may see brief fades or dropouts caused by antenna placement and orientation (vehicle attitude, manoeuvring, installation constraints), airframe shadowing (the drone itself blocking sky view), and terrain or obstructions (especially at lower altitudes). These aren’t exotic edge cases; they’re part of the everyday reality of airborne links.

Designing for that reality is less about chasing a perfect connection, and more about choosing link behaviors that match the data you need to move.

IP (interactive session)

Messaging (queued delivery)

Best for

Operator driven workflows and interactive payload control

Delivery oriented updates and 'must get through' messages

Typical pattern

Continuous back and forth

Discrete messages sent in packets

When the link fades briefly

Sessions may need reconnection / state re-establishment before resuming

Messages can be queued and retried according to your policy / service behavior

How to think about it

“Stay connected”

“Deliver this information”

IP is Ideal for Interactive Sessions

An IP connection excels when you genuinely need an interactive session: operator driven workflows, higher touch payload control, and applications that depend on continuous back and forth.

Many IP applications also maintain session state and use keep-alives. When connectivity becomes intermittent, those session oriented behaviors may require reconnection and state re-establishment before the application resumes normal operation. That’s not a problem with IP; it’s simply how many interactive applications are designed.

In UAV satcom, where brief fades can be normal, it can be helpful to complement interactive IP workflows with a delivery oriented path for data that should still make progress even when the link isn’t perfectly continuous.

Messaging is Designed for Queued Delivery

Message-based transport starts from a different premise: you’re not trying to stay in an ongoing conversation. You’re trying to deliver discrete information, and you want the system to behave sensibly if conditions aren’t perfect at the moment you try to send.

In a well designed message-based workflow, you can queue data for delivery and apply an explicit retry policy, so brief fades don’t necessarily translate into a broken live session experience. Messaging doesn’t need to hold a session together to succeed; it just needs a window good enough to move the message, with delivery behavior determined by the service and by how you design your application logic.

Messaging is often a good fit for data types where you care about delivery and can tolerate brief delays, such as safety and control intents, periodic telemetry snapshots, mission state updates and compliance events, and ‘must get through’ alerts.

A useful practical point for OEMs: messaging aligns with how many UAV systems already work internally. Most aircraft already buffer, queue, and batch. Messaging extends that same logic across the link.

Treat Connectivity as Multiple Lanes, Not One Pipe

A helpful mental model is to stop choosing “IP vs messaging” as a single binary decision for the whole aircraft. Instead, choose by data type, and build lanes that match how that data behaves and what it’s worth.

Hardware reality (SWaP): These lanes often map to different terminal classes. Messaging modules can be palm sized and tens of grams, while IP terminals are commonly larger, heavier and higher peak power because they’re built to sustain a live session.

Lane 1: Tiny, decisive commands (SBD / RockBLOCK 9603)

Some messages are small because they should be small. When the message is ‘deliver the intent’, payload is not the point.

This is where Iridium Short Burst Data (SBD), delivered via RockBLOCK 9603, fits well: very small messages that can carry command and control intents such as stop, start, return to base, or critical state flags.

It’s an architecture move as much as a connectivity move: you’re creating a path for decisive actions that don’t require an ongoing live session to be valuable.

RockBLOCK-9603-Angled-crop

SWaP snapshot: RockBLOCK 9603 is 45 × 45 × 15 mm, 39 g (incl. antenna), max 450 mA; a good fit when you want deliver the intent with minimal payload and battery impact.

Lane 2: Larger discrete packets (IMT / RockBLOCK 9704)

Messaging becomes even more interesting when it isn’t constrained to tiny pings. With Iridium Messaging Transport (IMT), delivered via RockBLOCK 9704, you can work with larger messages (up to 100 KB). That’s enough to move more than bare minimum telemetry.

For many OEM designs, it opens the door to a straightforward pattern: collect richer data onboard (as you already do), then transmit it as structured packets – telemetry snapshots, compressed logs, payload summaries, detection events – according to a schedule and policy that fits the mission. Instead of ‘keep the pipe open’, the goal becomes ‘move the next packet when conditions allow’, with clear application logic around queueing, acknowledgement, and retry.

This approach can be a good match for how operators actually use data: many decisions don’t require millisecond streaming; they require timely, trustworthy updates that arrive consistently.

2025-9704-8

SWaP snapshot: RockBLOCK 9704 (SMA) is 48 × 52 × 16 mm, <35 g (excl. antenna), max 1.4 W; still firmly in the small and light messaging class.

Lane 3: Interactive workflows (Certus 100 / RockREMOTE UAV OEM)

When you truly need a live interactive link, IP is absolutely the right tool.

That’s where Iridium Certus 100, delivered via RockREMOTE UAV OEM, comes in. For OEMs, the appeal is flexibility at the system level: you can support an IP-based connection for interactive workflows, while also designing message-based IMT workflows for data types that benefit from queued, delivery oriented transport, without forcing every workload through a single paradigm.

The result is a more intentional architecture: interactive applications use IP when they need to, and delivery oriented data uses messaging patterns when that better matches the operational reality.

RockREMOTE UAV Image 3 or Drone device

Trade-off (SWaP): RockREMOTE UAV OEM is 175 × 60 × 37 mm, 287 g, peak <1.66 A @ 12 V or <833 mA @ 24 V (≈ 20 W peak); worth it when you truly need an interactive link, but a meaningful step up in size / weight / power versus messaging modules.

The OEM Decision: What Happens During a 30 Second Fade?

Here’s a simple test that clarifies architecture decisions fast. Picture a brief period where conditions degrade: antenna orientation changes during a manoeuvre, the airframe masks sky view, or the aircraft drops behind terrain. It’s not a total outage, but the link becomes unreliable.

Now ask: what should your system do? If the data is interactive, it’s reasonable for the experience to be interrupted. The operator understands that continuous live control isn’t guaranteed in all conditions.

If the data is delivery-oriented, especially safety, health, compliance, or mission state, then the system should behave calmly: queue, send when it can, and retry according to your service behaviour and your application’s retry policy.

That’s the core difference in mindset: designing for interactivity versus designing for delivery.

Messaging

Use messaging first when the requirement is: ‘this must get through, even if it arrives later than a live dashboard would prefer’.

IP

Use IP first when the requirement is: ‘a human or application must interact continuously’.

Combined

Use both when you want the best operational outcome: IP for interactivity, messaging for delivery oriented updates and structured packets.

The strongest OEM architectures rarely treat connectivity as one monolithic pipe. They treat it as a set of behaviors, each aligned to what the data is for.

Bottom Line: Choose by Data Type, and Design for Real Operations

IP is excellent when you need live interactivity. Messaging is well suited to delivery oriented updates when conditions are variable and you want a queued approach with an explicit retry policy. Hybrid designs let you use each where it fits best: IP for interactive moments, messaging patterns for critical updates and structured packets.

If you’re designing for real operations, and not just ideal lab conditions, message-based transport deserves consideration early in the architecture, alongside IP, rather than as an afterthought.

Disclaimer: real world performance depends on system design, antenna integration, operational environment, and service configuration; the right approach is mission- and data-dependent.

Talk through your satcom architecture with us

Email us at hello@groundcontrol.com, or complete the form, with your details and a couple of lines about your platform (airframe class, typical mission profile, and what data you need to move).

We’ll follow up with practical guidance on where SBD (RockBLOCK 9603), IMT (RockBLOCK 9704), and Certus 100 (RockREMOTE UAV OEM) fit in your architecture, and how to combine them for an operator-friendly design.

Name
Privacy Policy

Every few years, a disruptive technology emerges quietly but ultimately reshapes entire sectors. Today, Assured Positioning, Navigation, and Timing (A-PNT) is gaining momentum, and Iridium’s Low Earth Orbit (LEO) PNT signal is one prominent space-based approach.

While most discussions around A-PNT focus on navigation, defense, or autonomous systems, one industry poised to benefit the most in financial significance is vessel insurance.

Shipowners and insurers face increasing pressure from unpredictable geopolitical risks, particularly in war-prone regions. The reliability of vessel position data has become a critical factor for insurers, who need to accurately assess risk in order to price policies and manage claims.

A-PNT technologies offer a solution to this long-standing challenge by providing trusted, tamper resistant, and independent positional data, which has the potential to transform how insurers evaluate and underwrite maritime risk.

Map-Plotter-on-Vessel

The War Risk Insurance Market is Under Pressure

War risk insurance premiums have skyrocketed in the past two years, reflecting heightened threats in key shipping corridors and merchant vessels navigating unpredictable geopolitical environments.

These premiums, known as Additional War Risk Premiums (AWRPs), are applied on top of normal insurance cover whenever a vessel enters a high risk “Listed Area” defined by the London insurance market’s Joint War Committee (JWC). These surcharges can represent hundreds of thousands, and in some cases millions, of dollars per voyage, dramatically increasing operational costs for carriers.

One example is the Red Sea crisis caused by Houthi attacks in late 2023 and 2024. During this period, war risk premiums for a typical seven day transit of the Red Sea and Bab al-Mandab Strait surged from a nominal 0.05 percent to between 0.4 and 1.0 percent of the vessel’s hull and machinery value.

For a new high value container ship valued at approximately $150 million, this translates into an additional cost of roughly $665,000 per transit. Similarly, a Large Range 2 tanker valued at $105 million faces surcharges of around $420,000, while Very Large Crude Carriers (VLCCs) with insured values near $100 million could see premiums reach $1-2 million for a single high risk seven day transit. These extreme costs, combined with the actual risks of attack, forced major carriers such as Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd to reroute around the Cape of Good Hope, adding 10 to 14 days to their journey and significant fuel costs.

The Black Sea, affected by the Russia-Ukraine conflict, represents another hotspot where war risk insurance costs have surged. The conflict has had significant impact on the grain export corridor. After Russian strikes on foreign vessels, war risk premiums reportedly increased by approximately $125,000 per voyage for a $50 million vessel. In response, insurers collaborated with the United Nations to create specialized grain corridor insurance solutions, enabling essential exports to continue despite elevated risk.

While exact invoices remain private, publicly available market data shows that transiting a war risk area can add a substantial percentage of a vessel’s value to the cost of a short transit. Insurers desperately need reliable, tamper-proof positional data to assess risk, and ships need better protection from spoofing and GNSS interference. That’s where Iridium PNT becomes invaluable.

Where Iridium PNT Fits In

Current methods for tracking vessels include AIS (Automatic Identification System), radar, and GNSS-based location tracking. However, each of these systems has limitations. AIS data can be spoofed, turned off, or manipulated. GNSS signals are vulnerable to jamming or spoofing, especially in conflict zones, and radar coverage is generally limited to coastal regions, leaving open ocean transits less secure. These limitations create blind spots between reported and actual vessel positions, increasing both operational and financial risk.

Iridium PNT addresses these challenges directly. By leveraging the global coverage of Iridium’s Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellite constellation, Iridium PNT’s broadcast signal is up to 1,000 times stronger than GPS and transmitted from satellites 25 times closer to Earth. This makes it far more resilient to interference and reliable even when GNSS becomes unavailable.

GPS-RockFLEET-Assured-Diagram

Why Merchant Shipping Needs A-PNT

The modern maritime industry operates under increasing levels of risk and uncertainty. War risk premiums are fluctuating dramatically, GNSS vulnerabilities are increasing, and traditional tracking solutions leave critical blind spots. In a world where a single transit can cost $500k to $2 million in extra insurance, any technology that enhances trust and reduces risk has immediate economic value.

For shipowners, A-PNT is more than a navigation enhancement. The technology is a financial and operational safeguard, enabling vessels to demonstrate the integrity of their movements and providing insurers with verifiable data that can reduce positional uncertainty. This can translate directly into lower war risk premiums as carriers can prove their routes and positions without ambiguity. By offering immutable, timestamped movement logs that are resistant to spoofing or tampering, A-PNT enables maritime insurers to price risk with confidence and operators avoid unnecessary disputes.

Beyond insurance savings, A-PNT also enhances safety and operational resilience. In high-threat areas, accurate, verified location and timing information is essential for navigation, route optimization, and compliance with safety regulations. Fleet operations centers can maintain situational awareness, even under GNSS interference, while captains receive reliable guidance via A-PNT to avoid hazards or restricted zones. The combination of operational safety and financial prudence positions A-PNT as an essential tool for modern merchant shipping. Ultimately, if ships can prove their track, timing, and location with high integrity – independently of GNSS spoofing and jamming – insurers can price risk with confidence.

 

Bringing Iridium PNT to the Bridge with RockFLEET Assured

RockFLEET Assured harnesses Iridium’s PNT service into a rugged, compact maritime solution built for real-world navigational pressures. It provides an independent source of positioning and timing when GPS/GNSS is jammed, degraded, or spoofed. Rather than relying solely on open GNSS signals, RockFLEET Assured can output A-PNT-derived position/time in standard NMEA format and includes configurable integrity and time difference checks to help detect anomalous conditions, supporting operations based on more reliable information when GNSS can’t be trusted.

The combination of its resilient architecture and practical engineering makes RockFLEET Assured a strong choice for vessels facing GPS-denied conditions and AWRPs. Cargo ships transiting spoofing hotspots can maintain position awareness even when GNSS becomes unreliable, helping bridge teams maintain safe routing. Naval vessels operating amid electronic warfare retain dependable timing and navigation essential for mission coordination. And unmanned surface vessels benefit from uninterrupted PNT in high latitude regions where GNSS performance can be challenged.

By combining Iridium’s PNT service with RockFLEET Assured’s maritime-ready integration and onboard monitoring features, RockFLEET Assured provides a trusted positioning capability to mitigate the threats that contribute to rising war risk premiums in regions like the Red Sea and Black Sea.

RockFLEET-Assured-Installation-Transparent-BG

Reliable Navigation for Insurers and Shipowners

With millions at stake in AWRPs alone, Iridium PNT provides a new level of assurance for both insurers and vessel operators. For insurers, the technology reduces exposure to spoofing, improves positioning reliability, and enables more accurate data driven risk pricing. For shipowners and operators, APNT can lower war risk premiums, improve compliance, enhance safety, and ensure operational continuity in high-risk zones.

As the geopolitical risks continue to grow and GNSS vulnerabilities become more frequent, A-PNT is emerging not only as a navigation tool but as a business-critical tracking asset. It allows maritime stakeholders to operate with confidence, knowing that the positional data underpinning insurance decisions, operational planning, and safety compliance is reliable.

In this context, Iridium PNT and RockFLEET Assured represent a transformative solution, providing trusted, validated, and resilient positioning, navigation and timing data that benefits insurers, shipowners, and the broader shipping ecosystem. For stakeholders aiming to reduce financial exposure, enhance safety, and navigate conflict zones with confidence, RockBLOCK APNT is a reliable solution. By enabling a verifiable “source of truth” for vessel positioning, RockFLEET Assured enables more accurate, reliable and cost-effective maritime war risk insurance assessment for modern maritime operations.

Trusted A-PNT Expertise for Resilient Maritime Operations

Ground Control brings more than 20 years of experience delivering resilient satellite solutions for maritime and critical communications. We understand that no two vessels, fleets, or operating environments are the same, which is why we provide expert guidance on deploying the right mix of A-PNT capabilities and reliable satellite connectivity options to ensure trusted positioning, navigation, and timing at sea.

Complete the form, or email hello@groundcontrol.com and we’ll reply within one working day.

Name
Privacy Policy

When winter bites, the world doesn’t stop moving. Researchers crunch climate data at 6,500 meters. Ships weave through drifting icebergs. Volunteers groom snowmobile trails through the night. Pilots fly over whiteout terrain. Rivers swell with snowmelt and threaten nearby communities.

In all of these places, terrestrial connectivity is patchy, or simply doesn’t exist. From Himalayan glaciers to Arctic sea ice and winter trails, Ground Control’s satellite IoT and tracking services keep people, assets and data connected when the temperature drops and terrestrial networks disappear.

We’ve brought together five real world winter operations where satellite IoT quietly gets the job done.

Snow-Ice-No-Signal-Ground-Control-Infographic-2025

High Altitude Glacier Monitoring on Everest

At extreme elevations, there are no engineers on call, no cell towers on the skyline, and not much margin for error. Yet these are exactly the locations where climate scientists need reliable, continuous data.

On Himalayan glaciers, researchers are deploying autonomous stations that can operate for months at a time without human intervention.

Using Ground Control’s RockREMOTE Mini over the Iridium Certus 100 network, these stations send back daily information on ice temperature and local weather conditions.

That data helps scientists understand how fast glaciers are melting, how conditions are changing over time, and what that means for the communities that rely on these frozen reservoirs downstream.

Arctic Iceberg Tracking for Safer Seas

In the Arctic, winter never really leaves, and the landscape is in constant motion. Icebergs calve from glaciers and drift through busy shipping lanes and past critical offshore infrastructure. For vessels and platforms operating in these waters, knowing where the ice is, and where it’s heading, is essential.

Teams working in this environment are deploying low cost, open source beacons built around Ground Control’s RockBLOCK technology.

These compact devices are attached to icebergs and send regular position updates via satellite as the ice drifts. Operations teams use that data to build drift models, refine routes and maintain safe stand off distances from moving ice.

Snowmobile Trail Grooming Beyond Cellular Coverage

Further south, in dense forests and mountain passes, a different winter challenge unfolds. Snowmobile clubs rely on volunteer groomers to keep thousands of kilometers of trails in good condition, often working late into the night and far from any cellular signal.

To support these teams, clubs are equipping groomers with RockSTAR devices linked to Ground Control’s Cloudloop Tracking platform. As the groomers work, their position, distance travelled and speed are automatically logged.

This creates an accurate record of grooming activity that can be used for fair reimbursement and better planning, and it also provides real time visibility of where machines and operators are.

Search and Rescue Tracking in Winter Skies

When something goes wrong in winter, it can escalate quickly. For pilots flying over snowy valleys, mountain ridges and frozen lakes, situational awareness and communication are non-negotiable. Whiteout conditions, icing and rapidly changing weather can all conspire to make navigation and emergency response more difficult.

RockSTAR and RockAIR devices from Ground Control provide continuous satellite tracking and two-way messaging for aircraft operating beyond cellular coverage.

Each flight can be monitored in real time on a map, giving operations teams a clear picture of where aircraft are and how their routes are progressing. If the worst happens, SOS capabilities allow pilots to raise an alert and share their location, even when other communications have failed.

In one real world rescue, a pilot survived a crash in blizzard conditions and was located thanks to his satellite tracker, which continued to transmit his position. It’s a powerful illustration of how a small, rugged device can make a critical difference when conditions are at their most unforgiving.

Flood Risk Monitoring When Snow Turns to Floodwater

As temperatures rise, water from snow and ice makes its way into rivers, culverts and drainage systems, sometimes overwhelming infrastructure and threatening nearby homes and businesses. Being able to monitor these systems in real time is key to managing flood risk.

Partners like Obscape use RockBLOCK-enabled telemetry modules to connect water level gauges, rain gauges and cameras, even in remote or hard to reach locations.

These instruments send back frequent measurements and imagery via satellite, giving authorities and engineers an up to date view of catchment conditions. When indicators reach critical levels, teams can act quickly, whether that’s issuing warnings, closing roads, or checking vulnerable assets.

Because the connection does not rely on terrestrial networks, the system continues to function during storms and power outages, providing a resilient backbone for early warning and response.

Bring Your Winter Operations Online

Wherever snow and ice cut off regular networks, Ground Control keeps data and teams connected. From glacier monitoring and iceberg tracking to snowmobile trail grooming, aviation safety and flood risk management, satellite IoT ensures that critical information continues to flow, even when your signal bars vanish.

If your operations take you beyond cellular coverage, satellite connectivity doesn’t need to be complex or out of reach. Ground Control’s hardware, airtime and management platforms are designed to work together, so you can focus on outcomes rather than infrastructure.

Helping you stay connected

If your winter operations take you off the beaten track, we can help you stay connected.

Complete the form, or email hello@groundcontrol.com and we’ll reply within one working day, connecting you with a team with over 20′ years experience of extracting data from the most remote places on Earth.

Name
Privacy Policy

Whether you’re working in oceanographic science, hydrology, utilities, aquaculture or offshore renewables, you’ve probably heard some of the noise around “NTN” – using cellular IoT standards like NB-IoT and LTE Cat-1 to send data over satellite. It’s very promising: one chipset roaming between cellular and satellite networks, lowering hardware costs, broadening coverage and simplifying integration.

As is so often the case, the reality is a little more nuanced. In this blog post, we aim to separate myth from reality, and help teams capturing data from remote water sensors design robust data paths that will stand the test of time. We’ll start with one of the most pervasive myths.

Myth #1: Satellite Coverage Is Global

Reality: It depends heavily on the network and the service.

This is routinely overstated, particularly by cellular IoT specialists now branching out into satellite – “true global coverage” appears all over their marketing material.

Here’s what you need to know.

First, you usually need to separate networks designed for IoT services from networks designed for broadband internet. The services designed for broadband internet generally use radio spectrum in the Ku- and Ka-bands. This is ideal for carrying large volumes of data, but has several drawbacks for IoT applications: they’re power hungry and not well suited to battery or small solar installations; and they’re affected by poor weather conditions. If your asset is frequently exposed to rain, high winds, spray or sea fog (which is often the case at sea or up in the mountains), your data will not transmit reliably.

Satellite-IoT-Network-Coverage-2025

The sweet spot for satellite IoT is services in the L-band radio frequency, as these need very little power and are largely unaffected by poor weather. They’re suited to much smaller data volumes, and fit an IoT use case perfectly, for example, regular level and water quality readings from a buoy, float, or river gauge.

So, who offers L-band services? The pre-eminent Satellite Network Operators (SNOs) are Iridium, Viasat (Inmarsat) and Globalstar. Of these three, Iridium is the only one that is truly global. Viasat has great coverage but doesn’t cover the poles, and Globalstar has some big gaps over Asia, the polar regions and the oceans.

Now we have to go one level deeper (sorry!). Of these three, currently Viasat is the only network that offers both proprietary and standards-based services.

  • “Proprietary” means that you have a Viasat chipset that works with Viasat satellites; you can’t use it to communicate with Iridium satellites, or vice versa.
  • “Standards-based” refers to the use of cellular standards over satellite, namely NB-IoT and LTE Cat-1. As these are all built to the same standard, it should – when the services mature – be possible to switch supplier without needing to change your hardware.

Viasat’s proprietary services (IoT Nano, IoT Pro) are well established and available everywhere where Viasat’s satellites can see the Earth. Their standards-based service, NB-NTN, is in its infancy, and they’re turning on coverage where there’s sufficient demand. Currently that’s North America, parts of Europe, Brazil, Australia and New Zealand. Huge swathes of the ocean are not covered, and if your application is in South America (excluding Brazil), Africa or much of Asia, you’re also out of luck.

In short, check coverage carefully, particularly for maritime devices like offshore buoys, USVs or drifting floats, as claims often don’t live up to reality. For inland water sensing, don’t assume that “country-wide” includes your upland reservoir or remote abstraction point either.

 

Myth #2: More Bandwidth Solves Everything

Reality: Power, airtime and antennas still call the shots.

As mentioned earlier, the higher bandwidth services (e.g. Starlink, OneWeb) operate in Ku- and Ka-bands, and while these are great for moving large volumes of data, the trade-off is a higher power draw and larger, more complex antennas. If you’re operating a coastal station or treatment works with reliable power and solid mounting options, they may be a good fit. If you’re building a wave buoy with tiny solar panels, they simply can’t power these sorts of satellite terminals.

If you don’t have mains power, and therefore do need a power-efficient satellite terminal, L-band IoT services will best serve your needs. Viasat and Iridium have a wide range of IoT services that span from IP-based options such as Iridium Certus 100 (speeds up to 88 kbps) to message-based services like Viasat NB-NTN (optimized for ~50 bytes per message).

Power-airtime-and-antennas-call-the-shots

Even within specialist services for IoT, the more throughput or volume you need, the larger the antenna, and the greater the power draw. Message-based services can be more challenging to work with (we’ll come back to this), but they are the most efficient means of utilizing a satellite link, especially for water sensors that only need to report periodically.

The following simplified table lays out the trade-offs.

NB-NTN

Short Burst Data (SBD)

Iridium Messaging Transport (IMT)

Certus 100

IoT Pro

Operator

Viasat

Iridium

Iridium

Iridium

Viasat

Link Type

Message-based (NTN NB-IoT)

Message-based (proprietary)

Message-based (proprietary)

IP-based

IP-based

Data Volume

50 bytes per message*

Up to 340 bytes per message

Up to 100 kB per message

Up to 22/88 kbps

Up to 464 kbps

Power Consumption

Very low

Very low

Low

Medium

Medium

*There’s no hard protocol limit that stops you above a certain size; NB-IoT can technically carry up to around 1.6 kB of user data in a single packet. But current NTN NB-IoT services are engineered around tiny messages (tens of bytes) and tens of kilobytes per month per device. Anything bigger quickly becomes slow, power hungry, and uneconomic.

Myth #3: Standards Make It Simple

Reality: Coverage gaps and physical constraints still apply.

We’re very excited about the potential of standards-based (or NTN) satellite connectivity; once it matures, it should unlock massive IoT use cases that would be cost prohibitive for a proprietary solution. But it isn’t a lower cost version of the proprietary solutions that exist today; it’s a different class of connectivity.

NTN NB-IoT is designed to connect a large number of latency tolerant end points sending very small amounts of data, such as a grid of rainfall and runoff gauges across a catchment for flood risk modelling. It’s not designed for more than around 50 kB of data per month per device, and it’s not suited to real-time communication.

Standards-make-it-simple

This is in contrast to cellular NB-IoT, which can move 1-2 kB per transmission, and is generally economically viable up to ~5 MB of data per month per device. That’s more than enough for frequent level and quality readings from a river, reservoir or pipeline monitoring point, but if you try to replicate that pattern over satellite, both cost and power consumption quickly become challenging.

If you’ve been working with cellular NB-IoT and enjoying the larger volumes of highly economical transmissions that terrestrial networks facilitate, you’re in for a bit of a shock when it comes to moving that data over satellite. You will need to be able to work within the data constraints of the NTN version, which is likely to need some data optimization (we’ll come back to this shortly).

Another consideration that may stand in the way of seamless transition between cellular and NTN NB-IoT is your antenna.

  • Cellular NB-IoT is designed to work with small, low gain antennas – often just a simple PCB or stub antenna in a plastic box. While antenna placement requires some forethought (not inside a metal box, not under a pump skid etc.), it doesn’t need to be outdoors.
  • NTN NB-IoT over GEO satellites is a different beast. Connecting to a satellite which is – in the case of Viasat NB-NTN – 35,786 km from Earth requires a higher gain antenna and clear line of sight to the satellite. The antenna needs to be on the roof, on a mast, on top of a buoy, not buried in a pit or down in a plant room.

Not dissimilarly to your cellphone trying to find a network, a poorly positioned antenna drains power and is more likely to drop data.

The bottom line is that NTN is viable and workable for a myriad of water-sensing applications; just not all of them. And while working with data constraints might take some getting used to, doing so has cost, power and battery life benefits. So here are our top tips for optimizing your data for streamlined transmissions.

Working With the Constraints: Design Patterns That Actually Work

Send-data-less-frequently

Send Data
Less Frequently

Instead of transmitting every second, trigger messages only on events or stretch your interval to every few minutes or hours, so you cut airtime and power without losing useful insight.

Send-Less-Data

Send
Less Data

Replace continuous raw streams with compressed or aggregated values (min/max/average/exceptions), sending only the fields your application actually needs rather than every sample.

Choose-the-Right-Transport-2

Choose the Right Transport

Where you don’t need interactive sessions, use compact, message-based protocols instead of IP to avoid chatty handshakes and headers, reducing connection time, airtime use and power draw.

Position-Antenna-Well

Position Your Antenna Well

If your satellite network is in geostationary orbit (e.g. Viasat) you need line of sight to the satellite; if it’s in Low Earth Orbit (e.g. Iridium, Globalstar) you need a clear view of the sky as the satellites move overhead.

Most of the above is fairly self-explanatory, but it’s worth a quick dive into message-based protocols, because this is where many water monitoring applications can win back cost and battery life.

Why Message-Based Protocols Matter

Because cellular connectivity is abundant and cheap, most IoT applications use an IP connection to move data. We often liken this to a telephone call: an interactive, two way communication path which, while very widely used, has some drawbacks from an IoT perspective, particularly when operating with data constraints.

Firstly, the real time “conversation” between the sensor and your control centre is relatively hard on battery life. Secondly, the amount of overhead passed over that connection in addition to the actual data you need is considerable.

When you’re sending data into space, every byte matters.

Sending data over IP is not the most cost-effective, nor battery-conservative, means of using satellite IoT.

The alternative is a message-based solution, which we touched on earlier. NTN NB-IoT is message-based, as are Iridium SBD and IMT, and Viasat IoT Nano. Message-based connections are more like a text message: you send the message, receive an acknowledgement (note: not all services include this), and close the connection.

The message contains much less overhead, and the connection stays open only as long as is needed to transmit. This is the most economical way to use satellite IoT, both from a cost and power perspective. While it often requires a little more engineering work to format your data appropriately, it is usually worth the effort.

On the server / cloud side, platforms like Ground Control’s Cloudloop will decode the data on receipt and send it to your destination of choice, properly formatted, so there’s no need for engineering work on the cloud / server side.

Many applications can move to message-based transmission: data buoys, weather stations, reservoir level sensors, groundwater monitoring wells, water quality sondes and static flow/abstraction meters where data isn’t needed in real time.

If you do need real-time command and control, for example, remotely piloting a USV, or actively managing gates and valves in a complex hydraulic system, there are reliable services available, including Iridium Certus 100 and Viasat IoT Pro. But it’s definitely worth investigating message-based services if you can work with a few seconds’ latency and slightly less interactivity.

 

Choosing a Network: Matching Technology to Use Case

To bring this to life, we’ve put together this table to illustrate a few use cases.

USV

Data Buoy

Profiling Float

Reservoir Level Station

Movement

Mobile

Stationary

Free floating

Stationary

Location

Open ocean

Open ocean

Open ocean

Upland catchment / remote reservoir

Power Source

Solar

Solar

Battery

Solar

Data Volumes

High

Medium

Low

Low-Medium

Transmission Frequency

Real time to every 5 minutes

Hourly

Hourly to every 10 days

Every 5-15 minutes + event-driven

Suggested Service

Iridium Certus 100 or Viasat IoT Pro

Iridium Messaging Transport (IMT)

Iridium Short Burst Data or (if within coverage) Viasat NB-NTN

Iridium Messaging Transport (IMT)

Suggested Device

RockREMOTE Mini

RockBLOCK 9704

RockBLOCK 9603

RockBLOCK Pro

If the device needs a real time connection, it needs an IP-based service, but if it’s solar powered, it needs to couple that requirement with high power efficiency. Iridium Certus 100 or Viasat IoT Pro meet both requirements, and are your best options here.

If the device is running exclusively on a battery, and has very low data requirements, this is a great application for NTN NB-IoT (Viasat’s brand for this service is NB-NTN). However, you need to check coverage. If coverage is not available, Iridium’s Short Burst Data (SBD) service is a cost effective and global alternative.

If data volumes are larger, Iridium Messaging Transport (IMT) can carry up to 100 kB per message, and the modules can also be powered by a battery. In each case, there are several options for the device that houses the module, ranging from enclosed and vibration-tested devices with simplified commands (RockBLOCK Pro) to developer PCBs with a choice of internal or external antennas (RockBLOCK 9704 / 9603).

Designing the Right Data Path for Your Water Sensors

The headline story around NTN is seductive: one chipset, everywhere connectivity, cellular-like costs. For water monitoring teams under pressure to instrument more assets – more rivers, more reservoirs, more outfalls, more offshore platforms – it sounds like the silver bullet we’ve all been waiting for.

It isn’t. But it can be a powerful new tool in the box if you treat it as such.

If there’s one takeaway from this post, it’s this: everywhere IoT is not something you buy; it’s something you design.

For water sensing, that design work boils down to a handful of questions:

  • Where are my sensors, really? Open ocean, estuary, upland catchment, plant room? Coverage claims matter less than the actual map.
  • How is each device powered? Battery, micro-solar, or a nice fat cable from the control room?
  • How quickly do I genuinely need the data? Seconds, minutes, hours?
  • How much data do I actually need to move? Raw streams, or carefully chosen summaries and alarms?

Answer those honestly, and the right combination of L-band IoT, NTN, cellular and (where appropriate) broadband satcom usually reveals itself.

Need Help Getting Data Home?

If you’re looking at a new water-monitoring project, from data buoys and USVs to flood-warning networks and smart reservoirs, and you’re not sure where to start, we’re happy to help.

Ground Control has spent the last two decades getting data out of some of the world’s most awkward places. We can’t promise magic, but we can promise clear advice, realistic trade-offs, and solutions that actually work when it’s dark, cold and raining sideways.

Complete the form, or email hello@groundcontrol.com, and we’ll reply within one working day.

Name
Privacy Policy

In November 2021, Storm Arwen swept across the United Kingdom, causing three fatalities, felling millions of trees, and leaving almost one million homes without power. More than 100,000 homes were without electricity for several days.

In February 2023, Cyclone Gabrielle devastated New Zealand’s North Island, driving severe flooding and landslides, leaving about 225,000 homes without power, and costing 11 lives. It remains New Zealand’s most costly non‑earthquake disaster, with an estimated economic impact of ~NZ$14.5 billion (≈US$8.2 billion).

In February 2024, a windstorm in Victoria, Australia, significantly damaged transmission and distribution networks, leading to more than one million customers losing power. After three days, tens of thousands were still without supply.

As well as the devastating impact on industrial, commercial, and residential customers, sustained outages carry major penalty costs for operators. For example, on a single rural circuit, a 12 hour outage affecting 20,000 customers could trigger roughly US$2.0 million in automatic customer credits before any annual reliability penalties or reputational redress – and that’s just one feeder on one night.

Image-of-power-lines-taken-down-by-a-storm

The Rural Failure Loop – What Keeps Going Wrong

In each of the events above, power outages and physical damage in rural areas knocked out portions of the fixed and mobile telecom networks. Cell sites ran out of backup power and fiber backhaul was cut, leading to reduced or, in some districts, no telemetry or remote control from field devices. That loss of communications degraded situational awareness and coordination, lengthening restoration.

Extreme weather is increasing in frequency and severity, so we can expect more of the same. A wildfire, wind, ice, or landslip causes a fault to hit the feeder. Telecom sites at the edge flip to battery, then go dark. As terrestrial backhaul – poles, towers, ducts, and fiber – shares the same geography and hazards, the event that takes down the feeder often takes down the comms, too.

Operators then fly blind: no live status from switches or IEDs; no remote commands; FLISR (Fault Location, Isolation, and Service Restoration) slows or stalls. This in turn slows down restoration, with more truck rolls, access delays, longer isolation and switching sequences. The impact on the customer grows; minutes become hours, and penalty clocks keep ticking.

Rural environments are particularly problematic because of the sparse infrastructure; often a single tower every many kilometers, and one fiber route serving an entire valley. When weather hits, you don’t just lose a path, you lose the path. Getting back online is slower too, as closed roads and washed out bridges delay generator drops, refuelling runs and fiber repairs, stretching restoration timelines.

True Path Diversity Needs Satellite Backhaul

The main defenses against sustained outages – reclosers, switches, sectionalizers, and the RTUs and IEDs that control them – often include edge logic, but operators still need status reports and command authority. For centralized, SCADA/DMS‑directed switching, the control room needs continuous situational awareness and safe, auditable operations. Both modes depend on connectivity, which is not straightforward in rural territory.

Private VHF/UHF, Wi‑SUN FAN (an IP‑based 802.15.4g/e mesh), microwave, and private LTE all have their place, but they frequently inherit the same poles, towers, ducts, and power feeds that storms take out. Satellite connectivity provides true path diversity and coverage where nothing else exists, without requiring you to build and maintain more terrestrial infrastructure.

This isn’t new. In 2015, Ergon Energy used BGAN M2M (now called Viasat IoT Pro) to connect hundreds of reclosers across Queensland, Australia. This is a proprietary satellite IoT service that delivers an IP‑grade link capable of carrying DNP3 / IEC‑104 cleanly, including command and acknowledgement workflows.

However, using satellite IoT for DA/SCADA remained niche because the trade-offs used to be unappealing. The satellites through which services like Viasat IoT Pro are delivered are in geostationary orbit (GEO), some 35,786 km above Earth.

This has two implications; one is that the round trip time for data (called latency) is around ~0.6 – 1.5 seconds; acceptable for event‑driven SCADA and supervised switching, but potentially an issue if you have a system architecture that expects real time data transmission.

The second is that antennas paired with GEO networks need to have line of sight to the satellite, which requires careful positioning, and it may not be possible to get a reliable link in forested or mountainous areas. There’s also a pervasive myth that satellite means dishes, trucks and big OPEX, meaning that many teams defaulted to building more terrestrial coverage or living with rural blind spots.

Explorer-540-Telegraph-Pole-Ringed

Why This Is a “Now” Issue

Things have changed. Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellite services like Iridium Certus 100 have much lower (sub-second) latency due to their proximity to Earth; their interlinked satellite network means that antennas need only a clear view of the sky, and don’t need to be pointed. Further, antennas can be smaller, and draw less power, as the data doesn’t need to travel as far – you can pole-mount a link where the device actually sits.

Across both LEO and GEO satellite networks, modern message‑based services (e.g., IMT – Iridium Messaging Transport; Viasat IoT Nano) move away from a 24/7 pipe to heartbeat‑plus‑burst with delivery acknowledgements. That’s far more economical (and power efficient) and maps well to grid operations: quiet most days, chatty during incidents.

Ruggedized terminals like RockREMOTE Rugged support both IP and message modes, work with dual‑WAN routers for automatic failover, and provide store‑and‑forward so data and commands are queued and delivered in order with proof of delivery.

Highly capable terminals, again like RockREMOTE Rugged, can also act as field gateways, aggregating low power sensors and fault indicators over LoRaWAN (or Wi‑SUN) and backhauling their data over satellite. With hosted applications at the edge, operators can separate event alarms from periodic telemetry and transmit only when needed.

The result is a pragmatic architecture: put direct satellite at a few control‑deciding points – feeder head, key tie switches, and outgoing feeders at the substation – and aggregate the many sensors / indicators to a satellite-backhauled gateway to manage cost. Combine that with event‑based transmissions, low idle costs, and near‑real time bursts when storms hit, and you have an economical, reliable coverage layer that’s independent of terrestrial networks.

Smart automation only works if it can talk. Satellite at a handful of control‑deciding points gives that automation a path that doesn’t go dark when poles, towers, or ducts do, so FLISR and operator decisions still happen in minutes, not hours.

Securing DA/SCADA Data

Security isn’t just about keeping links up; it’s about keeping DA/SCADA traffic private and accountable. Service providers that specialize in critical national infrastructure, like Ground Control, typically break out satellite traffic at a controlled meet-me point and carry it to the utility OT network over private VPN/MPLS, helping avoid best effort internet paths and keeping routing and auditing clear. At the edge, devices use certificate-based encryption with store-and-forward and acknowledgements, so data and commands are queued and delivered in order even through brief fades. Paired with dual-WAN failover, this approach reduces exposure during storms while preserving a predictable operator experience.

In short, the grid won’t get kinder and the penalties won’t get lighter. What you can change is whether your automation can still talk when the weather arrives. By giving a small number of control-deciding points a path that doesn’t share poles, towers, or ducts, and aggregating the many through a satellite-backhauled gateway, you turn hours of uncertainty into minutes of switching. Start where it matters most: your feeder heads, key ties, and outgoing feeders; measure the restoration minutes you take back, then scale.

Make Comms One Less Thing To Worry About

Ground Control has over 20 years of experience in delivering satellite connectivity for Critical National Infrastructure. We know that every network is different, and we can provide expert advice on getting the right mix of direct satcom and gateways.

Complete the form or email hello@groundcontrol.com, and we’ll be in touch within one working day.

Name
Privacy Policy

Wind and solar farms are fast becoming the backbone of our green energy future. The first half of 2025 marked a defining moment for global power generation. According to Ember’s Global Electricity Mid-Year Insights Report, global electricity demand rose by around 2.6%, yet renewables grew even faster. Solar output jumped by 31% and wind by 7.7%, helping renewables overtake coal for the first time in history, supplying 34.3% of global electricity compared with coal’s 33.1%.

That growth isn’t slowing either. Ember’s latest report forecasts that global renewable capacity additions will reach almost 793 GW in 2025 (an 11% increase on 2024) driven by 21% growth in wind and 9% in solar. At this pace, the world is within reach of tripling global renewable capacity by 2030, a central COP28 goal.

Yet as the scale of renewable infrastructure expands, new challenges arise: managing millions of connected devices, capturing continuous data, and maintaining visibility across installations that often sit far beyond the reach of terrestrial networks.

It’s not just about generating clean power anymore. It’s about keeping every asset connected, visible, and performing at its best.

Solar-and-wind-production-H1-2025

The Connectivity Challenge in Renewable Energy

On remote coastlines, in vast deserts, or far offshore, wind and solar farms are typically built where natural resources are strongest. These prime energy locations often sit well beyond the reach of cellular and fiber networks, creating a growing connectivity gap that directly affects operational efficiency.

Without reliable links between assets and control centers, operators face a series of compounding challenges. Performance and fault visibility is limited, fault alerts can take minutes or even hours to arrive, and manual inspections are often required where remote diagnostics should suffice. The result is higher maintenance costs, slower response times, and an incomplete picture of system performance.

For years, proprietary satellite IoT networks, such as Iridium and Viasat, have bridged this gap. These systems provide the ultra reliable, low latency connectivity essential for mission critical operations like SCADA backhaul, emergency shutdown commands, and safety alerts. Their reliability is proven, but it comes at a price. Proprietary networks rely on specialized terminals and dedicated airtime contracts, delivering access to radio spectrum that’s dedicated to critical connections; this can, however, make these cost prohibitive for large scale sensor deployments across thousands of wind turbines or solar panels.

As renewable capacity surges and asset counts multiply, this challenge is only intensifying. Between 2023 and 2025, renewable additions have grown by an average of 29% annually. To connect every turbine, inverter, and panel without escalating operational costs, operators now need a new model for connectivity, one that blends reliability with scalability, and cost efficiency with coverage.

 

The Next Wave: Standards-Based NTN NB-IoT

The introduction of standards-based Non-Terrestrial Networks (NTN) by 3GPP has the potential to revolutionize satellite connectivity for renewable energy. By extending Narrowband IoT (NB-IoT), a low power, low cost communication standard already widely deployed in terrestrial networks, into satellite networks, operators can achieve consistent, affordable connectivity across even the most remote wind, solar, or storage sites.

For renewable operators, this evolution opens a new era: from connecting a few critical assets to connecting everything.
 

Benefits of NTN NB-IoT for Renewable Energy Operators

No proprietary modem required

Sensors use standardized NB-IoT components instead of bespoke satellite hardware, reducing integration costs.

Lower device and service costs

Shared standards and simpler connectivity models drive down both equipment and airtime expenses.

Cost effective scalability

Thousands of low power sensors can be deployed across expansive solar or wind farms without heavy infrastructure investment.

Flexible connectivity options

As multiple satellite operators adopt the standard, service pricing and network choice become more competitive.

Future proof infrastructure

Global NB-IoT standards ensure long term interoperability and technology alignment across networks.

Applications for Standards-Based NTN NB-IoT in the Renewable Sector

For renewables, NTN NB-IoT fits best where thousands of low power sensors send small, infrequent updates from remote wind, solar, or storage sites; when reliable reach matters more than real time control.

Wind Energy: Smarter, Predictive Operations

Blade and drivetrain monitoring: Detect anomalies in vibration, strain, or temperature early to enable predictive maintenance before faults escalate.

Structural health: Monitor the integrity of towers and foundations to prevent costly structural damage.

Environmental insight: Collect temperature, humidity, and wind condition data to support condition-based maintenance in remote or offshore installations.

Solar Energy: Panel-Level Performance at Scale

Efficiency tracking: Sensors measure real time output, temperature, and irradiance across thousands of panels.

Environmental optimization: Track dust, shading, and humidity to plan cleaning schedules and maximize efficiency.

Predictive maintenance: Use AI-driven analytics on live panel data to anticipate issues before they affect yield.

Standards-based-NTN-NB-IoT-and-renewables

Substations and Energy Storage: Always On Visibility

Operational intelligence: Monitoring of non-critical systems such as HVAC, enclosures, and backup units.

Battery and inverter performance: Sensors measure temperature, usage, and degradation to inform maintenance planning.

Local environment tracking: Monitor heat, moisture, and vibration to prevent minor issues from becoming outages.

 

Where it fits:

NTN NB-IoT is ideal for high volume, low data, latency tolerant applications. It gives operators affordable, long life visibility at scale across their renewable infrastructure.

Proprietary Satellite IoT: Real-Time Insight Where It Matters

While NTN NB-IoT delivers scalable connectivity for thousands of sensors, proprietary satellite IoT systems provide the other half of the equation: real time, high reliability communication for mission critical operations. These networks offer ‘always on’ control, richer data throughput, and the assured latency required for safety and command functions.
 

Wind Energy: Instant Awareness in Dynamic Environments

Turbine control and fault response: Enable immediate shutdown or restart commands when thresholds are exceeded, ensuring equipment protection and safety in offshore or isolated farms.

Crew safety: Maintain two way communication and emergency alerts for personnel working in remote or hazardous environments.

Data rich diagnostics: Support higher bandwidth uploads of vibration or acoustic data for detailed drivetrain and gearbox analysis.

Solar and Storage: Real-Time Control and Reliability

Critical fault alerts: Provide sub-minute notifications for inverter trips, arc faults, or temperature spikes, with confirmed two way acknowledgments.

Grid dispatch and load balancing: Coordinate distributed storage and solar assets for rapid response to grid frequency or demand changes.

Remote updates and control: Push firmware and configuration changes securely to field devices.

Satellite-IoT-and-renewables

Substations and Microgrids: Control-Plane Resilience

SCADA continuity: Maintain command and telemetry when terrestrial networks fail to ensure operational visibility.

Command assurance: Provide guaranteed message delivery with acknowledgments for critical operational controls.

Local environment tracking: Monitor heat, moisture, and vibration to prevent minor issues from becoming outages.
 

Where it fits:

Proprietary satellite IoT excels in real time, safety critical, or data rich applications where latency, reliability, and assured control are essential.

Working Together: The Hybrid Model for Connected Renewables

Across the renewable ecosystem, both satellite technologies have distinct but complementary roles. Together, they can create a resilient hybrid connectivity framework: NTN NB-IoT for scalable insight, and proprietary satellite for mission critical control. This combination ensures every renewable asset, from panel to turbine, stays connected and performs at its best.

Feature / Attribute
Standards-Based NTN NB-IoT*
Proprietary Satellite IoT*
Hybrid Model (NTN NB-IoT + Proprietary Satellite)
Max Practical Payload
Up to 256 bytes
Up to 100,000 bytes (100 KB)
Mix of both profiles depending on use case
Typical Latency
10–60 seconds (can extend to 2–5 minutes depending on satellite pass)
10 seconds typical
Flexible. Real time via proprietary satellite IoT, scheduled via NTN NB-IoT
Best For
Low data, latency tolerant sensing across large asset fleets
Real time, safety critical, or data rich communication
Combining scale with responsiveness
Example Applications
Blade or panel monitoring, inverter and battery health, environmental sensing
SCADA backhaul, curtailment commands, crew safety, firmware updates, detailed diagnostics
Wide area condition monitoring plus selective real time control
Key Benefits
Ultra low power, long battery life, affordable scaling
Near real time, two way connectivity, proven reliability, supports richer datasets
Delivers cost efficiency and resilience. Low power coverage for mass assets and real time connectivity for critical operations

*Example service information based on Viasat NB-NTN (Standards-based NTN NB-IoT) and Iridium IMT (Proprietary Satellite IoT)

Hybrid Connectivity Roadmap for Renewables Operators

As renewable energy networks expand, the goal isn’t to replace what works, it’s to build on proven reliability while scaling smarter, standards-based connectivity. Proprietary satellite IoT remains invaluable for mission critical operations and guaranteed uptime, but the arrival of standards-based NTN NB-IoT opens the door to a new class of affordable, low power devices that can extend data collection to every corner of a wind or solar site.

The most effective strategy is hybrid: utilize the robustness of proprietary satellite for control, command, and safety, while using NTN NB-IoT to scale data visibility across assets, sensors, and environmental systems. This staged approach allows operators to evolve without risk, modernizing their infrastructure, reducing costs, and enabling massive IoT integration at their own pace.

Stage 1: Proven Reliability (Today)

Focus on mission critical control and safety using proprietary satellite IoT for SCADA backhaul and alarms.

Stage 2: Scaling Visibility (2026–2027)

Introduce NTN NB-IoT sensors for turbine gearboxes, inverter performance, and solar panel strings. Hybrid solutions use satellite where cellular fails.

Stage 3: Massive IoT Integration (2027–2028)

Deploy thousands of NB-IoT sensors across all assets. Integrate data streams into unified cloud platforms such as Cloudloop for full fleet visibility.

Stage 4: Intelligent Operations (2028 Onwards)

Apply edge analytics and AI for predictive maintenance, automated scheduling, and output optimization. Proprietary satellite remains for safety; NB-IoT drives efficiency at scale.

Building Smarter, Greener, More Connected Energy Systems

As renewable energy capacity continues to expand, the focus is shifting from generation to ensuring every asset, from turbines and inverters to panels and storage systems, remains visible, connected, and performing efficiently. Connectivity is now the foundation that enables data driven operations, predictive maintenance, and long term resilience.

Standards-based satellite IoT is making that connected vision achievable. By combining the reliability of proprietary satellite networks for mission critical control with the scalability of NTN NB-IoT for widespread monitoring, operators can design hybrid systems that balance performance, coverage, and cost. This approach turns isolated assets into part of a cohesive, intelligent network, one capable of supporting the next phase of renewable energy growth.

The transition to hybrid connectivity isn’t just about technology; it’s about creating the operational flexibility to expand confidently. By integrating both proven and emerging IoT standards, renewable energy operators can maintain uptime where it matters most, scale visibility across every site, and continue to build an energy generation system that’s smarter, cleaner, and ready for the future.

Need help building hybrid connectivity?

With over two decades of experience connecting critical infrastructure in some of the world’s most remote environments, Ground Control helps organizations design reliable, scalable satellite and IoT networks.

From mission critical systems to large scale sensor deployments, our team can guide you in combining proprietary and standards-based solutions to keep every renewable asset online and visible.

Name
Privacy Policy

Standards-based satellite IoT is finally usable for real workloads, but only if you understand where it works today, what it costs, and how to design for its constraints.

Our new eBook, Decoding NTN: The Reality Behind Standards-Based Satellite IoT, sets out a pragmatic view of NTN for IoT teams planning 2026 – 27 deployments.

Inside, we translate standards-speak into decisions you can act on: when NB-IoT vs LTE Cat-1 over satellite makes sense, how minimum session size and protocol overhead (NIDD vs UDP/IP) shape data budgets, and what today’s coverage and SCS approvals mean for rollout planning. You’ll get a plain English decision matrix and realistic timelines so you can deploy with confidence rather than hype.

Read Free eBook
Pages-from-NTN-eBook

What's Inside

Map-and-Pointer-Icon

Coverage, not hype

Current footprint, line of sight, and SCS approvals

Balanced-Scale-Icon

Payload Economics

Minimum session size, NIDD vs UDP/IP, and payload planning

Checklist-Icon

Right Tool, Right Job

NB‑IoT vs LTE Cat‑1 over satellite vs proprietary

Calendar-Icon-Duotone

Plan with Dates

2026 expectations and the 2027 ecosystem ramp

Why This eBook, Now

There’s been no shortage of headlines about direct to device (D2D) and “everywhere coverage”, yet many claims blend marketing terms with evolving standards. In practice, NTN means running existing cellular standards – NB-IoT or LTE – over a satellite link. That shift promises simpler hardware and a shared device ecosystem, but it also introduces satellite-specific realities: higher/variable latency, small cost-optimized data volumes, line of sight requirements and country by country enablement.

Our goal with this eBook is to separate signal from noise. We focus on what works now with NTN NB-IoT, what’s likely next with LTE Cat-1 over satellite, and when a proprietary service remains the right answer.

Coverage Today: Useful, Not Universal

The phrase “global coverage” is seductive. The reality is more localised. Current NTN availability concentrates in specific regions (with notable gaps over oceans and in many countries), and depends on national approvals often referred to as Supplemental Coverage from Space (SCS). In other words, you switch service on country by country, which means deployment plans should be validated market by market. The eBook explains how to assess coverage for your intended regions, including practical placement advice for your antenna.

Payloads and Minimum Session Size: Every Byte Counts

If you’re coming from terrestrial NB‑IoT, airtime budgeting over satellite is different. The cost optimized range for NB‑NTN is small (tens of kilobytes per device per month), and protocol choice has an outsized impact. Non‑IP Data Delivery (NIDD) keeps overheads lean for micro‑telemetry; UDP/IP is often simpler to integrate but adds bytes you’ll pay for. Some providers impose a minimum session size that can negate NIDD’s benefits for very small payloads. The eBook includes concrete examples of payload budgeting and shows when NIDD becomes attractive as commercial offers evolve.

Reliability by Design

Satellite introduces distance and scheduling. Expect higher/variable latency than cellular, and design sensible send cadences if you want predictable costs and battery life. If your use case needs near‑real time interaction or frequent updates, a proprietary IP service is usually the right tool; if you’re moving small, delay‑tolerant telemetry a few times a day, NTN services can be an excellent fit.

NB‑IoT vs LTE Cat‑1 Over Satellite

NTN is an umbrella that covers both NB‑IoT and LTE Cat‑1 waveforms. They serve different jobs. NB‑IoT over satellite fits tiny, infrequent messages on multi‑year batteries. LTE Cat‑1 over satellite suits lighter, less time critical IoT sessions where you may need occasional configuration changes or small bursts of data, typically with external power or larger batteries. The eBook includes a decision matrix to help you map each device profile to the right path.

Timelines You Can Plan Against

We outline what’s available now, what’s expected in 2026 (including anticipated support that may improve minimum session sizes), and how the broader ecosystem is likely to ramp into 2027. We also provide a sober view on “ubiquity”: harmonised experiences across orbits and architectures will take time, and national approvals will continue to shape availability.

When Proprietary Services are Still the Better Choice

If your application needs interactive, two way IP sessions, predictable low latency, or larger payloads, proprietary services remain the workhorses. The eBook compares message‑based proprietary options (efficient for small bursts) with IP‑based services (best for control loops, richer telemetry or firmware deltas), so you can decide on merit rather than ideology.

Get the Full eBook

If your devices operate beyond terrestrial coverage, this eBook gives you the practical guidance to de-risk deployments: how to validate coverage market by market, budget payloads with minimum session size in mind, and decide when NB-IoT or LTE Cat-1 over satellite (or proprietary alternatives) will best serve your requirements.

You’ll find vendor-agnostic explanations, real world constraints stated plainly (line of sight, latency, approvals), operator perspectives from recent panels, and a simple decision matrix you can adapt into your specification. It’s written for product, firmware and operations teams who want clear, testable criteria – not hype.

Download Free eBook
Front-Cover-of-Decoding-NTN-eBook-2

Talk to our Team

If you’d like to talk to the Ground Control team about your remote IOT application, please email hello@groundcontrol.com or complete the form. We have over 20 years of experience in delivering satellite connectivity, and work with major satellite network operators including Iridium, Viasat, OneWeb and Starlink.

Note: You don’t need to complete the form to get the eBook; just click on one of the links, it is an ungated resource.

Name
Privacy Policy