Low Earth Orbit satellites have become enormously popular over the past few years. Starlink is obviously the name most people know, but it is only part of a much bigger development. Companies all over the world are building new satellite constellations, telecom operators are experimenting with direct-to-device connections and smartphones are slowly gaining the ability to communicate with satellites without requiring a traditional satellite phone.
It is another example of something I wrote about earlier in The Space Economy Is Taking Off (https://justme.website/tech/the-space-economy-is-taking-off/): space is increasingly becoming an economic infrastructure rather than something mainly associated with governments, science and spectacular rocket launches.
But whenever a technology suddenly attracts this much attention, another question becomes interesting. What can it actually do? And perhaps even more importantly: what can’t it do?
Strand Consult has published two reports that provide some useful context here. They look specifically at Low Earth Orbit satellite networks and the increasingly popular idea of connecting ordinary mobile devices directly to satellites.See here for more information: https://strandconsult.dk/leo-satellites-the-hype-the-facts-and-the-hard-limits/?utm_campaign=31.+august+2026+-+Presse+-+LEO+Satellites+The+Hype+the+Facts+and+the+Hard+Limits505128.
Satellites are very good at filling gaps
The obvious advantage of satellites is coverage. Building mobile towers and fibre networks makes economic sense in cities and densely populated areas. It becomes much more complicated in mountains, deserts, at sea or in sparsely populated regions. LEO satellites can reach those places without having to build a physical network across every square kilometer of land.
That makes direct-to-device satellite communication particularly interesting as an extension of existing mobile networks. A phone could use a terrestrial network most of the time and switch to a satellite connection when there simply isn’t a mobile tower nearby. That sounds extremely useful. And it probably will be.
But space doesn’t magically create unlimited bandwidth
What I found particularly interesting about the Strand Consult reports is that they also look at the limits. Satellites have limited spectrum and limited capacity. A satellite beam covering a large geographical area has to share that capacity between users underneath it. That is very different from a city packed with mobile base stations, each covering a relatively small area and collectively handling enormous amounts of data.
In remote areas, satellites can therefore be an excellent solution. In densely populated cities with huge amounts of traffic, terrestrial networks are much harder to beat. Strand Consult also points to regulatory issues around spectrum and the practical difficulties of scaling direct-to-cellular satellite services globally.
So the idea that satellites will simply replace mobile networks seems rather unlikely. More interesting is the idea that the two will increasingly work together.
And then there is the extreme scenario
The second Strand Consult report takes things a step further. It imagines the year 2045. The last mobile tower has been switched off and all mobile communication has moved into space. The report isn’t predicting that this will happen. It uses the scenario as a thought experiment: if we really wanted satellites to replace terrestrial mobile networks completely, what would we actually have to build?
The answer involves enormous numbers of satellites, spectrum, network capacity, regulation, investment and geopolitical coordination. Which is exactly why I find these reports interesting. The space economy really is taking off. Satellite connectivity will almost certainly become far more important than it is today.
But that doesn’t mean every network belongs in space. Sometimes the most interesting thing about a new technology isn’t discovering what it can replace. It is discovering where it fits.