Blog Archives | Page 2 of 17

Even in the age of eSIM technology, there remain challenges in tracking road, rail and ocean freight across borders. This post focuses on a key challenge: connectivity. Less than 40 percent of the Earth’s land surface is covered by mobile networks. This figure drops to just 12 percent when oceans are taken into account. So, assets moving out of cellular coverage have had two options: accept gaps in tracking, or utilize satellite connectivity.

The former isn’t an appealing option; freight is vulnerable to theft, adverse weather conditions, damaged infrastructure (roads, bridges etc.), breakdowns etc., all of which can be mitigated, or at least dealt with rapidly, if real-time, global monitoring is available.

The latter – satellite connectivity – has been a mainstay of high value freight for many years, but the relatively high cost of satellite tracking devices, plus airtime, has meant that some organizations with extensive asset inventories or limited budgets haven’t been able to take advantage of the technology.

3GPP standards are poised to lower the cost barrier to satellite connectivity, both directly and indirectly, unlocking truly global asset tracking capabilities to the benefit of logistics, agriculture, manufacturing, healthcare, and many other industries.

3GPP’s Impact on Connectivity

3GPP is an initiative to create global standards for telecommunications, ensuring that a device developed and operated in North America would be able to connect to networks in Asia, Europe, Africa etc. As the name suggests, its original mission was to develop specifications for 3G mobile phones, but it has since created the specifications for 4G and 5G, with 6G in development.

Each revised version of the standards has a release number, and Release 17 was the first to accommodate non-terrestrial networks, or NTN. It was completed quite recently – Q3 2022 – and it will take time before devices utilizing this standard start hitting the market in volume.

What this means in this context is that a tracking device could use a single SIM to talk to both terrestrial and satellite constellations. There are several benefits from this:

There are millions more ‘terrestrial’ tracking devices than there are satellite-enabled ones, and because of these economies of scale, they’re generally much lower cost. If these devices are made with the ability to connect to both terrestrial and non-terrestrial networks, these same economies of scale will persist, and the cost of a satellite-enabled tracker will be lower.

Satellite networks haven’t really, until the advent of 3GPP, had to compete with one another, in the respect that if you want to use satellite connectivity, you need to buy a proprietary modem that communicates with a single satellite network only. Once it’s in place, if you want to change the network, you would physically need to change the modem. But if you have a standards-based SIM, in theory, you can switch your airtime to a different satellite constellation remotely, with the likely impact being that airtime costs will be more competitively priced.

Data analysis should be simpler; if your tracker is using the same networking language across multiple networks, for example, NB-IoT or LTE Cat-1, the ease with which you can integrate that data with your existing ERP, CRM or inventory management system is greatly enhanced.

Challenges With Implementing 3GPP

There are two ways to enable satellites to ‘speak’ the same language as terrestrial networks. The first is to modify the satellite, and the second is to modify the terrestrial device.

There is a limit to how much modification can be done to satellites that are already in orbit – some as far away as 35,786 kilometers from Earth. So the first option is currently the preserve of companies launching new satellite constellations. The key players here are Starlink, AST SpaceMobile, and Lynk. They are all in the process of launching satellites that are compatible with unmodified LTE-compatible devices. Their largest market is going to be cellphone users, but they’re all anticipating offering an IoT variation; Starlink is likely to be the first to market with this, some time in 2025.

However, they have a key challenge which restricts the global accessibility of these services; they don’t have access to the radio frequencies best suited to IoT and tracking applications. Licensed radio spectrum has been allocated for many years; for satellite network operators it’s called MSS (Mobile Satellite Service) spectrum, and for terrestrial network operators, it’s called MNO spectrum.

In the absence of licensed spectrum, the new satellite network operators have to collaborate with terrestrial network operators to use their spare spectrum. Starlink has agreements with T-Mobile to provide service to the USA, for example, whereas AST SpaceMobile has agreements with AT&T and Verizon. But if your truck or train traveled into Mexico, where Starlink does not, at the time of writing, have an MNO partner, the service would no longer be available.

Given that not all MNOs have spare spectrum – consider Europe and parts of Asia, where networks are already congested – it is unlikely that global service will be available in the next few years.

The second way to implement 3GPP is to update the terrestrial devices that talk to the satellites, and this is the preferred option of the legacy satellite network operators (SNOs). Viasat (previously Inmarsat) and Iridium are the leading SNOs exploring this; they have the advantage of having licensed spectrum, so their services will be globally available from launch.

But, and there’s a big ‘but’ here, they are looking at NB-IoT as their networking language rather than LTE, most probably because it is better suited to existing satellites which weren’t designed for high volumes of high bandwidth traffic. There are far fewer IoT and tracking devices that utilize NB-IoT than there are LTE-enabled devices, so it will take time for the device manufacturers to catch up.

Further, because not all of the satellite network operators have adopted the same networking language, a future in which you can negotiate on price with your SNO because there are several competitors vying for your business is further away.

However, having options to patch the gaps in cellular coverage, particularly as operators are turning off 2G, is a clear positive. If your device has a limited power source – solar or battery – LTE Cat-1 may well not be suitable. So a global in-fill of NTN NB-IoT – which is ideal for low power devices – overcomes the challenge of restricted roaming, and patchy terrestrial LTE-M and NB-IoT.

Diagram showing 3GPP standards-enabled IoT devices

Where Does Direct-to-Device Come Into Play?

This is sometimes confused / used interchangeably with 3GPP standards-based communication, but it’s not the same thing. D2D refers to the ability for an unmodified terrestrial device to speak to a satellite, but it doesn’t have to be communicating using a standards-based language like LTE or NB-IoT.

The most well-known example of a non-standards-based D2D solution is Globalstar’s collaboration with Apple; Apple updated its handsets to speak to the Globalstar constellation, but they can’t ‘roam’ on to other satellite networks; it’s a proprietary, rather than a standards-based, solution.

Speaking of Proprietary Solutions…

It’s important to stress that proprietary-enabled tracking devices – such as those that use Iridium, Viasat or Globalstar for connectivity – are far from ‘over’. For a start, they already use the most efficient means of communication with satellites, because the devices were designed in conjunction with the satellites. They can send more data, and offer greater flexibility in terms of how that data is transmitted (i.e. IP-based, messages etc.), than standards-based propositions.

Because the narrative around 3GPP standards is chiefly around lower costs, this has already had an impact on satellite connectivity. For the first time, SNOs are enabling their proprietary modems to be incorporated into mass-produced chipsets. This will, through simple economies of scale, lead to a lower price for proprietary modems, making this an increasingly viable option for tracking trucks, trains, ships etc.

As an example, the incredibly small and light, solar-powered and satellite-enabled GSatSolar asset tracking device retails at just $199, with airtime costing <$5 per month (depending on the number of locations you want transmitting).

What Should You Consider for Your Asset Tracking Application?

Firstly, while standards-based devices promise much in the way of cost-savings and ease of implementation, it will be several years before this promise is realized. Mass deployment of devices and adequate supplier competition to influence airtime pricing is unlikely to happen before 2026-27. Further, it’s not clear how the new satellite constellations will overcome their spectrum challenges; although, where there’s a will, there’s usually a way!

In the short to medium-term, the good news is that existing proprietary satellite tracking solutions have, and continue to, come down in price. Our recommendation is to place inquiries and find out what the art of the possible is for your application.

Can we help you with your asset tracking project?

As a company that’s designed and built asset tracking solutions for over 20 years, Ground Control is well placed to help you navigate the dizzying array of options; get in touch – we’re here to help.

Complete the form, or email hello@groundcontrol.com, and we’ll come back to you within one working day.

The Internet of Things (IoT) market is set to grow globally by 18.8% over the next five years, fueled by advancements in 5G and AI technologies, rising demand for automation, and the expanding application of IoT across various industries.

For IoT applications in remote areas beyond the reach of 5G cellular towers, such as environmental monitoring and asset tracking in isolated regions, mountainous terrains, open oceans, and across multiple borders, continuous connectivity remains a challenge. In these scenarios, businesses often turn to satellite IoT, but the perceived high cost and apparent lack of interoperability with terrestrial networking technology may present barriers.

Direct-to-Device (D2D) technology is emerging as a transformative solution to these challenges, poised to revolutionize the IoT marketplace. But before we get to that, let’s clarify what’s meant by the various “direct-to-cell, direct-to-device, direct-to-mobile” terms being bandied about.

Direct to Device Diagram

What is Direct-to-Cell?

Direct-to-Cell (D2C) is a form of satellite connectivity that enables smartphone users to perform basic functions like texting, calling and basic internet browsing when outside of cellular coverage, with no modifications needed to their cell phone.

This service can be provided in one of two ways: firstly, the satellite network operator (SNO) may partner with a mobile network operator (MNO), and provide the service using the MNO’s licensed terrestrial radio frequencies. In order to do this, both the SNO and the MNO need to use the same waveform technology, e.g. 4G/LTE. This requires the satellites to be designed and deployed with this capability; effectively, it is the satellite that is modified to work with the device, rather than the device being modified to work with the satellite. An example of this is Starlink’s partnership with T-Mobile in the USA.

Secondly, cell phone manufacturers can update their devices to allow them to talk to satellite constellations. This can either be delivered through proprietary solutions – i.e. the handset is updated to allow it to ‘talk’ to a single satellite constellation only (for example, Globalstar’s partnership with Apple) – or via a standards-based solution which can talk to multiple compatible networks, i.e. 5G NTN (NR, NB-IoT, eMTC).

In the case of the latter – where the necessary adjustments are made on the cell phone rather than the satellite – there are a limited number of smartphones that have been made compatible with 5G NTN, including the Google Pixel 9; we’d expect to see this increase in the future.

Diagram showing the three types of D2D Connectivity

Image credit: Peter Kibutu, Advanced 5G NTN Technology Lead, TTP

What is Direct-to-Device?

Direct-to-Device (D2D) enables unmodified IoT devices, such as asset tracking beacons and temperature sensors, to transmit data over satellite when cellular is not available. This means that no extra hardware or software is needed to deploy a sensor outside of cellular coverage, or to monitor an asset moving in and out of cellular connectivity.

The difference between Direct-to-Cell and Direct-to-Device is simply the device being connected; in the case of the former it refers to cell phones; in the case of the latter, to IoT devices. They are often used interchangeably – Starlink, for example, refers to both phone and IoT device connectivity as Direct to Cell, whereas analysts Deloitte refer to both as Direct to Device.

For the purposes of this post, we’ll be focusing on IoT applications, and will stick to ‘Direct to Device’.

How Does D2D Work?

Similarly to D2C, there are two ways to deliver D2D. The first is to launch new satellites specifically designed to talk to existing IoT devices, and the second is to add an inexpensive chip to IoT devices so that they can talk to existing satellite networks. This could either be a proprietary chip, which allows the device to speak to a single satellite network, or a standards-based chip, which, in theory, would allow the device to roam on to any network built to the same standards.

There are pros and cons to each approach; in the case of purpose-built satellites, the main plus is that there is a large market of existing devices. However, as we will see, there are performance, spectrum, funding and regulatory challenges to overcome. In the case of new chipsets, whether standards-based or proprietary, it will take time for these to be developed and deployed at scale.

“What technical approach will predominate—one where chipsets in smartphones power satellite communication or where satellites act more as space-based cell towers enabled by network-on-the-edge architecture? In either case, advancement in both satellite and smartphone technology will likely be necessary to enable the full potential of D2D.” – Deloitte Center for Technology, Media & Telecommunications

What Role do Standards-Based Technologies Have to Play in D2D?

There are three cellular-based technologies designed for widespread IoT devices: NB-IoT, LTE-M, and LTE Cat 1. There are lots of blog posts dedicated to the pros and cons of each technology; as a very quick summary, NB-IoT and LTE-M use less power than LTE Cat 1, but LTE Cat 1 has higher data rates and lower latency.

Capabilities of Cellular Technologies for Supporting IoT Applications - Table

LTE Cat 1 is available wherever there is a 4G LTE network; which covers most of the Earth’s population centers. LTE-M and NB-IoT network technologies are less widely available; 253 mobile network operators have launched NB-IoT or LTE-M networks in 81 countries, of which 173 operators have focused on NB-IoT, and 80 have focused on LTE-M (source).

The satellite network operators working on the delivery of D2D have not all chosen the same cellular technology. Starlink, AST Space Mobile and Lynk have all selected LTE Cat 1, whereas Iridium and Viasat have chosen NB-IoT.

This is probably because the more power-hungry LTE Cat 1 technology would create too great a resource drain on legacy satellite constellations which were not built for high volumes of high speed internet traffic. Equally, where there is no cellular infrastructure, there is often no power source, so an NB-IoT device that can last for years on a single battery is an appealing proposition.

Ultimately, systems integrators will need to make an informed decision about the most suitable technology for their requirements, based on service availability, data volume, latency, and power supply; this will then determine on to which networks their devices can roam.

Who are the Satellite Operators in the Direct-to-Device Market?

LTE Services:

As a major disruptor, Starlink is poised to play a significant role in the D2D market. With the capability to build and launch its own satellites via SpaceX, Starlink has already deployed over 100 D2D satellites and plans to launch over 7,500 more. This will support their goal of providing high-speed, low-latency global connectivity for both mobile and IoT technologies.

AST SpaceMobile is making strides with plans to launch its first five commercial satellites in Autumn 2024. AST SpaceMobile has established agreements with over 40 mobile network operators. Backed by strategic investments from giants like Google, AT&T, Vodafone, and Verizon, AST has the potential to be a significant player in the D2D market.

Lynk has already launched satellites and secured relationships with mobile network operators in over 50 countries. Like Starlink and AST SpaceMobile, Lynk uses LTE standards to deliver 5G space-based connectivity directly to existing smartphones.

NTN NB-IoT Services:

Viasat, which now combines Viasat and Inmarsat satellites under the same brand, has satellites in geostationary orbit; 37,785 Km above the Earth. This means that the latency - the time taken for a data packet to be sent, received, and sent back to the ground station - is longer than satellites in Low Earth Orbit.

On the other hand, NTN NB-IoT is well suited to devices that are stationary, and send data several times a day, rather than needing a real-time connection. Viasat’s satellites have good capacity and fewer power limitations than satellites in LEO, so this is a company well placed to deliver on NTN NB-IoT in the near future.

Iridium’s Project Stardust signals their intention to move away from solely proprietary satellite IoT solutions towards standards-based solutions. Iridium aims to enhance its D2D strategy by leveraging its established low Earth orbit (LEO) satellite network for 5G standards-based IoT and NTN services. Iridium aims to collaborate with OEMs and MNOs to integrate satellite capabilities into IoT devices.

Challenges in Rolling out Direct-to-Device

Radio Spectrum Allocation. Long-standing satellite network operators like Viasat and Iridium have licensed L-band spectrum which is ideal for IoT applications; it doesn’t require a large antenna, and is resistant to rain-fade. They can choose to allocate some of this spectrum to enable D2D.

New satellite network operators like Starlink, AST SpaceMobile and Lynk, however, need to forge partnerships with mobile network operators – T-Mobile, Verizon, Telefónica etc. – so that some of their licensed spectrum can be allocated to satellite connectivity.

This means that, for these SNOs, D2D service is only available where partnerships exist. Starlink, for example, has agreements with T-Mobile for the USA, Optus for Australia, Rogers for Canada, and several more; but is very far away from having global coverage.

There also needs to be ‘spare’ MNO spectrum available for use. In larger land masses with dispersed populations like Australia and Canada (respectively, the 6th and 9th least densely populated countries on Earth), this doesn’t present a huge issue. But consider parts of Europe or Asia; the new SNOs will have a much greater challenge gaining partnerships in densely populated countries.

Performance. As briefly mentioned earlier, the “legacy” satellite constellations of Viasat and Iridium weren’t conceived with high volumes of high speed traffic in mind. Hence the choice of NB-IoT as the networking technology, as NB-IoT’s waveform can be transmitted efficiently via satellites, with far less power required than LTE Cat 1bis – both on the device side and on the satellites themselves.

This doesn’t mean that Starlink, AST SpaceMobile etc. have a free-for-all in terms of capacity. Starlink coverage over the USA, for example, is, according to Elon Musk, anticipated to be 7 MB per beam (and the beams are very large). All users – both IoT devices and cell phone users – share that capacity, so congestion and bandwidth limitations are possibilities.

Regulatory. This is a challenge for the new satellite constellations, leveraging MNO spectrum. As Device-to-Device (D2D) communication extends beyond national borders, it poses significant challenges to existing regulatory frameworks and spectrum management practices. Since D2D users can operate in remote regions where traditional mobile networks don’t reach, their activity may span across countries. This makes it essential for neighboring nations to collaborate closely on spectrum management.

Additionally, roaming regulations, licensing, and authorizations may need to adapt, as D2D service providers are no longer confined to one country. This could lead to the development of regional or international licensing systems and potentially even an international regulatory body (source).

Funding. Companies taking the route of launching satellites compatible with terrestrial waveform technologies have a huge CapEx challenge; in order to provide service, they need to launch many satellites, at no small expense, and then bank on subscribers turning up in their tens of thousands in order to recoup their costs.

The business case for D2D purely in the context of IoT is that these new constellations will be able to communicate with unmodified cellular IoT devices – which are far lower cost than current satellite IoT devices – thus unlocking a new, lower price point for hardware. But lower costs means more subscribers need to be found before the SNO is profitable.

Existing satellite IoT applications are often mission-critical and need sureties of data delivery and speeds that D2D may not be able to deliver; thus D2D isn’t likely to dramatically cannibalize the existing satellite IoT market. New use cases need to be found, and use cases with thousands, if not tens of thousands, of endpoints.

This is a bit of a gamble when almost all of the costs have to be incurred before service can be delivered. It is possible that some of the new entrants will run out of steam before their services are commercially available.

When Will Direct-to-Device Services Be Available?

In the context of cellphones, D2D is already available, through Globalstar’s partnership with Apple. In this case, the manufacturer modified the cellphone to talk to Globalstar’s satellite network. However, this proprietary approach has proven unpopular; Iridium and Qualcomm took a similar proposition to market and ultimately shelved the project.

In terms of a standards-based D2D service, there are some early solutions being tested as we write (in September 2024). Notably Skylo, leveraging Viasat and Ligado’s satellite constellations, have partnered with several device manufacturers to develop chipsets that can be added to terrestrial devices to deliver D2D functionality.

Taking the opposite approach – with satellites built for D2D, and needing no changes to devices – Starlink have announced that they intend to offer IoT services at some point in 2025. These will be limited to the areas where Starlink has an MNO partner.

With several technical hurdles still to overcome, it’s our view that we’ll start to see larger deployments of D2D IoT devices no earlier than 2026. In the meantime, however, the buzz around lower hardware pricing is already starting to impact proprietary solutions, with Iridium and Viasat for the first time allowing mass chipset manufacturers to build hybrid devices with their modems. These economies of scale should see proprietary satellite IoT hardware reducing in price, unlocking new applications for satellite IoT long before standards-based D2D becomes a reality.

Additional sources:

Can we help?

It’s an exciting time to be working on a remote IoT or tracking application, but with the greater volume of choice comes more uncertainty about the right service provider and networking technology for you.

We can help. We work with multiple satellite network operators with both standards-based and proprietary technology, and will provide you with unbiased, expert advice.

Complete the form or email hello@groundcontrol.com and we’ll get back to you within one working day.

Offshore wind farms represent the frontier of clean energy, located far from shore where the winds are strongest and most consistent. However, these remote locations present significant challenges for connectivity.

While wired connections to wind farms are frequently in place, integrating a wireless system alongside an existing wired connection for wind farms offers significant benefits, including easier sensor deployment, cost savings, and faster data acquisition.

Indeed, according to Turbit, a dedicated wireless SCADA network enhances data resilience, security, and transmission speed, allowing near real-time updates that can boost output by up to 5%.

Wireless Networking Options for Offshore Wind Farms

Adding a wireless network, though, isn’t always straightforward. If your wind farm is within 12 nautical miles of the mainland, you can use appropriately secured 4G/LTE. Over 12 miles, and you’re looking at either a private cellular network, or a satellite-enabled Low Power Wide Area Network (LPWAN).

Private cellular networks, although very cost-effective once set up, are expensive and time-consuming to get started with. A more agile option is to explore LPWAN technologies, and this is where the advent of standards-based networks has the potential to unlock new applications.

To start with, the current options for setting up an LPWAN for your offshore wind farm (this also applies to the Offshore Support Vessels, USVs and buoys that support your operation) are:

1. Use an LPWAN such as LoRa to locally network your sensors, aggregate the data in a gateway, then use a satellite IoT transceiver to transmit the aggregated data.

Pros of a LoRa-Based LPWAN

No cellular connectivity is required for a LoRa network
Most turbines don’t need a dedicated transceiver to communicate with the satellite network; only the turbine hosting the gateway needs this. This reduces the hardware costs
Moving data within a LoRaWAN is very low cost
Either the gateway or the transceiver should have edge computing capabilities, so that the aggregated data can be processed, and only the necessary information transmitted. This ensures that costs are minimized.

Cons of a LoRa-Based LPWAN

The data rate for LoRaWAN is limited to 50 Kbps, which may constrain applications
If you have the option of using a commercial operated LoRaWAN, it’s more expensive to transmit data than if you set up a private LoRa network
Setting up a private LoRa network is resource-hungry: you’ll need to purchase the gateway(s) and a network server, write the firmware, and create the connections.

2. Individually connect your sensors to a satellite IoT transceiver to form a satellite LPWAN.

Pros of a Satellite-Based LPWAN

No cellular infrastructure is required for satellite IoT connectivity
There’s no limitation in the distance between your sensors; your OSVs, USVs and data buoys can all be connected, even if they’re many miles apart
There is no impact on the reliability of transmissions in extreme weather conditions
It’s very secure: data is hard to intercept while in space, and firewalls, VPNs and private lines protect your data once it’s earth-bound again
Depending on your choice of transceiver, data rates can be as high as 464 Kbps
It’s fast and easy to get started with – satellite modems can communicate with most programming languages.

Cons of a Satellite-Based LPWAN

Cost. Both the transceivers and the airtime are higher cost than purchasing LoRa transceiver radio modules, and using a LoRa network.

So, network engineers have a choice: commit the time, effort and money to build a LoRa network paired with a single satellite IoT transceiver, and enjoy long-term low costs. Or, accept that the operating expenditure will be higher, and move more quickly with a satellite LPWAN.

What we tend to find is that the selection depends on the number of sensors: if there are relatively few, engineers like the speed, ease and flexibility of a satellite LPWAN. If there are many, the long-term cost-saving benefits of a LoRa network coupled with a satellite transceiver win out.

But what if the cost of each satellite IoT transceiver was lower? This would mean that more sensors could be individually paired with a transceiver, while costs remained within budget.

Lower module costs is one of the benefits expected to materialize from 3GPP standards-based technology, so let’s get into it.

What is 3GPP?

3GPP (3rd Generation Partnership Project) is a global collaboration aimed at standardizing telecommunications infrastructure. Established in 1998, it ensures that developers worldwide follow a unified approach in cellular technology development. One of its key achievements, “Release 17” in 2021, introduced satellite connectivity into the mix.

If a satellite network complies with 3GPP standards, a device – which could be a cellphone or an IoT device – equipped with a compatible 3GPP modem can seamlessly switch from cell tower coverage to satellite connectivity without any service interruption or the need for additional hardware. This is usually referred to as direct to cell (in the context of cellphones), or direct to device (in the context of everything else).

Diagram showing 3GPP standards-enabled IoT devices

How Will 3GPP Standards-Based Technology Impact IoT Connectivity?

1. Lower Cost of Modems

There are millions more cellular-based IoT connections than there are satellite connections. So if you only need to buy one modem to communicate with your device, many more dual-function modems will be manufactured than satellite-only modems. Customers should, therefore, benefit from economies of scale, and a lower cost modem.

An important adjacent effect of 3GPP here is that incumbent satellite network operations like Iridium and Viasat have begun enabling chip manufacturers to incorporate their proprietary standards into mass production chips. That means that the cost of proprietary satellite modems is coming down too, again because of economies of scale.

2. Supplier Switching

Today’s satellite-only modems each talk to a specific satellite network. The ST6100, for example, talks to Viasat’s geostationary satellites. RockBLOCK 9603 communicates with the Iridium Low Earth Orbit satellite constellation. GSatSolar talks to the Globalstar network. If you want to change your satellite network, you’ll need a new modem – these are proprietary systems.

Conversely, the 3GPP standards-based modems will, in principle, talk to any satellite network that’s 3GPP-compatible. Meaning you could switch your airtime supplier without needing to replace any hardware. This may have the effect of making airtime rates more predictable, as competition to retain customers’ business will force greater pricing transparency.

Which Satellite Networks Will Support 3GPP Standards-Based Modules?

In this context, it’s helpful to structure the satellite network operators (SNOs) into three ‘classes’:

1. Established SNOs, which include Viasat and Iridium.

These operators have an advantage in that they have licensed radio spectrum in the L-Band frequency (perfect for IoT data transmissions), and global landing rights. This means their services are very widely available, and are extremely reliable, as their bandwidth is not heavily contested.

However, they need to retro-fit their satellites to support this new technology, and that’s not trivial. Viasat, via their partnership with Skylo, can connect with NB-IoT modems in North America and Europe, but have work to do to make their services more widely available. Iridium are working towards a release date of 2027 (anticipated to also be NB-IoT compatible).

2. Well-funded new constellations; chief among them Starlink.

Starlink’s best-known service is, of course, broadband internet for residential purposes. The satellites that serve these requirements are not the same as the satellites Starlink has launched since January 2024 to serve direct to cell.

The new Starlink direct to cell satellites are compatible with LTE devices back on Earth – specifically CAT-1, CAT-1 Bis, and CAT-4 modems – and service is expected at some point in 2025. Starlink does, however, have a challenge that the longer-established satellite network operators don’t have; it doesn’t have licensed radio spectrum. So Starlink partners with mobile network operators like T-Mobile in the USA and Optus in Australia to lease some of their licensed radio spectrum. Service is restricted to where these partnerships exist.

3. Innovative start-ups like Sateliot and OQ Technologies.

These companies were founded to capitalize on standards-based technology, and their satellites have been designed for this purpose. Currently, these start-ups are limited by the number of satellites they have in orbit; according to NewSpace Index, Sateliot have five, and OQ have 10 in Low Earth Orbit. This means that your sensor will need to wait for a satellite to pass overhead, perhaps once or twice a day, before it can send its data.

It’s early days, however, and both are planning to launch more satellites over the coming years. In the meantime, they are inviting people to join their early adopters program, and building partnerships with mobile network operators in much the same vein as Starlink; to leverage their licensed spectrum in areas not served by terrestrial infrastructure.

When Will Standards-Based Modems be Available?

Non-Terrestrial Network (NTN) NB-IoT modems are available now, but with limitations on coverage and bandwidth. The full promise of these advancements will be realized when there are multiple global providers, but there are issues to work out – for example, the power drain on a satellite that previously had 50,000 devices talking to it at any given time, now needing to move the data for 10, even 100 times, the number of devices.

There’s also the need for partnerships between the new satellite network and terrestrial network operators to establish global coverage – so we estimate that 2027 onwards is when we’ll see widespread adoption.

That said, as mentioned above, we’re already experiencing some of the benefits of this innovation, in that SNOs like Iridium and Viasat are set to both adopt the standards but more importantly enable their proprietary modems to be made by mass chip manufacturers, enabling price reductions from their scale.

So the shift, in some respects, is already here; you can more economically connect individual sensors using proprietary systems. As airtime and device pricing for standards-based modems becomes clearer in the coming years, you’ll have to make a choice about the best technology for your project; but the impact of standards on affordability is being felt today.

What are the Advantages of Proprietary Systems?

Proprietary systems – e.g. where an Iridium modem talks to an Iridium satellite only – are likely to remain, as they will retain advantages over standards-based systems.

“From a technical perspective, there is no definitive conclusion as to which protocol strategy is better – using proprietary systems, 3GPP standards, or other standards-based systems such as LoRa. All have their advantages and disadvantages.” – Analysys Mason

The main advantages of a proprietary system are capacity and reliability. As any cell phone user knows, when there’s a lot of traffic in the system, cell phone service slows down or even stops. Managing substantial additional demand through a finite number of solar-powered satellites is likely to present similar challenges. Conversely, licensed waveforms will not be overwhelmed by traffic, which means that when you need complete confidence that your data will be transmitted, in as close to real-time as possible, they’ll remain the preferred choice.

For Offshore Wind companies, and indeed in most cases, some data are more critical than others. You need to know if a turbine has developed a fault in real-time; but you may be able to wait a few hours to find out what your data buoys are reporting in the respect of location, wave height, temperature, salinity etc. You need to be able to communicate in real-time with a UAV / unmanned vessel, but you can probably cope with receiving data from your vibration sensors a couple of times a day.

How to Choose the Best Satellite IoT Network

This is where a trusted IoT connectivity partner comes in. Companies like Ground Control, who work with multiple satellite network operators and networking protocols, can help you choose the most appropriate solution based on data rates, criticality, security, device mobility, and location.

We are on the beta test programs for several standards-based modems, and we’re constantly exploring new partnerships from both standards-based and proprietary system providers. We test every modem in-house so we can provide our customers with objective, expert advice.

Satellite IoT is exploding with new choices; it’s our role to simplify those choices so that you benefit from the most cost-effective, easy to implement and reliable connectivity for your application.

Get in Touch

We don’t operate a satellite network ourselves, but we do design, build and test satellite IoT hardware and supporting software solutions. This gives us an expert and objective view on the best networks and networking technology for your application.

Email us at hello@groundcontrol.com or complete the form, and we’ll be in touch within one working day.

As climate change continues to pose significant challenges to our planet, innovative technologies are emerging as critical tools in our efforts to mitigate its effects. Satellite tracking and the Internet of Things (IoT) are at the forefront of this technological revolution, providing invaluable data and insights across various domains.

From monitoring endangered species and tracking glacial retreat to combating illegal fishing and preserving forest health, these technologies are playing a vital role in understanding and addressing climate change. This blog post explores five key ways in which satellite tracking and IoT are transforming the fight against climate change.

1. Tracking Endangered Species

While estimates vary, scientists agree that extinction rates are far higher than the natural rate, due to loss of habitat, climate change and poaching. A 2019 United Nations report puts the figure at 30 to 50 percent of all species going extinct by 2050. This loss of biodiversity threatens ecosystems that support all life – and there are further negative implications for medicine, agriculture and recreation.

Technology has a vital role to play in arresting this decline. Animal tracking through collars and tags helps in several ways: firstly, the data captured can help scientists prioritize habitat conservation, and justify seasonal closures of sensitive areas to the public.

Secondly, it helps us understand the impact of climate change, and both natural and human-driven disasters on wildlife, such as how sperm whales were affected by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

Finally, animal tracking can prevent poaching, both by helping to predict endangered species’ movements, and in turn, the hunters trying to evade detection. In this instance, tracking collars are often also combined with intelligent camera traps, giving security forces more information on the threat, so they can respond appropriately.

Satellite connectivity is essential for tracking animals traveling outside of cellular coverage. Modems such as the Iridium 9603N are increasingly small and lightweight, and can be built into the tracking collars for mammals starting at 15 Kg body weight.

2. Monitoring Glacial Retreat

Glaciers are shrinking rapidly, with profound impacts on local hydrology, rising global sea levels, and the acceleration of natural hazards such as the creation of icebergs. However, the processes that go into glacial retreat are not well understood, leaving gaps in models designed to predict future impact.

Environmental scientists are working hard to plug these gaps, not least the team at the University of Southampton, who build and deploy Subglacial Probes and Ice Trackers. The Ice Tracker is a web-connected RTK GNSS-solution which measures glacier change and flow. It utilizes the RockBLOCK 9602 to transmit its data reliably and cost-effectively, with no dependency on terrestrial network availability.

After rigorous testing in Iceland, the goal is to roll out this technology around the world to see how different glaciers respond to global warming, and thus create more accurate models for predicting their impact.

Similarly, scientists from the Water and Ice Research Laboratory at Carleton University have developed a low-cost, satellite-enabled device to track icebergs. In the Arctic, as the sea ice retreats, more large icebergs are being calved; at the same time, shipping and fishing vessel traffic in the area has increased by 111% and 41% respectively.

Despite advances in monitoring, ships do still collide with icebergs; in the northern hemisphere, from 1980 to 2005, there were 57 incidents involving icebergs. With the addition of more icebergs and more ships, this risk has exponentially increased.

Tracking – and therefore being able to better predict the behavior of – icebergs mitigates the risks to marine vessels, and also supports scientific research into the effects of iceberg melt on ocean infrastructure and marine life.

The Cryologger is a data recording and telemetry platform that has been ruggedized so it can operate at Arctic temperatures. It utilizes a GNSS receiver, accelerometer, magnetometer and a RockBLOCK 9603 to transmit the data packets.

Data retrieved has already contributed to a database of iceberg tracking beacon tracks, providing insight into drift characteristics and distribution.

3. Combating Overfishing

According to Fishforward.eu, 29% of the world’s fish stocks are overfished; and a further 12-28% of the fishing world-wide is constituted by illegal and unregulated fishing. This is driven by demand, with each individual eating around twice as much fish as was consumed 50 years ago.

Right now, it’s other marine life that suffers the impact of overfishing. 70% of specific shark populations have been wiped out, and more than one-third of sharks, rays and skates are threatened with extinction.

And if nothing changes, in a few years time – some researchers predict as soon as 2048 – the world’s oceans will be virtually empty, leaving billions of people without their key source of protein, and millions of people missing their livelihood.

There are several solutions to this problem, as outlined by the Marine Stewardship Council; among them robust and enforced regulations preventing overfishing. The means of monitoring compliance is a Vessel Monitoring System, or VMS.

The device used to capture the telemetry on a vessel’s present and historical location, fuel used, catch size etc. needs to be tamper-proof and withstand the harsh marine environment. It needs to be reliable, accurate and have no connectivity ‘dead areas’.

VMS specialists Dualog (trading as Fangstr) and Pivotel chose the RockFLEET for their transmissions; it can use cellular when within range of a terrestrial network, and switches to the globally available Iridium satellite constellation when cellular is not available.

RockFLEET-being-used-for-Vessel-Monitoring-Systems

4. Preventing Deforestation

Forests are both affected by climate change, and a key defense against it. Forests capture and store carbon, but when forests are cleared, burned or degraded, they release that carbon back into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide, which contributes to climate change.

Deforestation – the clearing of forests, usually to plant crops in its place – contributes 12 to 20 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. Degraded forests also contribute; a degraded forest may emit more carbon than it captures, becoming a carbon source rather than a carbon sink. Degradation typically occurs when illegal logging operations take place; loggers bulldoze their way in, extract high value trees, and drag them out, leaving behind roads, clearings and ravaged undergrowth.

The Rainforest Foundation UK is supporting national and local authorities by providing an early warning system for illegal logging activities. They enlist the help of the indigenous people whose way of life is also being threatened by deforestation; when they see signs of illegal logging, mining, or oil spills, they use the free ‘ForestLink’ system to send an alert to the authorities.

When cellular coverage isn’t available, the ForestLink system switches to the global Iridium satellite constellation, allowing the monitors’ smartphones to exchange data anywhere with a clear view of the sky. Rainforest Foundation chose the RockBLOCK Plus for its ruggedized exterior and economical and reliable transmissions.

5. Measuring Ocean Currents to Understand Global Climate Patterns

Our oceans absorb most of the sun’s heat, and then ocean currents distribute that heat around the globe. NOAA describes this as a conveyor belt, moving warm water and rain to the polar regions. There the water cools and sinks, which has the effect of pushing cold water towards the equator, helping to moderate temperatures. Without them, temperatures would be far more extreme – very hot at the equator, very cold at the poles – and much less of Earth’s land would be habitable.

Climate change is believed to be affecting ocean currents; the currents are not only warmer, but also 15 percent faster (measured between 1990 and 2013). This is damaging marine life and speeding up the melting of the sea ice at the poles, leading to global sea level rises. It’s also likely to disrupt the conveyor belt; if the water reaching the poles is too warm, it won’t sink. This could have the effect of slowing down or even stopping ocean currents in some places, notably the Gulf Stream. Western Europe would feel very different without the effect of this warming current.

High sea surface temperature (SST) is an important parameter in predictive weather and climate modeling. To capture this data, fixed and drifting data buoys are deployed all over the world to take measurements of surface and subsurface water temperature, atmospheric pressure, winds, salinity and wave patterns. And for the drifting data buoys, their historical location data allows scientists to profile ocean currents.

Because many of these data buoys are outside of cellular coverage, satellite connectivity is essential to transmit their data. Ground Control works with a number of data buoy companies, who need a satellite modem that’s reliable, robust, and delivers global coverage. RockBLOCK 9603 is a popular choice as it’s cost effective and has very low power consumption, allowing for the data buoys to drift for several years on battery power, or a small solar panel.

Some of Ground Control’s data buoy partners include Sofar Ocean, Maker Buoy, Akrocean, Running Tide and MTE Instruments.

In Summary

The integration of satellite tracking and IoT technologies offers powerful solutions to some of the most pressing environmental challenges we face today. By enabling real-time data collection and analysis, these technologies help scientists, conservationists, and policymakers make informed decisions to protect our planet.

As we continue to innovate and expand the applications of these tools, their role in combating climate change will only become more significant. Embracing and investing in these technologies is essential for creating a sustainable future for generations to come.

Can we Support You?

Based in the UK and USA, Ground Control designs and builds satellite-enabled tracking and IoT solutions. We have over 20 years’ experience, and work with leading satellite network operators to ensure all of our customers get the best combination of coverage, cost, data throughput and latency.

If you have an asset that’s moving in and out of cellular coverage, we ensure that you always stay connected. We work directly with end users like Digital Forest, and often indirectly through our partner network of companies building animal tracking collars and data buoys, for example.

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

LPWAN – Low Power Wide Area Networks – enable users to connect sensors / endpoints over large distances. They’re lower cost and consume less power than cellular, and while their data capacity rates are lower, there’s enough bandwidth for most IoT applications.

This article focuses on satellite-enabled LPWAN. Satellite comes into the equation when the sensors you’re connecting are so remote there’s no cellular infrastructure at all. At the moment, that leaves you with two options:

Use an unlicensed LPWAN technology such as LoRaWAN, mioty or Sigfox to connect your sensors, then backhaul the aggregated gateway data via a satellite transceiver;
Or, connect your sensors individually to a satellite transceiver.

The Differences Between Licensed and Unlicensed LPWAN

Before we settle into the main topic, some readers may find a quick explanation of licensed / unlicensed LPWAN helpful. The former leverages licensed radio frequency spectrum, which means connections use dedicated frequencies, making them more reliable. They also offer higher data capacity rates than unlicensed spectrum. Currently the best known networks – NB-IoT, LTE-M – rely on cellular infrastructure. Because of this dependency, they’re not used for extremely remote applications.

However, satellite LPWAN also falls into this category – services like Iridium’s Short Burst Data (SBD) and Certus 100, and Viasat’s IoT Nano and Iot Pro, all leverage licensed spectrum. Satellite LPWAN has no dependency on terrestrial infrastructure, so is usually deployed where there isn’t any – i.e. outside of population centers.

Unlicensed networks share frequencies with all other unlicensed users, so reliability in high-traffic areas may be an issue. They also have capacity issues because of the frequency spectrum they operate in – which is only suitable for very small amounts of data (LoRa has a maximum data rate of 50 Kbps). However, unlicensed LPWAN is lower cost, and devices generally require a little less power than networks operating in a licensed spectrum, although both perform well. For example, NB-IoT devices will typically operate for up to 10 years, and LoRa devices for up to 15 years, using battery power.

LoRa is the most widely adopted and well known unlicensed LPWAN, but there are many more here, including SigFox, Helium, RPMA and mioty. In the case of LoRaWAN, there are commercially operated networks that you can buy into, or you can set up your own private network.

If you’re in an area with cellular infrastructure, you can weigh up the pros and cons of licensed and unlicensed networks, and choose the solution best suited to your needs from a long list of options. In a remote area without cellular, you’re back to the choice we posed at the beginning: connecting individual sensors via licensed satellite LPWAN, or using an unlicensed LPWAN to aggregate many endpoints, which has no dependency on cellular infrastructure.

In terms of projected market share, China’s state-wide adoption of NB-IoT makes it the global leader; remove China, however, and the competing technologies are more evenly distributed (data from IoT Analytics). In this chart, which looks ahead to 2027, LoRa is the leader with 36% market share, followed by LTE-M at 35%, and NB-IoT at 23%. LoRa is on the way down from its peak, however, and NB-IoT shows the strongest growth.

How Unlicensed LPWAN Works with Satellite

While there are many options for unlicensed LPWANs, because of its dominance, we’re focusing on LoRa.

LoRa networks require a gateway, or several gateways, depending on the size of the network, where the sensor data is aggregated. If the gateway is within cellular coverage, cellular can be used for data backhaul, but in remote applications, satellite is the best option for backhauling the aggregated sensor data. Co-locating your gateway(s) with a satellite transceiver like RockREMOTE ensures you can communicate with your sensors from anywhere on the planet, as long as you have a clear view of the sky.

Diagram showing the various satellite options to backhaul LoRaWAN gateway data

The RockREMOTE series is particularly well suited to this pairing as it features edge computing capabilities. This enables systems integrators and developers to optimize their data transmissions to send only what’s needed, keeping the airtime cost down. It can also send your data via TCP/IP, or the more efficient messaging service, IMT. The Cobham Explorer 540, is another solid choice; this uses the BGAN M2M service which is wholly TCP/IP based, and is very cost effective if you need an IP-based transmission. If you have mains power, and need to move a lot of data – MBs rather than KBs – Starlink is also worth exploring.

NB: LoRa is a communication technology. LoRaWAN is a media access control (MAC) layer protocol which makes it easier and more secure to manage communication between gateways and endpoint devices (read a better explanation). So while LoRa can be, and is, used without the MAC layer, in the context of a wide area network, LoRaWAN is far more likely to be utilized.

LoRaWAN:

Has a maximum data rate of 50 Kbps
Works better for stationary applications
Works best in open, flat areas such as farmland
Is license free, therefore low cost
Drains very little power – battery life can be up to 15 years

Has strong security measures, with built-in end-to-end AES-128 encryption
Can be built independently of terrestrial networks and commercial providers
Works well when gateways are co-located with a satellite IoT transceiver
Is tried, tested, and in use today for remote IoT applications.

When to use Individually Connected Devices

The main advantage of LoRaWAN is that it’s very low cost, but that cost increases if you’re using a commercially operated LoRaWAN. If you don’t, you’ll need to build the network yourself, which involves purchasing gateways and a network server, writing firmware, and creating the connections (read how to build a private LoRa network).

This could well be worth the effort, but it depends on the number of sensors you’re connecting, and their location. LoRaWAN is a ‘single-hop’ technology; each connected sensor communicates directly with the gateway or hub. If there’s a long distance between device and hub, or there are geographical features like mountains or forests, this can impede the signal. So, there are instances where individually connecting sensors to a satellite modem is faster, more reliable, quite possibly cheaper when time and expertise is factored in, and more efficient.

For example, American Signal Corporation has hundreds of tsunami warning stations positioned off the coast of Thailand, to prevent a repeat of the Boxing Day Tsunami that claimed hundreds of thousands of lives.

These stations are located in the ocean, far from cellular infrastructure and mains power, and need to be both completely reliable and able to transmit their data in as close to real-time as possible. The latency and reliability issues of LoRaWAN make it unsuited to this application – as does the fact that some of the sensors are positioned well over 10 km apart.

Instead, each station has its own satellite transceiver – the RockBLOCK Plus – which uses the Iridium Short Burst Data airtime service. This checks all the boxes: it’s a low cost, low power, reliable, low latency means of transmitting data from anywhere on Earth with a clear view of the sky.

This solution is being used in many scenarios like this where the data must get through, and there’s no cellular infrastructure, and building a LoRa network (or similar) would be cost and/or time-prohibitive.

Diagram-showing-how-tsunami-alert-system-works

Satellite LPWAN:

Works well in both mobile and stationary applications
Has no limitation on the distance between your sensors – they can be positioned as far apart as your application requires
Has a huge amount of flexibility in terms of data rates – up to 464 Kbps (although the lowest power consumption comes from the message-based services of Iridium Short Burst Data, and Viasat IoT Nano)
Can operate on a solar powered battery for 10 years (depending on data rates and frequency of transmission)
Is secure by design – it’s very hard to intercept the data while it’s in space, and firewalls, VPNs and private lines protect the data once it’s earth-bound again
Has no dependency on terrestrial infrastructure
Will work in any location, including mountains and forests, as long as there is a clear view of the sky
Is not affected by extremes of temperature or adverse weather conditions.

Coming Soon: NTN NB-IoT

This is developing technology, with the goal of offering a single SIM to work on multiple cellular and satellite networks.

While the technology exists today to seamlessly switch between cellular and satellite networks, the devices enabled with this technology are using proprietary modems that only communicate with a single satellite network. Relatively few are produced, and they’re more expensive than their cellular-only counterparts. Moreover you’re tied into that satellite network, and if you wanted to use an alternative satellite network, you would need to buy a completely different device.

3GPP standardization is poised to disrupt this model. Firstly, there are many more cellular IoT-connected devices than there are satellite IoT-connected devices, and so production of these dual-function modems would benefit from economies of scale. They are likely to be lower cost than today’s proprietary satellite IoT modems.

The other potential benefit will be the ability to switch between satellite network operators in much the same way as you can switch between cellular networks today. Every satellite network that is 3GPP compatible with coverage in your area should be able to offer you service. It’s by no means certain, but we think this is likely to increase competition and lower pricing.

So, the impact will be to make NTN NB-IoT not just possible but also cost-competitive over the long term. That said, it will still be a more expensive solution than an unlicensed LPWAN – and for good reason, as it retains the higher data capacity rates and reliability benefits of licensed spectrum.

The lower cost modules may well move the tipping point between individually connected endpoints / sensors vs. building a LoRa network. Individually connected endpoints, as we’ve already discussed, have the benefit of being easy to set up, reliable and low latency. The number and location of the endpoints determine the choice of network today, and that will be true with NTN NB-IoT, too. But as the cost will be lower, the point at which it makes sense to use LoRa (or similar) will, we anticipate, come at a higher number of endpoints than it does today.

It may also open up new use cases for geographically dispersed endpoints that could utilize satellite IoT today, but the proprietary modems make this cost-prohibitive. Applications in Agriculture, Utilities, Mining and Oil & Gas are likely to emerge as the device and airtime costs decrease.

NTN NB-IoT:

Has a maximum data rate of 159 Kbps up, 106 Kbps down
Works well for stationary and slower-moving mobile applications
Offers greater reliability as the network is more exclusive
Strong support for user identity confidentiality, authentication and integrity
Doesn’t require a gateway, but you will need – once available – a dual mode satellite and cellular SIM card in each device
Will no longer need terrestrial cellular infrastructure once Satellite Network Operators (SNOs) make their satellites compatible with the 3GPP standard
Should support route switching in the future, keeping costs low and predictable.

What is 3GPP?

3GPP is a global initiative to basically stop telecommunication infrastructure developers from all doing their own thing. Since 1998, they’ve successfully driven standardization across cellular development. Release 17, in 2021, included satellite connectivity to the technology mix for NB-IoT delivery – often referred to as NTN (non-terrestrial network).

If an orbiting satellite network meets the 3GPP standard, someone, or something, on Earth that has a similarly 3GPP-compliant modem in their device could pass out of cell tower range, and immediately switch to satellite, with no interruption of service, and no need for separate hardware. All the excitement about direct-to-device technology stems from this, but “Rel-17” also unlocks NB-IoT’s use in extremely remote locations, with satellites performing the task of cell towers.

What About Non-Terrestrial LTE-M?

LTE-M is, like NB-IoT, a licensed LPWAN designed to operate on cellular networks. It’s a little more expensive because it offers higher bandwidth transmissions, and supports roaming: it was designed to work for mobile and fixed IoT applications, vs. NB-IoT that is best used in fixed IoT applications. Both are part of the broader 3GPP standard, and so the structure exists to use satellites to perform the role of cell towers in space.

At the time of writing, the satellite network operators moving the fastest towards NTN architecture are using NB-IoT as their preferred technology. However, Starlink will use a form of LTE when it brings an IoT proposition to market, and other satellite network operators may well follow suit.

What’s Best for Your Remote Application?

There is a lot of hype around 3GPP standards-based technology, and when it comes to fruition, users will benefit from lower cost modems and possibly, because of increased competition, lower cost and more predictable airtime bills. Many major satellite network operators – Iridium, Inmarsat, Viasat, Starlink – have announced plans to support a form of this technology (either NTN NB-IoT or LTE) in the future.

There are companies already offering this service, but at the time of writing, they have patchy coverage, and data capacity rates are very low. The full value of this technology will be realized when there is global availability and multiple service providers – which is currently looking like 2026-27.

If you’re building your remote application right now, your choice of LPWAN depends on your application. If your devices are very widespread, LoRaWAN may not be your best choice given the higher risk of packet loss between the sensors and the gateway(s). It is cost-effective, particularly when paired with a satellite transceiver like RockREMOTE which supports edge computing, thus allowing you to optimize your transmissions. If you can manage with a degree of data delivery uncertainty (due to the capacity challenges in the unlicensed radio frequency spectrum), it’s a good choice.

For devices spread over a wide geographical area, connecting each sensor or sensor array to a satellite IoT transceiver ensures that you will receive your data, with no dependencies on terrestrial infrastructure, and no reliability issues due to contested spectrum. If you choose a service like Iridium Short Burst Data, or Viasat IoT Nano, you’ll receive your data in close to real-time, too. Connecting sensors in this way costs more, but even now is less expensive than people imagine. For mission-critical applications, it’s the most reliable, fast and secure means of capturing your widespread remote sensor data.

Can we help you with your remote application?

If you’re connecting endpoints in remote locations, we hope you’ve found this article useful. We are experts in satellite connectivity, and work with multiple satellite network operators to ensure our customers get the best combination of coverage, reliability, price and latency.

If you’d like to speak to one of our team, please complete the form, or email hello@groundcontrol.com. We’ll come back to you within one working day.

Energy consumption and industrial ambition toward becoming Net Zero are of global consequence. On the macro scale, as we build more and utilize more digitally and electronically, “the ongoing electrification of everything” makes it imperative to find ways of conserving and managing power consumption.

Integrators and engineers have managed this for some time, born of necessity and innovative thinking. In the last decade, IoT has revolutionized measuring and monitoring the impact of industrial energy consumption and its environmental impact. This involves developing ecological monitoring, renewable energy use cases, HVAC systems for facility management, and IoT energy monitoring systems for better efficiency in utilities and factories.

The Energy Impact and Growth of IoT Development

However, the world’s data demands continue to grow, not least from the massive processing power required by AI / machine learning technologies. UK National Grid CEO John Pettigrew called data centers a source of systemic stress, saying, “Power demands are expected to increase by 500% over the next 10 years.”

A peer-reviewed study in the same report estimates that AI power consumption could reach between 85 and 134 terawatt hours (TWh) annually by 2027. (That is in the range of what Sweden and Argentina each use in a year and would constitute about 0.5% of what the world currently uses.)

AIOTI, an industry alliance tasked with advancing Europe’s digital and green transformations, has identified energy efficiency as one of its 18 strategic research and innovation priorities. The goal is to evolve IoT technologies into an integrated digital ecosystem to advance hyper-automation in all industrial sectors. Specifically, AIOTI identifies three research topics: energy harvesting, with its potential to remove the dependency on batteries for power and their need for periodic replacement; the energy efficiency of hardware, and the energy efficiency of data processing. More on these in our satellite use cases later.

Why is Energy a Design Constraint in Satellite IoT?

Satellite IoT is a means of transmitting very remote IoT data over satellite. Satellite modems can be paired with individual sensors or can backhaul the data from LPWAN gateways. Power usage is often a constraint within these types of IoT applications because mains power is frequently unavailable. Therefore, it matters that the system’s energy consumption and a ‘Low Power Mindset’ are part of the IoT system design process.

Five Power Conservation Examples in Remote Satellite IoT

Here, we explore five design considerations in Satellite IoT that have helped remotely manage IoT energy consumption. Utilizing what energy is available, making it go further, and where possible, reducing the industrial carbon footprint.

1. Minimize What Data You Send, and how Frequently You Send it

Low power design considerations were recently explored in our webinar for IoT Central, covering Data Optimization, Interoperability, Coverage and Power Consumption in Satellite IoT design. Deep-diving into the section on power, the more data bandwidth a satellite IoT system utilizes, and the more frequently it sends data, the more power-hungry the satellite IoT device will be.

A key takeaway from the discussion: since both the send and idle mode for the device consume energy, keeping the device send mode to a minimum and utilizing a satellite device with low resting energy consumption in idle, are important considerations. This video snippet discusses the key design considerations for preserving power in Satellite IoT design. For a longer summary of the webinar, you might enjoy our post: A Guide to Satellite IoT for Cellular IoT Specialists

2. Data Processing at the Edge

Every time data is sent over a network, there is some level of energy cost in terms of power used; this is no exception with satellite networks. Satellite IoT connectivity requires more power than terrestrial networks to establish and maintain communication links with satellites in space. Edge computing utilizes light algorithms and task offloading to execute intensive tasks at the network’s edge. It can conserve energy on satellite IoT devices, make smart task decisions, decrease task delay, and reduce the volume of data sent over the network.

RockREMOTE’S edge computing capabilities have helped reduce system energy by analyzing data at the data collection point. Its capabilities include reporting by exception, defining data prioritization, and the ability to compress the data at the edge before sending it over the satellite network. With LTE-M, Certus 100, and IMT capabilities, the device switches between networks for uninterrupted connectivity. This provides 100% connectivity, balancing data transfer costs, appropriate network selection, and minimizing network energy consumption. This short video talks more about RockREMOTE’s edge processing capabilities in a use case on African Game Reserves.

3. Energy Harvesting – Solar Energy for Satellite IoT Sustainability

Energy harvesting can provide an ‌inexhaustible electrical energy supply captured from renewable sources: solar, wind, hydroelectric, biomass, tidal, and wave energy. Depending on the application and the supply, this energy can supplement or replace a primary cell or battery. Harvested energy can be used to power the circuitry directly or stored in the buffer until needed.

A recent use case for RockBLOCK Sense involved a customer measuring water levels in fracking sites in northern Canada. The localities were remote, unmanned, and unpowered, and temperatures frequently dropped below -32°C (-25.6°F). The solution needed to be self-powered, extremely robust, and reliable. The RockBLOCK Sense satellite transceiver is highly ruggedized to cope with harsh weather conditions and has very low power requirements. Accordingly, it consumes less than 380mW with a five-minute value transmission interval. Connecting it to a small solar panel array, combined with a lithium-based cell, harvested more than enough solar power to send two daily messages over satellite, plus an immediate alert if water levels exceeded predefined parameters. You can read more about this energy-saving project here.

4. Power and Cabling Efficiencies with Power over Ethernet (PoE)

Piggybacking off existing power supply with PoE eliminates the need for a separate power supply by delivering DC power to a device from the existing Ethernet infrastructure. Strictly speaking, this example means that the power cabling already exists, and a power supply for other technology is available to share. Think offshore platforms, ships, or buoys to bring to life some, (not all) examples of this ‌use case: some power, but with limited cellular connectivity. Utilizing PoE to supply the satellite device reduces standby power consumption and overall energy usage.

A centralized power management approach can also enable more efficient resource allocation and reduce energy waste compared to individual power adapters for each connected device. PoE standards, such as IEEE 802.3af and IEEE 802.3at, include power-saving mechanisms like sleep modes and low-power states. This enables connected devices to operate more efficiently and intelligently, managing power consumption based on usage patterns leading to overall energy savings.

End view of the RockREMOTE Mini with ports

The pictured RockREMOTE Mini keeps satellite device power consumption very low, with less than 0.25W in receive mode. In addition to its optimized power consumption, it has two power supply options: a 10-30V supply or PoE+ (802.3at). This flexibility provides a convenient and efficient solution for powering the device and eliminates the need for a separate power source, reducing installation cost and design complexity.

5. Pulse Width Modulation in Remote Locations

Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) is a technique for controlling the amount of power delivered to an electronic device by rapidly switching the power on and off. The key to PWM is controlling the duty cycle, which is the percentage of time the signal is “on” versus the time it is “off” during each cycle.
Imagine a light dimmer that can adjust the brightness of a light. Instead of providing a steady flow of electricity, the dimmer rapidly switches the light on and off. The average brightness of the light depends on the proportion of the time it is on versus the time it is off:

High Duty Cycle: If the light is on 90% of the time and off 10% of the time, it will be very bright.
Low Duty Cycle: If the light is on 10% of the time and off 90% of the time, it will be dim.

PWM works similarly with other devices, like motors, where it controls speed, or heaters, where it controls temperature.

In the vast, sparsely populated Australian Outback, isolated and off-grid locations such as cattle stations and small farms require satellite technology to manage solar power systems for water pumps, electric fences, and communications equipment, ensuring continuous operation. Ensuring the battery life of the equipment is essential to keeping everything in operation and managing energy usage efficiency.

The RockBLOCK Switch’s PWM controls the battery charging current from connected solar panels. By adjusting the duty cycle, the charge controller regulates the voltage and current, preventing overcharging and optimizing battery life. The Switch device is designed to operate with minimal power, which is crucial for keeping the remote installations running without over-drawing energy from the overall system. Triggering on/off switching can be key to managing resources, conserving, and managing the power supply, and extending battery lifetime in remote and/or unmanned locations.

With power supply and energy management as consistent considerations in developing satellite IoT projects, these use cases highlight the variety of innovations that have been used to navigate the physical, logistical, and infrastructure limitations of remote off-grid locations. Once the parameters of the Satellite IoT project are established, often the most appropriate solution is obvious. Our engineers love a challenge, so if there is an energy constraint holding your remote IoT project back, get in touch, and our technical and development teams will be happy to help.

Would you like to know more?

If you’re tackling an remote connectivity challenge, with constraints on power, we can almost certainly help.

Call us on +44 (0) 1452 751940 (UK) or +1.805.783.4600 (USA); email hello@groundcontrol.com, or complete the form.

We have over 20 years’ experience designing and building satellite communication devices, and our expert team is standing by to offer support and suggestions.

The drone market is expected to surpass $101.1 Billion by 2032, and while military applications continue to dominate, commercial applications – parcel deliveries, remote safety inspections, environmental monitoring etc. – will make up a substantial part of that revenue.

In light of this anticipated growth in drone usage, we wanted to discover if people felt more or less comfortable about commercial vs. military applications, and whether the benefits outweighed their reservations. In March 2024, we surveyed 500+ American adults, and compiled the results in this eBook.

Download eBook For Free

What surprised us about the data

Two surveys from 2021 which engaged European audiences suggested that we could anticipate a broadly positive response. These surveys indicate that 68% of British citizens believe that drones will positively impact their lives, and 83% of EU-based respondents are positive about the use of drones in cities.

Our survey was more nuanced. Overall, 55% of respondents supported commercial drone applications, and 57% supported military drone applications. This is a more conversative response than previous studies, but what was particularly interesting was how much variation there was in the results. People in different household income, age, and industry groups held, in some cases, quite dramatically different views.

55%

Supported commercial drone applications

57%

Supported military drone applications

65%

Had concerns about drone hacking / interception

32%

Felt that drones were environmentally friendly

Which demographics are most likely to support military applications?

We offered two options for military applications: “passive”, which we defined as surveying and monitoring, and “active”, defined as identifying and destroying targets. The average result was 59% in favor of passive military drone applications, and 54% in favor of active applications.

This materially differed when the data was refined by demographic. Those in with household incomes over $100,000 p/a were more likely to approve of both passive (72% approval) and active (69% approval) military applications. Men were also more likely than women to support these use cases, with 63% approval for both from men, vs. 55% and 48% from women.

The larger deviations from the norm came from people working in Education & Research and Healthcare, and the under 30s, all of whom were less likely to support military drone applications – particularly active.

Respondents-favor-drone-adoption-technology

American attitudes support drone applications

Who is most likely to support commercial applications?

We divided commercial drone applications into five: Parcel Deliveries, Prescription Medicine Deliveries, Remote Safety Inspections, Environmental Monitoring, and Emergencies.

Opinions ranged from just 37% in favor (medicine deliveries) to 72% in favor (emergencies). Departing substantially from the average results were people working in Technology, who were more comfortable with drones being used across all commercial applications listed, but particularly positive about remote safety inspections – 72% in favor vs. 58% average.

People working in Healthcare were the most opposed to drones being used for prescription medicine deliveries, at just 18% in favor, and 58% opposed.

What concerns do Americans have about drone usage?

The biggest concern our respondents had was security – the possibility that drones can be hacked or intercepted. This view was most strongly supported by people working in Technology, of whom 76% cited this as a concern.

54% of respondents cited privacy – concerns about the information drones can capture and store – as a concern, and this rose to 62% for people working in Education & Research.

Fewer respondents were concerned about the potential for job losses – just 27% – but this rose to 38% for people working in Healthcare, possibly correlated with their discomfort around prescription medicine deliveries.

American attitudes to drone security and data 2024

What benefits do Americans perceive can be derived from drone usage?

People were pretty reserved in their responses to this question, with no single option getting selected by more than half of respondents. The most popular response was ‘Faster Deliveries’, at 49%, followed by ‘Lower Cost’ at 38%.

The over 60s departed from the average here; slightly more saw the cost-saving benefit (42%) but only 38% thought deliveries would be faster, and only 22% thought that using drones would be safer than the processes they replaced (vs. 30% average).

Fewer than a third of respondents thought that drone usage was better for the environment, which was a surprise; analysts have reported that drone-based applications could reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 2.4 gigatons by 2030.

Leading us neatly on to…

What can the drone industry learn from these results?

While regulation remains a significant barrier for wider adoption of commercial drone applications, it will be overcome: market forces demand it. Solutions for the challenges of communication and collision avoidance already exist, and the industry received $4.8 billion in investment in 2022 alone. And at least from the operators’ perspective, the benefits, both projected and empirically demonstrated, outweigh the drawbacks.

But our respondents were, for the most part, cautious in their responses, particularly the over 60s, people in lower income households, and people working in Healthcare and Education and Research. Put simply, companies planning to deploy drones should consider how they communicate the benefits and address the concerns of citizens – particularly in applications that could directly affect their day to day lives.

How Can We Help?

Ground Control delivers satellite IoT modems that allow drone operators to remotely command and control UAVs, USVs and UGVs. We use the global Iridium satellite constellation, which is well suited to mobile, low latency, high-reliability use cases.

If you’re a drone manufacturer and would like to know more about our connectivity options, please complete the form, or email hello@groundcontrol.com; we’d love to talk.

The natural disaster detection IoT market is projected to grow from $6.6bn in 2023 to $37.3bn by 2030, at a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 27.85%, according to 360iResearch.

Natural disasters are a growing phenomenon, due to rising temperatures and climate change. IoT has an important role to play in monitoring environments and detecting natural disasters. It can help to warn, and somewhat mitigate the risk to, vulnerable populations, wildlife and commercial centers from events such as earthquakes, landslides, tsunamis, hurricanes, flooding, wildfire and temperature extremeties.

Further, technologies such as Machine Learning (ML) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) are helping to predict, measure and pre-empt environmental change. This minimizes costs both in terms of lives, businesses, and urban infrastructure.

This innovative use of technology will help save lives through preventive measures and early warning systems. But while global warming is – the clue is in the name – a global concern, early detection and data insight isn’t happening at the same rate across the globe.

Worryingly, in the same parts of the globe where early detection is needed most, the data to facilitate this is missing or not being gathered. With the growth of IoT connectivity, all countries should be able to utilize environmental monitoring and disaster recovery data to their advantage, but this isn’t actually the case.

The Problem of Missing Data

The problem of ‘missing data’ forms part of an environment research paper for iopscience. The authors report that data gaps and missing data are commonplace across real world datasets, including global disaster databases. Global disaster databases, and recorded disaster data, are increasingly utilized by decision-makers and researchers to inform disaster mitigation and climate policies. So with significant chunks of data missing, the researchers question the conclusions drawn and the risks of unreliable study results. After all, a reliable evidence base is a prerequisite for effective decision making.

So why is there an inconsistency in the data that is gathered and why are some countries not collecting the data they need? There are numerous reasons cited, including technological limitations in the surveillance of disaster events (which we will explore in more detail here), and factors such as the income status of the affected country, and the types of disaster event that occur. Global databases on environmental extremes, and analysis of their impacts, is largely carried out by research organizations in western nations. This means that there is a bias towards events in these countries. It’s an ‘unnatural disaster’ that some parts of the globe are still not able to monitor and measure the environmental changes that could save lives.

The commercial world is being called upon to build the infrastructure needed to supply NGO, local communities and emergency services with the information they desperately need. Fixed sensors can capture temperature change, rising water levels, earthquake shock readings; drones can monitor volcanic activity and large bodies of water. This information delivers the insight necessary to inform and reduce loss of life.

However, this comes with some significant investment, namely the network infrastructure needed to transmit the data, and ongoing funding – hence there being more complete data sets from countries of higher economic GDP.

If the infrastructure does not exist to support environmental monitoring, or research is inhibited by poor or intermittent cellular connectivity, what can be done? Terrestrial networks are expensive to set up, and vulnerable themselves to natural disasters. As we reported in an earlier blog post, during a prolonged spell of rain in 2022, 1,200 cell towers were impacted in South Africa alone due flooding and landslides.

Many countries and localities are simply not equipped to provide the power or networking to support cellular IoT. Not only is network coverage much lower in least developed countries than in the rest of the world, but mobile data usage can also be significantly more expensive.

Solving the Communications Infrastructure Problem

Satellite IoT can solve the communications infrastructure problem. It provides global connectivity to locations where cellular connectivity is missing or intermittent, enabling the kind of sensor data required for environmental monitoring to be transferred to and from the farthest reaches of the earth. All that’s needed is a satellite transceiver, antenna and clear view of the sky.

As an example, Slide Sentinel provides a fully automated landslide monitoring system using Real Time Kinematics. This provides early detection and forewarning as well as limiting the use of invasive and expensive landslide monitoring drilling techniques. The system is capable of reliably detecting catastrophic landslides and centimeter movement in land mass and offers valuable information about gradual changes in land soil displacement.

It’s a low-cost solution consisting of a network of remote low power sensors that detect fast linear slides and eventually lower soil movements such as creep. Long range low-power (LoRa) radio connections on these sensor nodes wirelessly transmit three-dimensional acceleration, Real Time Kinematic (RTK) GPS coordinates, and sudden shifts in soil movement to a gateway. This data is backhauled via satellite to the cloud from where it can be exported to anywhere on Earth.

It’s not just the connectivity options that can limit research and data gathering. Harsh external conditions can make devices and data capture vulnerable to the elements. No two use cases are the same, and devices used for monitoring and sending data need to withstand temperature, wind and precipitation extremities, as well as the conditions during an actual disaster.

A great example is the work by American Signal Corporation (ASC). The 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami (known as the “Boxing Day Tsunami) devastated lives, businesses and homes across SE Asia. An estimated 227,898 people died across 14 countries. With no early warning system of the approaching tsunami, no early evacuation procedures were undertaken, despite there being several hours between the earthquake and ensuing tsunami, with devastating consequences and huge loss of life.

Following on from the disaster and working with the Thai Government, ASC installed a nationwide network of devices, including high powered speaker arrays, sensors and alerting devices together with bespoke management software to alert people to threats posed by tsunami, floods and other possible natural/manmade disasters. The critical nature of the solution required a connectivity option that could provide global coverage and network reliability with the lowest idle power requirement. They also needed a device that was robust, and could withstand the elements and the test of time.

They opted for Ground Control’s RockBLOCK Plus satellite IoT transceiver to backhaul data from 1500 alerting devices across the country. The RockBLOCK Plus is waterproof, ruggedized, highly UV resistant and has a marine-grade Kevlar cable, making it ideal for long term outdoor deployment in the most severe environments.

Counting the Cost of Satellite Connectivity

While satellite has a reputation for being expensive, it has decreased in the last few years, with diversified services and new entrants bringing prices down. The investment locally is not as expensive or as vulnerable to damage as building the cellular network infrastructure. With global satellite coverage already in place, satellite IoT provides a means of gathering intelligence without the greater cost of building and managing network infrastructure development.

Satellite networks already contribute to programmes of meteorological measurement providing global data mapping of environmental change. However, further gains can be made if localised monitoring and data management are made accessible. Satellite IoT lends itself to solving this problem due to the flexibility with which data can be packaged and sent.

Local sensor data can be passed in small data packets and transferred as messages without the chatty protocol overheads of IP connectivity. With a little development expertise and guidance, the data costs can be kept to a minimum so that you’re only transferring the essential information that is needed. If it’s life saving data that’s helping monitor global environmental health, it really shouldn’t cost the earth!

Would you like to know more?

If you’re tackling an remote connectivity challenge, with constraints on power, budget and latency, we can almost certainly help.

Call us on +44 (0) 1452 751940 (UK) or +1.805.783.4600 (USA); email hello@groundcontrol.com, or complete the form.

We have over 20 years’ experience designing and building satellite communication devices, and our expert team is standing by to offer support and suggestions.

This article aims to help cellular IoT specialists integrate satellite IoT into your infrastructure. Many of the challenges you face in cellular connectivity – interoperability, coverage, power consumption, data optimization, etc. – have parallels in satellite connectivity. If you know what to expect, you can plan accordingly, and save yourself time and money in the long run.

Consideration #1: Data Optimization

“Just because it’s a free lunch doesn’t mean you should eat as much as you can” – Robby Hamblet, TEAL

So, you’ve connected 90% of your sites with cellular, but the final 10% are out of cellular coverage, and satellite is your only option. In this common scenario, the first challenge is the volume of data you’re expecting to push through a satellite connection. As more and more IoT devices use up more and more bandwidth, even in cellular IoT, developers are being encouraged to be more circumspect with how much bandwidth they really need.

This is an acutely important consideration in satellite IoT. Satellite Network Operators (SNOs) have a limited amount of licensed spectrum, and satellite “masts” are really far away (as much as 35,786km). SNOs consequently charge a relatively high premium. This is coming down, but it’s not realistic to expect parity with cellular given that operating costs are high, and capacity is limited.

Cost, therefore, is a major incentive for systems integrators and developers to start thinking about how you can reduce the amount of data you send over satellite. The other incentive is power consumption: sending a lot of data tends to mean larger antennae which can’t operate without mains power. And as we’re talking exclusively about IoT here, we’re assuming the 10% of sites you’re unable to connect with cellular are also fairly unlikely to have mains power too.

The most practical solution? Edge computing. There are lots of ways in which you can utilize some intelligence at the edge to restrict how much data you send over satellite. You can reduce the frequency of your transmissions, batching them to make better use of an IP connection. You can report by exception. You can define and tag your data priority, thus allowing certain types of data to pass through more frequently than other, less critical, types of data.

If your devices can control your data in this way, perfect. If not, sophisticated satellite terminals like the RockREMOTE have flexible edge computing capabilities that will allow you to create rules to limit your transmissions there.

Real World Example

A renewable energy company we work with has a sensor array to detect wind turbine interactions with birds and bats. The gateway for the sensors expects to be able to pump data out continuously as long as there’s an open connection: potentially fine if you have a cellular connection, but expensive and inefficient if you are using satellite. Our solution was to add a timed firewall to the connected satellite transceiver. For one hour a day, the firewall is dropped, and the gateway sends its aggregated data in batches. Simple and effective.

Consideration #2: Interoperability

You may have had to navigate situations where there have been multiple communication protocols (WiFi, Bluetooth, Zigbee etc.) to contend with, particularly in legacy infrastructure. If so, you’ll already appreciate the benefit of planning ahead and considering the future development of your network. If it’s at all possible satellite IoT will factor in, knowing the application protocols in most common use will help.

There are basically three options for IoT communication over satellite:

1. Use an IP service like Iridium Certus 100 or Viasat IoT Pro

This plug-and-play option is the easiest means of sending data over satellite, but not the most efficient or cost-effective way. However, there’s plenty you can do to optimize your data (see above) to make it work better for you if you’re not in a position to change your application.

2. Use a distributed MQTT broker solution

If you’re using MQTT, you’re in luck: Ground Control’s IoT Gateway effectively places an MQTT broker at either side of a satellite transmission, re-formatting the data and managing the connection, message queuing, retries etc. automatically. We use Iridium Messaging Transport to move your data, which is message-based. You can read more about this in our previous blog post, but suffice to say, messaging is the most cost-effective way to transmit data over satellite, and this is an easy way to leverage those efficiencies.

Illustration of Ground Control's IoT Gateway

3. Re-engineer your solution to use messaging

This low-level integration will allow you to use one of the proprietary messaging services offered by SNOs such as Iridium Short Burst Data, or Viasat IoT Nano, both extremely cost-effective means of sending data via satellite. However it does usually require development work to make your data compatible with a messaging service.

Real World Example:

Most developers want an easy life (nothing wrong with that!) and will choose the path of least resistance. So it’s our job to make sure that you can use satellite IoT connectivity no matter what protocol you’re using. In one instance, a customer was unable to change their in-field sensor equipment or their server, but they did need to change the means by which data was transported between the two. We added some programming to our RockREMOTE device to effectively imitate the older equipment it was replacing, so the sensors could ‘talk’ to it with no adaptation required by the customer. And at the server end, our IoT platform Cloudloop enabled us to reformat the data and transmit it to the legacy server in the same vein.

Consideration #3: Coverage

Lack of cellular coverage is most likely what brought you to satellite in the first place, but not all satellite network constellations are created equal. Firstly, you need to ensure that the satellite network(s) you’re considering have orbiting satellites that can ‘see’ your devices’ location. Only one satellite IoT network – Iridium – is truly global, although others, including Viasat, come close.

Then you need to consider satellite density and architecture. Newer satellite networks may have just one or two satellites in orbit, which means you’ll get your data very slowly. On the plus side, they charge relatively little for airtime. Like many things, you get what you pay for: pay little, and you’ll get data once or twice a day with no delivery guarantees. Pay more, and you’ll get virtually real-time data from a network heavyweight trusted by the military and critical national infrastructure. It’s over to you to decide the frequency and criticality of your data transmissions.

Further, you need to look at the precise location of the asset / application you’re extracting data from. If it’s surrounded by trees, mountains, buildings etc. then there’s a good chance it will have difficulty ‘seeing’ the satellite. Our engineering team put a quick guide together on this topic that’ll help you avoid making an expensive mistake.

Real World Example:

A water utility customer has sensors set up to monitor its remote facilities for unauthorized entry – manhole covers, containers and buildings, principally. The individual sensors are LoRaWAN networked, and deliver their data to a single gateway. The gateway is positioned next to our satellite transceiver, and both are carefully located so that the satellite IoT device has a clear view of the sky, and can transmit the aggregated and optimized data from the gateway. We’ve used the same set up for safety systems on a boat; locally networked sensors talking to a gateway co-located with a satellite transceiver. UHF radio also works well for this purpose.

Consideration #4: Power Consumption

If your device is so far removed from civilization that there’s no cellular coverage, there’s a reasonable chance that there’s a limited power supply, too. Larger VSAT dishes like the types required to provide Starlink and OneWeb broadband internet services need mains or generator power to operate; but satellite IoT-specific terminals can be, and often are, battery powered.

You can preserve battery power in a number of ways we’ve already touched on: sending data less frequently. Sending less data, period. Using a message-based connection instead of an IP-based connection. Making sure your antenna has a clear view of the satellite network so no power is wasted in failed connection efforts.

These aren’t all exclusively satellite-IoT considerations either; if your device application disregards the characteristics for which LPWA networks were designed, you’ll drain batteries faster, congest networks unnecessarily, and degrade the service quality. If you assume data constraints from the outset, it’ll benefit your application across all communication technologies.

Real World Example:

We have a customer measuring water levels in fracking sites in northern Canada, where temperatures drop to -32C. They needed two ‘heartbeat’ messages per day with status and location, plus an immediate alert if the level switch activated.

As the sites are unmanned and unpowered, the solution needed to be self-powered, extremely robust and reliable.

We took our RockBLOCK Sense and physically connected it to both a small solar panel array, and the sensor gateway (given how infrequently the locations were visited, Bluetooth LE as a wireless connection held too great a risk of communication failure).

The device can be remotely managed using Cloudloop Device Manager, Ground Control’s online platform to allow for OTA updates and troubleshooting.

Key Takeaway

The biggest challenge cellular IoT specialists face when implementing satellite IoT connectivity is learning to throttle back on data requirements. It’s too expensive and too power hungry to try to use satellites in the same way as you would a terrestrial network.

There are always ways we can solve this problem for customers, and we’ve discussed many of them in this post, but it wouldn’t hurt to consider data constraints from the earliest part of your planning. Even the cellular spectrum has limits, and scarcity drives innovation. Build this into your thinking and you’ll have far fewer challenges to contend with if you need to expand your network in the future.

Can we help you?

If you have a remote connectivity challenge, we can almost certainly help.

Call or email us at hello@groundcontrol.com, or complete the form, and one of our team will contact you within one working day.

We design and build our own satellite IoT hardware and IoT platform, and we’ll offer you expert, objective advice.

3GPP’s Impact on Connectivity

Challenges With Implementing 3GPP

Where Does Direct-to-Device Come Into Play?

Speaking of Proprietary Solutions…

What Should You Consider for Your Asset Tracking Application?

Can we help you with your asset tracking project?

What is Direct-to-Cell?

What is Direct-to-Device?

How Does D2D Work?

What Role do Standards-Based Technologies Have to Play in D2D?

Who are the Satellite Operators in the Direct-to-Device Market?

LTE Services:

NTN NB-IoT Services:

Challenges in Rolling out Direct-to-Device

When Will Direct-to-Device Services Be Available?

Can we help?

Wireless Networking Options for Offshore Wind Farms

What is 3GPP?

How Will 3GPP Standards-Based Technology Impact IoT Connectivity?

Which Satellite Networks Will Support 3GPP Standards-Based Modules?

When Will Standards-Based Modems be Available?

What are the Advantages of Proprietary Systems?

How to Choose the Best Satellite IoT Network

Get in Touch

1. Tracking Endangered Species

2. Monitoring Glacial Retreat

3. Combating Overfishing

4. Preventing Deforestation

5. Measuring Ocean Currents to Understand Global Climate Patterns

In Summary

Can we Support You?

The Differences Between Licensed and Unlicensed LPWAN

How Unlicensed LPWAN Works with Satellite

LoRaWAN:

When to use Individually Connected Devices

Satellite LPWAN:

Coming Soon: NTN NB-IoT

NTN NB-IoT:

What is 3GPP?

What About Non-Terrestrial LTE-M?

What’s Best for Your Remote Application?

Can we help you with your remote application?

The Energy Impact and Growth of IoT Development

Why is Energy a Design Constraint in Satellite IoT?

Five Power Conservation Examples in Remote Satellite IoT

1. Minimize What Data You Send, and how Frequently You Send it

2. Data Processing at the Edge

3. Energy Harvesting – Solar Energy for Satellite IoT Sustainability

4. Power and Cabling Efficiencies with Power over Ethernet (PoE)

5. Pulse Width Modulation in Remote Locations

Further Reading

A Guide to Satellite IoT for Cellular IoT Specialists

IP vs Messaging for Satellite IoT Data Transmission

5 Steps To Reducing IoT Connectivity Costs

How Iridium Messaging Transport (IMT) opens up new IoT possibilities

Infographic: How to unlimit your IoT application with the RockREMOTE Rugged

Could your Business Achieve More with Better Connectivity?

From LEO to GEO: Exploring the Different Types of Satellite IoT

Introducing Iridium Messaging Transport (IMT)

Introducing Ground Control’s Satellite IoT Gateway

How RockBLOCKs Can Transform IoT Projects With Global Connectivity

How Satellite IoT Closes The Gap in Remote Wind Turbine Data Monitoring Challenges

5 Ways to Reduce Data Transmission Costs in the Oil Well Lifecycle

Would you like to know more?

What surprised us about the data

55%

Supported commercial drone applications

57%

Supported military drone applications

65%

Had concerns about drone hacking / interception

32%

Felt that drones were environmentally friendly

Which demographics are most likely to support military applications?

Who is most likely to support commercial applications?

What concerns do Americans have about drone usage?

What benefits do Americans perceive can be derived from drone usage?

What can the drone industry learn from these results?

How Can We Help?

The Problem of Missing Data