Satellite Networks for IoT: Standards-Based Vs. Proprietary

Late in 2024, the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) added a new Work Item to the plan for Release 19, the next set of global standards for cellular technology.

This Work Item will enhance the NB-IoT protocol’s role in non-terrestrial networks (NTN). In other words, it should make using a cellular protocol to manage satellite communication easier. 

The 2025 arrival of Release 19 won’t be the first time satellite network operators have been able to work with cellular protocols. (They’ve been partially standardized for NTN since 3GPP’s Release 17, which came out in 2022.) But it might be the first time the practice becomes viable and widespread. If so, that will be a big deal. 

Consider: A satellite-compatible cellular protocol could connect devices over terrestrial mobile networks and satellite networks using the same chipset.

Gone would be the costs and engineering headaches of stuffing multiple modems into a single device. Instead, unaltered cellular devices would get much more versatile connectivity—which means less downtime, broader coverage, and, ultimately, happier end users. 

So will the arrival of these standards-based satellite networks spell the end of proprietary networks, which have dominated the satellite IoT market since its inception? 

In a word, no. Standards-based satellite connectivity will give IoT operators more options—but that doesn’t make them the best choice for every deployment. Here’s what IoT users need to know about choosing between proprietary satellite networks and new standards-based NTN connectivity. 

Proprietary vs. Standards-Based NTNs

Proprietary satellite solutions are vertically integrated. Devices need a network-specific modem to connect to an operator’s satellite systems. There are lots of proven proprietary satellite networks, including: 

• Iridium Short Burst Data (SBD): Global connectivity with low latency and high reliability.
• Iridium Certus 100: A worldwide network optimized for connected vehicles and drones.
• Viasat IoT Nano: Wide (though not quite global) coverage for low-bandwidth applications.
• Viasat IoT Pro: Secure connectivity for high throughput IoT.
• Globalstar: Ironically less-than-global coverage with low data rates. Extremely affordable; great for tracking animals and assets. 

A standards-based solution promises that you won’t need proprietary hardware to connect. Cellular standards like LTE Cat-1, LTE Cat-1bis, and NB-IoT connect IoT devices to terrestrial networks and satellite systems with a single cellular chipset. 

Usable standards-based NTNs won’t be available until 2025 at the earliest, but a few companies are openly promoting their upcoming offerings. These include: 

• Starlink D2C: Satellite connectivity for unaltered LTE Cat-1 and LTE Cat-1bis devices. Available only where Starlink has an agreement with a mobile network operator (MNO) partner—so not everywhere, although coverage is likely to grow.
• AST SpaceMobile: Low-latency satellite broadband with an early focus on mobile phones and consumer devices. Available only where AST has an agreement with a mobile network operator (MNO) partner—so not everywhere.    
• Viasat IoT Direct: Low data rates and power requirements; compatible with unaltered NB-IoT devices. 

Assuming all of these networks come online soon (or are already available by the time you read this), which one should you choose for your IoT deployment? Proprietary and standards-based NTNs each have their benefits and drawbacks. 

Partner with objective satellite IoT experts to make a truly informed decision. Look for a provider of satellite and cellular technology that offers custom engineering along with a strong device/data management platform. 

In the meantime, start by considering the following pros and cons.  

Proprietary Satellite Networks for IoT: Benefits and Drawbacks

The major downside of a traditional—which is to say proprietary—satellite network operator is cost. You can’t appeal to the market to find the most cost-effective modem; you must use one that works with the network. And while the cost of satellite modems is generally diminishing, they’re still more expensive than their cellular counterparts. 

The benefits, however, are numerous: 

• Proprietary IoT devices are designed to work with the network. That adds up to more efficient data handling and greater data-rate flexibility. 
• Established NTN operators have solved the radio-frequency challenge. Your device is unlikely to face interference from other users.
• This is a proven technology. Some operators have been around for decades. These are low-risk connectivity partners.
• Spectrum allocated. Established NTN operators have global spectrum and landing rights for their services.

Depending on your use case, these benefits make proprietary NTNs a safer choice—no matter how quickly standards-based technology comes online. 

Standards-Based Satellite Networks: Benefits and Drawbacks

As we’ve mentioned, the key benefit of a standards-based NTN is that you can connect cellular devices without altering them. These devices will be able to roam from cell tower to satellite and back, ideally without losing functionality along the way. 

The use of a single chipset could drive IoT hardware prices way down. Add to that the variety of cellular modems already available, and you end up with a very cost-effective proposition with a great user experience. 

This is all objectively great. But there are still some challenges associated with standards-based NTNs: 

• First off, the technology simply isn’t here yet (as we publish). We don’t know how well it will work or when it will reach true viability.
• Even if the technology works perfectly, you’ll need 3GPP-compliant hardware to take advantage of it. That makes standards-based NTNs a heavier lift for existing IoT deployments, since you may have to replace all your devices.
• The NTN operators will need access to bandwidth. Most of the licensed radio spectrum is already claimed, which means a lot of deal-making before these services become available. The unlicensed spectrum is less reliable, and NTN operators will need licensing deals in every country before they can operate there. In other words: We may see limited availability. 

Finally, consider the risk of committing to an emerging technology. The business case for standards-based NTN hasn’t been proven yet. Say a network operator chooses NB-IoT as its cellular NTN protocol. That technology is designed to send very small amounts of data. 

Limited data means a low price point. Low prices require an enormous scale to make business sense. Can our hypothetical NTN operator get enough IoT endpoints fast enough to make the NB-IoT offering viable? 

Maybe. But for mission-critical IoT, “maybe” is rarely good enough.