A recent article in Fierce Network quotes AT&T’s CEO John Stankey as saying that he’s not too worried about competition from satellite cellular providers. He said the new technology is better suited for specialty niches like maritime and IoT.
His comments raise a lot of interesting questions. First, Stankey is right that satellite cellular is not going to compete well head-to-head with traditional cellular in markets that have strong cell coverage. An Ookla report for the second quarter of 2025 shows nationwide median download speeds for the big three cellular providers as 275 Mbps for T-Mobile, 134 Mbps for Verizon, and 129 Mbps for AT&T. Speeds in urban markets are significantly higher.
A market weakness for the big cellular carriers is rural coverage, which is going to be a target market for satellite cellular. You don’t have to drive far outside most urban areas and county seats to encounter areas with little or no cellular coverage by the big companies.
There seems to be interest and a potential market for satellite cellular. Viasat released the results of a survey that indicated that 60% of cellular customers worldwide, and 56% in the U.S., would consider paying extra to get access to satellite cellular connections. You have to take a survey done at the early stage of the new industry with a grain of salt since real interest is going to depend on the quality, ease, and cost of using satellite cellular. The survey results are interesting because they show a lot of people who must be encountering situations where traditional cellular is inadequate.
Stankey pointed out the weaknesses of the satellite cellular concept. The biggest weakness is that there isn’t good indoor coverage. However, I would be shocked if somebody doesn’t eventually solve that problem. Perhaps Starlink dishes or standalone outdoor receivers can be used to communicate with cellular satellites, which could then somehow get the signal into the home. The issue that I haven’t heard being discussed is the ability of satellite cellular to connect to moving vehicles.
Stankey’s more significant observation is that a satellite network can never duplicate the huge amount of bandwidth needed to give cellular customers the services they want. He’s absolutely right, and it’s unrealistic to think that satellite providers could have enough bandwidth collectively to become the fourth major carrier in the market. Cellphone usage is no longer just about texting and voice calls, and cell customers want to stream videos and upload pictures and videos. For satellite to become a viable rural solution, it will need to provide enough bandwidth to satisfy expected customer demand.
There are a few other issues that will also affect the long-term competition issue. Cellular broadband speeds are still improving. For example, AT&T recently installed the spectrum acquired from EchoStar in 23,000 towers to improve speeds. We’re five years away from seeing the beginning of the 6G generation of cellphones. It’s too early to know specifically what that means, but it has to mean more speed and capability for terrestrial cellphone networks.
One of Stankey’s comments is intriguing: that satellite cellular might be the solution for IoT. I’ve been reading for a decade about the potential for widespread agricultural sensors, but this has never happened in any material way. A big part of the problem is the bandwidth needed to communicate with sensors. Rural cellular networks are generally lousy or nonexistent in areas that are mostly farm fields. The second issue has always been power, but there have been advancements in small solar power units that could finally combine with ubiquitous satellite cellular coverage to make farm sensors a reality.