Joakim Espeland, Chief Executive Officer, Quadsat
The rapid influx of LEO satellites has shaken SATCOM’s commercial landscape to the core. Traditional GEO operators have responded to this disruptive force and fresh competition by slowly shifting business models while simultaneously remaining in battle for commercial opportunities in GEO.
With competition rife, and commercial pressures increasing, it’s only natural that satellite operators are looking for ways to save costs. There’s potential that this may lead to operators who once managed a strict spectrum environment, now loosening the reins to remain competitive and secure new contracts.
Yet if operators lower equipment standards to reduce costs, potentially allowing substandard components into their networks, this will create harmful RFI and jeopardize the integrity of the spectrum.
Amid these pressures, the rapid proliferation of LEO constellations has introduced a significant number of new satellites and ground terminals into the mix which is further complicating matters. The scale and dynamism of the new ground network is creating a more complex electromagnetic environment where RFI incidents are becoming more frequent. When this activity is paired with the growing desire to prioritize cost over quality, there is a real risk that RFI will fast become the industry’s most critical issue—with far-reaching consequences.
____________________________
Financial Impact of RFI
____________________
The financial burden of RFI is substantial and probably underestimated. Managing interference requires operators to either reallocate spectrum, deploy mitigation strategies, or move services to alternate frequencies.
Such measures come at a cost, however, as calculating the actual cost of interference is notoriously difficult. That said, bear in mind that operators anecdotally surrender approximately 20-30% of their capacity, either directly due to interference, or indirectly as spare capacity, should interference impact other parts of the spectrum.
I think it would, therefore, seem reasonable to assume that the associated cost of managing interference could well be tens of millions of dollars per satellite, per year. Across a fleet, this could quickly multiply into hundreds of millions of dollars.
Beyond the direct costs, there are less tangible, but equally damaging, consequences. Customers who experience degraded services may lose confidence in their providers, leading to customer loss and damage to their hard-won reputations.
These issues are especially critical in high-value sectors, such as broadcasting, where even minor disruptions can have far-reaching effects. The industry cannot afford to remain reactive to RFI.
Operators must shift toward proactive measures, such as increased testing to ensure equipment is operating as it should, and stricter spectrum management protocols. While these additional measures carry increased costs, the costs are very low when compared with the potential cost of managing interference incidents.
Over the course of the contract lifetime, the costs associated with additional testing become negligible.
________________________________________
Divergent Stakes of GEO and LEO
__________________________
LEO and GEO networks cater to different markets, and operator’s tolerance for interference reflects the needs of their customers.
LEO operators, serving consumer markets, can more easily weather occasional service interruptions without significant fallout. A dropped signal or minor disruption might frustrate a few households, but it rarely causes lasting reputational or financial harm because its generally resolved before it has a noticeable impact.
GEO operators, on the other hand, serve industries with almost zero tolerance for downtime. Broadcast networks, government and military organizations for example rely on GEO satellites for their critical applications, where uptime requirements likely exceed 99%. Even brief interruptions can breach service-level agreements, and result in severe financial penalties.
GEO’s competitive edge lies in its ability to provide unparalleled reliability—by allowing lower-quality equipment into their networks, operators risk squandering this advantage.
The consequences of RFI in GEO networks extends beyond operational efficiency. It undermines the reliability that differentiates GEO from LEO, further complicating efforts to maintain market share in an increasingly crowded and cost-competitive industry.
______________________
Building Industry Consensus
______________________
Addressing RFI requires a unified approach across the SATCOM industry. Fragmented efforts and inconsistent standards are no longer viable.
Similar as to how SOMAP (Satellite Operators Minimum Antenna Performance) established requirements for parabolic antennas, the industry needs to agree on clear performance standards for new style antennas alongside harmonized testing procedures that prioritize quality and reliability.
Alongside SOMAP, another model program worth a mention is that operated by the U.S Space Force (USSF) that requires their antennas to undergo rigorous testing to ensure they comply with the USSF’s Wideband Global SATCOM (WGS) performance standards.
While the USSF sets the standards, it does so based on input from the industry to ensure that performance requirements are practical and align with the antenna manufacturing process. Furthermore, these requirements are regularly reviewed, again with industry input, to adapt to technological change.
This ongoing, two-way dialogue is critical in ensuring that the program remains highly comprehensive and should certainly be a key element of any new antenna performance requirements set for the SATCOM industry.
______________________________________________________________________
Selecting Long-Term Sustainability Over Short-Term Gains
______________________________________________________________________
The current trajectory, characterized by a desire to prioritize cost over quality, alongside a reactive approach to RFI, is unsustainable.
While short-term, cost-cutting measures may provide temporary relief, they come at the expense of long-term viability. The industry must realign its priorities, prioritizing spectrum integrity and proactive testing to ensure the reliability and sustainability of satellite networks.
Given that there is a real possibility that interference will occur more frequently moving forward, which for operators will translate to increased costs of managing said interference incidents, it seems only sensible that operators require ongoing testing when starting new contracts. Yes, increased testing carries additional costs—however, the cost is quite low when compared to the value such provides.
Having a clean spectrum is the foundation of SATCOM’s operational and commercial success and its preservation is essential for the industry’s continued growth.
The path forward is clear.
To thrive in the era of New Space, the industry must commit to safeguarding spectrum integrity by working together to develop industry wide performance standards and harmonized testing procedures. Only then can it continue to deliver reliability and quality of service and, at the same time unlock New Space’s full potential.
quadsat.com
Joakim Espeland
Author Joakim Espeland is the CEO and Co-Founder of Quadsat. He is an entrepreneur, former Electrical and Mechanical Engineer, Satellite Field Engineer, and Examiner. Joakim transformed Quadsat from idea and concept to startup and scale up.