By 
Myths proliferate about how satellites will affect competition in the telecom, mobile, fixed broadband and cable TV market. Strand Consult examines this in the report “Will LEO Satellite Direct-to-Cellular Networks Make Traditional Mobile Networks Obsolete?” cuts through the hype and separates fact from fiction.
RELATED: Starlink’s disruption in Nigeria: Will traditional ISPs survive Elon Musk’s Internet revolution?
This note summarizes the key takeaways on satellites, Starlink, and the future of connectivity—highlighting why LEO systems will expand options for consumers and industries, but does not necessarily replace terrestrial networks. Notably Starlink has been able to grow through spectrum and regulatory opportunism, building a global footprint without acquiring spectrum rights or complying with regulatory obligations in some cases.
Its service is active in 150+ countries, making it a quasi‑global carrier with unmatched reach. This is destabilizing particularly for small countries and small providers which cohere to regulatory conventions and local laws. Overall, satellites are on track to expand connectivity overall, not replace the major terrestrial networks.
Recap of Satellite Discussion at Mobile World Congress
At Mobile World Congress in Barcelona, satellite‑enabled connectivity featured prominently across multiple sessions. Keynote 2, “Transforming Tomorrow’s Connected World,” highlighted how connectivity is expanding from traditional networks to cloud platforms and now into space, underscoring how cloud and satellite markets will reshape the telecom ecosystem.
During the keynote, SpaceX COO Gwynne Shotwell and Starlink SVP Michael Nicolls emphasized how far ahead Starlink is compared to competitors. The numbers bear this out: Starlink grew from 4 million customers in September 2024 to roughly 11 million by MWC, supported by approximately 9,800 satellites—around 70% of all satellites currently in orbit—serving 155 countries. Revenue has surged to $12 billion in just a few years. By contrast, French operator Eutelsat reported €1,244 million ($1,467 million) in 2024/25 revenue, with only €187 million ($220 million) coming from its LEO business (OneWeb). My prior observation that Elon Musk runs an “interstellar McDonald’s” while rivals run burger bars now seems generous—today, Starlink’s competitors look more like hot dog stands.
Starlink’s roadmap is equally aggressive. In the U.S., it already provides direct‑to‑device (D2D) service using 10 MHz of paired spectrum on T‑Mobile’s PCS G‑block (1910–1915/1990–1995 MHz). With its planned $17 billion acquisition of EchoStar’s AWS‑4 and AWS‑3 spectrum, Starlink aims to scale 5G‑enabled D2D services further, deploying up to 15,000 next‑generation satellites beginning in 2027.
Keynote 4, “What Does Strategic Tech Sovereignty Mean for Europe,” featured Eutelsat CEO Jean‑François Fallacher, who argued Europe needs a sovereign Starlink alternative. The ambition is understandable, but the economics are unforgiving: Starlink operates more than 9,700 satellites and generated $12 billion last year, while Eutelsat operates just 634 satellites and its OneWeb LEO revenue was €187 million ($220 million). The gap continues to widen, reinforcing a “winner‑takes‑most” LEO market.
Separately at the Morgan Stanley Technology, Media & Telecom Conference 2026, Verizon CEO Dan Schulman acknowledged that satellite‑based communications offer “real value add,” but also noted significant remaining hurdles—handset compatibility, seamless switching, and consistent service quality. “Right now, terrestrial … is the best connectivity and speed … far and away,” he said, emphasizing Verizon’s disciplined approach to ecosystem design.
Challenges for Broadband Providers
The central question is how the business model evolves when satellite‑enabled services begin competing with mobile, fixed broadband, and cable TV. Let’s examine this this technology segment by segment.
Mobile
Satellites can now connect directly to smartphones without a dish or special handset. This direct‑to‑device (D2D) capability eliminates dead zones, enhances disaster resilience, and provides valuable redundancy. In the United Kingdom, O2 customers can add a D2D supplement for £3 ($4) per month. That pricing point is important. Mobile operators note that customers in areas with poor coverage may be willing to pay a small fee for satellite reach, but it remains unclear how many will actually subscribe, what the subscriber acquisition cost (SAC) will be, how churn will behave, and whether a sustainable business case exists. Strand Consult doubts the economics will hold and expects D2D to ultimately become a free, fair‑use backup service bundled by mobile operators.
Fixed broadband
Strand Consult recommends assessing this market across multiple dimensions, including Starlink’s pricing structure. Starlink competes with DSL, fiber, and coaxial providers, each offering different speeds and price points. For some customers, Starlink represents a viable technical and economic alternative; for others, it does not. Strand Consult expects Starlink to focus first on rural broadband providers in the near term, with different dynamics emerging over the longer horizon.
Fixed Wireless Access (FWA)
For mobile operators and smaller broadband providers offering FWA, Strand Consult believes Starlink poses an even stronger competitive challenge, as many customers already accept broadband delivered through non‑fixed solutions.
Overall, Starlink is a fast‑moving competitor that initially targets niche or underserved segments but is likely to expand its relevance over time. The firm argues that the key barrier is not technological but psychological: customers must first understand when Starlink is a suitable alternative and when it is not. This mental barrier is eroding as more households shift from fixed broadband to FWA.
For more than 15 years, Strand Consult has argued against the assumption that fiber networks constitute a monopoly capable of sustaining higher prices. 5G and FWA exert strong downward price pressure on fixed broadband. Denmark illustrates this trend: although 99.1% of homes had access to high‑speed internet (fiber and coax) in 2025, the share of households using fixed broadband declined by five percentage points from 2024 to 2025—and again the following year. As in the transition from landlines to mobile phones, Danish households increasingly abandon fixed broadband in favor of mobile broadband as their primary home connection.
Defense & First Responders —The Revenue Opportunity
NATO countries are modernizing their defense systems, driving massive investment in advanced equipment. While the procurement lists are long, every new defense solution shares a common requirement: access to modern, secure communications. For years, the telecommunications industry has discussed new revenue streams for mobile operators—particularly through 5G and private 5G networks—but far less attention has been given to the communications needs of future defense systems.
A significant underexplored growth opportunity for mobile operators lies in using 5G as the backbone for first responders, military communications, and critical infrastructure. Proven models already exist: the U.S. FirstNet serves 8 million users with a $40 ARPU; Norway is migrating 150,000 emergency users to 5G; the UK is advancing its Emergency Services Network; and the Nordic region is pioneering cross‑border 5G military slicing. These are real, monetizable markets. However, expanding them requires confronting uncomfortable issues—trusted versus untrusted vendors, high‑risk suppliers, and Europe’s dependence on Chinese equipment—topics that are politically sensitive.
2026 may mark a true turning point, with mobile networks beginning to assume functions historically handled by dedicated defense or public‑safety systems. Secure connectivity for first responders is now a central policy issue. Where defense communications once operated in silos, modern 5G standards have become robust and secure enough to support mission‑critical functions on commercial infrastructure. Some countries are layering 5G onto existing TETRA systems, while others are evaluating full transitions to mobile‑based networks.
The boundary between civilian and defense networks is rapidly disappearing. Militaries are no longer building bespoke, isolated systems; instead, they are procuring best‑in‑class commercial solutions and integrating them into their operational environments. Even consumer devices are entering the defense ecosystem: Germany’s security authority recently approved iPhone and iPad for NATO‑classified communications, allowing them to handle information up to NATO Restricted without special software—a certification no other consumer device has achieved.
The business model is already validated. In the United States, AT&T’s FirstNet—supported by 20 MHz of prime spectrum and $7 billion in public funding—serves 8 million first responders at roughly $40 ARPU. And AT&T faces competition: Verizon offers Frontline, and T‑Mobile introduced T‑Priority in 2025. Norway is moving 150,000 emergency users from a state‑owned TETRA network to commercial 5G by 2031, and Nordic countries are deploying cross‑border 5G military slicing. Defense ministries are no longer building isolated systems—they are buying capacity from commercial operators. The Norwegian Armed Forces, for example, purchase capacity from Telenor and ICE, combining mobile and fixed‑network expertise with partners such as Finland’s Altibox and Nokia.
In the UK, the Home Office is leading a cross‑government initiative to deploy the new Emergency Services Network (ESN), which will replace the Airwave system. ESN will provide fast, secure voice, video, and data over 4G, giving first responders immediate access to critical information during emergencies.
NATO will likely procure an MVNO‑style solution operating on top of 5G standalone networks worldwide. This platform will be fully integrated with available satellite systems—and in this domain, Starlink holds a strong advantage as the only provider offering a high‑capacity, truly global satellite solution.
Spectrum: A Growing Strategic Battleground
The spectrum landscape surrounding satellite communications is already complex—and becoming more so. Starlink is a prime example. It has built a global network of thousands of satellites without securing nationwide or harmonized spectrum rights in advance. Its strategy has been pragmatic: deploy first, then obtain authorization to deliver services, beginning with low‑resistance use cases such as aviation, maritime connectivity, disaster zones (e.g., Florida and Haiti), and conflict regions (e.g., Ukraine and Iran).
Starlink now operates across a global spectrum environment defined by two fundamentally different regulatory models: markets like the United States, where operators buy and own spectrum, and markets like Europe, where spectrum is licensed for a limited period. Strand Consult has long noted the challenges of European spectrum harmonization, as reflected in its analysis 10 reasons why EU spectrum harmonisation is a great idea but nearly impossible to implement.
Mobile operators have struggled to navigate this increasingly fragmented landscape. Meanwhile, Starlink continues negotiating access country by country—and with remarkable success. The service is now available in more than 150 countries, territories, and markets, delivering high‑speed, low‑latency connectivity to residential customers and mobile “roaming” users. Starlink’s footprint spans much of North and South America, Europe, Africa, and Southeast Asia, demonstrating how a satellite operator without conventional spectrum holdings has become a dominant global player.
Strand Consult’s report, Will LEO Satellite Direct‑to‑Cellular Networks Make Traditional Mobile Networks Obsolete?, concludes that absent global spectrum harmonization or major technical breakthroughs, D2C networks will remain a complementary, sub‑scale layer—not a replacement—for terrestrial mobile infrastructure.
Greenland: When Global Competition Collides With a Natural Monopoly
In some countries, Starlink poses a direct threat to the viability of local telecommunications markets—Greenland being a prime example. With just 57,000 residents, Greenland relies on Tusass, its national telecommunications provider, which operates as a natural monopoly. Tusass maintains a solidarity‑based pricing model in which all customers pay the same rates regardless of geography. If Starlink enters the Greenlandic market, it would severely destabilize Tusass’s economic foundation, undermining its ability to sustain uniform pricing and maintain nationwide service quality. Over time, this would also constrain Tusass’s capacity to make essential long‑term infrastructure investments.
With decades of global telecom experience, Strand Consult consistently highlights Greenland as a textbook case of how satellite competition can disrupt natural monopolies. The firm has addressed this repeatedly, including in online discussions and its analysis Greenland, USA, and Denmark ménage à trois – what does it mean for the telecommunications industry?
Greenland is not unique. Many countries face similar dilemmas: local operators struggle to serve remote populations sustainably, while global satellite providers can enter the market with disruptive pricing and no obligation to support national policy goals. Regulators already face complex challenges—and these challenges will only intensify.
Claims suggesting D2C‑capable satellite networks will render terrestrial mobile networks obsolete overlook significant practical barriers. While LEO satellites offer unmatched reach in remote and underserved regions, they cannot match terrestrial networks on capacity, reliability, or low latency in urban and suburban settings. Dense terrestrial base‑station grids support far higher traffic volumes, particularly for data‑intensive services.
Regulatory and technical constraints tied to using terrestrial mobile spectrum for D2C services further limit scalability. This fragmentation—across frequencies, national authorizations, and device support—creates operational and economic inefficiencies. The result: while D2C satellite services are highly promising for bridging coverage gaps, they are not positioned to become a comprehensive alternative to terrestrial networks.
