SkyLinker Sep 25, 2025

History, specifics and features, business models and positioning, technical details and technological differences – all in a large but very interesting analytical review

This extensive analytical article contains a deep analysis and comparison of the current leaders in low Earth orbit (LEO) satellite communication – Starlink, OneWeb, and Kuiper. A detailed review of their features, history, and specifics not only provides a complete picture of them but also an understanding of why comparing them solely by the number of satellites is simply inappropriate.

This Substack is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Introduction. Why “counting satellites” is not the point

There is a temptation to judge LEO networks by eye: whoever has more satellites is stronger. But networks are not a zoo of metal boxes in the sky. They are complex systems with their own traffic logic, spectrum limitations, resource allocation policies, ground infrastructure, terminal generations, and a hundred other quiet engineering decisions that determine whether a specific user in a crowded city will get their stable 50–200 Mbps or see “network busy” on the screen. The number of satellites is only one consequence of the chosen architecture, not its quality.

Therefore, in this material, we will not count “who has the longer and thicker” list of launches. We will break down three different approaches – Starlink, OneWeb, and Kuiper – and show how orbital architecture, inter-satellite links, frequency allocation, the flexibility of antenna beams, ground gateways, and ecosystem strategy form real capacity and user experience. And why two projects with the same “number of satellites” can differ dramatically during peak load over a metropolis or on a busy air route.

What exactly we are comparing (and what won’t be here)

To avoid mixing apples and oranges, let’s immediately define the scope. We are talking about broadband internet access – stationary and mobile (land/sea/air), where throughput, latency, stability, and network scale are important.

We deliberately do not include adjacent but different-class areas:

• Direct-to-Cell / NTN – direct communication with mass-market smartphones, where the link budgets, antennas, and service compromises are different.
• IoT / M2M – low-bandwidth telemetry services prioritizing energy efficiency, not throughput per user.
• Specialized PNT/A-PNT services (time and position from space), which have a different metric of utility.
• Niche state-military channels with non-standard requirements and classified technical specifications.

These areas are interesting and important, but they address different consumption circles and require a separate analysis. If you mix them with broadband access, the comparison will be flawed – like comparing a backpack radio modem with a backbone router on a single scale.

How to read this text

We will proceed from the systemic picture to the specifics: a brief historical context, followed by orbital architecture and inter-satellite links, spectrum and regulation, antennas and beams, ground gateways and the cloud, terminals, operation in “hot zones,” the strategy and ecosystem of each player, generation integration, and finally, factors of resilience. Along the way, we will explain why certain engineering choices (for example, ISL with high throughput or flexible beam-hopping in Ka/Ku) give a better result than simply “adding 200 more satellites.”

The ultimate goal is simple: to provide a tool for a smart comparison – not “how many satellites,” but “where, for whom, and at what cost real capacity and service quality are provided.”