A practical comparison for Australian remote connectivity decisions.
The satellite industry has fundamentally changed in the past five years. Where geostationary (GEO) satellites once dominated, low-earth orbit (LEO) constellations like Starlink and OneWeb now offer an alternative with different performance characteristics. For operations planning remote connectivity, understanding these differences is essential.
Neither technology is inherently "better"—each has strengths and weaknesses that make it more or less suitable for specific applications. This guide provides a practical comparison to inform your connectivity decisions.
The core difference between LEO and GEO is how far the satellites orbit from Earth:
Geostationary satellites orbit at exactly 35,786 kilometres above the equator, where their orbital period matches Earth's rotation. This means they appear stationary relative to a ground location, allowing fixed dish antennas to maintain constant connection to the same satellite.
Low-earth orbit satellites typically orbit between 500 and 2,000 kilometres—roughly 20 times closer to Earth than GEO. At this altitude, satellites complete an orbit every 90-120 minutes, meaning they're constantly moving across the sky. LEO constellations deploy thousands of satellites to ensure continuous coverage as individual satellites pass overhead.
This altitude difference has cascading effects on latency, coverage, equipment requirements, and reliability.
LEO: 20-40ms — The shorter distance means data travels to the satellite and back in roughly 20-40 milliseconds, comparable to many terrestrial connections.
GEO: 600ms+ — The 71,500km round trip (to satellite and back) introduces roughly 600 milliseconds of latency, plus processing delays.
Impact: LEO's lower latency enables real-time applications like video conferencing, VoIP, and interactive remote control that struggle over GEO. For applications like email, file transfer, and most industrial monitoring, GEO latency is acceptable.
LEO: Individual terminals typically achieve 50-350 Mbps download, 10-50 Mbps upload, depending on congestion and plan tier.
GEO: Business-grade VSAT typically delivers 10-100 Mbps download, 2-10 Mbps upload, though high-throughput satellites can achieve more.
Impact: LEO generally offers higher peak bandwidth, but actual performance depends heavily on local congestion. In areas with many users, GEO dedicated capacity can outperform shared LEO bandwidth.
LEO: Subject to more variables—rain fade, constellation gaps, terminal obstructions, network congestion, fair use throttling. No contractual SLAs from major providers.
GEO: Proven technology with decades of operational history. Business-grade services typically offer 99.5-99.9% availability SLAs. Less susceptible to localised congestion.
Impact: For mission-critical applications requiring guaranteed uptime, GEO's reliability and SLA commitments provide certainty that consumer-grade LEO currently cannot match.
LEO: Starlink and OneWeb provide coverage across all of Australia. Coverage in very high latitudes (above 70°) can be limited.
GEO: Excellent coverage across Australia. Signals weaken at very high latitudes, but this rarely affects Australian operations.
Impact: Both technologies provide good Australian coverage. Neither has significant coverage advantages for typical remote operations.
LEO: Electronically-steered flat panel antennas that automatically track satellites as they pass overhead. Compact, relatively easy to install, but require clear sky view and can be affected by obstructions.
GEO: Fixed parabolic dishes pointed at a specific satellite. More complex installation (precise alignment required), but very reliable once installed. Larger footprint.
Impact: LEO terminals are easier to deploy for temporary or mobile applications. GEO installations are more permanent but offer predictable performance.
LEO: Can experience signal degradation during heavy rain (rain fade), particularly with Ku-band frequencies. Ka-band systems more susceptible than Ku-band.
GEO: Also affected by rain fade, but the technology is mature and link budgets typically account for weather margins. High-frequency Ka-band services more susceptible.
Impact: Both technologies experience weather-related degradation. In tropical regions with frequent heavy rainfall, this is a consideration for both. Multi-path architecture mitigates weather-related risks.
Several factors make the LEO vs GEO decision particularly relevant for Australian operations:
With mine sites often 1,000+ kilometres from major cities, terrestrial alternatives are limited. Satellite is frequently the only option, making the choice between LEO and GEO more consequential.
Pilbara heat, tropical cyclones, and outback dust create challenging environments for any connectivity technology. GEO's proven reliability in Australian conditions over two decades provides confidence. LEO is newer, and long-term performance data in extreme Australian conditions is still being established.
Most readily available LEO services (Starlink Business, OneWeb) target consumer and small business markets. Their terms, support, and reliability differ from enterprise-grade GEO services designed for commercial operations. Understanding this distinction is important when comparing options.
Rather than choosing one technology, many operations benefit from a location-specific assessment that considers:
Orion's approach is technology-agnostic. We assess your specific situation and recommend the technology—or combination of technologies—that best serves your operational requirements. Sometimes that's LEO. Sometimes it's GEO. Often, it's both.
Starlink Business provides excellent bandwidth and latency for many applications. However, it lacks contractual SLAs, has fair use policies that can affect heavy users, and support is limited compared to enterprise services. For crew welfare and non-critical applications, it often works well. For mission-critical systems, additional redundancy is typically warranted.
It's pure physics. The speed of light is approximately 300,000 km/s. A round trip to a GEO satellite (35,786 km up, 35,786 km down, then back to the user via the same path) covers about 143,000 km, which takes roughly 477 milliseconds at the speed of light, plus processing delays at the satellite and ground stations.
Unlikely in the foreseeable future. GEO satellites excel at broadcast applications, offer proven reliability, and provide dedicated capacity that shared LEO constellations cannot. The market is likely to remain segmented, with different technologies serving different needs.
Medium Earth Orbit satellites like O3b mPOWER operate at roughly 8,000 km altitude, offering a middle ground—lower latency than GEO (roughly 125ms) with more capacity per satellite than LEO. MEO is particularly strong for high-throughput, low-latency enterprise applications.
Our team assesses your location, requirements, and constraints to recommend the right technology—or combination of technologies—for your operation. No bias toward any particular vendor or technology.
Request a Site Assessment