Low-Earth Orbit satellites: Spectrum access - Digital Transformation Monitor - European Commission
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Digital Transformation Monitor
Low-Earth Orbit
satellites:
Spectrum access
July 2017
Internal Market,
Industry,
Entrepreneurship
and SMEs
Low-Earth Orbit satellites:
Spectrum access
© 3Dsculptor/Shutterstock.com
Traditionally, geo stationary satellites located at more than 36,000 km above the earth have been used to provide
satellite communication to a wide area. An alternative approach however, once unsuccessfully tried in the past is now
surfacing again. The idea is to use considerably massive constellation of satellites at lower altitudes to both densify
the network and reduce latency. Although technically feasible, those numerous projects come with challenges and
access to spectrum is one of them. At stake, the possibility to provide enough capacity at the right price points to serve
markets that remain up to now unserved.
The cost of such solution however Above all, mobile terrestrial
1 remains important in the absolute and
solutions are regularly looked after
communication systems were about to
be launched all over the world and all of
tomake this solution more and more a sudden what was supposed to be a
affordable revolutionary service was turned into a
Why are Low Earth Already tried in the past but more
more expensive and technically less
interesting offer than the then exploding
Orbit game prone to succeed today GSM. In the end, few low Earth orbit
constellations were launched and at the
changers? In the 1990’s, several players came with
the idea of launching a multitude of beginning of 2000, most LEO projects
satellites in low Earth orbit (LEO) with had been dropped or had gone bankrupt,
Because of their high position above the only to be purchased by investors at a
the aim of providing communication
earth, satellites are very effective in fraction of the initial cost.
services at low cost.
providing wide coverage. Indeed when
one cellular antenna on earth covers only Instead of using only a few high After that, it became pretty clear in the
a few square km, one satellite, depending orbit satellites, especially geostationary industry that the geostationary satellite,
on its elevation covers thousands of orbits where satellites have fixed with its wide-coverage capacities and its
square km. positions relative to the Earth (at an more recent high throughput system
elevation of around 36,000 km), the idea capabilities were the solution to
This explains why, when terrestrial providing communication services in a
was to place smaller and lighter satellites
infrastructures have not been deployed, world with demand increasing by the
orbiting at lower altitude (in the range of
satellite is usually seen as a better day for broadband speeds anytime,
180 km to 2,000 km) and thus drastically
economic and practical solution to bring anywhere.
reduce the cost of the solution because of
coverage to areas that would otherwise
satellite less expensive to manufacture Fundamentally however the very
be left completely unserved.
and launch. This however came with concept of LEO communication satellites
challenges, both technical and financial. was not dead. While the economic
interest of providing voice and
Figure 1: Presentation of LEO, MEO and GEO orbits narrowband coverage from a low
elevation satellite position was not
demonstrated, the idea of using LEO
position to provide broadband access
surfaced few years ago with several
announcements from yet unknown
players at that time. Technological
progress had been made and the market
prospect also had changed. If one
satellite with a very broad coverage
makes sense for narrowband usage, is it
powerful enough to provide broadband
capacity for a market that is still largely
not served?
Source: Communication satellites by William Stalling (2001) (1)
2
Low-Earth Orbit satellites: Spectrum access
LEO: Densifying the network to bring Similarly, with a densified network, the most likely to succeed, except maybe
increased capacity and reduced capacity is much more increased because for OneWeb, whose status is already well
latency of more important frequency reuse advanced with 1.7 billion USD of funding
capacity. By adding more satellites in the already secured.
Reduced coverage as compared to GEO…
constellations, capacity and as a result
Globally, the full completion of all the
The elevation that characterizes LEO has throughput per user can be easily added
LEO projects would result,
a direct impact on coverage. At an at a marginal cost.
approximately, in more than 17,000
elevation of 36,000 km, coverage from a
Who makes what? Which players, satellites in various LEOs providing a
satellite is 2.7 wider than it is at 1000km
which markets? total aggregated capacity of more
above the surface of the Earth. When
than150 Tbps. The main question that is
three satellites are required to cover the Several new entrants not linked to raised here is whether there are enough
Earth on GEO, at least 15 are required to
traditional satellite players places on the market for all those
cover the whole Earth on LEO. Since
players.Most probably, only a few
satellites at this elevation are moving,
players will succeed in launching their
many more are required to provide 17,000 satellites for more constellation.
constant coverage.
than 150 Tbps
Backhauling, consumer and enterprise
… But reduced latency and increased
broadband as main markets
capacity Among the more than 15 LEO projects
that have surfaced in the last 3 years, a Given their characteristic, LEO are
But the lower elevation of LEO satellite
number of new players is vying to launch particularly relevant for use cases where
constellation also has benefits. Indeed,
new constellation projects focusing on a large capacity is required. Not
since satellites are closer to the Earth
market where high capacity and high surprisingly, most ambitious projects in
than GEO satellites, the trip time
throughputs are required. their size focus on broadband
between the ground and the satellite and
applications, something that can be
the satellite and the ground is The three most publicized projects in served with different approaches:
significantly reduced and so is the this regard are OneWeb, LeoSat and
latency, which is one of the caveats of SpaceX initiatives. The latter has Through mobile backhauling: in areas
GEO satellites in general. Latency is received much press because of its CEO where terrestrial backhauling is too
critical for real time applications, of Elon Musk, also funder of Tesla, who costly to deploy.
which VoIP notably. envisions sending people to Mars. Fixed Broadband access for B2C in
SpaceX is also known for the remote/unserved/underserved areas
development of a launcher, whose 1st including in emerging markets.
stage can be reused (3).
Typical latency of GE0 vs LEO: Broadband for high mobility
This capability is aimed at further applications (trains, planes, boats).
reducing the cost of launching satellite to
280 vs 20 ms (2) space. The fact that these projects have Dedicated governmental, scientific and
been the most talked about does not enterprise connectivity.
however necessarily mean that they are
M2M and imaging targeted by other
players
While broadband focused projects have
Figure 2: Main broadband-focused LEO constellations
gotten much of the highlight, M2M, asset
tracking and imaging are also targeted
by other kind of players.
The only three LEO projects of the 2000s
to have survived after bankruptcy
(Iridium, Orbcomm and Globalstar) have
already launched a second generation of
satellite to replace the first one. They,
still focus on M2M and relatively
narrowband applications (voice,
messaging). Those projects thus require
less satellite. Iridium NEXT for instance
will have 66 operational satellites.
As for imaging, this market has been
invested by new players, often start-ups
leveraging very low cost micro satellites.
Planet is one of them. It aims at
photographing the earth every day and
thus take quasi real time imagery. Those
updates will be critical for cartography
and will pave the way for new innovative
applications based on low cost earth
Source: IDATE observation.
3
Low-Earth Orbit satellites: Spectrum access
Figure 5: Market potential compared, by technology in low-density areas
2
How will LEO
constellations fare
with competition
Source: IDATE
Which impact of LEO constellation
projects on the satellite industry?
As another comparison point, Eutelsat Is 5G an opportunity or a threat for
Because most ambitious LEO projects in expect to lower its CapEx required to the satellite industry?
figures are carried out by new players provide 1 Gbps to this same 1 million
(i.e. not traditional GEO operators), LEO The biggest competition however may
USD threshold in the mid term (4).
is often seen as a potential disruption in not come from the satellite industry but
the industry together with the Figure 4: OneWeb vs ViaSat 3 from the further expansion of terrestrial
technologies it involves. With their communication itself through 5G. If LEO
capability to drastically reduce the cost projects can help decrease the cost of
to deliver 1 Gbps, LEO could indeed satellite connectivity significantly, it still
further increase a price competition that cannot compete with terrestrial network
is already installed in some markets and when fixed infrastructures are already
is causing financial difficulties even to there (backbone and backhaul). This is a
biggest satellite operators on the market threat for the viability of LEO projects.
(Intelsat, Eutelsat, SES…) Using satellite and especially LEO as a
If we look at estimated CapEx to deliver a Complementarities between LEO and backhauling technology will be a way to
Gbps, we indeed see a sizeable difference GEO exist
Source: IDATE
complement rather than compete with
between OneWeb for instance and a such movement should operator really
However, confrontation between orbits decide to bridge the connectivity gap.
traditional GEO satellite operator. When
holds true only if LEO, MEO and GEO Because 5G will use frequency bands
OneWeb would invest 260,000 USD to
players remain distinct. It does not now similar to satellites (mmWaves), satellite
provide 1 Gbps, it takes between 2 and 9
seem to be the case as almost all GEO could also be more tightly integrated into
million USD for a traditional GEO
players are currently involved directly 5G. A 5G device would for instance
satellite operator.
(building) or indirectly (partnership) in seamlessly switch to any satellite
The race toward cheaper satellite LEO / MEO activities. Of the top 5 fixed
connectivity is however not over. GEO satellite operator, only Eutelsat has connectivity available once connection
connectivity price has already well currently no implication in such projects. with terrestrial infrastructure lost. This
decreased in the last years with the would enable the persistent coverage
In a competitive environment, LEO and goal of 5G. Asset tracking is a good
development of HTS satellites and
MEO are increasingly seen as example of service that would benefit
several innovations will enable GEO
complementary to GEO and as a way to from this capability. A plane that would
carriers to reduce cost even more. A GEO
differentiate from the competition. If be connected to an Air To Ground 5G
satellite such as ViaSat-3 due to be
LEO seems more adequate to provide networks would similarly benefit from
launched in 2019 should thus provide a
high capacity and low latency for most this capability when crossing the oceans.
1 Tbps capacity. With 3 satellites
demanding applications, GEO remains
required to cover the earth, the cost to This kind of complementarity is
the most adapted for broadcast purpose
produce a 1 Gbps capacity could be well currently limited. Solutions exist but are
in a context where video still account for
below the 1million USD price point. often proprietary and costly, hence the
the most important part of revenues in
the industry. requirement for a, cooperation between
terrestrial and space sector. This needs
Figure 3: Evolution of GEO capacity in Gbps to materialize in the standardization
space, especially within 3GPP where
cellular technologies are defined but also
on the regulatory field with the spectrum
allocations decided on the international
and local level.
For cooperation to be possible or
competition to be fair, each player must
have a fair access to spectrum depending
on its need and the value it bring to the
market / society.
Source: IDATE
4Low-Earth Orbit satellites: Spectrum access
Lower part of the spectrum favours This means that Ka band is currently
propagations. It is better for instance much looked after and that using this
3 for indoor coverage or rural areas for
terrestrial players. For satellites it is
band will be increasingly complex in the
future in order to limit interference. The
also better in places where rain falls prospect of 5G networks to use part of
are important, even though mitigation this frequency band is a concern for
Spectrum is key to techniques have been developed satellite players. In the US, but also in
South Korea, it has already been decided
In turn, higher frequencies are more
increase difficult to exploit but as a result have
that the 28 GHz band, located in the Ka
band will be devoted to 5G.
more bandwidth to use. Satellite
throughputs but players have been historically capable Other bands such as the L, S, C and X
of using higher frequency because band are more common to applications
limited in more power can be used for with less important need in throughput
transmission and thus compensate for such as M2M. It is also commonly used
availability signal degradation, by earth observation LEO projects.
Higher frequency bands come with V bands, the future for next
The more spectrum, the more smaller beams. Wider beam are better generation Very High Throughput
capacity and bandwidth for broadcast usage while smaller Systems?
Frequency bands are of course of critical beams are better for capacity.
In June 2016, Boeing revealed its plan for
importance for any wireless Ka band is the preferred band for a LEO constellation made up of 2956
communication system whether on earth capacity but its access could prove to satellites operating at 1200km in the V
or in the space. This is all the more true be difficult in the future band. This band is currently quasi
as more and more spectrum are required unused because of technical difficulties
today to increase throughput and To facilitate the identification of
associated with its high position in the
capacity. In the past only limited amount frequency bands, letters have been
spectrum.
of spectrum was required to provide assigned to them. The main bands used
voice or messaging services. With the by satellite players are presented in the However, this band has several merits
development of new data intensive following figure, ordered according to because of the large amount of
usages such as video consumption, their position in the spectrum. bandwidth available. There should not
access to the cloud, holding a limited be thus any sharing issue similar to the
This also corresponds historically to the
amount of spectrum is no longer an one experienced in the C and Ka band
time when those bands started being
option and most players are fighting to today, especially for what pertains to the
mastered and used. Ku band has been
get this access. repartition of the usage between
used for many years, while Ka band
terrestrial and satellite players.
Not all frequency bands are equal… usage, although growing rapidly is much
more recent. Since Boeing announcement, several
It is important to understand that not all other projects using this band have
frequency bands have equal Because they provide enough capacity
surfaced and been filled to the ITU. This
characteristics. Therefore frequency and can be used with smaller antennas
interest is not limited to LEO projects but
bands have different values to players. but also because satellite operators now
also shared by MEO and GEO players.
The position of the band in the spectrum have enough experience with them, Ku
is important but the width of the and above all Ka band are the preferred In many ways, the V band is today in the
frequency band is important too. Below bands for LEO constellations projects. same position as the Ka band in the
are basic principles that need to be Ka band is already the preferred band 1990s. It has been identified as
understood: for GEO High Throughput Systems (HTS) promising but propagation
with the notable exception of Intelsat characteristics still need to be further
who prefers the Ku band because it is studied before commercial equipment
less subject to interference created by can be developed. Those developments
rain falls. could take 10 years, before equipment
are available at an economical price
point.
Figure 6: Frequency bands and main areas of use
References
(1)Communication satellites by William Stalling
(2) High Throughput Satellite Communications
Systems: MEO vs. LEO vs. GEO
(http://www.harriscaprock.com/blog/high-
throughput-satellite-communications-systems-meo-
vs-leo-vs-geo/)
(3) http://www.reuters.com/article/us-space-
spacex-launch-idUSKBN1711JY
(4) http://spacenews.com/eutelsat-does-the-math-
on-reducing-future-satellite-costs-by-at-least-20-
Source: IDATE percent/
5About the Digital Transformation Monitor The Digital Transformation Monitor aims to foster the knowledge base on the state of play and evolution of digital transformation in Europe. The site provides a monitoring mechanism to examine key trends in digital transformation. It offers a unique insight into statistics and initiatives to support digital transformation, as well as reports on key industrial and technological opportunities, challenges and policy initiatives related to digital transformation. Web page: https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/dem/ This report was prepared for the European Commission, Directorate-General Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs; Directorate F: Innovation and Advanced Manufacturing; Unit F/3 KETs, Digital Manufacturing and Interoperability by the consortium composed of PwC, CARSA, IDATE and ESN, under the contract Digital Entrepreneurship Monitor (EASME/COSME/2014/004) Authors: Vincent Bonneau & Basile Carle, IDATE; Laurent Probst & Bertrand Pedersen, PwC DISCLAIMER – The information and views set out in this publication are those of the author(s) and should not be considered as the official opinions or statements of the European Commission. The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this publication. Neither the Commission nor any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for the use which might be made of the information contained in this publication. © 2017 – European Union. All rights reserved.
You can also read
