Our customer has relocated an Intellian v240C to its current location. All diagnostic tests have passed, and there are no active alarms. However, the received signal performance is lower than that of the 1.8 m fixed antenna. With the v240C, we are measuring an Es/N0 of 6.0 dB, whereas the 1.8 m antenna achieves 8.0 dB.
Has anyone experienced this specific issue previously? I would appreciate any guidance on potential root causes.
“We already have 5G and fiber-optic networks. Why do we still need satellite communications?”
The answer is actually quite simple:
Terrestrial networks cannot reach everywhere.
In cities, we are used to having:
Fiber-optic broadband 4G/5G cellular networks Wi-Fi connectivity However, all of these services rely on extensive ground infrastructure.
In some locations, building and maintaining that infrastructure is either extremely difficult or prohibitively expensive.
Deserts 6.2 7.3m antenna in Kazakhstan
Consider vast deserts such as the Sahara Desert or the Gobi Desert.
In many cases, there may be hundreds of kilometers between population centers.
Deploying fiber-optic networks across such areas requires:
Excavation and cable installation Continuous maintenance Protection against harsh environmental conditions Sandstorms, extreme temperatures, and remote locations can significantly increase operating costs.
Satellite communication offers a much simpler solution. With:
A satellite antenna A communication terminal A power source users can establish connectivity almost anywhere with a clear view of the sky.
For industries such as oil and gas, mining, and scientific research, satellite communication is often the most practical option.
Islands 6.2m antenna in Guyana
Many remote islands have populations of only a few hundred or a few thousand people.
Although undersea fiber-optic cables can provide excellent connectivity, laying submarine cables is extremely expensive.
In some cases:
The island may be hundreds of kilometers from the mainland The number of users may be relatively small The investment may simply not be economically viable.
As a result, many islands continue to rely on satellite communications for:
Internet access Television broadcasting Telephone services Satellite systems provide a reliable connection to the outside world without the need for costly underwater infrastructure.
Mountain Regions: Difficult Terrain 3.0m atnenna in Russia
Mountainous areas present a different set of challenges.
Building terrestrial communication networks often requires:
Road construction Power infrastructure Cellular towers Maintenance can also be difficult due to terrain and weather conditions.
Natural disasters such as:
Earthquakes Landslides Heavy snowstorms can damage or completely disrupt ground-based communication networks.
Satellite communication, however, does not depend on terrestrial cables or towers.
As long as the antenna has a clear line of sight to the satellite, communication can continue.
Emergency Communications Depend on Satellites 1.2m flyaway antennas One of the most important roles of satellite communication is disaster response.
When terrestrial networks fail, satellites often become the last available communication link.
Examples include:
Earthquakes Hurricanes Floods Tsunamis Cell towers may collapse.
Fiber-optic cables may be damaged or severed.
But satellites remain operational in orbit, unaffected by events on the ground.
This is why emergency response teams, humanitarian organizations, and government agencies frequently deploy portable satellite terminals during disaster recovery operations.
The Business Case From a telecommunications operator’s perspective, economics matter.
Imagine a remote village with only 50 households.
If the cost of extending fiber-optic infrastructure is extremely high, it may take decades to recover the investment.
In situations like this, satellite communication can often provide a more cost-effective solution.
Will Satellite Communications Disappear in the Future? Probably not.
Instead, different technologies will continue to complement each other:
Cities: Fiber optics + 5G Towns and suburban areas: Fiber optics + wireless networks Remote regions: Satellite communications Each technology serves a different purpose.
In fact, low-Earth-orbit (LEO) satellite constellations such as Starlink are making satellite internet faster, more accessible, and more affordable than ever before.
Connecting the Unconnected At its core, satellite communication is about solving a simple problem:
How do we connect people when terrestrial networks cannot reach them?
Whether it is a research team in the desert, a remote island community, a mountain village, or an emergency response unit, satellite communications continue to play a critical role in connecting people to the world.
And that is why satellite communication remains relevant—even in the age of 5G and fiber optics.
If your organization operates in remote areas or requires reliable satellite connectivity, we are here to help. Our high-quality satellite antennas and communication solutions connect people and businesses wherever terrestrial networks cannot reach.
Contact us today to learn how we can keep you connected—whether in deserts, islands, mountains, or disaster zones.
I've been going through the pictures in this forum, making sure they show up in the actual messages, and not as attachment links that you have to click on. (and which will soon not work anymore!)
I've just looked at the picture of the earthing wire and noticed also the scar on the main support tube.
I suspect that a lightning strike may have been responsible for vaporising the copper wire core and the explosive opening of the yellow/green sheath.
Optic fibre technology is now going up to 224 Gigabits per second using 224 Gbps-PAM4 which uses 4-level Pulse Amplitude Modulation (2 bits per symbol).
According to Google AI they are hoping to get this to work in a bandwidth of 70 to 90 GHz.
Is anyone considering if this is feasible over up/down optical frequency satellite links via the atmosphere ?.
Please note that I have adjusted the images sizes in the above to reduce the bytes from a total of 647k bytes to 99k bytes so as to stop pages in this forum from being downgraded due to excessive average load times on slow 4G mobile phones. During April over one thousand pages in this forum were downgraded in Google Search, which got me in a bit of a panic. The average download time (of forum pages) exceeded 2.5 seconds. Now the good news. I got the average down and it is now under 2.5 seconds and all those 1151 pages in the forum are now released as OK in Google Search. Hooray!
Just tested. Now 2.1 seconds download compared with 5.14 sec before.
