It’s important to understand how AST beats Starlink by a lot in multiple different dimensions.
ACLR is focus in the frequenzy domain. How good a system is at not spamming adjacent _channels_.
And the 20dB difference is log scale.
AST is 100 times better.
3/
Let me show you what a 20dB or 100x better ACLR performance looks like on a linear scale.
ASTs RF quality moat is no subtle difference.
4/
It provides edge in two major ways.
One is that frequenzy reuse patterns (here 3 and 7) means in a service area / a country an SCS operator themselves operate a lot of adjacent channels, in adjacent cells.
And so good ACLR means you don’t degrade your own traffic.
6/
🐾🐾The other effect is that unless your ACLR isn’t good enough you will not be allowed to operate at all because you are spamming not just your own cells, but also traffic of other satellite and mobile network operators.
Starlink is well into this category.
7/
AT&T saying Starlink would degrade their terrestrial traffic by 18% in a recent filing.
True or not 1% is too much and enough to kill Starlink as the terrestrial incumbent MNO is protected primary use and SCS is supplementary on no interference basis.
8/
In short Starlink must get their ACL leakage below the noise floor.
And get their degradation of other protected networks to zero.
Or they will not be allowed to operate.
And that is where FCC found their metric for PFD level.
9/
A PFD level Starlink themselves say they can not meet in aggregate from their constellation using existing technology.
It is a very dire situation for 100+ Starlink d2c sats already launched.
10/
The other dimension is about directivity and gain.
First aspect, size.
🐾🐾🐾ASTs larger arrays can fit more elements as they are spaced approximately 1/2 a wavelength appart.
It’s brilliant to make elemts with higher gain toward edges of the Fov as it is there an phased array strugles with directivity and link distances are longest.
It means that AST can add a base coverage NTN layer over all land blasting at full power.
While Starlink will need complete redesign. And _at best_ be allowed to operate existing d2c sats well away from any tower infrastructure and at reduced power.
21/
This is the reason why T-Mobile signed MoU with Starlink conditioned on Starlink meeting FCC downlink -120 PFD limit. (Which Starlink can’t with their current tech w/o throtteling power down to text message only.
Current Space-x bad RF tech _is_ a deal breaker for any MNO.
22/
But it needs to be understood just how large and multi dimensonal ASTs moat is.
5G and 6G has more services than just coms. Such as very precise positioning.
MNOs wants that everywhere.
23/
And then there is the Business Intelligence value of lighting up AST _everywhere_ (which Starlink can’t won’t by T-MUS admission).
MNOs will get intel worth Bn they never had before. As they suddenly see all phones out of tower coverage.
You can use that intel to optimize.
24/
The power savings alone will be in the hundred of million dollars from such optimization as the NTN can carry rural low load on itself for example and be used to deploy direct and wake up towers as needed.
25/25
Ran out of tweets in a single thread.
🐾🐾🐾🐾
I’ll als highlight the area part of area Spectral Efficiency as it relates to directivity.
The extreme spatial focus of ASTs beams is mentioned in my pinned tweet.
I was asked to comment on Space-x last Ex parte letter that they have filed to the FCC.
So here is the picture:
$ASTS has asked authority to launch full constellation beyond 25 satellites.
Space-x wants to delay and complicate that.
They keep filing all the way to sunshine 1/
It’s extremely uncompetitive behaviour and a bit immoral as what Space-X has begged be implemented onto AST is the same type of regulations they see as an obstacle when applied to themselves.
What they ask that AST shall not be allowed to is what they themselves do.
Golden rule?
It’s important to grasp that the next 20 satellites and the Block1s are approved already.
So this pen-fighting is about about satellites to launched beyond Q1 2026.
_One way to increase Area spectral efficiency is lowering constellation altitude.
That way comes at two costs: The number of 🛰️satellites required on orbit increases and their orbital dwell ⏳time decreases both affecting the replenish rate 🛠️adversely as:
🛠️ = 🛰️/⏳
🧶🐈⬛
1/n
Let’s do a SpaceMob thing and look at this from first principles.
A satellite has a field of view. FoV.
That Field of View projects a footprint on earth.
The footprint increases with angle of the field of view and increases with altitude.
2/
Within this field of view the satellite creates beams.
They also have an angle called beamwidth and a footprint called beamcell.
There are many of these beams and beamcells within the satellite footprint.
🚨 $ASTS IS INCREASING ITS PATENT MOAT ESP. ON DOW ORBITS 🚨THIS PATENT COVERS THE SIGNAL-PROCESSING METHODS — SELECTION COMBINING, DIVERSITY COMBINING, AND MIMO — THAT ENABLE RELIABLE DIRECT-TO-CELL CONNECTIVITY FROM LEO SATELLITES TO STANDARD HANDSETS.
1/
THE PROBLEM ADDRESSED: END USER DEVICES MAY RECEIVE MULTIPLE SATELLITE SIGNALS (MULTIPLE PATHS, SUB-ARRAYS, OR MULTI-SATELLITE LINKS) WITH DIFFERENT DELAYS, DOPPLER, AND SNRS.
THE PATENT SPECIFIES HOW TO CHOOSE AND COMBINE THESE SIGNALS TO MAXIMIZE LINK RELIABILITY.
2/
SELECTION COMBINING: the system monitors multiple receive branches and selects the best branch using quality metrics (e.g., SNR/BER estimates, channel quality indicators). selection lowers complexity and power for the handset when one branch dominates
Signed two additional early-stage contracts for the U.S. Government end customer, bringing the total to eight contracts to date with the U.S. Government as an end customer.
This is huge.
The rate at which company adds DoD contracts is staggering. It’s not in analyst models.
2/
Service Rollout: Nationwide intermittent service in the US by end-2025, followed by UK, Japan, and Canada in Q1 2026. Expected revenue: $50-75M in H2 2025 from government and commercial customers. Supports full voice, data, and video at up to 120 Mbps peak speeds per cell.
/3