Ground Tech CEOs Talk Digitization, Standards, and Antenna Progress

One of the big discussions at SATELLITE 2025 will be the advances in ground technology. What does the future look like for the main ground tech players?

What does the future look like for the main ground tech players? Via Satellite conducted a roundtable of leading executives in this sector. Taking part are: Don Claussen, CEO of ST Engineering iDirect; Joakim Espeland, CEO of Quadsat; David Gelerman, CEO of SpaceBridge; Daniel Gizinski, president of Comtech’s Satellite & Space Communications Segment; and Geoffroy Lerosey, CEO and co-founder of Greenerwave.

VIA SATELLITE: When looking at ground tech, what is the one trend, one breakthrough in technology that you think could make a huge difference?

Claussen: The industry remains focused on adopting virtualization and cloud-native technologies to create flexible, efficient ground systems. This shift is driven by increasing bandwidth demands, connectivity needs and a requirement to integrate with the traditional telco infrastructure. The convergence of terrestrial and satellite technologies offers opportunities for seamless communication solutions. Standardization, aligned with 3GPP/5G protocols, is key to fostering efficiency, collaboration, and innovation to connect the most remote locations and enable hybrid networks.

Espeland: One thing is certain, the satellite environment is getting more complex than ever before. The ground segment now has to cope with a multi-orbit, multi-frequency environment and that is driving a whole host of innovation to meet new demands. The complexity also means there is a heightened chance of errors which can have a hugely detrimental impact on the entire ecosystem but testing that ground equipment has been historically challenging.

Gizinski: Digitalization of satellite ground infrastructure — savvy operators are already moving to start purchasing new technology that digitizes radio frequency signals and distributes via ethernet networks, which will have a huge impact on future satellite ground stations.

This technology enables modems to be installed in centralized locations with the ability to dynamically connect to gateway antennas on-demand. This allows satellite operators to more efficiently offer connectivity as a service and easily support the types of service that customers demand today and into the future.

Lerosey: For me there are two things that will be pivotal in the coming years. The first one is constellation agnosticism, with antennas capable to connect to LEO/GEO/MEO [Low-Earth Orbit, Geostationary Orbit, and Medium-Earth Orbit] satellites first, and later on antennas capable to do so over multiple bands (Ku/Ka). The second key properties of terminals is in their cost. The market needs terminals that rapidly reach Starlink's ones.

VIA SATELLITE: Given the proliferation of vertically integrated businesses, how do you view the business prospects overall for those players in the ground segment?

Espeland: In most circumstances you would argue that it is difficult to do everything yourself effectively. However, when you see that SpaceX’s terminal manufacturing department is bigger than an average antenna manufacturer, it appears this might not be the case in this industry right now. This has the potential to have a huge impact on ground segment manufacturers and their success will largely depend on the ability of the industry as a whole to compete against these new giants. At the same time, while we see a lot of consolidation among satellite operators, this is not something we are seeing between satellite operators and the ground segment. If that were to happen, it would certainly enable the traditional players to more closely emulate the turn-key business models of the megaconstellations.

Gelerman: This is an inevitable development. To successfully compete in the New Space era and drive down overall costs, the multi-vendor structure — where multiple companies provide different components of the puzzle, such as satellite spectrum, operations, and ground equipment — will likely be streamlined. Some companies will be phased out, either organically or through mergers.

Gizinski: Vertical integration is an interesting topic and comes with positives and downsides. When everything is working well, vertical integration can drive amazing efficiency, but the costs for getting one layer in the stack wrong can be enormous. Implementing open standards-based architectures and competing each layer brings some up-front complexity, but allows operators to swap out components as newer, better technology becomes available or when demand outpaces supply of a vendor. New technology, such as digitalization of satellite ground infrastructure, help non-vertically integrated operators compete and win in a rapidly evolving market.

Several large operators offer satcom-as-a-managed-service or SaaMS, to the U.S. government. These offering support specific waveforms used by current government ground terminals. This adds value for government applications, both by enabling continued use of existing satellite ground terminals and supporting special government modes of operation. These modes provide capabilities not provided by vertically integrated operators like Starlink or OneWeb. So, I believe there will continue to be strong demand for non-vertically integrated players.

Lerosey: The answer to this question is in two directions. Of course, vertical integration is good for LEO players since they can reduce the cost of their terminals drastically. Yet the problem is that many customers want alternatives for redundancy, which explains the success of multi-orbit solutions. This trend may grow in the future. Also, there is a fair chance that customers require sovereign solutions in the future, which again advocate against vertical integration.

VIA SATELLITE: We have seen a lot of consolidation within the traditional operators. Do you think we are at the cusp of seeing similar levels of consolidation in the ground tech arena?

Claussen: Consolidation in ground tech seems inevitable, driven by the need for economies of scale and unified innovation efforts to meet growing customer demands. At the same time, dual- and multi-vendor configurations remain a priority, fostering competition, innovation, and reliability by avoiding single-system dependencies.

The semiconductor industry offers a parallel. Consolidation there has driven efficiency and innovation, with Broadcom’s acquisition of VMware as a prime example. Ground tech will likely follow this model, balancing consolidation and ecosystem diversity.

Gelerman: Absolutely. This process has already been ongoing, not just at the satellite operator level but also in the ground segment. We’re even seeing multi-level mergers and acquisitions, such as Hispasat (a satellite operator) acquiring Axess (a service provider), and now Indra, a ground equipment provider, is in the process of acquiring Hispasat. As incumbent players look to compete with fully vertically integrated companies like Starlink and Kuiper, more of these acquisitions will happen as companies aim to become vertically integrated themselves.

Lerosey: Consolidation, or simple death of terminal providers is necessary for the previous reasons. Operators facing Starlink or Kuiper will need to join forces with a few terminals players to maximize volumes and limit costs to be competitive.

VIA SATELLITE: As we enter this multi-orbit era, as operators look to fight back against SpaceX and Starlink, do you think multi-orbit can be effective in mobility markets and can other operators fight back?

Claussen: Multi-orbit strategies are essential for delivering global coverage and low-latency connectivity, particularly in aviation, maritime, and enterprise sectors. Achieving such networks requires ecosystem-level solutions and interoperability and security standards. Operators must differentiate through flexibility and specialization to meet these evolving demands.

Espeland: It is clear that the likes of SpaceX and Amazon very much have telecommunications and mobility in their sight. Why would you enter an industry as small as satellite communications unless you see a much larger potential to apply the technology elsewhere? We have already seen many of the large mobile companies partnering with satellite companies. This is an area where these new players are likely to gain significant ground, especially as LEO is much more suitable to enable these kinds of services in most cases. The key for mobility markets in general will be ensuring global coverage and enough subscribers to cover the costs of those areas where there are fewer subscribers (such as at sea for example). The large providers with deep pockets are likely to be best placed to enable that, which could be challenging for the rest of the industry regardless of whether they can enable multi-orbit coverage.

Gelerman: Multi-orbit is definitely a step in the right direction, as it will help GEO satellite operators protect their existing assets. The question is whether they are making the right moves or just following the trend. Aside from Eutelsat and Telesat (once Lightspeed launches), many satellite operators are forming temporary alliances with Starlink and reselling their equipment and services. If this continues, Starlink may ultimately absorb these players.

Gizinski: The competitive landscape has been meaningfully changed for the foreseeable future, but there are still numerous use cases that are not well served by Starlink and advantages to different architectures. The challenge for the traditional providers and others in the industry will be finding ways to innovate and drive change faster to be able to respond to customer needs at the speed of relevance.

Lerosey: Multi-orbit is indeed of prime importance for on the move applications in order to make sure that coverage is worldwide. But I think that privately owned megaconstellations also face credibility and security problems, that encourage the use of multi-orbit solutions to back them with more government credible GEO operators.

VIA SATELLITE: One of the big issues in ground tech looking at it from the outside is there is a lot of ‘proprietary’ tech that is difficult to change and swap out. How do you assess this view and where are we in adopting more open systems?

Claussen: I believe our siloed practices have outlived their usefulness. The satcom industry traditionally operated in isolation, relied on proprietary technologies that lacked interoperability, and severely limited choice and flexibility due to vendor lock-in. Adopting open systems will present a learning curve, but interoperable architectures is critical for fostering innovation. We can shorten our learning curve by leveraging lessons learned from the mobile wireless sector.

Gelerman: The only way to reduce costs is by embracing open standards across the industry. This would allow user terminals from different manufacturers to be interchangeable, which would drive down costs for the chips required for two-way satellite communication. The economies of scale and vertical integration (like Starlink) will help New Space GEO companies, such as Astranis, win in this space.

Gizinski: We’ve seen positive traction in adopting standards at several layers in the ecosystem, ranging from standard waveforms like DVB-S2X to standards around digitization in DIFI, and there’s a lot of progress being made with 5G NTN. One of the big challenges with standards is getting to critical mass where there are enough systems being procured to keep a supply base competing. And while we’ve seen a few programs start to call these out, most of the big customer purchases to date still call for proprietary system, where the open architectures are being left in the lab. It will likely take a large investment in an open system that customers see paying off before the rest of the industry follows. And of course, the players that are growing the fastest — like SpaceX — are not deploying anything open.

VIA SATELLITE: Name one piece of technology or product (not your own company) that impresses you in terms of ground tech?

Espeland: I think it would have to be multi-frequency parabolic tracking antennas. I personally think that parabolic antennas in themselves are already really impressive and can do a lot of things. These antennas that are able to track and handle multi-frequency are especially impressive.

Gelerman: The Starlink terminal.

Gizinski: The Starlink user terminal is a truly impressive product. A single small form factor device electronically acquires and tracks a complex satellite constellation, supports a very sophisticated communications waveform, provides a simple user interface, and is extremely simple to install and operate. The user first mindset that went into this design is something that should be adopted more broadly across the industry.

Lerosey: Kymeta, although their terminals have some real limitations in terms of efficiency and beam switching due to their technology, have made a giant step with their antennas.

VIA SATELLITE: Finally, do you see the ground tech arena being at an inflection point? How do you assess the prospects for the second half of the decade?

Claussen: Yes, the ground tech industry is undoubtedly at a turning point. The push for interoperability is propelling innovation and driving new product development. This shift is reshaping industry demands, with greater emphasis on scalability, flexibility, and reduced operational costs. These changes present the ideal conditions for automated solutions, and I anticipate significant progress in this field over the next few years, particularly in orchestration and AI-driven network management.

Gelerman: Yes, we are at an inflection point. The era of large, inefficient companies operating with 80% EBITDA margins is coming to an end. With the rise of bandwidth-efficient ultra-high throughput satellites (UHTS), reprogrammable smart software-defined satellites, and new ultra-efficient VSAT platforms, the competitive edge will go to companies that embrace innovation, drive continuous efficiency, reduce costs, simplify installations, and offer superior user experiences, all while staying competitive within their respective markets.

Gizinski: Digital ground ecosystems are finally at a tipping point — with decision by multiple operators and U.S. DoD services to begin procurement of digital ground systems. We are quite bullish on the prospects for digital ground being the gateway to cost effective, multi-orbit support that keeps the legacy players relevant and supports next-generation constellations.

Lerosey: For me we are still in its infancy, with technologies relying only on new integrated circuits (ICs) and pure semiconductors technique, except for Kymeta or us. it will be interesting to see new concepts coming out in the following years. From a business point of view, I think that consolidation and federation behind few actors will be the main drivers. VS