Direct-to-cell satellite connectivity holds significant promise for military and government use cases, but the specific applications and timelines are still being worked out, experts said at SATELLITE 2025.
Omnispace VP of Government Solutions David Radi said D2C offers messaging, voice, and sufficient data throughput for apps and email: “The quality of that service is going to be directly proportional to the amount of spectrum available.” He sees D2C supplementing military forces in contested environments: “There is no reason why direct-to-device/direct-to-cell cannot supplement forces. Think about how we will go about it if we have to take on the Chinese.” He also cited quality of life as a national security issue: retention improves when sailors and marines can communicate with families from remote deployments.
Explore the Show Daily 2025 Day 3 Issue
Check out more from this issue and find your next story to read.
Lynk Global Chief Engineer Dr. Joseph Bravman said D2C will benefit from the interoperability between military and commercial sectors: “The Department of Defense will be the beneficiary just as commercial will be the beneficiary. The amount of leverage that will take place between those two sectors can be very profound.” He predicted wide deployment two to three years after a gapless LEO constellation is in place.
Capgemini America D2D/D2C applications include humanitarian and disaster relief, emergency first responders, and border patrol. “It can be a lifesaver for personnel and added resiliency to connect to things, like vehicles, or for asset tracking,” said Dan Freyer, Director of Satellite Industry Engineering R&D. He cited the Los Angeles fires as an example of when D2C could have saved lives where terrestrial infrastructure was down.
Radi noted that military command will want government-controlled client applications on D2C networks. He remains optimistic on near-term adoption: “There are half a dozen or more trying to do this. Are all going to make it? No. But there are a lot of birds going up.” VS
