Most satellite-y things don’t and Starlink’s direct to cell won’t either.

Hence why the spectrum should be pretty cheap (along with its incredible susceptibility to obstructions… which is less of an issue when you’re going roughly “up” without pesky considerations like curvature of the earth)

And you do get a ton of gain with a small antenna at those high frequencies.

> and Starlink’s direct to cell won’t either

I could see it kinda working, at low frequencies. They are not that far away and there's not many things blocking the signal besides your roof.

Me too, but at slower data rates. At 550km above, that’s still a big signal loss by inverse square law. Problem with slow data rates is that they clog up the channels.

The inverse square law effect can be remedied using similar tech as in the Starlink consumer antennas. You aim the signal to where it's consumed.

> Problem with slow data rates is that they clog up the channels.

Yes, we must protect the tubes! :)

Phased arrays work without having to repoint, but they don't overcome lack of incidence (insolation?)

(e.g. we can't build a solar panel that works perpendicular to the sun (or nearly perpendicular) using phased array technology because there just isn't much solar radiation hitting the "dish" in the first place)