5G isn’t always the obvious winner.
Sometimes, space beats the speed.
I used to think 5G was the clear winner.
It’s fast.
Perfect for cities, and dense areas.
What more could you need?
But here’s the catch:
You have to be near a tower.
Drift too far, and your signal fades.
Now, satellite internet steps in with a promise:
“You don’t need towers at all.”
And it delivers:
Works in mountains, forests, even offshore.
Needs only a dish, modem, and open sky.
But there’s a cost:
Signals travel to space and back.
That adds delay—latency.
Speeds aren’t always as fast as 5G.
Still, for everyday browsing, you’d barely notice.
For video calls or gaming, it might matter.
So, what’s better?
It depends on where you are—and what you need.
If you live in a city:
5G gives you unmatched speed.
If you’re off-grid or rural:
Satellite gives you the freedom to connect.
Both are still evolving.
One closing the gap on speed.
The other expanding reach.
5G wins in the race.
But satellite wins where there’s no track.
Thanks for reading.
LinkedIn: 