Satellite internet has changed what is possible at remote sites. It has also created a new failure mode: a fast connection that only one laptop can reach.

Starlink has genuinely changed what is possible for sites fibre will never reach — farms, lodges, quarries, clinics, construction offices. We install a lot of it. We also get called out to a lot of installations that are technically working and practically useless.

The dish is the easy part

Getting a clear view of the sky and a stable mount is straightforward. The problem is almost always what happens after the dish: a single router in one corner of the property, serving a building it was never going to cover, while everyone else walks to the office to send an email.

Satellite connectivity is an uplink. It is not a network. Budget for both.

What a proper distribution looks like

  • Access points placed from a coverage plan, not from where the power sockets happen to be
  • Wired backhaul to each access point wherever a cable can be run
  • Point-to-point links to outbuildings instead of hopefully-placed repeaters
  • A separate network for guests and for cameras, so neither can swamp the other

Where Starlink is the wrong answer

If fibre is available at your site and you can live with the installation wait, fibre is usually cheaper per month and lower latency. Starlink earns its place where fibre is absent, where you need connectivity before fibre can be delivered, or where you need a second independent link.

The case for two links

For sites that cannot afford downtime, the strongest argument for satellite is not that it replaces your line — it is that it fails independently of it. A fibre cut and a satellite outage rarely happen at the same moment. With failover configured on the router, staff will often not notice the switch at all.