Starlink versus 5G
Two very different ways to get online without a fixed line. We compare cost, latency, weather resilience and where each one makes sense.
28 July 2026 · 8 min read · Signal Station Labs
Low earth orbit satellite and 5G fixed wireless solve the same problem from opposite directions: one skips the local network entirely, the other leans on it.
Satellite is predictable in the places where cellular is not. If you have no usable mobile signal, no amount of antenna tuning will fix that, and satellite becomes the only realistic option.
5G is cheaper to start and cheaper to run. Where signal is decent it will usually give lower latency and better upload than satellite, and there is no dish to mount or clear of snow.
Weather matters for satellite and barely at all for 5G. Heavy rain, wet snow on the dish and dense canopy all cost you throughput.
If you can get two bars of 5G outside your house, test 5G first. If you cannot, satellite is worth the money.
Method note
Figures in this piece come from Signal Station Labs measurement. Where a result depends heavily on location we say so rather than reporting a single number as universal.
Read next
Related work
Can 5G replace home broadband?
We ran a 5G home router alongside full fibre for six weeks. Here is where it held up, and where it quietly fell apart.
Read
Best connectivity for rural homes
Fixed wireless, 4G with an external antenna, satellite or a community network — how to work out which one your address actually supports.
Read
How to get reliable internet in a campervan
A practical setup for working on the road: SIM choice, roof antennas, power draw and what to do when you park in a dead spot.
Read