LEO vs MEO vs GEO, compared
The three orbital regimes
Altitude shapes everything about a satellite's performance — latency, coverage area, and how many satellites you need for continuous service.
| Orbit | Altitude | Latency | Satellites needed | Key providers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LEO Low Earth Orbit | ~480–1,200 km | 25–60 ms | Hundreds–thousands | Starlink, Amazon Leo, OneWeb |
| MEO Medium Earth Orbit | ~8,000 km | 130–150 ms | Tens | SES O3b mPOWER |
| GEO Geostationary | ~35,786 km | 600–700 ms | 1–10 per region | Viasat, HughesNet |
Why LEO needs so many satellites
Because LEO satellites move relative to the ground, a constellation must be large enough that several are always overhead, handing off seamlessly. GEO satellites orbit at the same rate Earth turns, so they appear fixed — easy to point a dish at, but limited by sheer distance.
The practical upshot
For interactive use — calls, gaming, cloud apps — LEO and MEO are comfortable; GEO feels laggy. For raw download capacity and wide coverage, GEO still has a role. Most UK home interest is in LEO.
In short
Lower orbit means lower latency but more satellites. LEO (Starlink, Amazon Leo, OneWeb) suits everyday interactive use; MEO (SES) balances latency and reach for enterprise; GEO (Viasat) offers wide coverage and capacity but high latency.