Access Inequality in LEO Satellite Networks: A Case Study of High-Latitude Coverage in Northern Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Low Earth orbit (LEO) satellite networks play a crucial role in bridging the digital divide, particularly in remote and high-latitude regions. However, access inequality remains a significant challenge, limiting broadband connectivity for communities in northern areas compared to mid-latitude urban regions. This study reviews recent advancements in non-terrestrial networks (NTNs). We conduct a detailed analysis of coverage disparities in LEO satellite networks considering LEO networks, namely Starlink, Telesat-like, Kuiper-like, and OneWeb, with a specific focus on Québec, Canada versus urban centers in New York City, USA. Our findings highlight a significant disparity in the number of visible satellites resulting in increased transmission delays and reduced network reliability in high-latitude regions. Additionally, we observe that higher elevation angles, more accessible in mid-latitude regions especially for Starlink and Kuiper, contribute to superior signal quality and transmission rates. To mitigate this gap, we propose an inter-constellation/orbit roaming mechanism that enables ground users to be served by different LEO constellations—leveraging OneWeb's and Telesat's strong polar coverage along with the high satellite density of Starlink and Kuiper at mid-latitudes. Jointly, terrestrial network (TN) expansion can enhance signal quality and transmission efficiency, particularly in underserved areas where NTNs act as edge computing and backhaul infrastructures. Additionally, the associated challenges—such as roaming handovers, and radio resource and network slicing management are discussed in detail, where designing a unified management and control entity to ensure seamless interoperability is not a trivial task. Furthermore, we envision wireless power transfer through either relay-based (ground-to-satellite-to-ground) or direct (satellite-to-ground) power beaming as a sustainable approach to energize TN components in remote regions. These strategies collectively support the scalability and resilience of NTNs in bridging the global access inequality.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".