UK satellite smartphone services could get green light this yearBritain's telecoms regulator could authorize satellite-to-smartphone services in the UK before the end of this year.The Office of Communications, otherwise known as Ofcom, kicked off a consultation this week, starting with proposals on how it should license so-called direct-to-device satellite services to cover the UK, …
It's amazing that there's enough bandwidth for a video call, given the satellites' altitude of 500-700km and the paltry output of a smartphone. And of course the phone's orientation is not static, and the phone needs to receive from multiple satellites at once.
So many technologies need to come into play - what an impressive feat!
And not a an elongated muskrat in sight...!
very low altitude orbits tend to decay within a few years so they'll get replenished (and improved) regularly. This is the logic behind starlink at least, that and inexpensive launches (as compared to just a few years ago).
/me wonders when Bezos can get his rockets to do the same thing SpaceX is doing... [zero chance that Boeing or any gummint program will be able to compete on price]
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Dear old Arthur Cno-true-Scotsmanning more than a tad there.
Most suppliers can barely get some text messages to work, and in reality Starlink needs a big-ass antenna for anything meaningful throughout wise.
We are still decades away from anything Star Trek like, unless there will be a USB C/Bluetooth mini antenna the size of a 20,000 mAh battery pack - or like the flip antenna on an Inmarsat IsatPhone. Current generation cell phones struggle to hit a mast within a few miles.
Actually,Starlink partnered up with T Mobile about a month ago, in beta until July.
Still a good idea even if Elon did it first, am I right? (heh heh heh)
If very low earth orbit satellites become the way to manage cell calls and cellular intarwebs, we can say 'buh-bye' to all of those expensive rural wired internet projects. win-win (unless you are a rural wired internet provider). we'll still need URBAN wires/fiber for low latency but rural and "at sea" DEFINITELY gets a better deal.
But yeah O.P. had to get his "Musk rats" 'dig' in... [I fail to see why people are suddenly anti-Elon - E.D.S. I guess]
Impressive it certainly is. And potentially very useful in emergency situations. But with it will come the loss of the last shreds of peace and quiet. No longer will we be able to switch our phone off for an hour and claim lack of signal. And the remote, quiet places will finally be overrun by vloggers and those that can't bear to be parted from the net for even a few minutes. Still, that's progress, eh
Correct. Once took a group underground whose insurance company insisted that they carry a mobile with them at all times in case of emergency. OK, it was chucked in the Pelicase at the entrance, and got out again when we got back to the entrance.
I have used a Hayphone when practicing with DCRO and they are surprisingly effective.
As will be the ubiquitous background noise pollution of wide band high frequency whine once all vehicles are electric, as opposed to the relatively ignorable (and easily filterable) typically sub-100 Hz rumble of ICE engines. The tyre noise (also in the 100 Hz range) will of course remain beneath the whine.
Electric cars are very quiet. The noise you are complaining about is probably the legally required audible warning system that operates at low speeds to warn pedestrians. This turns off as the car goes faster when the tyre and wind noise is enough for pedestrians to notice.
This takes the cake. I mean, I've heardso much insanity and/or lies over the last few years, but claiming that EV noise is more annoying than ICE noise is truly a special kind of WTF. It's a bit like hearing that ice is hotter than steam - you literally can't argue with that, unless you want to waste your time. Thanks, I'm going to hold on to this as an example of how the debate around EVs has been completely poisoned to the point where rational arguments are no longer useful.
"an existing mobile network operator (MNO) that is licensed to use the relevant frequencies across the entire nation."
Shirley that all of the MNOs? Who runs a mobile network that DOESN'T cover the entire nation? (apart from the obvious localised "notspots")
I can remember the days when one had to choose a mobile provider based on their coverage maps and accept that if you travelled a lot, there would be areas your provider did not yet cover, but these days, few people even consider coverage when choosing a service provider - and yes, I'm fully aware of notspots as I mentioned above, and each MNO has different coverage in different areas due to geography, buildings etc.
The Register
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
