Member Info for fleccy

Continued:

"Even though the LEO satellites have high gain phased array antenna's, wouldn't the amount of antenna capacity required for individual calls limit the satellite's ability to deal with many users in an area

Yes, you have identified a core limitation of satellite-to-device (D2D) communication: capacity is a major bottleneck, particularly in dense user areas. While powerful phased array antennas and multi-beam technologies are used to enhance performance, they cannot overcome the fundamental physics and resource constraints that limit a single LEO satellite's ability to serve many users simultaneously in a small geographic area.

Here is a breakdown of why a high-gain phased array antenna is not a complete solution for high-density user areas:

1. Limited onboard resources

Mass and power constraints: A satellite's size, weight, and power are all strictly limited by the cost and engineering of launches. This places a hard limit on the number of radiofrequency (RF) chains, processors, and the ultimate power output of the satellite. A terrestrial cellular tower has none of these limitations and can be scaled up indefinitely.

Limited hardware: As a result of these limitations, the onboard hardware can only support a finite number of simultaneous beams and channels. While a single beam from a phased array can be dynamically steered, it still has a finite bandwidth that must be shared among all users within its footprint.

2. The challenge of many users in a beam

Beam sharing: In a dense area, a single high-gain beam from a satellite would cover many users. These users would all compete for the same pool of radio resources (time, frequency, and coding schemes) within that beam. For low-speed data like emergency messaging, this is less of a concern, but for a voice call or any higher-rate service, resource contention would be significant.

User scheduling: The satellite must use advanced resource allocation algorithms to schedule users and allocate power and frequencies efficiently. However, a satellite moving at ~17,000 mph must manage this with split-second timing to compensate for the rapid changes in user-to-satellite geometry. This is exponentially more complex with hundreds or thousands of active users simultaneously"

Continued:

"How satellite systems address uplink path loss

The free space path loss issue is not insurmountable, but it requires innovation and investment on the satellite and network side. Engineers use a combination of these methods:

High-gain antennas on satellites: To compensate for the phone's low power and omnidirectional antenna, the satellite itself is equipped with very large, high-gain phased array antennas. These arrays can electronically steer and shape their beams to focus on a particular area on Earth, significantly increasing their receiving sensitivity.

Lower orbital altitude: By deploying LEO constellations rather than higher-altitude geostationary ones, satellite operators can reduce the free space path loss. A shorter distance to the satellite means less signal degradation.

Network-side enhancements: The network operator must implement complex timing and frequency compensation algorithms. This is necessary to account for the large Doppler shift caused by the rapid movement of LEO satellites and the varying signal propagation delays. These compensations must be done transparently to the user, who simply operates their standard device.

Limiting service to specific conditions: Some D2D services initially focus on basic text messaging in situations with a clear line-of-sight to the sky. This avoids the challenges of high data rates, voice calls, or usage in urban areas with signal obstructions, which would require an even stronger signal.

Strategic frequency allocation: Some D2D systems use lower-frequency bands, as path loss increases with signal frequency. While higher frequencies offer more bandwidth, the trade-off is greater signal loss. The challenge is that lower-frequency spectrum is often already occupied by terrestrial networks, requiring careful spectrum sharing and interference mitigation"

Continued"

"what about issues due to free space path loss in relation to the uplink signal

There is no Loss in Free Space Path Loss. And it doesn't ...

Free space path loss presents a significant challenge for the uplink signal in satellite-to-device (D2D) communications, particularly due to the low-power nature of mobile phones. While overcoming path loss is a standard engineering problem in all wireless communications, the scale of the challenge is magnified in D2D because of the immense distance to satellites and the physical limitations of handheld devices.

Why uplink is especially problematic for D2D

Vast distances: In low Earth orbit (LEO) constellations, which are most commonly used for D2D, the satellites are between 300 and 1,200 km away. In contrast, a terrestrial cellular network antenna is only a few kilometers from a mobile device. Free space path loss increases with the square of the distance, so the signal from a phone to a satellite is attenuated far more than a signal to a cellular tower.

Low power from devices: Mobile phones are designed for short-range communication with low transmission power to conserve battery life and minimize radio frequency radiation. Typical transmit power is only 23 to 30 dBm. For a phone to generate an uplink signal strong enough to be detected by a satellite hundreds of kilometers away, a massive link budget is required, which the phone itself cannot provide.

Omnidirectional antennas: Most smartphones use omnidirectional antennas that radiate power in all directions, instead of focusing it into a tight beam toward the satellite. This is the opposite of the large, highly directional antennas on satellites and terrestrial ground stations. This means a significant portion of the phone's already weak signal power is wasted"

Continued:

"The industry response and future outlook

Instead of being replaced, many MNOs are embracing satellite D2D through partnerships and integration:

Partnerships and consolidation: A wave of partnerships has emerged between MNOs and satellite operators, with companies like T-Mobile teaming up with Starlink and AT&T partnering with AST SpaceMobile. Analysts expect consolidation in the D2D market over the next few years.

Billing and service differentiation: MNOs can integrate satellite service into their pricing tiers or offer it as an add-on, giving them a key differentiator. The service could become a standard feature, with the cost simply baked into monthly plans.

Evolution of technology: The long-term vision is an integrated "network of networks" that combines terrestrial and non-terrestrial components. In this 6G-era concept, devices would seamlessly transition between cellular towers in cities and satellites in rural areas"

As soon as I heard about the Echostar/Space X spectrum deal I knew you'd use it to to bash Terrestrial mobile providers. I already knew that LEO Direct to mobile working is limited, but I thought I'd ask AI to see what it says, here are the prompts and answers:

"is satellite to device cell service a threat to terrestrial mobile providers

Satellite-to-device (D2D) service is not a direct threat to terrestrial mobile providers in urban and suburban areas, but it is a significant market disruptor and a growing competitive force. Rather than replacing mobile networks, satellite D2D is positioned to become a crucial supplement that fills coverage gaps and increases network resiliency.

Why satellite D2D is not a complete threat

Complementary, not replacement: Satellite-based connectivity is best for extending network coverage to remote, rural, and maritime areas that are not cost-effective for traditional cellular towers to serve. Terrestrial networks will continue to provide the highest capacity, lowest latency, and most cost-effective service in dense population centers for the foreseeable future.

Performance limitations: While capable of basic text, voice, and low-speed data, satellite D2D cannot compete with the high speeds and low latency of terrestrial 4G/5G networks. These limitations exist due to the vast distances signals must travel to and from space.

Operational hurdles: Spectrum sharing between satellite and terrestrial services creates technical complexities and regulatory issues that must be managed to prevent interference. Additionally, getting an adequate signal to a satellite requires clear line-of-sight, making indoor coverage difficult.

How D2D can disrupt the market

Fills coverage gaps: By partnering with satellite companies like SpaceX's Starlink, mobile network operators (MNOs) like T-Mobile can expand their coverage to virtually 100% of a country's geography. This allows MNOs to fulfill regulatory requirements for rural coverage and capture new revenue.

Increases network resilience: Satellite connectivity can act as a crucial backup during natural disasters or power outages, when terrestrial networks fail. This increases reliability, which can become a key competitive advantage for MNOs that offer it.

Shifts investment focus: With satellite partners covering remote areas, MNOs can reduce capital expenditures on building low-density rural infrastructure. This frees up capital to focus on building dense, high-capacity terrestrial networks in urban areas.

Spurs competition: Mobile operators face pressure to offer D2D service to stay competitive and retain their most valuable customers, particularly in the enterprise segment. Consumers and businesses are also showing high interest in paying for the service, creating new revenue streams"

"Microsoft, Amazon, Apple, Samsung Google, Android, Xbox, Ps5, rr. Lse, iot, chat gpt, AI

True these all rely on networks and connectivity. You describe the problem though, not the solution.

Networks can’t properly monetise them properly, in fact these companies create demand network operator have to pay for"

Cleary Net Neutrality works in favour of US big tech, but all it'd take is a change in regulation to put a spoke in the Net Neutrality wheel. As things move to AI and VR/Mixed Reality, where potentially high bandwidths and low latencies are required, much of the processing will have to move to the Edge where Telecom companies have an advantage.

Ultimately someone has to pay for servicing the ever growing Network bandwidth requirements, if it isn't big tech it'll land on the end customers. I expect Telecom bills will be on an upward trajectory over the coming years, competition won't maintain the cheap rates we've all got used to in the past.

"I said dollar denominated assets. Gold will go up 30% for UK holders when sterling collapses. BTC is excellent too. Long term asset protection that is"

It's true that Gold is a hedge against inflation, but so is any safe asset and Gold doesn't pay dividends; I have pondered Gold, but it doesn't make much sense to hold more than a small percentage in a portfolio.

BTC is just overhyped manufactured rubbish; I spent a lot of time understanding the differences between Proof of Work and Proof of Stake Crypto, and especially looked into BTC's capabilities to process Blocks and associated transaction data, what I found is that BTC is useless at everything it's touted to do. BTC could be likened more to a religion than an investment, it has all the features of a religion with it's priests, cheerleaders and fanatics. I only invest in stocks where I can fathom a useful service, or product, BTC fails on any metric since it's intangible and has no intrinsic value. Crypto does have uses, but I'd suggest those uses are limited to Stablecoin's backed by hard cash and commodity backed tokens, both of which are better served using Proof of Stake rather than Proof of Work Blockchain's like BTC.

"If it’s all too confusing, just buy an index fund of dollar denominated stocks"

Passive Index funds are responsible for pumping US stocks, especially Big Tech and other overhyped/overvalued tech companies. US tech valuations rely on a steady flow of cash into the passive index funds, if there's a Global recession and investors start pulling cash from these index funds, US tech will fall furthest and fastest. People forget that most of the stock market and financial crashes originate from the US, I would suggest the US is a far more dangerous place to invest than the UK. In my opinion the so called "Value" in US tech is based on narrative rather than substance, just like an investment in BTC, so personally I wouldn't go near US stocks.

"Load up on dollar denominated things. When the pound collapses you’ll get the benefit"

US might have been a good choice for anyone investing in 2015, but at current valuations it's a rubbish place to invest.

It's clear that US tech have benefited big time from passive investment funds, but to make a profit on US tech you have to sell out at some point. mole you pop in here intermittently and promote US stocks, but the truth is the outperformance of US indices is limited to a handful of stocks with much of the US market trading at more sensible levels.

You've consistently pumped US stocks, even though the US indices are overvalued in historic terms. We've been investing in dividend stocks, then reinvesting the dividends and compounding returns over time. Because we invested post Brexit and injected even more capital when UK stocks were on their knees during Covid, we're now pushing toward £30,000 a year tax free dividend income, and currently sitting on a paper gain of more than £110,000 ; Should we decide to reinvest a large chunk of our unspent dividend income, our returns will be even higher going forward.

You don't have to invest in "Growth" stocks to realise growth, all you have to do is invest in value dividend stocks and reinvest your dividends while your chosen stocks are cheap, sit back and watch the magic of compounding.

"Comments reported for false and misleading"

It's debatable whether Avocet's view is false or misleading. QBT have talked the talk for years, but there's no hard evidence they've walked the walk.

Https://www.telcotitans.com/telefonicawatch/telefonica-green-lit-for-vodafone-spain-feeding-frenzy/9596.article?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Weekly%20TelcoTitans%20Weekly&utm_content=Weekly%20TelcoTitans%20Weekly+CID_f80b840c4289d4ace9fc503ea60ea3e6&utm_source=Email%20marketing%20software&utm_term=Telefnica%20green-lit%20for%20Vodafone%20Spain%20feeding-frenzy

"Zegona has realised a gain of over 350% (€7bn) in 15 months from its acquisition of Vodafone Spain, a stark contrast to Vodafone Group’s history of value destruction."

"We know LSE has loads of options out there, don't need to be stuck here if you & others don't believe in the Company"

I've said it before, but in my opinion QBT isn't a good investment. My initial feeling about QBT was that it was created to jump on the Crypto/Bitcoin hype bandwagon. QBT advertises itself as an R&D company, focused on finding ways to increase efficiency in finding Bitcoin target hashes, but mathematicians and others have been attempting the same going back to the early days of Bitcoin, yet the Bitcoin miners have mainly gone down the brute force hashing route. Bitcoin miners, with their Billions invested in hardware, will likely already have invested in and developed their own bespoke front end software to increase their operational efficiency, to think that QBT could produce something groundbreaking on a shoe string budget is a stretch. It's possible that QBT might have something special, but in my opinion the odds are that they haven't.

"So they are going to deliver after summer, which ends in 5 trading days and September begins, so COMMERCIAL NEGOTIATIONS will be COMPLETE"

Very Deja Vu. I've read this sort of post every year I've watched QBT, and still nothing substantive from the company in respect of a commercial revenue stream. I have no idea if QBT will be successful, but going off past PRN's from the company and my own personal opinion, I think the odds of QBT being successful is extremely small. When I say small I rate their chances of being successful in generating meaningful revenue at less than 5%; This is my personal opinion and I could well be wrong, but I've had the same opinion since I started watching QBT and so far I haven't seen anything to change my view.

This shows the details, the 2002 annual report doesn't appear to give details whereas the 2003 report does:

https://www.annualreports.com/HostedData/AnnualReportArchive/b/LSE_BT_2003.pdf

It looks as though the 2002 annual report is no longer available, most of my last post is a re-post of one I did back in 2024

https://www.lse.co.uk/ShareChat.html?ShareTicker=BT.A&share=BT&thread=DD92486D-0B36-4AB8-9204-2A50DB28CBE0

"Profit on sale of property fixed assets

In December 2001, as part of a wider property outsourcing arrangement, BT completed the sale and leaseback of the majority of its UK properties to Telereal, a joint venture partnership formed by Land Securities Trillium and The William Pears Group. Around 6,700 properties were transferred totalling some 5.5 million square metres. The consideration received amounted to £2,380 million. BT has leased the properties back at a total annual rental commencing at £190 million and subject to a 3% annual increase. In addition, BT has transferred the economic risk on a large portion of its leased properties to Telereal in return for an annual rental commencing at approximately £90 million per annum. This is broadly equivalent to the current level of rentals. In February 2002, BT outsourced its property management unit to Telereal.

BT has the option to purchase the reversionary interest from Telereal

(i) when BT vacates a property at open market value

(ii) at the end of 30 years for the specialised estate (buildings of an operational nature such as telephone exchanges) at open market value or

(iii) if BT wishes to terminate all arrangements with Telereal at any time, in which circumstances BT would pay open market values for the property and compensation to Telereal covering funding costs and equity return.

BT can also re-acquire the reversion of the general estate (non-operational buildings such as offices and warehousing) at the end of the headlease term of 999 years. BT has the right to renew the lease of the specialised estate for successive periods which, in total, amount to 130 years. After 130 years, the freehold specialised properties revert to BT. The leases include normal commercial restrictions and convenants.

BT's divestment of its property estate will provide a ¯flexible approach to BT's office arrangements and building requirements. BT expects to reduce its property needs over time and the transaction allows BT to vacate properties covering approximately 35% by rental value of the estate, including existing lease ends, over the contract term without penalty"

Exchanges come under the "specialised estate" category and reversionary interest likely refers to the remaining Freehold interest.

https://www.bt.com/content/dam/bt-plc/assets/documents/investors/financial-reporting-and-news/annual-reports/2002/bt-annual-report-form-20-f-2002.pd

https://www.openreach.co.uk/cpportal/products/the-all-ip-programme/exchange-exit-programme

Well the Telereal contract is up for renewal around 2031, so I'd put money on BT being ready to close the redundant exchanges by then.

"Costs for the government has spiralled out of control and yet we are told that we need ever increasing migration"

The Government, for all their words stating otherwise, appear to want illegal migration. If the Government wanted to halt the inflow of illegal migrants they could easily invoke national security legislation and stop it almost instantly, but they just come out with appeasing statements thinking they fool people.

They say follow the money, the people smugglers business case is easy to fathom, but why does it suit the UK Government to have 10's of thousands of migrants crossing the channel? UK manufacturing isn't what it was, so the economy is geared toward service and finance. Hospitality is a service provider, it produces nothing but potentially brings in cash from business and holiday travelers. It appears the Government are printing money to support hospitality through accommodating migrants, look at places like Bournemouth where migration is supporting the hotels, but destroying local cohesion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xa2HA85zseM

" Buy non sterling denominated assets"

Like what?

I've not worked for Openreach, but I was a Telecom Field Engineer for a good portion of my career. Field Engineers are assigned scheduled jobs, but sometimes jobs can over run and Engineers can be diverted to higher priority jobs/faults.

There are already an abundance of MVNO's in the UK, but they don't own the networks they offer services over; They can play the big three against each other, but that will only get them so far. Should the MNO's decide to fiercely compete for direct retail, in a price war, the MVNO's would never be able to compete on price against the Network's owners.

There has been some concerns over companies like Apple setting up multi network MVNO's, utilising eSIM's to offer transparent services across different MNO's, but I'm not sure that'd be economic for the MVNO's, so eSIM's seem to be utilised to allow the customer to use different network profiles with different subscriptions for each network.