168. Satellite phones use cellphone towers

"So-called “satellite” phones have been found to have reception problems in countries like Kazakhstan with very few cell phone towers. If the Earth were a ball with 20,000+ satellites surrounding, such blackouts should not regularly occur in any rural countryside areas."

Dubay makes blanket claims for all satellite companies without providing any specifics.

20,000+ satellites

There are several satellite communications companies, all with different technologies, coverage and service capabilities.  The 20,000+ number of satellites figure is meaningless since only a few of these are used to provide satellite phone services.

Some of the major satellite phone companies are listed below with the number of satellites that they operate.

Iridium:  66 low Earth orbit satellites
Gloabalstar: 24 low Earth orbit satellites
Immarsat: 13 geostationary satellites

Satellite phones have reception problems where there are few cellphone towers

Dubay is implying that satellite phones are just cell phones.   Not many cell phone towers in the Arctic and the Iridium satellite phone works just fine there, covering the whole area, so that puts an end to that theory.

Specifically regarding Kazakstan, there are many satellite phone companies giving full coverage of that country including Iridium, Immarsat and Globalstar.  Once again Dubay just shamelessly lying.

Source:  https://www.inmarsat.com/about-us/our-satellites/our-coverage/ Source:  https://www.globalstar.com/support/coverage-maps

Satellite phones have reception problems

Yes.  And?  There are many reasons why satellite phones might have reception problems without having to resort to the conclusion that satellites don't exist!  

Coverage

The satellite phone company that you subscribe to may not cover a particular region.  As far as I am aware Iridium is the only company that claims to cover the whole Earth including the Arctic and Antractic.

Satellite failure

Solar flares

Solar flares can disrupt communications

Landscape or buildings in the way

If the satellite company operates low Earth orbit satellites, or only a few geostationary satellites, the satellite can be positioned at a low angle in the sky.  A mountain, a hill or a tall building can block signals.

Reliability

I have listed reasons why satellite phone reception problems might exist, but that does not mean that satelllite phone service is intermittent as Dubay is trying to suggest.  Emergency services throughout the world are some of these company's main customers precisely because of their reliability and coverage.

I have been unable to find any reports of satellite phone blackouts, but I did find these extracts from a report by an independent company TelAstra commissioned to compare Immarsat, Iridium and Thuraya that attest to service reliability.

From: http://www.inmarsat.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/TelAstra_SatPhone_Comparison_Study.pdf
"Global coverage
Inmarsat: TelAstra can confirm Inmarsat‟s global coverage claims. IsatPhone Pro
worked well in all locations. We obtained strong connections for IsatPhone Pro in
Anchorage and Fairbanks, Alaska and northern Finland near the Arctic Circle – all
areas moving towards edge of coverage. IsatPhone Pro worked well near the
equator and in mid-latitude locations as well.
Iridium: Our tests show that the Iridium satellite network is global. However, its
universal service claim ignores the fact that coverage is often denied or
disconnected near partial foliage and buildings. In reality, the Iridium system
probably provides less coverage of the Earth at any time because the Iridium
satellites are typically at a low elevation angle and transmission is blocked. Our
experience is that longer calls on Iridium 9555 typically suffer disconnects, probably
because the satellites are moving.
Thuraya: Although the Thuraya system is regional, we found that within the regions
that it covers the service was similar to that provided by IsatPhone Pro."

"Network availability
We assessed the availability for IsatPhone Pro and Thuraya XT to be essentially
100%. The only requirement is to find and maintain a clear transmission path.
On several occasions we had to wait for 5 to 12 minutes to connect to the Iridium
network. Iridium 9555 seems to drop out frequently in certain environments. Since
the satellites are moving in orbits that are typically unknown to the phone user, it is
unlikely that a user can provide any form of “cooperation” that would reduce
blockage."

To summarise.  
  • Of course satellite phones will have reception problems, so Dubay's point is irrelevant.
  • Some satellite phone services can and do provide global service.
  • Regular blackouts do not occur so Dubay is making stuff up again.


< Prev     161-170    Next >

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

127. Straight reflections of sunlight and moonlight are impossible on a spherical Earth

Image
"The fact that the Sun and Moon’s reflections on water always form a straight line path from the horizon to the observer proves the Earth is not a ball. If Earth’s surface was curved it would be impossible for the reflected light to curve over the ball from horizon to observer." This is a flawed argument because Dubay does not understand how reflections operate Although he doesn't describe it very well, I presume that Dubay is referring to the angle of reflection from a curved surface.  I.e. the curve of the Earth would mean that the angle of reflection off the surface would result in nearly all the light  not reaching the observer's eyes. The fact that, if this was how reflections worked, that the same would be true on a flat Earth seems to have escaped Dubay's notice. This type of reflection is called specular reflection, and takes place with mirror like surfaces.  Generally the surface of the water is not perfectly flat so the reflection of the light
Read more

Debunking Eric Dubay's 200 proofs the earth is not a spinning ball

Image
Conspiracy Baloney aims to provide resources to counter to the influence of the crazy anti-science conspiracy theories that are out there. This blog is specifically to debunk Eric Dubay's " 200 proofs the earth is not a spinning ball", that I have found flat earthers often cite. There are quite a few resources out there that comprehensively debunk this book, but I think that one more voice can only help.  I have tried to keep the rebuttals as non technical as possible. Eric Dubay’s proofs are laughably simplistic and demonstrate an almost complete lack of understanding of maths and anything scientific or technical. A list of "proofs" that show Dubay is an idiot He also likes to give historical quotes as proofs.  Typical are quotes from the 1800’s but he even has one from before 1600!.  Not only are these opinions not proof of anything, but the fact that he can’t provide quotes from more up to date sources destroys their credibility. Worse,
Read more

9. Engineer W Winckler was published in the Earth Review in 1893 arguing that no engineer took the curvature of the earth into account

Image
“Engineer, W. Winckler was published in the Earth  Review regarding the Earth’s supposed curvature, stating,   “As an engineer of many years standing , I saw that this  absurd allowance is only permitted in school books.  No  engineer would dream of allowing anything of the kind.  I  have projected many miles of railways and many more of  canals and the allowance has not even been thought of  much less allowed for. This allowance for curvature means  this - that it is 8 ” for the first mile of a canal, and increasing  at the ratio by the square of the distance in miles; thus a  small navigable canal for boats, say 30 miles long, will  have, by the above rule an allowance for curvature of 600  feet. Think of that and then please credit engineers as not  being quite such fools. Nothing of the sort is allowed. We  no more think of allowing 600 feet for a line of 30 miles of  railway or canal, than of wasting our time trying to square  the circle ”" This is a historical opinion,
Read more