Talk:Satellite phone/Archive 1

Tapping of satellite phones
"Also such phones are said to be difficult to attact or trace which makes them a popular favorite for both terrorists and Drug Lords alike." Well, not entirely true. Locating the position of satellite phone users are normally very hard. But tapping them are not. That is, in usual cellular phone systems the system knows in which sector you are (and sectors are often very small) or can even measure your position better then that. But for satellite systems the "sectors" are more or less big as continents which means your position is a bit more secret. Unless some military signals tracking airplane is close by and hears your call. The US killed one Serbian officer in the 90's by hearing his calls and then dropping a modified radar homing missile tuned to home in on the frequency his phone used for that call... Anyway, about tapping satellite phone calls: Back when one of the systems (don't remember which) wanted to build a ground station in Italy the European authorities wanted to be able to tap the calls. The problem was that you don't know in which country the satellite phone user is so which country's police should be allowed to tap the call? After some discussion they came to this agreement: ANY police authority in Europe can connect in to that ground station and listen to ANY phone users calls without a court order. And they can listen to ANY call that system has, even if it is taken down in say an American ground station instead of the Italian one. Then the copied/tapped sound is routed over landlines from the American ground station to the Italian station and then on to the police authority somewhere in Europe. So tapping satellite phones at least in that system is easier for the police then to tap regular landline phone calls. At least that is how the news reported it here in Europe back then. --David Göthberg 03:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Related Technologies or Alternatives?
Are there any related techologies or alternatives to Satellite phones that should be added? 71.93.238.53 15:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Not really, maybe the commercial communication satellites they had in the good old days. The only alternative is a GSM phone, or fixed satellite uplink (VSAT). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Towel401 (talk • contribs).

Low Earth Orbit
LEO orbits are characteristics of satellites, not satellite phones. The whole paragraph about systems "tending to be LEOs" is misinformation.


 * But LEO equipment and geosynchronous equipment operate on different systems, right? Why delete this information? Rhobite 02:25, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes I agree, as far as I know most satellite phone systems except Thuraya uses more or less low earth orbit satellites. Thuraya is geostationary according to its article here on Wikipedia. But the LEO paragraph might need some rephrasing since it isn't the phone that is low earth orbit, it is the satellite and the system so to speak. --David Göthberg 03:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't a geosynchronous satelite service have horrible latency? PolarisSLBM 21:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe they have latency, but I'm not sure if it's "horrible". Winston.PL 08:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Popular Culture
I have flagged this section as *trivia* since it *is* essentially a trivia list and I think it is not appropriate to this article and should thus be deleted. I've not deleted it myself as I note that it was already deleted and then reverted in the past 24 hours. Any other thoughts? MarkPos 15:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

while it shoudln't really be on that page, wouldn't it be better to make a link hub? there are the pages that come up when multiple variations or definitions of a word are present: why not make one like that, link it to the page simply as (presence in popular culture) and then have it link to whichever things it relates to? that would be much more appropriate, especially considering that there are already other pages like that.

Definition, description or advertisment?
FIREBRANDGRIM 22:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC) while the article does answer some questions about the technology, it is still lacking isn't it?

The benefits, deficiencies and providers are all adequate, but the description of how it operates is still a flawed. while a general description does help, it doesn't provide Italic text any solid mechanism definitions at all. for example, what is the point of knowing where to put the machine unless you know how to use it? Similiarly, how can you define how it works if you don't have the information about its type of transmission? whats the point of having a seperate page for the same technology? unless 'earth stations' are used by other things, why not just have that info on the same page?

Out of date article?
Text notes "another planned for launch in 2008". I am guessing (April 2009) that this means the article has dated and has some out of date information. Could an expert check over the content? Cheers! (a non-expert who wants to learn about satellite phones) --137.108.145.250 (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Usage By Terrorists and Combatants
The Sat Phone has become a tool used my terrorists and combatants all over the world. This should be documented with specific cases. Someone can draft up this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.231.212.21 (talk) 06:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

FIREBRANDGRIM 23:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't really understand clearly what you are proposing.  Do you mean to split the article into two parts, one the technical article on satellite phones and another a separate article on satellite phones in popular culture, with a disambiguation page to direct people to the appropriate one?   If that is what you mean then I suppose that *could* work, although frankly I don't find "pop culture" sections or articles particularly encyclopaedic, and proably would personally just prefer to delete it! -- MarkPos( User Page 09:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think the satellite phone is the only device used by "terrorists and combatants all over the world". I don't think this would be a very useful addition. I think a section entitled "who uses satellite phones?" would be too broad to be useful and equally a wikipedia article "telecommunications types used by terrorists" would be of little value for the same reason. regards. --mgaved (talk) 13:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleted Obvious and Unnecessary Biased Text
I deleted a somewhat random tangential sentence which read, "SatPhones are illegal in some countries ruled by oppressive regimes, like Burma."

Not only does this make a subjective judgement on a politically biased topic which has nothing to do with this entry, and names a specific example that is completely unrelated... but it also does not belong in the abstract of the encyclopedia entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.71.182 (talk) 06:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi'ya: I disagree with your deletion, since many articles have sections or text on 'Public Acceptance', 'Impact on Society', or similar. The 'use of', or 'prohibition of' satellite phones world-wide is directly relevant to this article and should be included. Stating reliable, cited facts on where satphones are prohibited is an enhancement to the article, not 'tangential' or 'biased', nor would the deleted information be obvious to the casual reader.  As such I am reverting your deletion; please show cause why mentioning 'Burma' is in some way biased editing, and if a reasonable explanation is provided then wording changes can be made.  If you're taking issue with the 'oppressive regimes' phrase, many very reliable citations can be provide to support the adjective used -Burma is far from unoppressive, and the use of the wording is appropriate, not a point of view, in order to establish the context of the sentence, i.m.h.o.


 * Comments? Best: HarryZilber (talk) 15:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

China allows them?
I'm surprised China isn't among the countries listed as being against ordinary citizens using satphones; are they really ok with satphones? --TiagoTiago (talk) 15:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)