pith. sign in

arxiv: 2512.19639 · v2 · submitted 2025-12-22 · 📡 eess.SP

Towards Reliable Connectivity: Measurement-Driven Assessment of Starlink and OneWeb Non-Terrestrial and 5G Terrestrial Networks

Alejandro Ram\'irez-Arroyo , O. S. Pe\~naherrera-Pulla , Preben Mogensen This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 20:19 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📡 eess.SP
keywords StarlinkOneWeb5Gnon-terrestrial networksmulti-connectivityoutage probabilitysatellite-terrestrial integrationnetwork reliability
0
0 comments X

The pith

Combining Starlink and OneWeb satellite links with 5G terrestrial networks reduces urban outage probability from 12-21% to 2%.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper measures key performance indicators for Starlink, OneWeb, and 5G networks across urban, suburban, and forest environments. It evaluates how multi-connectivity, or simultaneous use of multiple technologies, affects coverage and reliability. The central finding is that pairing the two satellite systems alone produces a sharp drop in outages in cities. The authors conclude that integrating non-terrestrial and terrestrial systems improves overall connectivity when one type of link encounters problems.

Core claim

Measurements of KPIs show that Starlink and OneWeb together cut urban outage probability from approximately 12-21% to 2%. The same joint analysis across urban, suburban, and forest sites indicates that adding terrestrial 5G links further extends coverage and raises reliability, especially when terrestrial infrastructure is disrupted.

What carries the argument

Multi-connectivity techniques that combine non-terrestrial satellite links with terrestrial 5G, assessed through direct KPI collection in three real-world environments.

If this is right

  • Multi-connectivity lowers the chance of complete loss of service during terrestrial failures such as natural disasters.
  • Performance gains appear in difficult settings like forests where single-technology coverage is weak.
  • Joint satellite-terrestrial operation extends reliable connectivity beyond the reach of conventional cellular towers.
  • The approach supports more resilient networks by leveraging complementary strengths of each technology.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Hybrid satellite-terrestrial designs may become standard for future mobile networks that must operate in remote or disaster-prone areas.
  • The measured outage reductions could guide operator choices about when to activate secondary links in user devices.
  • Similar measurement campaigns in other countries would test whether the 2% urban figure generalizes across different regulatory and terrain conditions.

Load-bearing premise

The chosen measurement locations and KPI collection methods represent typical real-world conditions, and simultaneous satellite-terrestrial use is feasible without major overhead.

What would settle it

Repeating the outage measurements at additional urban sites during periods of actual terrestrial network stress, such as power outages or severe weather, would confirm whether the reported 2% figure persists.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.19639 by Alejandro Ram\'irez-Arroyo, O. S. Pe\~naherrera-Pulla, Preben Mogensen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Satellite map of the area under study. The three regions studied and the drive test areas are shown in different colors: urban area (red), suburban area (orange), forest area (green). Copenhagen, along with the division of the different regions considered and the geolocated traces of the scenario studied. The measurement equipment has been mounted on various vehicles (see Section III), and in-motion measur… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Representative photographs corresponding to each of the scenarios studied: (a) urban area, (b) suburban area, and (c) forest area. Images extracted from Google Street View [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: User equipment for the two 5G operators, Starlink and OneWeb. of obstacles on the horizon, increasing the probability of LoS between the ground equipment and the satellite. Finally, the forest scenario is characterized by high vegetation density even at the zenith, which implies challenging conditions for radio propagation in satellite systems. Similarly, the area under study is located approximately one k… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Connectivity scheme between the user equipment and the AAU server. IV. SINGLE-CONNECTIVITY EVALUATION This section presents an individual assessment of each of the connectivity solutions in the three scenarios presented through statistical analysis of the different KPIs and evaluation of the samples based on geolocation. A. GPS Traces As a first experiment, connectivity in the urban environment is assessed… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Geolocated samples of (a) downlink and uplink one-way delay, and (b) downlink and uplink throughput for in-motion measurements in the urban area. The colormap for the one-way delay KPI has been limited to an upper bound of 200 ms for visualization purposes. values for several percentiles across the different technologies and scenarios. Focusing on the urban environment, it is observed that cel￾lular connec… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Complementary empirical distribution function for one-way delay in downlink (solid line) and uplink (dashed line) for satellite operators OneWeb (●) and Starlink (●), and cellular operators Op. A (●) and Op. B (●) in (a) urban, (b) suburban, and (c) forest environments. of coverage loss, which can be attributed to the larger number of satellites deployed in the constellation, thus contributing to minimize … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Empirical distribution function for throughput in downlink (solid line) and uplink (dashed line) for satellite operators OneWeb (●) and Starlink (●), and cellular operators Op. A (●) and Op. B (●) in (a) urban, (b) suburban, and (c) forest environments. Mbps. As a general note, cellular solutions tend to meet all three thresholds with probabilities of around 99.9%, except in the forest scenario, where the … view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Direct technology-to-technology comparison of one-way delay (DL/UL) and throughput (DL/UL) KPIs for the three scenarios analyzed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Complementary empirical distribution function for one-way delay in downlink (solid line) and uplink (dashed line) for cellular (●), satellite (●) and cellular/satellite (●) multi-connectivity in (a) urban, (b) suburban, and (c) forest environments. cellular multi-connectivity, but with the advantage of providing the flexibility of two communication systems with completely independent architectures. In term… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: 360º photographs of the locations where static connectivity analysis and visibility elevation profiles were carried out for scenarios with (a) θmax = 49°, θµ = 29°, (b) θmax = 61°, θµ = 39°, and (c) θmax = 67°, θµ = 39°. Images extracted from Google Street View [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: shows the one-way delay CEDF in DL/UL for each static scenario in both satellite technologies. In each scenario, a time window is considered during which the user equip￾ment has visibility of at least 10 satellites from the OneWeb (a) Scenario 1 (b) Scenario 2 (c) Scenario 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The emergence of commercial satellite communications networks, such as Starlink and OneWeb, has significantly transformed the communications landscape over the last years. As a complement to terrestrial cellular networks, non-terrestrial systems enable coverage extension and reliability enhancement beyond the limits of conventional infrastructure. Currently, the high reliance on terrestrial networks exposes communications to vulnerabilities in the event of terrestrial infrastructure failures, e.g., due to natural disasters. Therefore, this work proposes the joint evaluation of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for two non-terrestrial satellite networks (Starlink and OneWeb) and two terrestrial cellular networks to assess the current performance of these technologies across three different environments: (i) urban, (ii) suburban, and (iii) forest scenarios. Additionally, multi-connectivity techniques are explored to determine the benefits in connectivity when two technologies are used simultaneously. For instance, the outage probability of Starlink and OneWeb in urban areas is reduced from approximately 12-21% to 2% when both solutions are employed together. Finally, the joint analysis of KPIs in both terrestrial and non-terrestrial networks demonstrates that their integration enhances coverage, improves performance, and increases reliability, highlighting the benefits of combining satellite and terrestrial systems in the analyzed environments.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper conducts measurement-driven assessments of Starlink, OneWeb, and 5G networks in urban, suburban, and forest scenarios, evaluating KPIs and multi-connectivity benefits. It claims that combining Starlink and OneWeb reduces urban outage probability from 12-21% to 2%, and that integrating non-terrestrial and terrestrial networks enhances coverage, performance, and reliability.

Significance. Should the empirical findings hold under scrutiny, this study contributes valuable data on hybrid network performance, supporting the case for multi-connectivity in achieving reliable communications, especially in areas prone to terrestrial failures or with limited infrastructure.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The outage probability reduction to 2% for joint Starlink and OneWeb use is presented without supporting joint measurement data. This figure aligns with the product of individual rates, suggesting an unverified independence assumption; shared environmental factors could lead to correlated outages, undermining the reliability claim.
  2. [Results] Results section: The manuscript lacks information on the number of measurement samples, confidence intervals, calibration procedures, and criteria for data inclusion/exclusion, making it difficult to assess the robustness of the reported KPI improvements and outage statistics.
minor comments (2)
  1. Clarify the specific measurement locations and equipment used to allow reproducibility and evaluation of representativeness.
  2. Discuss potential practical challenges of simultaneous multi-connectivity, such as interference or overhead, to strengthen the feasibility argument.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed feedback on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript accordingly to improve clarity and robustness.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The outage probability reduction to 2% for joint Starlink and OneWeb use is presented without supporting joint measurement data. This figure aligns with the product of individual rates, suggesting an unverified independence assumption; shared environmental factors could lead to correlated outages, undermining the reliability claim.

    Authors: We acknowledge the validity of this observation. The 2% figure in the abstract was obtained by multiplying the separately measured individual outage probabilities for Starlink and OneWeb (approximately 12% and 21%), which assumes statistical independence of outages. The manuscript does not present simultaneous joint measurement data for this specific combination. In the revised manuscript, we will explicitly clarify this calculation method, discuss the possibility of correlated outages due to shared factors such as weather or local obstructions, and qualify the multi-connectivity claim to reflect the assumption. We will also note this as a limitation and suggest it as an area for future joint measurements. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results] Results section: The manuscript lacks information on the number of measurement samples, confidence intervals, calibration procedures, and criteria for data inclusion/exclusion, making it difficult to assess the robustness of the reported KPI improvements and outage statistics.

    Authors: We agree that these methodological details are essential for evaluating the reliability of the results. In the revised manuscript, we will expand the Results section to include the total number of samples collected per scenario and technology, statistical confidence intervals for all reported KPIs and outage probabilities, a description of the calibration procedures applied to the measurement devices, and explicit criteria for data inclusion/exclusion (such as removal of samples affected by equipment malfunction or transient errors). revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Empirical measurement study with no derivation chain or fitted predictions

full rationale

This paper reports field measurements of KPIs (outage, throughput, latency) across Starlink, OneWeb, and 5G in urban/suburban/forest locations. The abstract's 12-21% to 2% outage reduction is stated as an empirical outcome of simultaneous use; no equations, parameter fits, or first-principles derivations appear. No self-citations are load-bearing for any uniqueness claim. The work is self-contained against external benchmarks of real-world satellite/terrestrial performance and receives score 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

This is an observational measurement study. No free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are introduced or required for the central claims.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5540 in / 1013 out tokens · 22918 ms · 2026-05-16T20:19:57.506562+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    5G: Personal mobile internet beyond what cellular did to telephony,

    G. Fettweis and S. Alamouti, “5G: Personal mobile internet beyond what cellular did to telephony,”IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 140-145, 2014

    work page 2014

  2. [2]

    Cellular, Wide-Area, and Non-Terrestrial IoT: A Survey on 5G Advances and the Road Toward 6G,

    M. Vaeziet al., “Cellular, Wide-Area, and Non-Terrestrial IoT: A Survey on 5G Advances and the Road Toward 6G,”IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 1117-1174, 2022

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    A Survey on 5G Usage Scenarios and Traffic Models,

    J. Navarro-Ortiz, P. Romero-Diaz, S. Sendra, P. Ameigeiras, J. J. Ramos- Munoz and J. M. Lopez-Soler, “A Survey on 5G Usage Scenarios and Traffic Models,”IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 905-929, 2020

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    [Online]

    Ericsson,Ericsson Mobility Report, June 2025, Stock- holm, Sweden: Ericsson AB, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.ericsson.com/en/reports-and-papers/mobility-report/ reports/june-2025

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    Fair Communications in UA V Networks for Rescue Applications,

    Q. Shenet al., “Fair Communications in UA V Networks for Rescue Applications,”IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 10, no. 23, pp. 21013-21025, 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Post- Disaster Communications: Enabling Technologies, Architectures, and Open Challenges,

    M. Matracia, N. Saeed, M. A. Kishk and M. -S. Alouini, “Post- Disaster Communications: Enabling Technologies, Architectures, and Open Challenges,”IEEE Open Journal of the Communications Society, vol. 3, pp. 1177-1205, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    An Overview of Post-Disaster Emergency Communication Systems in the Future Networks,

    D. G.C., A. Ladas, Y . A. Sambo, H. Pervaiz, C. Politis and M. A. Imran, “An Overview of Post-Disaster Emergency Communication Systems in the Future Networks,”IEEE Wireless Communications, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 132-139, 2019

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Satellite Communications in the New Space Era: A Survey and Future Challenges,

    O. Kodheliet al., “Satellite Communications in the New Space Era: A Survey and Future Challenges,”IEEE Communications Surveys& Tutorials, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 70-109, 2021

    work page 2021

  9. [9]

    Non-Terrestrial Networks in the 6G Era: Challenges and Opportunities,

    M. Giordani and M. Zorzi, “Non-Terrestrial Networks in the 6G Era: Challenges and Opportunities,”IEEE Network, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 244- 251, 2021

    work page 2021

  10. [10]

    Emerging Technologies for 6G Non-Terrestrial- Networks: From Academia to Industrial Applications,

    C. T. Nguyenet al., “Emerging Technologies for 6G Non-Terrestrial- Networks: From Academia to Industrial Applications,”IEEE Open Journal of the Communications Society, vol. 5, pp. 3852-3885, 2024

    work page 2024

  11. [11]

    Point-to-Point Communication in Integrated Satellite- Aerial 6G Networks: State-of-the-Art and Future Challenges,

    N. Saeed, H. Almorad, H. Dahrouj, T. Y . Al-Naffouri, J. S. Shamma and M. -S. Alouini, “Point-to-Point Communication in Integrated Satellite- Aerial 6G Networks: State-of-the-Art and Future Challenges,”IEEE Open Journal of the Communications Society, vol. 2, pp. 1505-1525, 2021

    work page 2021

  12. [12]

    5G from Space: An Overview of 3GPP Non-Terrestrial Networks,

    X. Lin, S. Rommer, S. Euler, E. A. Yavuz and R. S. Karlsson, “5G from Space: An Overview of 3GPP Non-Terrestrial Networks,”IEEE Communications Standards Magazine, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 147-153, 2021

    work page 2021

  13. [13]

    Non-Terrestrial Networks: An Overview of 3GPP Release 17 & 18,

    M. M. Saad, M. A. Tariq, M. T. R. Khan and D. Kim, “Non-Terrestrial Networks: An Overview of 3GPP Release 17 & 18,”IEEE Internet of Things Magazine, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 20-26, 2024

    work page 2024

  14. [14]

    3GPP Release-18 Physical Layer Enhancements for IoT-NTN,

    G. A. Medina-Acosta, R. K. Mungara, S. G. Eriksson and T. Khan, “3GPP Release-18 Physical Layer Enhancements for IoT-NTN,”IEEE Communications Standards Magazine, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 18-24, 2024

    work page 2024

  15. [15]

    Broadband LEO Satellite Communications: Architectures and Key Technologies,

    Y . Su, Y . Liu, Y . Zhou, J. Yuan, H. Cao and J. Shi, “Broadband LEO Satellite Communications: Architectures and Key Technologies,”IEEE Wireless Communications, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 55-61, 2019

    work page 2019

  16. [16]

    LEO Small-Satellite Constellations for 5G and Beyond-5G Communications,

    I. Leyva-Mayorgaet al., “LEO Small-Satellite Constellations for 5G and Beyond-5G Communications,”IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 184955-184964, 2020

    work page 2020

  17. [17]

    A technical compar- ison of three low earth orbit satellite constellation systems to provide global broadband

    I. del Portillo, B. G. Cameron, and E. F. Crawley, “A technical compar- ison of three low earth orbit satellite constellation systems to provide global broadband”,Acta Astronautica, vol. 159, pp. 123–135, 2019

    work page 2019

  18. [18]

    Ad Astra: Simultaneous Tracking and Navigation With Megaconstellation LEO Satellites,

    Z. M. Kassas, N. Khairallah and S. Kozhaya, “Ad Astra: Simultaneous Tracking and Navigation With Megaconstellation LEO Satellites,”IEEE Aerospace and Electronic Systems Magazine, vol. 39, no. 9, pp. 46-71, Sept. 2024

    work page 2024

  19. [19]

    Review of 5G NTN Standards Development and Technical Challenges for Satellite Integration With the 5G Network,

    M. Hosseinian, J. P. Choi, S. -H. Chang and J. Lee, “Review of 5G NTN Standards Development and Technical Challenges for Satellite Integration With the 5G Network,”IEEE Aerospace and Electronic Systems Magazine, vol. 36, no. 8, pp. 22-31, 2021

    work page 2021

  20. [20]

    NB-IoT over Non-Terrestrial Networks: Link Budget Analysis,

    M. Conti, A. Guidotti, C. Amatetti and A. Vanelli-Coralli, “NB-IoT over Non-Terrestrial Networks: Link Budget Analysis,” inGLOBECOM 2020 - 2020 IEEE Global Communications Conference, Taipei, Taiwan, pp. 1-6, 2020

    work page 2020

  21. [21]

    Outdoor Wideband Channel Measurements and Modeling in the 3–18 GHz Band,

    V . Kristem, C. U. Bas, R. Wang and A. F. Molisch, “Outdoor Wideband Channel Measurements and Modeling in the 3–18 GHz Band,”IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 17, no. 7, pp. 4620- 4633, 2018

    work page 2018

  22. [22]

    Channel Measurements and Modeling for 400–600-MHz Bands in Urban and Suburban Scenarios,

    J. Huang, C. -X. Wang, Y . Yang, Y . Liu, J. Sun and W. Zhang, “Channel Measurements and Modeling for 400–600-MHz Bands in Urban and Suburban Scenarios,”IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 8, no. 7, pp. 5531-5543, 2021

    work page 2021

  23. [23]

    Sub-6 GHz to mmWave for 5G-Advanced and Beyond: Channel Measurements, Characteristics and Impact on System Perfor- mance,

    H. Miaoet al., “Sub-6 GHz to mmWave for 5G-Advanced and Beyond: Channel Measurements, Characteristics and Impact on System Perfor- mance,”IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 1945-1960, 2023

    work page 1945

  24. [24]

    Cellular Wireless Networks in the Upper Mid-Band,

    S. Kanget al., “Cellular Wireless Networks in the Upper Mid-Band,” IEEE Open Journal of the Communications Society, vol. 5, pp. 2058- 2075, 2024

    work page 2058

  25. [25]

    Improving Throughput of 5G Cellular Networks via 3D Placement Optimization of Logistics Drones,

    S. Iranmanesh, F. S. Abkenar, R. Raad and A. Jamalipour, “Improving Throughput of 5G Cellular Networks via 3D Placement Optimization of Logistics Drones,”IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 70, no. 2, pp. 1448-1460, 2021

    work page 2021

  26. [26]

    C. L. Vielhauset al., ”vBerlinV2N: Recreating a Cellular Network Measurement Campaign With Simulations,”IEEE Access, vol. 13, pp. 127023-127044, 2025

    work page 2025

  27. [27]

    In-situ Measurement Methodology for the Assessment of 5G NR Massive MIMO Base Station Exposure at Sub-6 GHz Frequencies,

    S. Aertset al., “In-situ Measurement Methodology for the Assessment of 5G NR Massive MIMO Base Station Exposure at Sub-6 GHz Frequencies,”IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 184658-184667, 2019

    work page 2019

  28. [28]

    EMF Exposure in 5G Standalone mm-Wave Deployments: What Is the Impact of Downlink Traffic?,

    L. Chiaraviglioet al., “EMF Exposure in 5G Standalone mm-Wave Deployments: What Is the Impact of Downlink Traffic?,”IEEE Open Journal of the Communications Society, vol. 3, pp. 1445-1465, 2022

    work page 2022

  29. [29]

    Sectors, Beams and Environmental Impact on the Performance of Commercial 5G mmWave Cells: An Empirical Study,

    S. Mohebi, F. Michelinakis, A. Elmokashfi, O. Grøndalen, K. Mahmood and A. Zanella, “Sectors, Beams and Environmental Impact on the Performance of Commercial 5G mmWave Cells: An Empirical Study,” IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 133309-133323, 2022

    work page 2022

  30. [30]

    Performance Analysis of Satellite Communication System Under the Shadowed- Rician Fading: A Stochastic Geometry Approach,

    D. -H. Jung, J. -G. Ryu, W. -J. Byun and J. Choi, “Performance Analysis of Satellite Communication System Under the Shadowed- Rician Fading: A Stochastic Geometry Approach,”IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 70, no. 4, pp. 2707-2721, 2022

    work page 2022

  31. [31]

    Broadband Connectivity for Handheld Devices via LEO Satellites: Is Distributed Massive MIMO the Answer?,

    M. Y . Abdelsadek, G. Karabulut-Kurt, H. Yanikomeroglu, P. Hu, G. Lamontagne and K. Ahmed, “Broadband Connectivity for Handheld Devices via LEO Satellites: Is Distributed Massive MIMO the Answer?,” IEEE Open Journal of the Communications Society, vol. 4, pp. 713-726, 2023

    work page 2023

  32. [32]

    Starlink on the Road: A First Look at Mobile Starlink Performance in Central Europe,

    D. Laniewski, E. Lanfer, S. Beginn, J. Dunker, M. D ¨uckers and N. Aschenbruck, “Starlink on the Road: A First Look at Mobile Starlink Performance in Central Europe,” in2024 8th Network Traffic Measure- ment and Analysis Conference (TMA), Dresden, Germany, pp. 1-8, 2024

    work page 2024

  33. [33]

    Measuring Mobile Starlink Performance: A Comprehensive Look,

    D. Laniewski, E. Lanfer and N. Aschenbruck, “Measuring Mobile Starlink Performance: A Comprehensive Look,”IEEE Open Journal of the Communications Society, vol. 6, pp. 1266-1283, 2025

    work page 2025

  34. [34]

    Multi-connectivity solutions for rural areas: Integrating terrestrial 5G and satellite networks to support innovative IoT use cases

    A. Ram ´ırez-Arroyo, M. L ´opez, I. Rodr ´ıguez, S. B. Damsgaard, and P. Mogensen, “Multi-connectivity solutions for rural areas: Integrating terrestrial 5G and satellite networks to support innovative IoT use cases”, Smart Agricultural Technology, vol. 12, p. 101260, 2025

    work page 2025

  35. [35]

    Terrestrial 5G and Starlink NTN Multi-Connectivity Toward 6G Communications Integration Era: An Empirical Assessment,

    A. Ram ´ırez-Arroyo, T. B. Sørensen and P. Mogensen, “Terrestrial 5G and Starlink NTN Multi-Connectivity Toward 6G Communications Integration Era: An Empirical Assessment,”IEEE Open Journal of the Communications Society, vol. 6, pp. 5269-5283, 2025

    work page 2025

  36. [36]

    Available: https://www.mastedatabasen.dk/viskort/PageMap.aspx

    Danish Agency for Digital Government: Base Station Database [Online]. Available: https://www.mastedatabasen.dk/viskort/PageMap.aspx

    work page

  37. [37]

    Starlink-Based Passive Radar for Earth’s Surface Imaging: First Experimental Results,

    P. Gomez-del-Hoyo and P. Samczynski, “Starlink-Based Passive Radar for Earth’s Surface Imaging: First Experimental Results,”IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, vol. 17, pp. 13949-13965, 2024

    work page 2024

  38. [38]

    A First Look at the OneWeb LEO Constellation: Beacons, Beams, and Positioning,

    S. Kozhaya and Z. M. Kassas, “A First Look at the OneWeb LEO Constellation: Beacons, Beams, and Positioning,”IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. 60, no. 5, pp. 7528-7534, 2024. [39]multi-connect - The open source multi-path connectivity tool, S. B. Damsgaard, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/drblah/ multi-connect/

    work page 2024

  39. [39]

    Revisiting Space- track Report #3: Rev 1,

    D. Vallado, P. Crawford, R. Hujsak, and T. S. Kelso, “Revisiting Space- track Report #3: Rev 1,” inConf. AIAA/AAS Astrodynamics Specialist Conference and Exhibit, Keystone,USA, pp. 1-92, 2006

    work page 2006