zprávy

The Galileo performance is reported in the Galileo Initial Services – Open Service – Quarterly Performance Report, where several key performance indicators are analysed according to criteria (Minimum Performance Levels, MPLs) defined in the Galileo Service Definition document (SDD), published in the European GNSS Service Centre and last updated in May 2019.

As planned, recently the GSA published the Q3 2019 performance report. This report covers the period when a technical incident caused by an equipment malfunction in Galileo last July resulted in a six-day interruption in Galileo navigation and timing services. This had an important effect on the programme and, following the incident, an independent Inquiry Board was set up by the European Commission to investigate its causes and to make recommendations for actions to avoid another such incident in the future. 

Performance measurement: how is it done?

Measurement of service performance is one of the key activities of the GSA, the Galileo Service Provider. The GSA’s Galileo Reference Centre, located in Noordwijk, the Netherlands, plays a crucial role in monitoring the Galileo performance . 

The Galileo Reference Centre (GRC) is one of the Galileo Service Facilities and it supports the provision of services to Galileo users. The GRC is operated by the GSA, providing an independent means of evaluating the performance of the Galileo Service Operator and the quality of the signals in space. The GRC is fully independent of the system and the Galileo Service Operator with respect to both the technical solution and operations, and consists of both a core facility and contributions available in EU Member States, Norway and Switzerland. Data and products from cooperating entities in the Member States make it possible to observe the Galileo signals all over the world at all times, in support of both routine operations and specific performance assessment campaigns.

The minimum performance levels

The MPLs address several parameters of interest, and can be mainly grouped into two categories:

• Accuracy MPLs refer to how well (accurately) the Galileo services perform, whenever the Galileo signals are usable (or “healthy”, as defined in the SDD). This includes:
  • Ranging Accuracy; related to the navigation data transmitted by the satellites which is used to calculate the distance between the satellite and the receiver;
  • Timing and Frequency Accuracy; related to the parameters that allow the receiver to obtain a precise synchronisation to either Universal Time Coordinated (UTC) or GPS time.

Accuracy MPLs are statistically defined as “95th percentile”, and calculated over a period of 30 days, using a sample of measurements taken every 5 minutes and considering only those epochs where the signals were healthy. In line with other GNSS constellation providers, timing parameters are normalised over a year by averaging the past twelve 30-day periods. For accuracy parameters, the smaller the achieved value, the better.

• Availability MPLs refer to how much time per month (or year) a given performance level is to be met (for which the signals have to be healthy). This includes:
  • Per-Slot Availability; related to the amount of time per period that the signals from each satellite are healthy;
  • Timing Availability; related to the amount of time per period that the timing parameters are broadcast, and the time synchronisation error is within the specified target;
  • Positioning Availability; related to the amount of time per period that the users have enough satellites in view to calculate their position, and the calculated position error is within the specified target.

Availability MPLs are reported as percent, and calculated over a period of 30 days, using a sample of measurements taken every 5 minutes and considering all epochs (healthy or not). Again, in line with other GNSS constellation providers, some parameters are normalised over a year by averaging the past twelve 30-day periods (timing and per-slot availability). For availability parameters, the larger the achieved value, the better.

The Service Definition Document also describes how to assess whether the Galileo signals are healthy or not, by looking into some parameters (“flags”) transmitted by the satellites, and checking the last time when the navigation data was refreshed (it should not be older than 4 hours).

The Galileo performance in Q3 2019

The Galileo system is currently in a partial deployment stage, with some satellites still to be launched and a number of ground infrastructure upgrades on-going to provide redundancy and complete all functionalities. For this reason, the MPL commitments published in the SDD include margins that account for possible planned and unplanned outages. The quarterly performance reports provide visibility on the measured performance and compare it with the MPL. Galileo has regularly performed well above the MPL targets since the declaration of Initial Services in 2016.

The Galileo incident in July 2019 prevented the refresh of the data transmitted by the satellites, therefore eventually the signals were flagged a not healthy and/or the data became outdated. This caused an impact on the availability MPLs that are calculated monthly. These parameters went well below the values typically provided by Galileo, yet in most of the cases (all but two) they stayed above the committed figure, which includes margins for the reasons explained above. The performance report, therefore, displays them as “green” in the dashboard, however the trend chart clearly shows the difference with the months of June and August and the margin with the MPL. 

An example is provided below (Figure 12 of the Quarterly Performance Report Q3 2019, page 19) for the positioning availability:

The committed value (MPL) is 77%. Due to the incident in July, the signals were not available for some days and the parameter was only met 81% of the time, whereas in August and September it was met well above 99%. Still, all values are above the target.

Another example (Figure 16 of the Quarterly Performance Report Q3 2019, page 13) for the time determination availability:

In this case, the committed value (MPL) is 87%. Due to the incident in July, the parameter was only met 81% of the time therefore not fulfilling the target, whereas in August and September it was met 100%.

During the 3rd quarter of 2019, whenever the signals were Healthy, they provided good performance. Therefore, the accuracy MPLs were fulfilled despite the incident.

An example is provided below (Figure 2 of the Quarterly Performance Report Q3 2019, page 10) for the ranging accuracy:

The committed value (MPL) is 7 meters, 95%. During July, August and September, 95% of the time where the signals were healthy the error was below 0.5 meters for all satellites. Therefore, the target was largely met.

Next steps

Regardless of the fact that the published MPLs were mostly met due to a proper estimation of the margins associated to the current deployment status, the programme fully recognises the magnitude of the service outage, and is working consistently on actions to increase Galileo’s stability, robustness and resilience. This will translate into a future update of the Service Definition Document, including more stringent commitments with lower margins, and the reporting of the delivered performance according to the new MPLs.

Media note: This feature can be republished without charge provided the European GNSS Agency (GSA) is acknowledged as the source at the top or the bottom of the story. You must request permission before you use any of the photographs on the site. If you republish, we would be grateful if you could link back to the GSA website (http://www.gsa.europa.eu).

The Galileo performance is reported in the Galileo Initial Services – Open Service – Quarterly Performance Report, where several key performance indicators are analysed according to criteria (Minimum Performance Levels, MPLs) defined in the Galileo Service Definition document (SDD), published in the European GNSS Service Centre and last updated in May 2019.

As planned, recently the GSA published the Q3 2019 performance report. This report covers the period when a technical incident caused by an equipment malfunction in Galileo last July resulted in a six-day interruption in Galileo navigation and timing services. This had an important effect on the programme and, following the incident, an independent Inquiry Board was set up by the European Commission to investigate its causes and to make recommendations for actions to avoid another such incident in the future. 

Performance measurement: how is it done?

Measurement of service performance is one of the key activities of the GSA, the Galileo Service Provider. The GSA’s Galileo Reference Centre, located in Noordwijk, the Netherlands, plays a crucial role in monitoring the Galileo performance . 

The Galileo Reference Centre (GRC) is one of the Galileo Service Facilities and it supports the provision of services to Galileo users. The GRC is operated by the GSA, providing an independent means of evaluating the performance of the Galileo Service Operator and the quality of the signals in space. The GRC is fully independent of the system and the Galileo Service Operator with respect to both the technical solution and operations, and consists of both a core facility and contributions available in EU Member States, Norway and Switzerland. Data and products from cooperating entities in the Member States make it possible to observe the Galileo signals all over the world at all times, in support of both routine operations and specific performance assessment campaigns.

The minimum performance levels

The MPLs address several parameters of interest, and can be mainly grouped into two categories:

• Accuracy MPLs refer to how well (accurately) the Galileo services perform, whenever the Galileo signals are usable (or “healthy”, as defined in the SDD). This includes:
  • Ranging Accuracy; related to the navigation data transmitted by the satellites which is used to calculate the distance between the satellite and the receiver;
  • Timing and Frequency Accuracy; related to the parameters that allow the receiver to obtain a precise synchronisation to either Universal Time Coordinated (UTC) or GPS time.

Accuracy MPLs are statistically defined as “95th percentile”, and calculated over a period of 30 days, using a sample of measurements taken every 5 minutes and considering only those epochs where the signals were healthy. In line with other GNSS constellation providers, timing parameters are normalised over a year by averaging the past twelve 30-day periods. For accuracy parameters, the smaller the achieved value, the better.

• Availability MPLs refer to how much time per month (or year) a given performance level is to be met (for which the signals have to be healthy). This includes:
  • Per-Slot Availability; related to the amount of time per period that the signals from each satellite are healthy;
  • Timing Availability; related to the amount of time per period that the timing parameters are broadcast, and the time synchronisation error is within the specified target;
  • Positioning Availability; related to the amount of time per period that the users have enough satellites in view to calculate their position, and the calculated position error is within the specified target.

Availability MPLs are reported as percent, and calculated over a period of 30 days, using a sample of measurements taken every 5 minutes and considering all epochs (healthy or not). Again, in line with other GNSS constellation providers, some parameters are normalised over a year by averaging the past twelve 30-day periods (timing and per-slot availability). For availability parameters, the larger the achieved value, the better.

The Service Definition Document also describes how to assess whether the Galileo signals are healthy or not, by looking into some parameters (“flags”) transmitted by the satellites, and checking the last time when the navigation data was refreshed (it should not be older than 4 hours).

The Galileo performance in Q3 2019

The Galileo system is currently in a partial deployment stage, with some satellites still to be launched and a number of ground infrastructure upgrades on-going to provide redundancy and complete all functionalities. For this reason, the MPL commitments published in the SDD include margins that account for possible planned and unplanned outages. The quarterly performance reports provide visibility on the measured performance and compare it with the MPL. Galileo has regularly performed well above the MPL targets since the declaration of Initial Services in 2016.

The Galileo incident in July 2019 prevented the refresh of the data transmitted by the satellites, therefore eventually the signals were flagged as not healthy and/or the data became outdated. This caused an impact on the availability MPLs that are calculated monthly. These parameters went well below the values typically provided by Galileo, yet in most of the cases (all but two) they stayed above the committed figure, which includes margins for the reasons explained above. The performance report, therefore, displays them as “green” in the dashboard, however the trend chart clearly shows the difference with the months of June and August and the margin with the MPL. 

An example is provided below (Figure 12 of the Quarterly Performance Report Q3 2019, page 19) for the positioning availability:

The committed value (MPL) is 77%. Due to the incident in July, the signals were not available for some days and the parameter was only met 81% of the time, whereas in August and September it was met well above 99%. Still, all values are above the target.

Another example (Figure 16 of the Quarterly Performance Report Q3 2019, page 13) for the time determination availability:

In this case, the committed value (MPL) is 87%. Due to the incident in July, the parameter was only met 81% of the time therefore not fulfilling the target, whereas in August and September it was met 100%.

During the 3rd quarter of 2019, whenever the signals were Healthy, they provided good performance. Therefore, the accuracy MPLs were fulfilled despite the incident.

An example is provided below (Figure 2 of the Quarterly Performance Report Q3 2019, page 10) for the ranging accuracy:

The committed value (MPL) is 7 meters, 95%. During July, August and September, 95% of the time where the signals were healthy the error was below 0.5 meters for all satellites. Therefore, the target was largely met.

Next steps

Regardless of the fact that the published MPLs were mostly met due to a proper estimation of the margins associated to the current deployment status, the programme fully recognises the magnitude of the service outage, and is working consistently on actions to increase Galileo’s stability, robustness and resilience. This will translate into a future update of the Service Definition Document, including more stringent commitments with lower margins, and the reporting of the delivered performance according to the new MPLs.

Media note: This feature can be republished without charge provided the European GNSS Agency (GSA) is acknowledged as the source at the top or the bottom of the story. You must request permission before you use any of the photographs on the site. If you republish, we would be grateful if you could link back to the GSA website (http://www.gsa.europa.eu).

The Galileo performance is reported in the Galileo Initial Services – Open Service – Quarterly Performance Report, where several key performance indicators are analysed according to criteria (Minimum Performance Levels, MPLs) defined in the Galileo Service Definition document (SDD), published in the European GNSS Service Centre and last updated in May 2019.

As planned, recently the GSA published the Q3 2019 performance report. This report covers the period when a technical incident caused by an equipment malfunction in Galileo last July resulted in a six-day interruption in Galileo navigation and timing services. This had an important effect on the programme and, following the incident, an independent Inquiry Board was set up by the European Commission to investigate its causes and to make recommendations for actions to avoid another such incident in the future. 

Performance measurement: how is it done?

Measurement of service performance is one of the key activities of the GSA, the Galileo Service Provider. The GSA’s Galileo Reference Centre, located in Noordwijk, the Netherlands, plays a crucial role in monitoring the Galileo performance . 

The Galileo Reference Centre (GRC) is one of the Galileo Service Facilities and it supports the provision of services to Galileo users. The GRC is operated by the GSA, providing an independent means of evaluating the performance of the Galileo Service Operator and the quality of the signals in space. The GRC is fully independent of the system and the Galileo Service Operator with respect to both the technical solution and operations, and consists of both a core facility and contributions available in EU Member States, Norway and Switzerland. Data and products from cooperating entities in the Member States make it possible to observe the Galileo signals all over the world at all times, in support of both routine operations and specific performance assessment campaigns.

The minimum performance levels

The MPLs address several parameters of interest, and can be mainly grouped into two categories:

• Accuracy MPLs refer to how well (accurately) the Galileo services perform, whenever the Galileo signals are usable (or “healthy”, as defined in the SDD). This includes:
  • Ranging Accuracy; related to the navigation data transmitted by the satellites which is used to calculate the distance between the satellite and the receiver;
  • Timing and Frequency Accuracy; related to the parameters that allow the receiver to obtain a precise synchronisation to either Universal Time Coordinated (UTC) or GPS time.

Accuracy MPLs are statistically defined as “95th percentile”, and calculated over a period of 30 days, using a sample of measurements taken every 5 minutes and considering only those epochs where the signals were healthy. In line with other GNSS constellation providers, timing parameters are normalised over a year by averaging the past twelve 30-day periods. For accuracy parameters, the smaller the achieved value, the better.

• Availability MPLs refer to how much time per month (or year) a given performance level is to be met (for which the signals have to be healthy). This includes:
  • Per-Slot Availability; related to the amount of time per period that the signals from each satellite are healthy;
  • Timing Availability; related to the amount of time per period that the timing parameters are broadcast, and the time synchronisation error is within the specified target;
  • Positioning Availability; related to the amount of time per period that the users have enough satellites in view to calculate their position, and the calculated position error is within the specified target.

Availability MPLs are reported as percent, and calculated over a period of 30 days, using a sample of measurements taken every 5 minutes and considering all epochs (healthy or not). Again, in line with other GNSS constellation providers, some parameters are normalised over a year by averaging the past twelve 30-day periods (timing and per-slot availability). For availability parameters, the larger the achieved value, the better.

The Service Definition Document also describes how to assess whether the Galileo signals are healthy or not, by looking into some parameters (“flags”) transmitted by the satellites, and checking the last time when the navigation data was refreshed (it should not be older than 4 hours).

The Galileo performance in Q3 2019

The Galileo system is currently in a partial deployment stage, with some satellites still to be launched and a number of ground infrastructure upgrades on-going to provide redundancy and complete all functionalities. For this reason, the MPL commitments published in the SDD include margins that account for possible planned and unplanned outages. The quarterly performance reports provide visibility on the measured performance and compare it with the MPL. Galileo has regularly performed well above the MPL targets since the declaration of Initial Services in 2016.

The Galileo incident in July 2019 prevented the refresh of the data transmitted by the satellites, therefore eventually the signals were flagged a not healthy and/or the data became outdated. This caused an impact on the availability MPLs that are calculated monthly. These parameters went well below the values typically provided by Galileo, yet in most of the cases (all but two) they stayed above the committed figure, which includes margins for the reasons explained above. The performance report, therefore, displays them as “green” in the dashboard, however the trend chart clearly shows the difference with the months of June and August and the margin with the MPL. 

An example is provided below (Figure 12 of the Quarterly Performance Report Q3 2019, page 19) for the positioning availability:

The committed value (MPL) is 77%. Due to the incident in July, the signals were not available for some days and the parameter was only met 81% of the time, whereas in August and September it was met well above 99%. Still, all values are above the target.

Another example (Figure 16 of the Quarterly Performance Report Q3 2019, page 13) for the time determination availability:

In this case, the committed value (MPL) is 87%. Due to the incident in July, the parameter was only met 81% of the time therefore not fulfilling the target, whereas in August and September it was met 100%.

During the 3rd quarter of 2019, whenever the signals were Healthy, they provided good performance. Therefore, the accuracy MPLs were fulfilled despite the incident.

An example is provided below (Figure 2 of the Quarterly Performance Report Q3 2019, page 10) for the ranging accuracy:

The committed value (MPL) is 7 meters, 95%. During July, August and September, 95% of the time where the signals were healthy the error was below 0.5 meters for all satellites. Therefore, the target was largely met.

Next steps

Regardless of the fact that the published MPLs were mostly met due to a proper estimation of the margins associated to the current deployment status, the programme fully recognises the magnitude of the service outage, and is working consistently on actions to increase Galileo’s stability, robustness and resilience. This will translate into a future update of the Service Definition Document, including more stringent commitments with lower margins, and the reporting of the delivered performance according to the new MPLs.

Media note: This feature can be republished without charge provided the European GNSS Agency (GSA) is acknowledged as the source at the top or the bottom of the story. You must request permission before you use any of the photographs on the site. If you republish, we would be grateful if you could link back to the GSA website (http://www.gsa.europa.eu).

Verejná politika je v tom najširšom ponímaní definovaná a vnímaná ako množina navzájom súvisiacich rozhodnutí, na ktoré pôsobili mnohé okolnosti, ako aj osobné, skupinové či organizačné vplyvy - je nutné ich poznať a vedieť využívať v rámci nášho právneho systému....

Verejná politika je v tom najširšom ponímaní definovaná a vnímaná ako množina navzájom súvisiacich rozhodnutí, na ktoré pôsobili mnohé okolnosti, ako aj osobné, skupinové či organizačné vplyvy. Vládnutie, správa vecí verejných, riadenie štátu sa nevyhnú takýmto vplyvom a preto je nutné ich...

Carlo des Dorides took up his position as executive director of the European GNSS Agency (GSA) on February 1, 2011. In the nine years since then, the Galileo programme has progressed from a project on paper to an operational programme with over a billion users around the globe. As his term at the helm of the Agency draws to an end, the GSA executive director looks back at the successes and challenges of the past nine years and speaks about his hopes for the future.

During your nine years at the head of the GSA there have been significant advances in the European GNSS programme. What do you see as the greatest achievement during your term?

When I first took up my position as executive director of the GSA, the Galileo programme only existed on paper and EGNOS had yet to be certified for use in civil aviation. Since then, we have achieved the remarkable figures of over 1 billion Galileo-enabled smartphones on the market and EGNOS present at more than 350 airports in Europe. These figures represent the culmination of the two programmes, but they also represent a remarkable path. On one hand, we built a performing system for both Galileo and EGNOS. But having a performing system is not enough - you also need to have the confidence of users. The GSA played a crucial role in building this confidence.

EGNOS is the first pan-European infrastructure for civil aviation, and in offering it to the market we were faced with many questions. There were questions about certification, about the liability chain, about the updating of avionics. The GSA worked consistently with all stakeholders and brought all of these elements together, and the result is that we now have EGNOS present at so many airports. After nine years of hard work, the figures bear testament to the fact that we have truly created a success story.

As with any venture on this scale, there have been ups and downs in building the European GNSS over the years. What have been the greatest challenges, and how were they overcome?

One difficult decision that we had to face was the decision to take over operational management of the Galileo programme in January 2017. Why was this difficult? Well, there were diverging views about operational readiness, and different assessments of the risks involved. Even though we had declared Initial Services in December 2016, the system was not complete at the time. In a sense, we were taking the wheel of a car that had not yet been fully built, which was not an easy thing to do. At the same time, the GSA itself was not fully formed – it was still a house under construction. To continue with the car analogy, we were a skilled driver, but still a young and untested driver. It was a challenge to manage this uncertainty while still building the system. 

Another difficult choice was the decision to declare Initial Services, as this meant that there was now greater public scrutiny of the programme in what was essentially a period of testing and fine-tuning in preparation for the launch of Full Operating Capability. This was a blessing and a curse – while the programme’s successes were celebrated, all technical glitches were very much in the public eye. This was the case with the technical incident last year that resulted in a temporary interruption of the Galileo signal. While this incident was a setback, we learned valuable lessons and are stronger as a result.

Another challenge was when the GSA moved to Prague. At the beginning it was difficult to build the team and to attract the right profiles, as there was uncertainty about the future of the GSA and people didn’t know what to expect in Prague. A mere nine years later the Agency has grown tremendously, both in terms of staff numbers and in prestige, and Prague is one of the top-rated European capitals for quality of life. Now that GSA is expanding into the European Union Agency for the Space Programme, I don’t anticipate any problems with our capacity to attract talented professionals.

During your term, the GSA managed to bring Galileo to over 1 bln smartphones, moving the programme from paper to space and back to Earth to devices and users, what triggered this progress?

In achieving this milestone, the work of the Agency in liaising with user communities has been of fundamental importance. Our constant interaction with users through our User Consultation Platforms has given us a unique understanding of the dynamics of the GNSS market and of the needs of the various user segments. We have also compiled, in alternate years, GNSS Market Reports and GNSS User Technology Reports, which has deepened our understanding of market needs. This understanding has allowed us to effectively meet these needs – and the market has been quick to respond. The work of our Market Development Department has been important in this regard, thanks to their ongoing interaction with all the market segments. 

We have also been active in communicating, both to industry and to the general public, about the benefits that Galileo offers in terms of increased accuracy, availability and robustness of the positioning, navigation and timing signal. Manufacturers have been quick to understand these benefits and have been eager to pass them on to their customers. These customers, in turn, are becoming increasingly aware of the accuracy and availability gains that Galileo offers, and this is reflected in the 1 billion smartphone milestone. This was a remarkable achievement for the Galileo programme, and the fact that it occurred in the same week that we celebrated the 15th anniversary of the Agency made it especially gratifying. 

You have been leading one of the fastest growing European agencies, linking space to user needs, with assets and teams spread across Europe. What are the key elements of your leadership?

Building the right team for the job was key to my success at the head of the GSA and key to the success of the Agency in building Galileo and EGNOS. In my position as GSA executive director I had to wear many hats to understand and respond to the needs of the Agency and its growing team, along with our stakeholders and user communities. As a leader, you are responsible for guiding the team and creating the right mind-set among the team members. You need to lead by example, but you also need to play as a team member, know when to take the stage and when let others shine, and be ready to serve and do what is required of you. I am proud of the team that we have built at the GSA. I believe that GSA has a key role to play in making the EU Space programme grow and thrive both at the European and Global level.

On a more personal level, when you look back at your term as the executive director of the GSA, what gives you the most pride or satisfaction?

There are a number of things that come to mind when I look back at my term at the GSA. First of all, by helping to establish the Galileo programme, I feel that I have made a contribution to building Europe. I am a true believer in the European project. My position at the GSA gave me a wonderful opportunity to work on a concrete project that shows what the EU can achieve by working together. The European space programmes would not have been possible for any individual Member State to accomplish alone – it was only by coming together as Europeans that this became possible. 

Secondly, I am proud to have helped create a future for all the staff that believed in our project and put their trust in me and in the Agency. Thanks to their dedication, the future of the Agency looks bright. I was approached by an Agency employee recently who told me that they had really enjoyed working at the GSA because of the positive working atmosphere that exists here, based on a common motivation and shared values. It takes time to build this, but it is fundamentally important. Building the GSA team was difficult in the beginning but it was an important achievement and it is one of which I am particularly proud. 

What does the future look like for the European space programme and for the GSA, and do you have any ‘words of wisdom’ for your successor?

The future looks promising, both for the EU Space Programme and for the GSA. The recently approved Regulation on the EU Space Programme and on setting up the European Union Agency for the Space Programme (EUSPA) paves the way for the expansion of the programme, with an increased budget and expanded responsibilities. The approval of the Regulation shows that we have earned the confidence of the Member States. They can see that the space programme is creating economic opportunities and jobs, and understand the benefits that it offers for their citizens and for European growth.

In terms of ‘words of wisdom’ for my successor – I would just say that it is important to embrace change. We live in a dynamic world and change is an important part of our daily work. That said; change should be approached with caution. What we have built here at the GSA is the result of maturity gained over the years. I would advise that change should be preceded by careful listening to all stakeholders and careful consideration of all possible outcomes. Otherwise we could stand to lose what we have built. 

Chip manufacturers are very aware of the opportunities that dual frequency offers and, correspondingly, the market has witnessed the launch of a range of mass-market dual-frequency chips targeted at various applications. In turn, smartphone manufacturers also understand the benefits that these chips provide in terms of positioning accuracy for location based services and are eager to pass on these benefits to their users.

To date, there are 41 smartphone models on the market, from 10 manufacturers, offering dual-frequency capability. One of the most recent launches by a major manufacturer was the Galaxy Note10 and Galaxy Note10+ from Samsung Electronics, which hit the market in the second half of last year. Fitted with the Broadcom BCM47755 chip, these smartphones are the first from the South Korean multinational to provide dual-frequency GNSS capability. 

Users of these and other dual-frequency smartphones are able to benefit from the increased accuracy and robustness of the GNSS signal, particularly in urban environments, as dual-frequency phones are more resistant to multipath errors. Developers too are able to leverage the enhanced accuracy offered by this dual-frequency capability to create new applications requiring high accuracy, robust positioning. Check on the UseGalileo site, to see if your smartphone has dual-frequency capability.

Read this: MyGalileoApp – an ecosystem of innovation

The growing number of dual-frequency smartphones on the market clearly shows that the major electronics manufacturers understand the opportunities that this capability provides in terms of enabling a new generation of location based services. But there is one area in particular that will spark growing demand for dual frequency.

Dual-frequency – Galileo leads the way

According to the latest GNSS Market Report, published in October last year, for the 5G market in particular, the availability of accurate, cost effective and robust, dual-frequency GNSS systems will be critical in providing business opportunities. With the increased rollout of 5G internationally in the coming years, dual-frequency capability will be a key factor and we are likely to see an even greater number of compatible devices on the market.

And this: EU Space Week 2019: Investors meet innovation

This is good news for the Galileo system – dual-frequency capacity is a key Galileo differentiator, as the Galileo constellation has the highest number of dual-frequency satellites of any GNSS system. “Since the first dual-frequency GNSS smartphone hit the market back in June 2018, the trend has been towards increased implementation of dual-frequency capability in consumer platforms, allowing them to improve their location performance,” said European GNSS Agency (GSA) Head of Market Development Fiammetta Diani, adding that Galileo stands ready to support this trend.

Why is it important?

Dual-frequency capability means that the GNSS receivers are able to receive two GNSS signals at different frequencies from a satellite. In the case of Galileo, these frequencies are E1 and E5a. Dual frequency provides increased reliability to users – if one of the frequency bands fails, the other can be used as backup. 

Other advantages of dual-frequency capability include a reduced signal acquisition time and improved accuracy of positioning and timing. Dual frequency also reduces problems caused by obstructions such as buildings and other obstacles, thanks to the fact that the L5/E5a signals are lower in frequency, making them are less prone to multipath interference errors.

Media note: This feature can be republished without charge provided the European GNSS Agency (GSA) is acknowledged as the source at the top or the bottom of the story. You must request permission before you use any of the photographs on the site. If you republish, we would be grateful if you could link back to the GSA website (http://www.gsa.europa.eu).