AST SpaceMobile satellite placed into wrong orbit


Posted by Harry Baldock : The failed deployment could hinder commercial pilots of direct-to-device (D2D) services for AST’s mobile operator partners

Satellite company AST SpaceMobile has hit a setback this week, with its latest BlueBird 7 satellite being deployed in the wrong orbit.

The launch, which took pace on Sunday, saw BlueBird 7 carried into low Earth Orbit (LEO) by Blue Origin’s New Glenn reusable rocket. However, issues in deployment led to the satellite being placed into too low an orbit.

“During the New Glenn 3 mission, BlueBird 7 was placed into a lower than planned orbit by the upper stage of the launch vehicle. While the satellite separated from the launch vehicle and powered on, the altitude is too low to sustain operations with its on-board thruster technology and will [be] de-orbited,” explained AST SpaceMobile in a statement, noting that the cost of the lost satellite was covered by an insurance policy.

AST is currently in the process of deploying a constellation of roughly 90 LEO satellites, which will be used to provide global coverage of D2D satellite services. This will allow AST’s mobile operator partners, such as Vodafone and AT&T, to provide customers with coverage beyond the limits of their terrestrial networks.

AST currently has six active satellites in orbit, which provide intermittent coverage and have primarily been used for preliminary tests of the company’s D2D technology. BlueBird 7 was set to be the first of the company’s upgraded satellites, with 45–60 additional devices targeted for launch before the end of the year.

“The company is currently in production through BlueBird 32, with BlueBird 8 to 10 expected to be ready to ship in approximately 30 days,” said the company statement. “The company continues to expect an orbital launch every one to two months on average during 2026, supported by agreements with multiple launch providers, and it continues to target approximately 45 satellites in orbit by the end of 2026.”The extent to which the failure to deliver BlueBird7 will impact AST’s customers is unclear. VodafoneThree, for example, is scheduled to begin trials of the technology with customers this summer. AST SpaceMobile satellite placed into wrong orbit - Total Telecom
Read More........

Your smart home can be easily hacked. New safety standards will help, but stay vigilant

Yang Xiang, Swinburne University of Technology

On a quiet suburban street, a modern Australian home wakes before its owners do.

The lights turn on automatically, the thermostat adjusts to a comfortable temperature, and the coffee machine begins brewing. A doorbell camera watches the front yard, a baby monitor streams live footage to a parent’s phone, and a smart speaker waits for its next command.

This is the promise of the smart home: convenience, efficiency and peace of mind.

But behind this smooth experience is a hidden risk: every connected device can also be a way for cyber attackers to get in.

The Australian government has responded by introducing minimum security standards for smart devices to better protect households in this increasingly connected world.

These standards recently took effect. So what’s in them? And are they sufficient to keep people safe?

Starting with manufacturers

From my experience working in cybersecurity, I’ve seen that security risks start from manufacturers themselves.

Many smart devices are not designed with security as a priority. Manufacturers often focus on keeping costs low, releasing products quickly, and making them easy to use. Security is treated as an afterthought.

For example, many devices arrive with weak default passwords such as “admin” or “1234”, which users rarely change. This creates an easy opportunity for attackers to gain access.

The Mirai botnet attack in 2016 clearly demonstrated the risks. In this case, hundreds of thousands of insecure devices such as doorbell cameras were hijacked to launch massive “distributed denial-of-service” (DDoS) attacks. This is a type of cyber attack where many computers or devices are used together to overwhelm a website, server, or network with traffic, so it becomes slow or completely unavailable to legitimate users.

More recent research has shown smart home devices can be exploited not only to disrupt systems but also to spy on households. In some cases, strangers have accessed baby monitors, and poorly secured cameras have exposed private footage online.

Another major issue is the lack of regular software updates.

Many low-cost or older devices don’t receive ongoing security patches, which means known software vulnerabilities remain open indefinitely. Attackers actively scan the internet for such devices, exploiting weaknesses at a large scale. Cloud-connected and AI-enabled systems amplify risks.

The consequences of these weaknesses go beyond individual households. Compromised devices can be used as part of larger cyber attacks, forming botnets that target critical infrastructure or businesses.

In effect, an insecure smart lightbulb or camera can become a building block in global cyber crime operations.

What are the new standards?

In response to these growing threats, the Australian government has begun introducing mandatory minimum security standards for connected devices.

These standards took effect earlier this month. They aim to establish a baseline level of protection across all products entering the market.

While the details of these standards may evolve, the key ideas are clear.

First, devices must not use universal default passwords. Each device should either require users to create a unique password during setup or be shipped with a unique credential.

Second, manufacturers must provide a clear vulnerability disclosure policy, allowing security researchers to report issues responsibly.

Third, there must be transparency around how long a device will receive security updates, so consumers can make informed decisions.

These changes shift some responsibility from users to manufacturers. Instead of expecting consumers to fix security problems themselves, devices must be designed to be safer from the start.

In practice, this means fewer vulnerabilities and greater accountability across the industry.

Regulation alone isn’t enough

However, regulation alone is not enough. Household behaviour still plays a critical role in maintaining security. Fortunately, some of the most effective steps are simple.

Changing default passwords to strong, unique ones is one of the most important steps. A strong password should be long, complex and not reused across multiple devices or accounts.

Enabling multi-factor authentication wherever possible adds a second layer of defence, making it significantly harder for attackers to gain access.

Regularly updating device firmware, also known as “software for hardware”, is equally important. Firmware updates often include patches for newly discovered vulnerabilities, and delaying them leaves devices exposed.

Users should also consider their home network design. Placing smart devices on a separate network, such as a guest wifi, can help isolate them from more sensitive information on personal or work devices.

Finally, choosing reputable manufacturers matters. Companies with a strong track record of providing ongoing security updates and transparent policies are generally safer choices than unknown or low-cost alternatives.

Smart homes are becoming an integral part of everyday life, and their benefits continue to grow. But as intelligence and automation expand, convenience must not come at the expense of security and trust.

With stronger standards, better-designed devices and more informed users, it is possible to enjoy the benefits of smart homes without exposing ourselves to unnecessary cyber risks.The Conversation

Yang Xiang, Professor, Computer Science, Swinburne University of Technology

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read More........

Franchise businesses have long been plagued by scandals. Domino’s is just the latest

Jenny Buchan, UNSW Sydney

The blue and red boxes with white dots are immediately recognisable as containing Domino’s pizzas. The pizza chain is Australia’s largest and is run as a franchise, with the ASX-listed public company Domino’s Pizza Enterprises holding the Australian master franchise rights.

Industry analysts IBISWorld calculate Domino’s has 4.2% of the fast food and takeaway market in Australia.

But recent reports suggest all is not well with many of the store owners, who are struggling with rising costs and declining profitability.

Troubling reports

The central issue appears to be what the federal government describes in its code of conduct as the “the imbalance of power between franchisors and franchisees”.

The Australian Financial Review has reported troubling claims in two key areas:

  • Domino’s appears to have doubled the margin on the key food ingredients it sells to franchisees and increased its advertising levy, according to a letter from store owners represented by the Australian Association of Franchisees. This could reduce their profitability

  • Domino’s Australian chief operating officer, Greg Steenson, reportedly encouraged franchisees in a presentation to take advantage of restructuring schemes that allow insolvent companies to continue to trade by negotiating repayment plans with the tax office and other creditors.

In a letter to Domino’s quoted in the report, the franchisees said their earnings have remained flat for 15 years, and have not kept up with inflation.

A long history of disputes

A former franchisee told a parliamentary inquiry into the franchising model the margin squeeze meant

franchisees can be ripped off by [Domino’s Pizza Enterprises] when forced to buy supplies at a higher price than they could get through their wholesalers.

He said the cost of food, labour, rent and other fixed costs had risen, but in 2019 pizzas were still sold at 1990s prices. “Nobody is left to pay for this but the franchisees,” the former owner said.

According to the Financial Review article, the cost of supplies remains a problem for franchisees. Time will tell whether Domino’s proposed 70 cent increase in pizza prices will help.

In response to questions from the Financial Review, Domino’s said the food margin had not “materially changed” in five years, despite volatility in ingredients prices.

Government reviews found the previous regulations had loopholes that did not sufficiently protect franchisees. There have been a string of high-profile disputes involving auto services company Ultra Tune, coffee chain 85 Degrees Coffee, Pizza Hut and others.

Following a 2024 inquiry, changes to the code of conduct were introduced this year.

Advertising costs on the rise

Advertising expenditure comes from what is now known as a “special purpose fund” in the code of conduct. Franchisors need to provide franchisees with disclosure about how the money is spent.

In 2017, the consumer regulator Australian Competition and Consumer Commission fined Domino’s A$18,000 for allegedly slipping on its obligations to advise franchisees about its marketing spend.

Ensuring franchisees have a genuine say in how their increased contribution is spent could help to address any imbalance of power between Domino’s and its franchisees.

Franchisees reportedly now pay 6% of their earnings to Domino’s for marketing and advertising, up from 5.35%. That is in addition to 7% of gross sales paid as royalties, and other costs for email and bookkeeping.

What insolvent means

The insolvency law for small businesses is explained by the Australian Taxation Office as a process that enables financially distressed but viable firms to restructure their existing debts and continue to trade.

The press reports say the franchisees of about 65 Domino’s stores were on repayment plans with the Australian Taxation Office. Many franchisees own two or more outlets.

Under the Corporations legislation, companies on these repayment plans may be trading insolvent, or believe they will become insolvent. Insolvent means they cannot pay their debts when they fall due. If this is the case, a key question that needs to be answered by Domino’s is whether their franchised outlets can become profitable.

In another media report, Domino’s was quoted as saying it disputed the number of stores on repayment plans, adding it was a “significantly smaller” number of franchisees.

The company was contacted for comment but did not respond before deadline.

What this means for the stores

So what does this mean for Domino’s store owners who may be trading insolvent?

Under the law, the restructuring process allows eligible small business companies:

  • to retain control of the business, property and affairs while developing a plan to restructure with the assistance of a small business restructuring practitioner
  • to enter into a restructuring plan with creditors.

If a company proposes a restructuring plan to its creditors, it is taken to be insolvent. This is a game changer for the franchisee and its creditors.

Franchisees receive protection from creditors who want to enforce rights under existing contracts. A franchisee’s creditors include suppliers, its landlord, employees, the tax office and the franchisor (in this case, Domino’s).

Currently these store owners are protected from any creditors pushing them to pay their debts. The restructuring process gives the store owners some breathing room while the debt negotiations take place.

The imbalance of power persists

Despite government inquiries and reviews, it seems the imbalance of power between the Domino’s franchisees and their franchisor persists.

But Domino’s can’t afford to stay the same. Franchisees need to make a profit. The move to enter restructuring could be a temporary band aid.

Domino’s largest shareholder and executive chairman, Jack Cowin, was appointed in July after the former chief executive left after just seven months. Cowin understands the franchised fast food sector and has pledged to lead a cost reduction program that will improve the profitability of stores.The Conversation

Jenny Buchan, Emeritus Professor, Business School, UNSW Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read More........