Here's the issue
1) Good luck doing this. It currently is tricky as is.
2) Here's the REALLY fun one. You identify the entity with the device, they live in another country. You now lack any legal power to influence them whatsoever, unless you have the money to file an international complaint/lawsuit, assuming it is even possible.
2a) Assume you suit goes through, it gets promptly ignored. Random hacked Chinese/Russian/Australian/German is not going to care what some person in another country thinks.
As far as I'm aware, the main thing WhatsApp has going for it, in a similar way Skype did, is that it allows international texting on the cheap.
I believe here in the US it isn't much to add on to a wireless plan to get international texting, but in other parts of the world, they charge by the text and gouge pretty hard on it. I would be interested to know how much Deutsche Telekom (or other major wireless operators) charge for international texts.
So WhatApp is the perfect mix of ease of use (no login needed), cheap (was 1 USD a year after the first year, now its free), and by passes the expensive text charges.
As an anecdote, I regularly text a small group, with one person in the UK, another in Singapore, and another in Thailand. Last I looked, if I didn't have unlimited international texting in my wireless plan, it would be like 25 cents PER TEXT. So a small conversation of rapid fire texts would rack up pretty fast.
"Let the market, as cold and harsh as it is, sort things out."
And then the markets are reminded there there is thing called emotions and will to live, which results in the introduction of the free market of violence, where I take what I need to live, damm the consequences. No human being is going to stand by and let free markets work, if it means watching their child die, for any reason,.
Well, basic probability. P(any succeed) = 1 - P(None succeed)
P(Failure) = 0.1
P(All Fail) = 0.1^3
P(any succeed) = 1 - 0.1^3 = 1 - 0.001 = 0.999 = 99.9%
So for 3 satellites with 90% chance, equals out.
I believe that by having drones, a large number of things that are required on an airplane as safety measures for the pilot and passengers go away. Things like parachutes, oxygen, seats, visible warnings, windows, life vests, and so forth.
A pilot on the ground doesn't risk depressurization, having to bail out, doing as extensive of a checklist (since a drone is much simpler then a plane in a lot of way, since many systems simply exist to keep the pilot aware, or keep the people in the plane alive).
This leaves a pilot with only the most core parts of their job, piloting and maintaining communication/awareness of their airspace. But even that is reduced when flying as low as drones do, and especially if you are doing this away from air bases/airstrips. I imagine the risks of flying and colliding drop quite a bit if you are sticking pretty low (under 1000 feet) and many miles from major air centers.
WhatApp has 2 reasons it is popular, especially outside the US
1) It is incredibly convenient, no pass words, no logins,
2) It is CHEAP. Ever seen what most carriers charge for international texting? Unless you specifically are paying the extra in the plan for international texting, its like 20 cents a text. I have 2 people I do game modding with, one in the UK and one in Singapore. So I would either have to sign up for a more expensive plan for international texting or pay 40 cents every time I sent them both a message, and 20 cents to receive from them. So either way, I would be paying a lot more compared to the previous 1 dollar a year.
WhatApp is basically the Skype of texting, breaking the traditional carrier setup and undercutting it hugely by going over data instead of the the approved communication channel. As far as I'm aware, Skype grew big to begin with because of its NAT punching (making it brain dead easy to use and no firewall fiddiling) and being able to do international calls cheaply
What you speak of when it comes to siding with the consumers and breaking bundling is great in theory, but this is an example of prisoners dilemma. Any one cable company knows they can't take on Disney/Turner/etc in forcing unbundling because Disney can just smile, drop ESPN, and watch the cable/satTV customers go racing to one of the satellite TV providers or back to cable, and leaving the cable/satTV company screwed. Disney is the worst of the bundlers because they have ESPN, so they force all the other shit down the cable/sat companies throats.
Until the FCC rules such bundling to be illegal, the content companies can continue to play the various cable companies and sat TV companies against each other. This is the main idea behind the various mergers in providers, to reduce the number of entities that can played against each other. In terms of customer choice, it is awful, and is bullshit. But from a content negotiation point of view, the bigger you are, the bigger the club you can wield, and the content providers are effectively a cartel, so the transport providers are bulking up as well.
For this reason, Netflix and other streamers, once they overtake cable/satTV in terms of viewers, will get the harsh end of this same stick. Mind you, they know this, hence both Netflix and Amazon are becoming content creators themselves, to avoid the same fate of being held over the barrel. Disney could easily play Netflix against Amazon, and force bundling on both of them.