10 years from now... (was: internet futures)

Mon Mar 29 05:19:04 UTC 2021

By definition and orbital mechanics, low earth orbit things don't "park"
anywhere. There's an equal number of starlink satellites over Mongolia
right now as there are over the same latitude locations in the US and
Canada.

https://satellitemap.space/

This also becomes intuitive once one plays Kerbal Space Program for a few
hours...

On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 9:16 PM Keith Medcalf <kmedcalf at dessus.com> wrote:

>
> Net to mention, of course, that the Low Orbit constellation would need to
> be "parked" over China (or where-ever you want to access it).  I am quite
> sure that "shooting down" such low orbit stationary vehicles would not be
> too difficult.  And if they are owned by an adversary who has no permission
> to fly those objects in your airspace, I doubt that anything could be done
> about it.
>
> If I owned a bunch of low orbit satellites costing millions of dollars
> each, I would not want to "park" them in low orbit over a hostile territory.
>
> Then you also have the requirement to maintain positive control over the
> satellites which, unlike those in geostationary orbits, need to be under
> continual thrust and control in order to stay "parked".  I doubt that any
> "private" (ie, non-Government organization) could afford to do so without
> the cooperation of the state over which they are parking.
>
> --
> Be decisive.  Make a decision, right or wrong.  The road of life is paved
> with flat squirrels who could not make a decision.
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+kmedcalf=dessus.com at nanog.org> On Behalf Of
> >Eric Kuhnke
> >Sent: Sunday, 28 March, 2021 18:24
> >To: nanog at jima.us
> >Cc: nanog at nanog.org
> >Subject: Re: 10 years from now... (was: internet futures)
> >
> >I would also concur that the likelihood of Starlink (or a Oneweb, or
> >Kuiper) terminal being used successfully to bypass the GFW or similar
> >serious Internet censorship, in an authoritarian environment, is probably
> >low. This is because:
> >
> >a) It has to transmit in known bands.
> >
> >
> >b) It has to be located in a location with a very good, clear view of the
> >sky in all directions (even a single tree obstruction in one section of
> >the sky, relative to where the antenna is mounted will cause packet
> >loss/periodic issues on a starlink beta terminal right now). Visually
> >identifying the terminal would not be hard.
> >
> >
> >c) Portable spectrum analyzers capable of up to 30 GHz are not nearly as
> >expensive as they used to be. They also have much better GUIs and
> >visualization tools than what was available 6-10 years ago.
> >
> >
> >d) You could successfully train local law enforcement to use these sort
> >of portable spectrum analyzers in a one-day, 8-hour training course.
> >
> >
> >e) The equipment would have to be smuggled into the country
> >
> >f) Many people such as in a location like Iran may lack access to a
> >standard payment system for the services (the percentage of Iranians with
> >access to buy things online with visa/mastercard/american express or
> >similar is quite low).
> >
> >
> >
> >There are already plenty of places in the world where if you set up a
> >1.2, 1.8 or 2.4 meter C, Ku or Ka band VSAT terminal using some sort of
> >geostationary based services, without appropriate government "licenses",
> >men with guns will come to dismantle it and arrest you.
> >
> >I am not saying it is an impossible problem to solve, but any system
> >intended for that sort of purpose would have to be designed for
> >circumvention, and not a consumer/COTS adaptation of an off the shelf
> >starlink terminal.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 8:31 PM nanog at jima.us <mailto:nanog at jima.us>
> ><nanog at jima.us <mailto:nanog at jima.us> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >       Please don't forget that RF sources can be tracked down by even
> >minimally-well-equipped adversaries.
> >
> >       - Jima
> >
> >       -----Original Message-----
> >       From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+nanog=jima.us at nanog.org
> ><mailto:jima.us at nanog.org> > On Behalf Of scott
> >       Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2021 19:36
> >       To: nanog at nanog.org <mailto:nanog at nanog.org>
> >       Subject: Re: 10 years from now... (was: internet futures)
> >
> >
> >       On 3/26/2021 9:42 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
> >       > LEO internet providers will be coming online which might make a
> >       > difference in the corners of the world where it's hard to get
> >access,
> >       > but will it allow internet access to parachute in behind the
> Great
> >       > Firewall?
> >       ............
> >       > How do the Chinas of the world intend to deal with the Great
> >Firewall
> >       > implications?
> >
> >
> >       This is what I hope will change in the next 10 years.  "Turning off
> >the
> >       internet" will be harder and harder for folks suppressing others,
> >many
> >       times violently, and hiding it from everyone else.  A small-ish
> >antenna
> >       easily hidden would be necessary.
> >
> >       scott
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20210328/a74648f3/attachment.html>