20 ms·
I was recently in a country that strictly controls internet communications. Like, total lockdown absolutely forbidden levels of control. I spent my time there c
by vsnf 3y ago
I was recently in a country that strictly controls internet communications. Like, total lockdown absolutely forbidden levels of control. I spent my time there constantly wondering about the inevitable advent of ubiquitous wireless communication via things like Starlink and what the effects would be on these totalitarian regimes.
Edit: I didn't mean to focus on Starlink specifically. Eventually it won't just be Starlink up there, and likely our mobile devices will need less and less power to communicate with those satellites. So I'm less interested in the effects of Starlink and more on satellite communications generally.
- lxgr 3y agoAssuming Starlink is really willing to violate local frequency licensing requirements (which I doubt they'd dare for all but the most internationally isolated countries without anti-satellite weapons), given the low transmit powers, local wireless jammers should be relatively easy to implement.
- dkbrk 3y ago> given the low transmit powers, local wireless jammers should be relatively easy to implement. Not true. Both the transmitter and receiver (in both directions) utilize phased arrays. This means the receiver is very good at rejecting noise angularly separated from the expected location of the transmitter. Geometry dictates that jamming could be somewhat effective against upload (i.e. if the jammer is located roughly within the size of a spot beam from the transmitting dish), but is almost completely ineffective in the download direction. This is all fairly theoretical since much of the details aren't publicly available; but as evidence I point to the fact that Russia has poured a huge amount of money into EW and, despite having considerable motivation to deny Starlink access, has consistently failed to prevent its widespread use by Ukrainian troops on frontlines mere kilometers from its own forces.
- ale42 3y agoThis is in ideal condition, but how good is the rejection of other signals by the beamforming circuits in the receiver? Intuitively, I'd think that a powerful enough local jammer (I really mean local, not at some kilometers, EM fields weaken with the square of distance, so very quickly) would manage to create interferences despite the beamforming.
- lxgr 3y agoI agree that jamming Starlink’s existing (dish-based) service might not be that easy, but mobile phones do not use phased arrays, and that’s what TFA is about.
- geraldhh 3y agoMU-MIMO implies a phased array no?
- lxgr 3y agoThey are conceptually related, and the more antennas you add ("massive MIMO"), the more you get into the "phased array" domain, especially on the base station side, which is where MU-MIMO is exploited. But on common mobile devices, you only have two or four antennas, so the beamforming gain is much more limited. Having more than one antenna there is mostly done to leverage multipath propagation in a non-line-of-sight environment for capacity gains as far as I understand it, and in a line-of-sight environment, you only get very moderate steering gains of a few dB (and practically no steering/beamforming effect). Satellite communication is primarily line-of-sight, though. So while the satellite can steer its beams towards a given mobile device (both for transmit and receive), and this allows for higher spectral efficiency and better use of the satellite's transmit power and better noise rejection, the mobile device can't do the same and will easily be overwhelmed by a jammer at least in the downlink path, as far as I understand.
- LastNevadan 3y ago[flagged]
- lionkor 3y agoI love when companies founded in the heart of capitalism do something incredibly capitalist, and people are surprised about it. Sometimes it's like people don't see that radical capitalism does eventually lead to pandering to any government that has money or resources.
- TMWNN 3y agoWhen will the mindless repetition of this idiocy end? Musk did not "turn off Starlink in Ukraine after talking to Putin". He refused Ukraine's request to turn Starlink on in Crimea for an attack because doing so a) would violate SpaceX's consistent policy of refusing Starlink use directly on the front lines [1] and, more importantly, b) would violate US law. [1] The policy has existed since the beginning of Starlink service in Ukraine. SpaceX seemingly turned a blind eye to Ukrainian use of some Starlink terminals strapped to combat drones and such, but the above incident basically forced the company's hand in cracking down on such use.
- inemesitaffia 3y agoBeyond. Not on
- Kluggy 3y agoStarlink blocks access to specific countries that it doesn't have approval to work in, so I presume they'll just be blocked while the totalitarian regimes are in power.
- system2 3y agoWhat can they do if Starlink doesn't obey them? Shoot them down with rockets?
- losteric 3y agoJamming or triangulate the phones? Also yes, anti satellite weapons.
- kube-system 3y agoOr physically targeting the base stations or people who possess them.
- bagels 3y agoLet's take China for instance. They can prosecute the the customers, interfere with the communications, prevent the building of or seize the ground stations (eventually the laser links could get around that), can blow the satelites up with missiles (though that is not likely), and in general prevent any future authorized business that Starlink might want to do. If I were in charge, I'd try to get licensed and be able to collect money from customers there.
- looofooo0 3y agoYou can have Starlink in Iran already, but neither in Russia or China.
- baxtr 3y agoWhat is the reason for that?
- krallistic 3y agoI would guess because China and Russia are relevant markets for tesla...
- Scoundreller 3y agoI'd also guess that China and Russia are big enough that satellites would go unused a lot while flying over them. While Iran isn't tiny (17th largest country), the satellites have several other territories nearby by that could use up the capacity that a no-Iran rule makes available.
- KeplerBoy 3y agoThe satellites fly over China and Russia either way. Starlink isn't geostationary, they're quite a few of them above you at any given time and place.
- allyant 3y agoThe situation in Iran is somewhat different. Despite being under heavy international sanctions and having a government that also exercises strict control over internet access, Iran saw the deployment of Starlink terminals following specific events, such as natural disasters or in response to certain socio-political situations. This deployment could be part of a broader strategy by the U.S. or other entities to provide uncensored internet access to the Iranian population during times of crisis. However, it's important to note that such deployments might be temporary, unofficial, or not fully sanctioned by the Iranian government.
- 3y ago
- mytailorisrich 3y agoI doubt satellites will be competing with land-based networks in general because they can't deliver the same throughput, latency, and capacity. In addition, as others have mentioned, companies do not like to take on whole countries unless perhaps it is a very small and irrelevant one.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- hyperthesis 3y agoStarlink would have that control.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- infinet 3y agoI have lost hope that human can fight totalitarianism, regardless the new technology been used. It is like the low energy state of society, similar to a ball tends roll down the hill, it is easier for a country to enter the totalitarian state and stays there than to get out of it by itself. Imagine a North Korean owns a such cell phone, according to rumors, it is a crime if the spouse, children, or neighbors don’t report to the authorities. Governments can also jam communication, just like they jam radio programs and censor Internet. A more likely scenario would be regimes use new technology, including direct cell phone to satellite communication, to monitor and control people.