Lost in Space
Amazon has just published a hype video
about Project Kuiper, its LEO Internet satellite constellation. It starts by lamenting the plight of small businesses in remote areas that can't get decent connections for love or money, then presents Kuiper as a solution.
Consisting of 3,236 satellites at an altitude of 600 km, we already know that the first nine launches will go on ULA Atlas V rockets — among the last of that vehicle that will ever fly. Beyond that, Amazon intends to launch them on Blue Origin's New Glenn, currently planned for a 2022 debut but expected by any realistic person to be no earlier than 2024.
Obviously, this will compete with both Starlink and OneWeb, both of which already have a significant number of satellites in orbit.
Interestingly, the video shows none of the hardware. It just talks about the benefits of the technology to end-users (as if Amazon were the first to ever think of this or attempt it, natch). I haven't tried installing that Chrome plug-in to unhide YouTube dislikes, but it wouldn't surprise me to find the video getting ratioed heavily. Of course, the comments are turned off.
One positive that I can see is that they're working on making Kuiper affordable. They note people paying $75 or $80 per month for crap Internet, implying that they are targeting that price point. Starlink is $100/month, so Amazon may be attempting to undercut it. They are focusing on the cost of the orbital hardware, but we can do simple math on launch costs to know what will make the project unprofitable.
Edited by Fighteer on Dec 16th 2021 at 6:46:39 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
China Mobile's been told to end operations in Canada.
FYI, the main shareholder, China Mobile Communications Group Co., Ltd, is a company owned by the Chinese government.
Lost in Space
Via Tesmanian, Starlink terminals' "snow melt" mode, in which they generate some internal heat to keep the phased-array antenna clear of obstructing snow and ice, is apparently a great place for outdoor cats to keep themselves warm. This must be a novel reason for your satellite service to be interrupted.
Edited by Fighteer on Jan 2nd 2022 at 8:16:44 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Lost in Space
Reminder that if you have any devices that operate exclusively on 3G cellular data, they will cease to function this year. All major wireless providers are deactivating 3G service in favor of 5G. Your 4G (or LTE for Verizon customers) service will continue to work.
3G-only devices cannot be upgraded via software and must be replaced.
![[down]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_down.png "[down]"){kind=icon}
Thanks for that clarification.
Edited by Fighteer on Jan 4th 2022 at 8:32:51 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
A procrastination in of itself
Note that that’s on for the US. The U.K. shutdown (which includes 2G) is looking at being done “by 2033”.
Other countries will also have different timetables.
Edited by Silasw on Jan 4th 2022 at 8:33:46 PM
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
CNA speaks to an aerospace consultant on why 5G rollouts are to be delayed to make sure that they don't interfere with aircraft safety systems.
Lost in Space
Ars Technica: US airlines warn of “chaos” as telecoms groups roll out 5G
Yeah, this is getting kind of nuts. In the US in particular, airlines are really concerned that wireless providers are charging ahead without hesitation to install 5G near airports, which runs the risk of catastrophic disruptions to communication and flight safety systems.
The planned 5G services use frequencies in the C-band radio spectrum, which can be close to those used by altimeters that measure an aircraft’s height from the ground and feed information into navigation instruments and other onboard safety systems.
The FAA has planned buffer zones around 50 airports that have wireless transmitters in proximity to runways, including in New York, Los Angeles and Chicago. However, airlines maintain that this will not be enough to prevent disruptions.
The 11 executives who signed Monday’s letter said that the FAA’s latest statement on the issue had downplayed the threat of disruption and that continuing flight restrictions at those 50 airports could leave “huge swaths of the operating fleet” grounded indefinitely.
Edited by Fighteer on Jan 18th 2022 at 10:14:31 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Lost in Space
Ars Technica: Airline CEOs make U-turn, now say 5G isn’t a big problem for altimeters
Well, that was a bit of a damp squib.
The Federal Aviation Administration's fight against AT&T's and Verizon's new 5G deployment appears to be coming to a temporary close, with the FAA having cleared about 78 percent of US planes for landing in low-visibility conditions. Airline CEOs are striking an upbeat tone, with one saying the process of ensuring that airplane altimeters work in 5G areas is "really not that complicated."
Over the past week, the FAA announced clearances for 13 altimeters that can filter out 5G transmissions from the C-band spectrum that is licensed to wireless operators, accounting for those used by all Boeing 717, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777, 787, and MD-10/-11 models; all Airbus A300, A310, A319, A320, A330, A340, A350, and A380 models; and some Embraer 170 and 190 regional jets. More approvals will presumably be announced soon, bringing the US closer to 100 percent capacity.
Unfortunately, there could be another showdown in about six months, when AT&T and Verizon lift temporary 5G restrictions around airports—we'll cover that later in this article. For now, airline CEOs appear to be satisfied, even though the FAA hasn't said definitively that altimeters will continue working after the temporary 5G limits around airports are lifted.
All this fuss and the FAA just says, "never mind, wasn't a problem." Apparently the organization waited until deep into the deployment of 5G to even bother checking the physical devices to ensure they work.
The biggest recent development is that the FAA finally started a process to evaluate and approve altimeters after claiming without proof that 5G on C-Band spectrum (3.7 to 3.98 GHz) would disrupt altimeters that use spectrum from 4.2 to 4.4 GHz.
The story isn't over. The FAA has only cleared aircraft to operate within a previously demarcated temporary buffer zone. In early July, the restrictions are supposed to be lifted and we may face another battle.
Edited by Fighteer on Jan 21st 2022 at 10:50:41 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Lost in Space
Ars Technica: SpaceX abandons Starlink plan that Amazon objected to, but fight isn’t over
The ongoing spat between Amazon and SpaceX over LEO Internet continues. One of the critical elements of Amazon's complain to the FCC last year was that SpaceX submitted two different plans for deployment of its second-generation (v2) Starlink satellites. One of these plans involved a mix of Falcon 9 and Starship launches and the other was all Starship.
SpaceX withdrew the Falcon 9 plan on January 7 since, in its words, Starship is progressing so well. The FCC approved the initial application on December 23 and set forth a 30-day comment period. Amazon has requested that the period be extended so it can have more time to analyze and submit its objections. SpaceX retorted that Amazon is not acting in good faith, seeking to delay competition rather than launch its own satellites.
SpaceX claims that it now has 145,000 Starlink users in 25 countries, with user growth slowing due to supply chain issues with manufacturing the consumer antennas.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Lost in Space
CNBC: SpaceX rolls outs ‘premium’ Starlink satellite internet tier at $500 per month
Starlink satellite service is now available in a "premium" tier that costs $500/month after a $2,500 charge for a larger, more capable antenna. It will be capable of being deployed anywhere (regular antennas are locked to the service address) and offers substantially higher max throughput (up to 500 Mbps downstream), a tighter latency band (20 to 40 ms), and improved poor-weather performance.
This is a smart move for the company as terminal production has suffered due to supply chain issues. By making more capable individual units, it can better leverage the chips it has available and can presumably sell them above the cost to manufacture them.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Lost in Space
Earlier in the Ukraine war thread there was a comment from someone about satellite infrastructure being harmed or degraded in the region. I haven't been reading every post in that topic, but I just performed a search and ViaSat is or was apparently investigating a cyberattack that affected its systems in Ukraine and the rest of Europe.
We were also talking about the advantages and risks of Starlink. Elon Musk, in a follow-up to his earlier tweets, said just now that, "Almost all Viasat Ukraine user terminals were rendered permanently unusable by a Russian cyberattack on day of invasion[.]" I don't have independent verification of that, but if so, that's a shameful security failure on the company's part. When asked if the same thing is possible against Starlink, Musk replied, "Game on", apparently daring Russia to pull the same tricks on him.
To catch people up, Musk sent a shipment of Starlink user terminals to Ukraine in response to their Vice Prime Minister's request and has deployed software updates to make them more mobile and use less power.
With all the bluster from Russia's space agency toward the West and towards SpaceX in particular, I bet they're regretting not selling him that ICBM back in 2002 for his Mars greenhouse project.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
I don't have independent verification of that, but if so, that's a shameful security failure on the company's part.
Well, isn't it so that most companies treat IT security like an afterthought? I mean, how do you get your pipeline shut down by ransomware?
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Jupiterian Local
While tech companies do frequently give less attention to security than they should, in this particular instance we're talking about attacks by government forces in support of an actual invasion. I find it difficult to blame a private company for not being able to defend against a hack from a state actor for the same reason I wouldn't blame a bank for having lax security if someone broke into their vault by rolling a tank up to it and shooting the door off.
Private entities, including large corporations, simply can't expend the same amount of resources on defense that a government can on attacks.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
Lost in Space
It depends on whether the issue(s) that were exploited were known to ViaSat ahead of time. In almost every similar case, they are. It is grossly irresponsible for a corporation like that to leave unpatched security flaws in its devices. It's not the consumer's responsibility, after all.
If Russian hackers are targeting zero-days that nobody knows about, it's one thing, but I would be highly surprised if that were the case.
Edited by Fighteer on Mar 4th 2022 at 10:15:55 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Jupiterian Local
And if that turns out to be the case, then yes, that's an serious failure on the part of the company. My point is that "got hacked by Russia" (or any government) is not by itself indicative of a meaningful security failure any more than a bank vault not being tank-proof is.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
Lost in Space
That's the thing though. Most of these attacks are through known vectors. There is an astonishing amount of unpatched software out there in the world, especially on routers and other access devices, in most cases because those devices' manufacturers can't be bothered to support them.
I know it may seem as if I'm tooting Musk's horn, but SpaceX has hosted public White Hat events encouraging hackers around the world to try to crack Starlink service and pays bug bounties. I don't know if ViaSat does something similar, but you need to if you are serious about information security... especially if, like SpaceX, you're trying to sell your service to airlines and the military.
Edited by Fighteer on Mar 4th 2022 at 10:33:50 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Jupiterian Local
You're conflating an overarching generality ("many devices are left vulnerable because they don't get any update support from their manufacturers") with a specific event ("Ukrainian devices were hacked by the Russian government") and insisting without evidence that the latter is caused by the former. And then praising Elon Musk, who is utterly irrelevant to the situation.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
Lost in Space
It's relevant because Musk shipped Starlink terminals to Ukraine and accused ViaSat of having shit security on their end-user terminals that allowed Russia to attack them. So I'm interested in whether this is likely to be true and, if so, what we can do to get such businesses to get their act together.
The question is not, "Why is Musk so great," but, "Why is ViaSat so dumb?"
Edited by Fighteer on Mar 4th 2022 at 1:22:14 PM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Jupiterian Local
And again: I'm pointing out that you don't know whether Viasat's security is shit or not (you have admitted this yourself) and that even the best security that can reasonably be provided by a private entity is unlikely to stand up to a targeted attack by a state actor (you haven't disputed this either).
If you want to talk about the many examples of confirmed instances of shit security, you can do that. If you want to talk about state actors attacking private entities, and the consequences that this may have for telecomm systems, you can do that. If you have specific reason to believe that Russia's attack on Viasat was only successful because Viasat had shit security, we can talk about that.
But "Viasat is shit and Starlink will be way better, Elon Musk said so" is none of those things.
Edited by NativeJovian on Mar 4th 2022 at 3:40:02 PM
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
Lost in Space
Since the subject came up, Musk tweeted that SpaceX resources have been reprioritized towards cyber defense and jamming countermeasures because Starlink terminals in and around Ukraine were being attacked. He says that the latest software update "bypasses the jamming".
Edited by Fighteer on Mar 5th 2022 at 12:22:55 PM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Lost in Space
CNBC: SpaceX’s Starlink sees the in-flight internet market as ripe for an overhaul, executive says
- Elon Musk’s SpaceX believes an aviation-specific antenna may be revolutionary for connecting Starlink, its global high-speed internet service, with airplanes.
- “Connectivity on airplanes is something that we believe is ripe for an overhaul,” SpaceX vice president Jonathan Hofeller said on Monday.
- SpaceX is testing aviation-specific Starlink terminals, also known as satellite antennas, on aircraft.
Edited by Fighteer on Mar 21st 2022 at 6:58:32 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Lost in Space
Remember our little dispute over Elon Musk's assertions regarding Viasat's user terminals in Ukraine? At the Satellite 2022 conference today, a representative confirmed that "[t]he terminals affected by the cyber attack need to be replaced or refurbished".
So yeah, Russian cyberattacks bricked them.
For more, read CNBC reporter Michael Sheetz' Twitter thread.
Edited by Fighteer on Mar 22nd 2022 at 10:15:14 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Huawei and ZTE are now banned in Canada for 5G use.
Lost in Space
A quick note: SpaceX has expanded its Starlink service offering to include an "RV" option, which allows an antenna to be used on a vehicle while it is standing still. Passenger cars are not supported because they are "too small", and connectivity while moving is not yet supported.
This is an adaptation of the recently released "roaming" service model, which charges an extra fee to allow a Starlink antenna to be used anywhere that the service is supported, not merely in the geographic location where it is subscribed.
Edit: Per this CNBC article, SpaceX reported to the FCC last week that it now has 400,000 global subscribers, up from 250,000 in March.
Edited by Fighteer on May 25th 2022 at 11:40:30 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
The European Telecommunications Network Operators’ Association (ETNO) published a statement demanding that big tech companies should be forced to invest in network infrastructures across Europe.
Oh this is rich, maybe my mom's liquor store should also be forced to invest into hospitals for all the throughput in alcoholics it generates.
Oh boohoo ye poor monopolists, did some China corp penetrate your markets? And now you can't even extort people with your international calls because messenger apps are a thing...since 15 years or so.
Edited by Kiefen on Nov 30th 2021 at 10:04:00 AM