Slashdot Log In
The Mobile Internet You'll Be Using In 10 Years
Posted by
timothy
on Mon Sep 22, 2008 11:51 PM
from the so-long-as-the-nukes-remain-sheathed dept.
from the so-long-as-the-nukes-remain-sheathed dept.
mr sanjeev writes "After being plagued with project overruns and a scaling back of the final system, the US military's next-generation satellite communications network is another step closer to reality, with completion of the payload module for the third and final Advanced Extremely High Frequency (EHF) satellite ... If GPS and remote imaging (think Google Earth) have proven anything, it is that technology initially developed for military purposes, and extremely expensive for initial civil use, will eventually reach the point where it forms part of our daily lives without us ever being conscious of the massive investment to get to that point."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
How's the speed? (Score:4, Interesting)
Obviously I didn't read TFA, but does anyone know about the possible speeds on these wireless links? As it stands, wifi is still (in practice) a lot slower and less reliable than even 100 mbit ethernet. It'd be pretty interesting if this new technology could offer reliable gigabit ethernet speeds (or better!) and similar reliability over reasonably long distances (similar to current wifi). But, my instincts tell me that that's just a pipe dream.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Really, any new technology is good - we will weed out the bad ideas, keep the good. Ideally, we will take the best from each and mix it together, producing a superior solution to anything else.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I realize how expensive this technology is every time I have to pay taxes.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"without us ever being conscious of the massive investment to get to that point"
I guarantee you that the countries that were used as an excuse to wage war are very conscious of it too.
Re:How's the speed? (Score:4, Interesting)
Ten years, hunh?
I remember reading about the imminent introduction of wildly fast new 3G cellular phone technology...in 1999. In fact, it scared a lot of investors off of other, faster microcellular wireless WANs under development.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Move to Europe - we have a choice of carriers all across europe who can offer this :)
Re:How's the speed? (Score:4, Insightful)
Apparently, you haven't been to Scandinavia or Ireland or even former Yugoslavia lately.
If you think the US is going to be able to look down on "third-world" countries much longer, you haven't been reading the papers.
Parent
Re:How's the speed? (Score:5, Informative)
More important, how's the latency? The RTT to a satellite in geosynchronous orbit is pretty high (especially considering that when requesting data, you have to double the RTT vs. streaming). The article doesn't seem to say if this is high-, low-, or medium-earth orbit.
Low earth orbit can get you RTT to the satellite of ~13 milliseconds at 2000 km, adding ~26 ms to the average page load, whereas a geosynchronous orbit could take ~240 milliseconds, adding ~480ms to a page load - quite a difference. Of course, these are optimal times, assuming the satellite is directly overhead.
That said, it does mention a constellation of three satellites, and there's no way that this could be practical with three satellites in a low- or even medium-earth orbit that I can see. Bandwidth is great, but latency is killer.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How's the speed? (Score:4, Informative)
8.2 Mbps to 4k terminals.
Advanced EHF is designed to provide 24 hour coverage from 65 North, to 65 South across the K and Ka sub bands, and when combined with the prototyped Extended Data Rate (XDR) terminals and systems, will offer up to 8.2 Mbps data rates for around 4,000 terminals in concurrent use per satellite footprint (whether that scales to 12,000 systems in concurrent use globally isn't clear from source material).
Compared to current satellite rates, this is pretty good. Additionally, this allows them to bounce satellite signals quickly and reliably around the globe before having to incurr the atmosphere penalty.
However, if you're looking for replacement for WiFi, a final 802.11N spec is only about 10 years off.
Parent
I have a question (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I don't think so, Tim.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
TIMMARHY!!!!!!
Oh, you mean the other one?
Satellites=suck for communications (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Satellites=suck for communications (Score:5, Funny)
It would be much better to use a small fleet of high altitude autonomous drones with communications gear on board.
Or even better: giant balloons and a couple of routers. Plus a lot of cable.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Or even better: giant balloons and a couple of routers. Plus a lot of cable.
Yes, but it'll have to be mil spec cable.
So really, we're back to Plan A, since it's cheaper to just loft a global network of communication satellites.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Satellites=suck for communications (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
We are at the edge of the next generation of low cost communications brought to us by continuously flying drones flying between 10 and 20 miles up.
Weather permitting, of course.
Drones (Score:4, Interesting)
For a price, obviously, because my privacy is worth trading for their profits.
Re:Drones (Score:5, Funny)
Dude, anyone in a plane can 'zero-in' on your house. It's essentially being broadcast. It's not a breach of privacy if someone sees your house; now, if they see something that you have a reasonable expectation of, such as your wife sunbathing in the nude... that's different, and sexy. But it probably won't happen.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
such as your wife sunbathing in the nude... that's different, and sexy. But it probably won't happen.
It definitely won't happen. He doesn't have a wife. He's on Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
It definitely won't happen. He doesn't have a wife. He's on Slashdot.
Hey! That's not fair. I have a wife and am on slashdot. Which is to say i didn't get it for a long time now...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"now, if they see something that you have a reasonable expectation of, such as your wife sunbathing in the nude... that's different, and sexy. "
I defend my privacy by sunbathing nude.
The last time a Black Helicopter came in visual range, it hauled ass away like it had spotted a flight of MiGs. They must have been overwhelmed by my "different, and sexy" tactic.
Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
"Not conscious", my ass. Military investment makes up a very large part of our tax and trade burden, and many of us are conscious as hell of how much it costs. If the research did not eventually get into civilian hands, there would be hell to pay.
I am not saying it's not worth it... just that unlike the OP, I pay attention.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Uh... most people don't think, when they turn on their in-car nav systems, "Gee, I'm glad my tax dollars went to pay for this system!"
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh... most people don't think, when they turn on their in-car nav systems, "Gee, I'm glad my tax dollars went to pay for this system!"
True, but they should. A lot of the bitching about "wasteful government spending" would go away if people realized how much government programs (like this little thing called ARPANet that made a splash a few years ago ...) lead to dramatic improvements in their everyday lives.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's tough (Score:4, Interesting)
I worked in ARRL "10 GHz and up" contest last weekend, at 10 and 24 GHz, and those frequencies are not for beginners. The dish has to be pointed precisely to the source, with error within a couple of degrees. If the satellites are not geostationary then tracking would be a major problem, and I think they are not geostationary due to the distance involved.
Among other problems, microwave gear is very expensive, sensitive to abuse, and has low power output. Hams can deal with that, being happy with mere 100-200 mW at 10 GHz, but they don't mind chasing the signal as atmospheric conditions change during the day. It would be a lot of work to achieve a reliable link whenever you need it. Rain and fog are major problems in these bands. You basically have to throw power (and money) at the problem; if the military complains about "high cost" of these systems, they are surely not affordable yet to a common man. Considering that the economy just entered a tailspin, we may have bigger problems in coming years than fixing the mobile internet thing.
Re:It's tough (Score:4, Informative)
Satellite > Base Station > Your Mobile Device
That's how I imagine it would work. Honestly, do you really think that there are going to be thousands upon thousands of direct connections to the satellites? They would probably have to be sent through switches anyway, so so long as the base station's dish doesn't get tampered with it would work just fine.
10Ghz Space to Base Station, and a more stable protocol (Wireless N, 3G, etc.) to your mobile device.
Parent
The Mobile Internet I'll Be Using In 10 Years (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"drafted" is a very PC term for being a POW now?
Always interesting to follow. (Score:3, Insightful)
UK (Score:3, Interesting)
I would imagine that if you consider even the last 100 years, the UK come up trumps in terms of "provided more
fruit to the world than any other nation".
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Wont take that long (Score:4, Interesting)
These days it seems all but the most classified tech makes it into market very, very quickly. In ten years, not only will this system be a reality, but the civilian market will have figured out how to squeeze even more out of it than the military figured.
A top Admiral in the Navy was lamenting how the Navy is having a problem selling itself as a cutting edge tech provider simply because any such new tech they get goes to the civilian sector so quickly, and further, civilian use eclipses military use. In particular, he used the Arleigh Burke class of destroyers as an example. When it was being designed in the 80's, it was absolutely cutting edge stuff. It's been in service just over 15 years, and now the Admiral lamented that a single Blackberry has more com bandwidth than an entire Burke destroyer.
Kind of hard to sell recruits on "cutting edge" when that's the case.
Re:Wont take that long (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Wont take that long (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Wont take that long (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd say it's a bit of both. To clarify and expand on my last post, I work for an MFP manufacturer (Konica Minolta). Our hardware (print engines/scanners/accessories) tends to have a much longer lifecycle, and you can still see design elements from 10 year old equipment in things we're releasing today (although only if you know what you're looking for). Many models will come out that are only a minor incremental change in hardware while being a huge change in the software/firmware (my side of it).
This pretty much means the same thing as far as those "upgrades" you're talking about on naval vessels (but again, a totally different scale of course). When I gave my "development process" explanation/presentation to the appropriate people in our company, they raised this exact point - how to handle it when the hardware just isn't capable of what we want these software improvements to do - they considered it to be basically a kind of solid limit where no amount of software would get around it. They were right to an extent, but only an extent. I explained to them that the system should be designed from a hardware perspective in the same sort of way as I proposed for software: Much more modular and with less "reliance" on the exact workings of other parts (as long as a common messaging system is understood by both ends, they don't need to know HOW the other end accomplishes its tasks).
Now, I will freely admit I don't know much about Naval Vessels and maybe this concept just wouldn't fit at all, but given the example of comms - everyone has known for a LONG time that comms improve at a rapid pace, they're high-tech. So, when designing a vessel, the comms system should never be so tightly integrated in to it that it's hard to upgrade - even the channels that carry the wires around the ship should be (relatively) easy to access and replace the cables should an upgrade require it. I'm not thinking that one should be able to "swap it all out just like that", but to plan to be able to do a complete comms refit in a matter of weeks with as minimal cost as possible. They KNOW they'll need to do it (as I mentioned, it's blatantly obvious that comms tech improves rapidly, and has been obvious for many decades already), so they should plan ahead for doing so.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In ten years, not only will this system be a reality, but the civilian market will have figured out how to squeeze even more out of it than the military figured.
Of course, the US military is about 3 million people. The world's population is about 2 thousand times that. Once a technology makes its way into a base that large, of course it will advance more rapidly.
"A top Admiral in the Navy was lamenting how the Navy is having a problem selling itself as a cutting edge tech provider..."
Cutting edge tech fre
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but an EMP kills the blackberry. And you have to compare it to civilian boats, not civilian cellphones. It's cheaper to replace one than the other.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
GlobalSecurity has a list of communications systems that the Arleigh Burke class of destroyers have. [globalsecurity.org]
# LF through HF Receive,10 kHz - 30 MHz
R-1051 H/URR; twelve receivers
R-2368 H/URR; three receivers
# HF Transmit; 2-30 MHz
AN/URT-23D; nine transmitters
# VHF Transmit and Receive, 30-162 MHz
AN/GRR-211; two transceivers for non-secure voice
ANNRC-46A; two FM transceivers for secure voice
AN/URC-80 (V)6; one transceiver for bridge-to-bridge communications
# UHF Transmit and Receive, 220-400 MHz
AN/URC-93 (V)1; two
Ungenerous Interpretation (Score:5, Funny)
So true. Though I admit I'm frustrated by how long Wal*Mart is taking to stock those do-it-yourself ICBMs.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Greetings,
My name is Adeola Hussein, son of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. I have come into the possetion of 10 North Korean Taepodong 2 ICBMs and I need your help transferring them from a warehouse in Syria to a third country.
I have been informed you were a trustworthy fellow.
In return for your help you will collect a commision of 1 Taepodong 2 missile.
I look forward to doing business with you.
Internet in Jail (Score:5, Funny)
I thought the Internet I'll be using in 10 years will be called the RIAA distribution network and that I'd be using it from a jail cell because I once hummed "Happy Birthday" at a children's birthday party sometime in the 90s without paying the piper.
Ridicolus (Score:5, Funny)
Still waiting for Ludicrously High Frequency.... Seriously..
I don't buy the GPS analogy (Score:2, Informative)
Screw mobile internet, i want my flying car (Score:3, Funny)
Screw the predictors' predictions.
10 years from now...20 years from now... blah, blah...
WHERE THE FUCK is my Flying car promised to me 50 years ago???
Bring that first, and we will talk about stupid mobile internet...
As if enough AOL morons don't exist already...
The predictors should be drafted and send to Iraq: they can get to experience mobile artillery very much...
Massive investment (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, and that's also the reason why there should be a space program. Sadly though, many people nowadays don't see it that way. They think that reaching for the stars is "impractical" when we have so many problems here at ground level. But money spent this way, even in military endeavors, is *never* wasted. Eventually it reaches everyone in some way or another.
Like... TANG!
(just kidding)
Forget 10 years, we have better systems NOW. (Score:3, Insightful)
The EHF satellites are great for what they've been designed to do, deliver bandwidth to 10,000's users over a large area of the earth, but that isn't what most consumers need.
They need things that will work in urban canyons and can cope with 10,000's of users within a few square miles. This is much better served by local radio masts than satellite systems.
The future of mobile internet is 3G and WiMAX and its rivals, and its already here.