Slashdot Mirror


Chinese GPS System To Be Offered Free

MattSparkes writes, "The Chinese GPS system, Beidou, is apparently to be opened up for free access within China, worrying European investors on the €2.5 billion competing project, Galileo. Initially, China had declared that access to their system would be restricted to the military, and Europe had planned to recoup some of the cost of their system by selling licenses to China. Michael Shaw, from the US government's National Space-based Positioning, Navigation and Timing Coordination Office in Washington DC, said, 'Frankly, China's behavior towards Europe is not so different to how Europe behaved with us when GPS was the only game in town a decade ago.'"

15 of 131 comments (clear)

  1. Free by TheBogie · · Score: 4, Funny

    Each of their citizens will get a free tracking device implanted inside them. What a great country!!

    1. Re:Free by ATMD · · Score: 5, Funny

      In communist China, global system positions YOU!

      --
      Nobody else has this sig.
  2. But... by ElBuf · · Score: 5, Funny

    Aren't they afraid of how all those people are going react when they find out they live in China?

  3. Chinese opposite to the West by MarkByers · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The Chinese are taking power away from corporations and giving it to their people, by making public services available for free. That is almost the opposite of what happens in the West.

    --
    I'll probably be modded down for this...
    1. Re:Chinese opposite to the West by garcia · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The Chinese are taking away power from the people and giving it to the Communist leadership, and thus making their people nearly prisoners/slaves. That is almost the opposite of what happens in the West.

    2. Re:Chinese opposite to the West by Aim+Here · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The Chinese have taken away power from the people and given it to the state for the benefit of the ruling political elite and a number of friendly corporations, exploiting the people while spying on them and taking away their freedoms. That is just a more extreme case of what is currently happening in the West.

    3. Re:Chinese opposite to the West by dfenstrate · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And it's worth remembering that the dose makes the poison.

      --
      Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
  4. Sounds sensible. by hey! · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The economic benefit of free location services is so great, it makes sense for a country to provide this the same way as it provides a national highway system.

    Furthermore, it'd simply be absurd to make your businesses pay all the costs to field a system they aren't allowed to use, and have them pay fees to get similar service from a foreign country. Such a policy would serve neither security nor economic interests. I'm all for private development of technologies, but I can't feel too badly for Galileo investors if they were counting on China to act in such an irrational way.

    The resolution of the Chinese system isn't so great, so clearly there's a business opportunity for the private sector there to create subscription services, either to a competing system or to some kind of terrestially based correction service.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  5. How many do we need? by Kadin2048 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seriously, how many different navigation systems do we need?

    Let's see, the U.S. has GPS. And the Europeans don't trust Americans, so they want Galileo. And the Russians don't want to admit that the Europeans could be better than them at anything, so they're keeping GLONASS around. The Chinese don't trust anybody, and nobody trusts the Chinese, so they have Beidou. The only thing we're missing is one by India (to compete with the Chinese), or maybe one just by France that's purposely incompatible with the rest of Europe's (is "SENAV" taken?).

    How soon until the satellites start running into each other? (Yes, I know they won't really; it'll probably be radio spectrum that we run out of first.)

    At least as it looks right now, the only system that's even going to be an improvement over GPS is Galileo, and even then it won't be by much. Seems like it would be a whole lot more productive to build systems that augment the signal already available from GPS, and then can call back to providing position itself if GPS goes out; then you'd be able to get higher precision. With higher precision signals, a whole lot of interesting things become possible: you can have automatic self-driving farm equipment (like John Deere's ground-based StarFire augmentation system), lower-cost aircraft navigation, all sorts of cool remote-sensing applications. If you thought that GPS in itself was cool, there are far more opportunities to use it, when you start talking about inch-accurate systems.

    The duplication of effort seems mostly like a penis-length contest, and while I think competition in all things is generally good, I'm not sure that this is really happening for any rational reason. There are better uses that the investment and satellite space could be put towards, than simply overlapping each other's navigation systems.

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    1. Re:How many do we need? by __aagctu1952 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      The duplication of effort seems mostly like a penis-length contest, and while I think competition in all things is generally good, I'm not sure that this is really happening for any rational reason. There are better uses that the investment and satellite space could be put towards, than simply overlapping each other's navigation systems.

      Actually, even though quite a lot of the aerospace industry is solely about countries comparing their orbital penises, this isn't one of those occasions - those are valid concerns. It's not about precision, it's reliability. We're seeing more and more critical systems switch over to satellite navigation (planes, boats, trucks, goods delivery systems in general, personal cars, even, as you say, tractors). You do not want your country's entire infrastructure in the hands of a single, potentially hostile, foreign power. Thus, every nation or block of nations with the resources to do so launches their own network.
      A world-wide cooperative effort, that won't be jammed/shut down in case of war/diplomatic catfights, would of course be optimal - but that's Just Not Going to Happen (TM). It ranks up there with the "if we just sit down and talk, we can all get along!" theory of conflict solution.
    2. Re:How many do we need? by houghi · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Let's see, the U.S. has GPS. And the Europeans don't trust Americans, so they want Galileo.


      Well, GPS failure is said to be the cause of a European power outage

      So what if the US suddenly decides it takes away GPS in certain parts of the world? look at it the other way around. What if Japan would have been had GPS and controlled it. Don't you think the US would want one for themselves? And rightfully so.

      It isn't different for any other country.
      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    3. Re:How many do we need? by argStyopa · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The duplication of effort seems mostly like a penis-length contest, and while I think competition in all things is generally good, I'm not sure that this is really happening for any rational reason. There are better uses that the investment and satellite space could be put towards, than simply overlapping each other's navigation systems.

      Then you really simply don't get it. That's like saying "geez, why do we all print separate currencies, when we all could just be more efficient if we printed one and all used that..."

      1) the ability to determine one's position on earth is vitally important, commercially, navigationally, and of course, tactically.

      2) Whoever builds such a system, controls it. They can make it available as selectively or narrowly as they want. This availability can change over time.

      3) Sometimes states don't like each other. When the disagreement becomes strong enough, sometimes they will try to mess with each other, and even occasionally fight. When this fighting happens (aka "war") one typically tries to hinder one's opponent as much as possible. As 'soft' methods of conflict go, locking them out of a positioning system as a not-so-subtle diplomatic move is benign enough that it's an attractive early option, so it's pretty likely to be used.
      As much as the Europeans are building Galileo because the evil US 'controls' GPS and they want an "open" system, if we ever see another general world war you can bet that Galileo would NOT remain universally available, either. To fail to build in the capacity to limit availability would be strategically stupid. (What would of course be curious is another European war - could the French turn off Galileo to the Germans?)

      4) Security trumps economy. Tanks and guns provide no food directly, they simply COST an economy some wealth that could be used more beneficially, but is 'wasted' in essence as insurance against the actions of a future enemy. This is PRECISELY the same thing. Each country/group that can afford it, will build their own system as the value of having it 'unblockable' trumps the vulnerability of sharing resources.

      --
      -Styopa
  6. More precise? by 3ryon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It seems to me that if you had a GPS device that could understand signals from all of the systems you would have a large increase in precision. Each system says you are at point A +/- some distance (effectively a circle with point A in the middle). Unless point A is EXACTLY the same for each system, and I can't imagine it would be, then you get three overlapping circles. You now know that you can only be in the area where the three circles overlap. Any area outside of the overlap is now known to be wrong. Am I right?

    1. Re:More precise? by ningeo · · Score: 3, Informative

      See my posts above, but essentially... yes, it is possible to get a better position. The methods are different from what you have described however. If the same receiver can receive signals from all of the systems, there are more satellites available giving you the potential for better geometry. Another big factor is the addition of a third frequency, which carries another civilian-accessible code, this signal will allow the effect of the ionosphere to be removed from the range measurements, meaning that your position accuracy will increase.

      Receivers that can use both GPS and GLONASS signals already exist, but they do not treat the two systems as separate, they use all the available information from both together to generate the best possible solution. The catch? Price. A receiver capable of GPS and GLONASS measurements will undoubtedly also be capable of carrier-phase measurements and receiving both L1 and L2. This type of receiver will have a geodetic type antenna (not the kind you can carry in your pocket), and probably cost on the order of $10,000-$30,000. These are widely used in land surveying, you are unlikely to find someone who owns one without using it to make a living.

      For info on these high-end receivers, see http://trimble.com/, http://leica.com/, http://novatel.com/, or http://professional.magellangps.com/en/

  7. but their compass points south! by peter303 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Inside joke. The Chinese word for compass is "south pointing device". Thats because they first used it for geomancy, where "good energy" comes from the south. The Vikings and other Europeans used the compass as a navigational aid for when the north star was occluded, so the European compass points north.