The Mobile Internet You'll Be Using In 10 Years

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."

Comments

How's the speed?

[Mad Merlin]

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:How's the speed?

[vought]

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.

Satellites=suck for communications

[afidel]

It would be much better to use a small fleet of high altitude autonomous drones with communications gear on board. It would be cheaper to startup, cheaper to maintain, easier to upgrade, lower latency, etc. For certain applications satellites will still be needed, but 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.

Drones

[Hao Wu]

Assuming the tech filters down, something like Google Maps could be done in real time. Companies will launch surveillance planes, blimps, or piggyback on cellular towers so that anyone can zero-in on your house.

For a price, obviously, because my privacy is worth trading for their profits.

It's tough

[tftp]

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.

Wont take that long

[DesScorp]

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

[YttriumOxide]

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.

Re:Wont take that long

[cgenman]

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 frequently doesn't work. iPhones crash, Magellans don't get GPS locks, etc. Computerizing brings instability.

Also, replacing a Blackberry is a lot easier than replacing the comm system on a Burke destroyer. The Blackberry only has to work with ok one or two bluetooth accessory types: the Burke needs to be 100% with all of the custom systems on board.

UK

[Frankie70]

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:Always interesting to follow.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, for starters, you don't seem to be doing so bad on that 1st amendment issue here on /.

and secondly, who exactly is stopping you from going out onto the street (or other less dangerous public place) and forming an assembly?

its been a while since I've seen american citizens being put in jail for loitering....

Re:Huh?

[mollymoo]

The fact that obscene levels of military spending sometimes produces results for the population as a whole doesn't make it good value. For example, how would the results of military spending compare to spending 80% of the military budget on higher education and academic research?