Slashdot Mirror


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."

28 of 137 comments (clear)

  1. How's the speed? by Mad+Merlin · · Score: 3, 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.

    1. Re:How's the speed? by vought · · Score: 3, 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.

    2. Re:How's the speed? by Sentry21 · · Score: 4, 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.

    3. Re:How's the speed? by gingerTabs · · Score: 3, Informative

      Move to Europe - we have a choice of carriers all across europe who can offer this :)

    4. Re:How's the speed? by cgenman · · Score: 3, 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.

    5. Re:How's the speed? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And if you think I'd move to shitty ass third world Europe for faster internet

      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.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  2. I have a question by isBandGeek() · · Score: 3, Funny

    Did Al Gore invent this?

  3. Satellites=suck for communications by afidel · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    1. Re:Satellites=suck for communications by snl2587 · · 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.

    2. Re:Satellites=suck for communications by metalcoat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That would bring about a few questions. How many would that require just to cover the entire United States? You state that it would be cheaper. How much do these autonomous drones cost a piece? What about the cost in terms of energy to keep charging and relaunching? What if they were to crash? With so many required to cover the entire US or Metropolitan areas surely some would come down and certainly harm someone. Just something to think about. I agree that this would make more sense, but before jumping on the bandwagon, think it out.

    3. Re:Satellites=suck for communications by afidel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The idea behind autonomous high altitude drones is they stay up indefinitely (barring parts breaking) by using solar panels to produce and store enough energy to stay aloft. Today we have thousands of flights a day using much more massive aircraft, I don't think a few extra ultralight drones are a significant increase in the risk associated with aircraft.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  4. Drones by Hao+Wu · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    I suggest you read Slashdot
    1. Re:Drones by PunkOfLinux · · Score: 4, 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.

  5. Huh? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Quote: "it forms part of our daily lives without us ever being conscious of the massive investment to get to that point."

    "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.

    1. Re:Huh? by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
  6. It's tough by tftp · · Score: 3, 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.

    1. Re:It's tough by Ihmhi · · Score: 3, 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.

  7. Always interesting to follow. by WiiVault · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We may live in the armpit of freedom right now, but there is no doubt that our government funded initiatives like this have provided more fruit to the world than any other nation is hundreds of years. Now lets win back our freedom of speech and assembly!

  8. Wont take that long by DesScorp · · Score: 3, 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.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    1. Re:Wont take that long by YttriumOxide · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The scale is much lesser, and the technology much less cool, but we get the same thing where I work. There's a development lifecycle of a couple of years, and someone somewhere in "Management" decided that they'd go with a Waterfall model of development, where our spec is TOTALLY fixed in stone about 2 years before we release the product. Every product is therefore close to 2 years behind where it really should be. Right now, this also applies to all of our competition (they're all equally as dumb as we are in that regard), so it's not hurting us too much, but I recently gave a presentation to them about how we effectively implement a better development model (I was aiming at a variant of Agile that's tailored to our business) so we can (at least until the competition catch on) be effectively two years ahead of our competition. Perhaps the US Navy should re-consider their design processes also...

      --
      My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
      Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
    2. Re:Wont take that long by afidel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem isn't so much the design lifecycle, it's the cost of upgrades. When you have to essentially rebuild an entire ship to retool the comm infrastructure that's a hell of a lot of cost. They design a hull to sail for 50 years, but the ship will typically have to be refitted multiple time during that span to keep up with newer technology costing several times the initial cost to build it and keeping it out of service for years in total.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    3. Re:Wont take that long by YttriumOxide · · Score: 3, 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.

      --
      My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
      Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
  9. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  10. Internet in Jail by syousef · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  11. Re:Ungenerous Interpretation by Hal_Porter · · 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.

    --
    echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
  12. Ridicolus by Eivind · · Score: 4, Funny
    LF Low Frequency MF Medium Frequency HF High Frequency VHF Vergy High Frequency UHF Ultra High Frequency SHF Super High Frequency EHF Extremely High Frequency

    Still waiting for Ludicrously High Frequency.... Seriously..

  13. Massive investment by willyhill · · 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)

    --
    The twitter monologues. Click on my homepage and be amazed.
  14. Forget 10 years, we have better systems NOW. by Hozza · · 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.