Slashdot Mirror


Internet Broadband Through High-altitude Drones

mwagner writes: Skynet is coming. But not like in the movie: The future of communications is high-altitude solar-powered drones, flying 13 miles above the ground, running microwave wireless equipment, delivering broadband to the whole planet. The articles predicts this technology will replace satellites, fiber, and copper, and fundamentally change the broadband industry. The author predicts a timescale of roughly 20 years — the same amount of time between Arthur C. Clarke predicting geosynchronous satellites and their reality as a commercial business. "Several important technology milestones need to be reached along the way. The drones that will make up Skynet have a lot more in common with satellites than the flippy-flappy helicopter drone thingies that the popular press is fixated on right now. They're really effing BIG, for one thing. And, like satellites, they go up, and stay up, pretty much indefinitely. For that to happen, we need two things: lighter, higher-capacity wireless gear; and reliable, hyper-efficient solar tech."

54 of 99 comments (clear)

  1. I'm betting on balloons by justthinkit · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Balloons make more sense, don't they?

    --
    I come here for the love
    1. Re:I'm betting on balloons by quenda · · Score: 4, Interesting

      For 98% of the population, towers as used currently make even more sense.
      Ground-based cellular systems can pack close together in cities, and spread out in the suburbs and rural areas.
      These drones are stuck at high altitude, so except for remote areas they are wasting bandwidth and battery life on the ground.
      Drones might be useful for extra large LTE cells in northern Canada or central Australia. Perhaps replace Iridium.

      Must be a slow news for nerds day.

    2. Re:I'm betting on balloons by AchilleTalon · · Score: 3, Informative

      Have you ever seen a hurricane or a tropical storm? It means the Internet will be down during these critical events when it is often most needed. That is the reason they are talking about 13 miles altitude drones and not just zeppelins. The altitude record for a zeppelin is 7.6 km or 4.7 miles. Large hurricanes can reach an altitude of 50 000 feet or 9.5 miles or 15.25 km. Zeppelins couldn't clear a large hurricane.

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    3. Re:I'm betting on balloons by icebike · · Score: 1

      The whole story is a balloon, a trial balloon.
      Let's promise broadband everywhere and see if the sheep will buy into (pay for) our surveillance platform.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    4. Re:I'm betting on balloons by pushing-robot · · Score: 1
      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    5. Re:I'm betting on balloons by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      There was an article a few years back on /. about a network of weather balloons with hotspots, forget the name of the system. It is a bit labor intensive, since each unit only stays in flight 3-5 days, and the shoebox needs to be recovered and returned.

      Zeppelin ROVs have also been discussed on /. before, and offer substantial improvements over the system, but not really lower costs-- just trade offs.

      Traditionally, wireless always makes sense when you have limited subscriber density or portability requirements. Where it usually fails is that it can't scale as quickly when bandwidth needs increase. As an old codger, I will also recall the discussions of MetroLink's Ricochet Wireless system here on /. 15-17 years ago-- same basic concepts, same challenges.

      Wireless is always great for yesteday's use cases. Time to market from yesterday is what kills them, which airborne solutions can improve on if done right... but I won't hold my breath for low latency gigabit connections from a UAV.

    6. Re:I'm betting on balloons by swillden · · Score: 4, Informative

      Have you ever seen a hurricane or a tropical storm? It means the Internet will be down during these critical events when it is often most needed. That is the reason they are talking about 13 miles altitude drones and not just zeppelins. The altitude record for a zeppelin is 7.6 km or 4.7 miles. Large hurricanes can reach an altitude of 50 000 feet or 9.5 miles or 15.25 km. Zeppelins couldn't clear a large hurricane.

      The balloons Google is experimenting with do reach the stratosphere. 20 km altitude.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    7. Re:I'm betting on balloons by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Perhaps replace Iridium.

      Now that's a good point. Perhaps there are many jobs currently done by satellites that can be done more cheaply by drones. Weather monitors, etc.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    8. Re:I'm betting on balloons by whyAreAllNicksTaken · · Score: 5, Informative

      The altitude record for a zeppelin is 7.6 km or 4.7 miles. Large hurricanes can reach an altitude of 50 000 feet or 9.5 miles or 15.25 km. Zeppelins couldn't clear a large hurricane.

      All balloons are not "zeppelins". High altitude balloons can reach 32 km.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...

      Here is one that can reach between 29km and 32 km you can buy today for $60.

      http://www.highaltitudescience...

      I would agree that drones are preferable, but we do have better balloons that we did in the 1890's

    9. Re:I'm betting on balloons by darkain · · Score: 1

      Except what is the line of sight efficiency with zero obstructions when something is directly above you, vs traveling through buildings, trees, etc at ground level. Yeah, when indoors it would probably be about the same, but in outdoor conditions (where we're away from wifi and actually need better signal), this will be great. Oh, and also, this can simply be supplemental to existing tech, such as phones being able to pull data off both cell and wifi. Now they'll have a third option. As someone who frequents ocean beaches and mountains that are hours away from cities, this will be GREAT!

    10. Re:I'm betting on balloons by dargaud · · Score: 4, Informative

      I mountain areas coverage is very spotty, even in densely populated mountains like the Alps: in deep twisted valleys you have to install too many antennas, and north faces (in the northern hemisphere) impede the use of geosync satellites by blocking line-of-sight. And there's never an irridium above you when you are in a valley. When I was in Himalaya we had a chart of time windows when satellites were above us and we could make quick calls or SMS. Balloons/drones can improve on that.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    11. Re:I'm betting on balloons by quenda · · Score: 2

      OK, I can see that in mountainous areas one drone can replace many towers to give line of sight.
      But the drone still needs to be near overhead, so will not cover a massive area like an Irridium satellite.

      And a bunch of mass-produced solar-powered, LOS microwave-link meshed hilltop cells will likely still be easier than one mega-drone.
      And safer.

    12. Re:I'm betting on balloons by justaguy516 · · Score: 2

      There was an idea like this floated in the 1990s, called Strato station or something. Balloons at 80km altitude (in the stratosphere) providing coverage. I seem to remember that Loral and Alenia Spaziale were both involved to some extent. It was abandoned because it is too difficult to keep balloons static (even at that altitude) and this would need expensive tracking antennae on the ground (in the 1990s digital beamforming was simply not available for commercial use). Anybody else remember this? It was around the time when the whole world (including Microsoft, remember Teledesic?) was planning to do 'internet in the sky' kind of things.

    13. Re:I'm betting on balloons by AchilleTalon · · Score: 1

      The guy I was replying to was talking about zeppelins. Seems pretty clear I was not talking about balloons.

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    14. Re:I'm betting on balloons by AchilleTalon · · Score: 1

      Who cares? The guy I was replying to was talking about zeppelins. Did you read the thread?

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    15. Re:I'm betting on balloons by necro81 · · Score: 1

      and for most of that 98%, existing wireline technologies work too

      In the United States, a lot of /.ers like to gripe about how the existing wireline providers (DSL and cable) are monopolistic and provide poor service at high cost. They'd love to see more choice, but the barriers to entry (i.e., deploying a parallel network, including the last mile) are so high that only other megacorporations (Google Fiber, Verizon FiOS) can hope to break in, and even then it is very slow. Result: everyone gripes, but everyone eventually buys the service that's available, and nothing really changes. As you point out: it "works", but not that doesn't mean everyone is happy with the situation - lots of people hope for greater competition resulting in better options.

      The actual situation is a lot more complicated and nuanced than the preceding paragraph, but it is a sufficient synopsis to now tie into this article. High altitude drones could provide that parallel network at sufficiently lower (capital) cost that a lot more players can take a crack at it.

    16. Re: I'm betting on balloons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well, the internet IS made up of a series of tubes and mostly full of crap.

    17. Re:I'm betting on balloons by chuckugly · · Score: 1

      To be fair that record was set by accident.

    18. Re:I'm betting on balloons by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      a zeppelin has an internal rigid structure. A balloon or blimp does not. 'nuff said.

    19. Re:I'm betting on balloons by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      yeah but the surveillance blimps / black helicopters are already up there. NSA is not worried about opening up a parallel revenue stream.

    20. Re:I'm betting on balloons by danlip · · Score: 1

      Did you? The thread started with balloons.

    21. Re:I'm betting on balloons by antdude · · Score: 1

      I'd say use all of those technologies as long as they can work together and offer the broadband Internet services.

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    22. Re:I'm betting on balloons by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Balloons cost a million to launch, and stay up a couple weeks. I could see drones having a real advantage. Then again, geostationary satellites have an even bigger advantage.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    23. Re:I'm betting on balloons by justaguy516 · · Score: 1

      They do. Otherwise the receivers will have to continuously correct the link timing and Doppler. The link capacity will be degraded.

  2. If only by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Informative
    Not much particularly interesting in the article, the primary thing missing is a financial analysis showing drones are cheaper than towers or really better in any way; but the article is a treasure trove of beautifully (stupid?) quotes.

    "some work still needs to be done on the physics....[but] certainly not anything beyond the reach of hard-working American (or Chinese, or Chinese-American) engineering types."

    "solar tech (which, let’s be honest, has all been a bit shit until now) "

    "As usual, the "media" have completely and utterly missed this story"

    an extra allocation of "stupid points" go to the editors of Wired Magazine .....Wiretards

    Wired Magazine gets to continue being the authority on the Internet of Things That Don’t Matter

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:If only by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      Towers fail in time to deploy. Even small scale towers- utility poles or street lights) in mesh networks take substantial time to get licensing and rights-of-way in place. Wireline services have similar constraints, but just for the initial pathway installation, which can be leveraged for decades. A wireless technology upgrade needs to happen every 2-5 years if the service is successful.

  3. balloons by deodiaus2 · · Score: 1

    Yes, balloons pop, but mechanical systems fail or jam (due to foreign matter).

  4. Re:Why wait 20 years? by AchilleTalon · · Score: 1

    Because you don't have thermals at 13 miles altitude and at several thousand feet you can encounter severe weather conditions pretty often which would nail down your entire network for many hours or even days.

    --
    Achille Talon
    Hop!
  5. Solar powered drones by rossdee · · Score: 1

    So what happens at night?

    1. Re:Solar powered drones by pushing-robot · · Score: 3, Funny

      The zombie drones attack.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    2. Re:Solar powered drones by Spy+Handler · · Score: 1

      presumably these drones make so much electricity during the day from solar panels that they store the surplus into batteries, and run off the batteries at night.

      Only problem I see is that both solar panels and lithium batteries weight too much and don't generate/store enough juice. So all this is just pipe dreaming until some super breakthroughs happen. Which might be never.

    3. Re:Solar powered drones by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      We've seen a few solar aircraft. Without a pilot, you get a lot of space for batteries. And you can store at least some of the energy as potential energy. You don't need to keep it at the exact altitude.

    4. Re:Solar powered drones by necro81 · · Score: 1

      A variety of people have been working on solar airplanes that collect sufficient energy during the daylight hours that, through a combination of electrical storage (batteries, reversible fuel cells, etc.) and mechanical storage (going to higher altitude during the day, then losing some at night) you can provide continuous operation. This isn't a new idea, and practical realizations of it are tantalizingly close.

    5. Re:Solar powered drones by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      We joke, but it's clearly a target for Denial of Service attacks.

      Or anyone who can train a large group of Artic Terns to fly in a circle. Should be pretty easy if you just clip the left wing.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
  6. Wired Access Will Still Be Standard by logicnazi · · Score: 4, Informative

    Sorry, but wires will always have substantially greater bandwidth. If for no other reason than you can run one (or even several) wires into each structure and get at least as much bandwidth as is shared over a wide area by the plane.

    Since bandwidth use will no doubt continue to increase by the time we have these giant broadband stationary planes everyone will want too much bandwidth to make them a reasonable competitor for fiber (and multiplexing will move down market into the home eventually).

    --

    If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:

    1. Re:Wired Access Will Still Be Standard by calidoscope · · Score: 1

      And fiber has even more bandwidth than copper.

      Your point is correct about fixed links providing far more bandwidth that what can be provided by any kind of wireless link. The drone concept only make sense in places like the lightly populated areas of the US or similar countries where customers are too far apart to make wireline or fiber communications affordable. The low altitude with respect to satellites means that the link frequencies can be re-used more frequently.

      --
      A Shadeless room is a brighter room.
    2. Re:Wired Access Will Still Be Standard by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Assuming the need is infinite, if your demands are satisfied you might turn to flexibility and convenience. Last quarter we here in Norway saw a tiny dip in fixed residential broadband for the first time ever, whether that's a fluke or not is uncertain but business lines have been on the decline for some time because small 1-5 man shops use 3G/LTE to check their mail rather than having a dedicated broadband line in the office. It's just an extension of that most "normal" people I run into use wireless now instead of wired networks because it's capped by their Internet speed anyway. And even if you gave them gigabit Internet, they'd probably still feel wireless was fast enough.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    3. Re:Wired Access Will Still Be Standard by pubwvj · · Score: 1

      Wired is great for densely populated areas but much of the world is sparsely populated. Out here in the sticks we don't need the high bandwidth and we don't have the numbers of people to justify the expense. Drones or balloon could be a far lower cost option that would provide that coverage and would complement wired. The overlap is good.

    4. Re:Wired Access Will Still Be Standard by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      in the US wireless is metered while wired connections are not metered (although they are often capped).

  7. bandwidth? by pbjones · · Score: 1

    it only takes an idiot with a 'torrent running to suck up the bandwidth. A real smart idea this is not.

    --
    There was an unknown error in the submission.
  8. Partial by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    Obviously the problem with baloons is they blow away. But we could mitigate the weight so that these drones almost float on their own and use less energy to stay up. We might even use devices that work like submarines and pump the hellium or hydrogen back into pressurized compartments so that the temperature differences can be compensated for between night and day or even design the drones to glide back towards a location before inflating the baloon portion of the device.

  9. Better solution... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    Force the CableTV companies and telcos to run Fiber and then fix the last mile mess.

    Dammit, these companies are making record profits. They can get off their asses and run fiber and fix the last mile Bullshit.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  10. SkyNet: The machines are coming by SampleFish · · Score: 1

    This is literally SkyNet

  11. Really? by spacec0w · · Score: 1

    Why does everyone want to think drones will do everything in the future? Do we actually need this? They really seem like the 21st century equivalent of the flying car. Or perhaps a better example is video phones in 80s sci-fi movies. People just seem to really like the idea, even if time may tell that it will not be nearly as important as is being proposed if it ends up happening at all. So now there is Facetime and Skype and a few things like that, but 99% of all calls occur still in the same old-fashioned voice-only fashion.

  12. Excuse me but by HangingChad · · Score: 1

    Skynet

    Could we maybe pick a different name?

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
  13. Too high - need groundpowered drone - possible by n6gn · · Score: 1

    I think he is on to something but the path lengths are too long. Presuming the market will stand for nothing less than mobility and at least 4G class data rates, physics requires that radio paths be shorter than he conjectures. Here's why: Mobility means the user device must be powered from batteries and fit in your pocket. It must contain its own antenna. Thus there is a maximum local_storage/delivered_bit ratio available. It costs battery power to deliver a bit of information. Non-line-of-sight paths are entirely too wasteful - witness a cellphone "handy-talky" that can communicate 2000 miles in truly free space not making it into a cell site only 2 miles away in real world conditions. Wireless goes as inverse-square so that's a million-to-one loss, 60 dB. Given one has to use truly LOS (as in laser light), the question of radio path length is answered by looking at the aperture of the antenna in the user's device. It can be thought of as a "bucket" that catches whatever falls on it. The size of the bucket is roughly the physical size of the device. While as frequency goes up (shorter wavelength) antenna gain goes up, so does path loss. The device can only catch as much flux as is falling on it. This is like solar panels - sunlight is about 1 kW/m^2 on earth- try as you might you won't get more energy per unit capture area. If one does the link analysis and applies Shannon's equation, the ONLY solution that works requires paths of, perhaps, a few hundred meters. For this reason, the drones need to be quite low and there need to be more of them. It turns out that this is possible if they are tethered and powered from the ground. http://www.sonic.net/~n6gn/SWT... gives an example of a way to do this while also allowing the (heavy) network hardware to stay on the ground. Demo coming soon. n6gn

    1. Re:Too high - need groundpowered drone - possible by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      what if ur in a city and the to of the buildings are already several hundred meters high? then if a thing is tethered to the ground it might bump into buildings.

    2. Re:Too high - need groundpowered drone - possible by n6gn · · Score: 1

      what if ur in a city and the to of the buildings are already several hundred meters high? then if a thing is tethered to the ground it might bump into buildings.

      Start at the building tops - cell sites already do. The issue is to get very close to LOS to the user base so that that data vs. energy is maximized. Take a look at COST231/Hata or similar real-world RF pathloss models. Anything other than LOS is a killer and can't be afforded. The present flooding model for cellular architecture is inherently broken. Montana|Idaho|etc never will get full coverage highspeed data, the present approach doesn't scale. Going too far/high doesn't work either. Satellite distribution (from Iridium to geosynchronous and beyond) doesn't work either. Has to server too many users/needs to much devoted energy/user. Has to be lots of points of presence, LOS and close to end users.

  14. Really? by Ziggitz · · Score: 1

    There's a ton of useful applications for stuff like this. You wouldn't use it for access in heavily populated areas but there's plenty of usefulness in disaster areas, remote areas and military application. Not every technological development is about getting Netflix to your home faster. A drone that can fly above a hurricane could be available immediately after any natural disaster except for a solar flare. That could make relief efforts a lot easier, by allowing organizations to coordinate without needing satellite equipment or relying on possibly damaged/destroyed infrastructure. In sparsely populated areas, consumer internet access could be provided at a much lower cost than laying down fiber across long distances for a very small number of users that will be obsolete by the time it is finished being laid. By default these areas will have mobile access as an added bonus. In terms of defense, a robust network that can easily recover from an attack is highly valuable. With drones instead of fixed nodes you can very cheaply introduce redundancy into the system. Even if you had to launch a new drone, it's a lot faster than sending a guy out in a truck to find and fix a broken line. This gives you a potentially uninterruptible network.

    --
    There is no memory shortage. yes I have heard of XFCE. Go away.
  15. Re:So... by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

    I thought it was the rams?

  16. propeller driven? by Todd+Palin · · Score: 1

    I could be wrong, but I don't think any propeller driven aircraft has flown to 65,000 feet, or even anywhere close. There is a problem with the low density air that makes props a really poor choice for high altitude. Since a solar jet has huge tech problems as well, I think the concept is stuck with problems that it can't easily solve.

    1. Re:propeller driven? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      That's a good point

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  17. Re:propeller driven? OK, I'm wrong by Todd+Palin · · Score: 1

    As it turns out, the unofficial propeller driven altitude record is 96,863 feet. So, I guess I'm completely wrong. Nevermind.

    And, it was a solar powered plane to boot.

  18. Re:emergency comms by dl_sledding · · Score: 1

    Landlines being taken out would CAUSE cell towers to be also taken out. Cell towers are not magical devices that are fully independent: they require a fiber connection (now) to reach their networks. During an emergency, it is much more likely that the tower is overloaded (radio side) rather than the landline (fiber) connection being dropped, as, typically, those fiber connections are redundant and much more resiliant than the radio side of the tower. The meat of your post is correct, however. ARES is an awesome service that LEAs and ERs can utilize, and it's all done as volunteer work. That group needs more recogition, respect, and thanks.