Slashdot Mirror


The GPS Wars Have Begun (techcrunch.com)

Where are you? That's not just a metaphysical question, but increasingly a geopolitical challenge that is putting tech giants like Apple and Alphabet in a tough position. From a report: Countries around the world, including China, Japan, India and the United Kingdom plus the European Union are exploring, testing and deploying satellites to build out their own positioning capabilities. That's a massive change for the United States, which for decades has had a practical monopoly on determining the location of objects through its Global Positioning System (GPS), a military service of the Air Force built during the Cold War that has allowed commercial uses since mid-2000 (for a short history of GPS, check out this article, or for the comprehensive history, here's the book-length treatment).

Owning GPS has a number of advantages, but the first and most important is that global military and commercial users depend on this service of the U.S. government, putting location targeting ultimately at the mercy of the Pentagon. The development of the technology and the deployment of positioning satellites also provides a spillover advantage for the space industry. Today, the only global alternative to that system is Russia's GLONASS, which reached full global coverage a couple of years ago following an aggressive program by Russian president Vladimir Putin to rebuild it after it had degraded following the break-up of the Soviet Union. Now, a number of other countries want to reduce their dependency on the U.S. and get those economic benefits. Perhaps no where is that more obvious than with China, which has made building out a global alternative to GPS a top national priority. Its Beidou navigation system has been slowly building up since 2000, mostly focused on providing service in Asia.

36 of 210 comments (clear)

  1. All for one, and one for one. by Ostracus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Kind of funny that the Chinese don't trust the Russians either otherwise they'd be using theirs.

    --
    Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
    1. Re:All for one, and one for one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The multiplication of satellite positioning constellation is about securing access to the military-grade signals and chips.
      Europe has spent 10B€ to avoid depending on ITAR control of military GPS and how access to these devices, and fair price competition, is critical for many arm sales.

    2. Re:All for one, and one for one. by nojayuk · · Score: 5, Informative

      The US GPS, Chinese Beidou and Russian GLONASS are all positioning systems intended primarily for military use but which offer a degraded lower-accuracy signal for commercial and private users. The EU's Galileo navigation system offers precision to within a few cms, effectively military-grade accuracy, to paying commercial users as well as open but less-accurate position data similar to the "free" GPS, GLONASS and Beidou systems.

    3. Re:All for one, and one for one. by LBt1st · · Score: 2

      If I recall correctly, Clinton disabled the lower-accuracy for non-military. Possibly because civilian devices were being used by troops.

      Also the US is currently deploying satellites for it's own next generation GPS system with higher accuracy than anything out there.

    4. Re:All for one, and one for one. by tsqr · · Score: 2

      "Clinton" didn't disable or even decide anything about this. Learn it's from its.

      This is so easy to check, you have to be an idiot to post a comment like that.

    5. Re:All for one, and one for one. by Entrope · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's not really true any longer that the military signals provide better accuracy. DGPS approaches, including SBAS (FAA's WAAS being the first), can provide approximately the same accuracy as the military PPS, while also providing integrity assurances (in that domain's jargon, integrity means you have a bound on how wrong your calculated position is). The main advantage of the military signals now is improved availability, both in terms of anti-jamming and anti-spoofing measures.

      There is some advantage for military receivers in that they can use L2 to estimate dispersion due to the ionosphere, which is easily the largest source of errors for SPS receivers, but an increasing number of satellites transmit civil signals on a second frequency or use "codeless" approaches to make the same estimations using the military encrypted signals on L1 and L2.

    6. Re:All for one, and one for one. by nojayuk · · Score: 4, Informative

      Selective Availability was a deliberate degradation of the non-military positioning accuracy, "fuzzing" the reported position data. This has been switched off but the most accurate GPS signals are still encrypted and intended only for military and government use, even in the new more accurate GPS satellites being launched.

      The Galileo system provides that level of military-grade accuracy (to within a cm or so) to commercial customers, not just the military forces of participating countries and allied forces. It is still encrypted and requires payment and vetting of customers. Galileo's Open Service is accurate to 1 metre, a lot better than GPS' equivalent free service.

      It's entirely possible commercial pressures will mean higher-accuracy GPS signals might be made available to civilian users in the future but at the moment only Galileo can provide that sort of service over-the-counter.

    7. Re:All for one, and one for one. by Entrope · · Score: 3, Informative

      All else being equal, if you use N times as many satellites to compute a position/velocity/time solution, your expected accuracy improves by a factor of sqrt(N). But it's not quite that good when you have a multi-solution due to uncertainties in the system clocks between the constellations.

      Even in the ideal case, you can usually get more improvement from other techniques than just averaging more inputs. The first thing to attack is ionospheric delays, then a suite of several other errors that are similar in magnitude: GNSS ephemeris (position and velocity) errors, errors in the satellite clocks, other atmospheric delays, etc.

      Simple differential approaches use a receiver at a known location to compute (the sums of) several of those errors at each time of interest. Because a single receiver can't distinguish certain errors from each other, those corrections become less accurate over distance. More sophisticated approaches use a widely separated set of receivers to break the errors down into the individual components, so that the corrections can be applied over a wider area.

  2. Who cares? by nospam007 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We just pay for our own satellites with our taxes and use all the other ones for free, just like everybody else.
    More satellites, more precision.
    I miss the 'war' part of the article.

    1. Re:Who cares? by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 2

      The "war" part comes due to national mandates, such as China demanding that any device sold in China use the Chinese sat network. Or the US actively prohibiting the inclusion of Chinese chips due to national security concerns. This may mean fragmentation in certain markets, which creates problems for vendors wishing to sell a single device to both markets.

      From a technological standpoint, there's no real problem, of course. The issue is political. Then again, if the issue *weren't* political, we wouldn't need multiple GPS constellations in the first place.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    2. Re:Who cares? by digitig · · Score: 4, Informative

      I miss the 'war' part of the article.

      Back in the 1990s, the US DoD put out a statement that in the event of a conflict, GPS augmentation systems (which would now include things like the EU's EGNOS) would be considered a valid military target whether on friendly soil or not. It's part of the reason other States started to develop their own systems (except Russia, which was already well established with GLONAS by then).

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    3. Re:Who cares? by digitig · · Score: 5, Informative

      Thanks for crediting us here in the UK with Galileo, but it's an EU project, not a UK one, and we appear to be shut out of it because of Brexit.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    4. Re:Who cares? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There are a few of issues.

      When it was just GPS it was easier to jam/spoof. Now we can compare data from multiple systems to detect spoofing. Other services can provide greater precision than the US wishes civilians to have, or remove other restrictions like the maximum altitude and speed limits.

      It's a good thing.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:Who cares? by johannesg · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually the UK is being shut out because _the UK_ demanded that non-EU nations would not have access, back when Galileo was being set up. In other words, it is the UK's own bloody fault for making that demand in the first place.

    6. Re:Who cares? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      But they did comply which made it easier for our industry to trade in Europe.

      Vegetables generally have a class 1,2,3 or unclassified rating. For better or worse people like buying nice looking vegetables. Most countries in Europe had standards for such things. This is good because if you want to buy a box of veg for general sale, you can buy from anyone (rather than a known vendor) and you know what you'll get. Likewise if you're putting them in things instead, you can buy a lower grade and not overspend.

      Common standards make trading easier.

      Since the EU is a common market, they decided to unify all the existing standards into one, essentially by picking our standard. This is good, because then you can buy class 2 veg from anywhere in the entire EU and you'll know what you're getting (fraud aside). It's particularly good for us because we didn't have to make any changes and with zero effort our companies could easily sell EU wide.

      Somehow this got translated by Brexiteers into a drooling "herp derp Europe si teh evul and morans".

      What if they'd suggested jumping in a lake?

      Yes trade bodies routinely entertain stupid non trade related requests from piss artists. Seriously what point are you trying to make?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  3. Wrong story headline by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 4, Funny

    Begun, the GPS wars have...

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  4. Re:Do GPS satellites have an off switch? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Yes, civilian (unencrypted) GPS could be turned off while the encrypted signal remains on. Unlikely, the civilians would be very unhappy. But if a large enough event occurred and the government thought it was a good idea, yes.

  5. GPS can be arbitrarily degraded by the US by satsuke · · Score: 2

    The synopsis left out a critical detail .. the fact that the US can either intentionally degrade the accuracy of the resulting signal by hundreds of meters.

    Or they can disable its functionality completely over a certain area.

    That's all on the whim of the US government. They haven't degraded the signal for decades, but they can and would in areas like a war theater or over an arbitrary "enemy" nation / region.

    Under normal circumstances I would never expect the US to do so, but with the current government being as erratic as it is, you never know, and that uncertainty is certainly enough to have other nations redoubling their efforts to build competing systems.

    1. Re:GPS can be arbitrarily degraded by the US by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 2
      If you are in a war zone, the last thing you should be caring about is getting your fucking cell phone location services to work.

      I would not dispute that. However, degrading the accuracy of the enemy's weapons is likely to have the effect of killing a lot more people on my side. It is the kind of foot-shooting we have come to expect from Trump supporters - so, yes, we do need to worry about this kind of thinking.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
  6. Another fine example by Tyger-ZA · · Score: 2

    Another fine example of how competition leads to duplication of effort: the world only needs one constellation of positioning satellites, but has more than that already, and with more to come (because WE can't trust THEM. Insert your own candidates for WE and THEM)

    This also demonstrates how the idea of a nation state is not compatible with space faring civilisations: we need to have more that one of everything because we can't trust the other groups on this one planet.

    How would that look when we occupy more than one planet? USA.Earth vs China.Earth vs Muskia.Mars vs Bezostan.Mars all fighting over the same space rock containing vast amounts of water ice?

    Will all the nations of one planet band together to fight/compete with the nations of other planets? Everyone.Earth vs Everyone.Mars?

    1. Re:Another fine example by Solandri · · Score: 2

      You talk like duplication of effort is a bad thing. Having just one constellation of positioning satellites leads to a single point of failure. I dunno what the "correct" number of positioning systems is, but it's not "one" like you seem to think.

      Having different systems is also necessary for redundancy. The Japanese incorrectly thought having multiple backup generators at the Fukushima nuclear plant constituted redundancy. It does not. If your backups are identical, they're all vulnerable to a common failure mode. In Fukushima's case, a tsunami flooding the basement where all the generators were located. What they needed were multiple generators with different construction using different fuels located in different locations (the generators for the two newer reactors at Fukushima were located further up on a hill, and operated correctly when power went down).

      So if it turns out that GPS is vulnerable to a y2k38 bug, chances are the other systems won't be affected because they were designed differently. We'll be able to switch off GPS for a few weeks to deal with the problem, relying on the other systems during the downtime, instead of everything relying on positioning satellites going to hell. Redundancy is good.

      Believing you've been able to think of every possible scenario or failure mode so you can design a single best system is stupid. GSM would've crippled cellular data speeds because it was based on TDMA - each phone takes turns talking to the tower. That worked fine for low-bandwidth phone calls. But once phones began slurping high-bandwidth Internet data, it became a handicap. Fortunately the U.S. didn't go along with GSM, and allowed competition which came up with CDMA. In CDMA, all the phones talk to the tower simultaneously, and you rely on orthgonal codes to tell the signals apart. The phones see the transmissions of other phones as noise, so the total bandwidth automatically gets divided evenly between all phones which happen to be transmitting at any given moment. It was so superior to TDMA that in less than 2 years, GSM threw in the towel, and licensed CDMA as the official method for transmitting 3G data in GSM (HSPDA uses wideband CDMA). That's why GSM phones could talk and use data at the same time. It wasn't because GSM's design was superior, it was because GSM phones had a TDMA radio for voice, and a separate CDMA radio for data.

    2. Re:Another fine example by Tyger-ZA · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your entire response is a blind reaction to someone telling you that competition isn't always a good thing, built upon the strawman that redundancy does not feature in what I'm talking about, because I didn't explicitly write it down for you.

      This was an opportunity to think outside your box and you opted not to, so I'm going to break it down for you:

      The point I was trying to make is: "Competition can be counter productive for certain use cases", and this is one of those use cases.

      If your GPS goes down today, and for example you think everyone can just switch to a competing platform, go ahead and switch to BeiDou, Galileo or GLONASS right now and see how that goes. It may or may not work, depending on satellite coverage and/or the manufacturer of each device (most will likely be phones where they all support GPS but only a subset support a competing standard); therefore, your competing location services idea might not work for you as an individual, and certainly does not work for the entire group of people who depend upon GPS today. When shit happens, you'll find yourself using printed maps from a convenience store.

      Now for an alternative example that might work if the competitors could trust each other enough to collaborate, and if these collaborators could operate in a non malicious manner (the non malicious and trust aspects are the root problem):

      Instead of redundancy from many networks built around the premise that one could just switch to a totally alternative network, consider that at the hardware level a failure might look something like a satellite going down over one region, but there can be many replacements already in orbit ready to serve the exact same purpose for the same region, built by many different companies and/or governments, but built to work on the same communication protocols.

      Once that's in place the next step might be for the collaborators to design a "Next Gen" service together that may or may not be backwards compatible with their existing system. Some of the competitors might even want to start supporting some other frequency as a form of "let the market decide which technology is better" by having their new satellites support both the global standard and their own side show project.

      Consider how many satellite launches would be needed for such a system vs doing the same thing over and over for competing systems, along with all the other requirements for supporting it (such as ground stations for managing the satellites)

      Your internet is already a collaborative system that works (in the sense that you send bits on a wire without thinking "My bits can only go on the Verizon wires" ) yet you are arguing for the equivalent of this for your location services. The same applies for your road network (The Fords and the Teslas share the same road) and for your airlines (Different planes and airlines share the same airports)

      Your Fukushima example doesn't even make sense within the context of competing, or for preventing that specific failure in a reactor. Would multiple generators of the same bad design at Reactor A all failing at the same time, be solved by having Reactor B next door built by a competitor with a better design? No, Reactor A still fails and causes an environmental disaster. Your redundancy example only serves to provide backup sources of power if Reactor A goes down

  7. Re: Do GPS satellites have an off switch? by digitig · · Score: 4, Informative

    That is just *so* incorrect! The satellites send precise timing signals, along with two sets of orbital details: the almanack, rough positional information so the receiver knows which satellites to search for if it knows its approximate location and time, and the ephemeris, precise orbital information, for the actual position calculation. It works by measuring the time taken from the satellites to the receiver and triangulating from that (it actually does that in 4 dimensions, needing at least 4 satellites, because the receiver's clock won't be accurate enough to use the timing signals directly to work out the distance from the satellites). When it was introduced, the DoD only made one of the frequencies, L1, available and deliberately degraded it (which was called "selective availability"). That degradation was turned off in May 2000, and further enhancements to the civilian availability have been made such as the introduction of further signals that are easier to detect, make the satellites easier to locate, and compensate better for atmospheric effects.

    --
    Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
  8. Re: Do GPS satellites have an off switch? by mrclevesque · · Score: 4, Informative

    "Each GPS satellite continuously transmits a radio signal containing the current time and data about its position. Since the speed of radio waves is constant and independent of the satellite speed, the time delay between when the satellite transmits a signal and the receiver receives it is proportional to the distance from the satellite to the receiver. A GPS receiver monitors multiple satellites and solves equations to determine the precise position of the receiver and its deviation from true time. At a minimum, four satellites must be in view of the receiver for it to compute four unknown quantities (three position coordinates and clock deviation from satellite time)."

  9. Re:UK by digitig · · Score: 2

    Sure, we could build our own satellite navigation system, to rival Galileo. But it needs a bit more than just launching bits of hardware, and we certainly did not provide all of the satellite technology - the work was deliberately spread all around the EU. Still, I'm sure those EU-based companies will happily sell us back the technologies we already partially paid for anyway - and all because of May's fit of pique, in saying that we're not even to get the access the rest of the non-EU will get to Galileo.

    --
    Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
  10. you'd be an idiot to think it Clinton's idea, yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Yeah I agree, you WOULD have to be an idiot to say it was Clinton's idea - instead of reading it, where it directly says it was the direct recommendation from the Department of Defense which wrote up the entire thing and proposed it to him.

    "Statement by the Press Secretary
    RSS Feed White House News

    Today, the President __ __ __accepted the _recommendation_ of the Department of Defense__ __ __ to end procurement of Global Positioning System (GPS) satellites that have the capability to intentionally degrade the accuracy of civil signals. This decision reflects the United States strong commitment to users of GPS that this free global utility can be counted on to support peaceful civil activities around the world.

    This degradation capability, known as Selective Availability (SA), will no longer be present in GPS III satellites. Although the United States stopped the intentional degradation of GPS satellite signals in May 2000, this new action will result in the removal of SA capabilities, thereby eliminating a source of uncertainty in GPS performance that has been of concern to civil GPS users worldwide."

    I suppose if Clinton were Trump (a total retard who didn't listen to expert advice from the Defense Dept generally) you could call it a significant decision to read and sign off on a complete and well-backed DOD proposal / request.

    But Clinton, unlike the current idiot, knew he had to take recommendations from experts from time to time, that was part of the job - at that time, YMMV.

  11. Re: Payment by digitig · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The EU has, quite properly, been looking after the EU's interests. May still doesn't seem to have worked out yet what she wants. And Galileo isn't scheduled to provide full operational capability yet, so it's no big deal that it doesn't.

    --
    Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
  12. Re: Payment by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 5, Informative

    The UK is to the EU as the US is to NATO - pay for everything all the time

    Uh, what? Yes, the UK does net pay into the EU, as one would expect from one of its richer countries. Germany however, has a net contribution over twice that of the UK (larger as a share of its economy, too). France, too, gives more. This is largely due to the fact that the UK gets two-thirds of its net contribution back as a special rebate. In fact, if you look at net contribution as a share of the national economy, the UK comes in ninth.

  13. Re:My four year old supports herself by cheesybagel · · Score: 2

    The UK has not done that poorly with their deal with the EU. It is the countries in the Eurozone that are in the shitter. The UK is not in the Eurozone.

    In fact the UK, since it joined the EU, has finally become independent in food production, thanks in no small part to EU farming subsidies. Which is quite a feat consider that was not the case like over a century.

  14. Re: you'd be an idiot to think it Clinton's idea, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Dude, what is wrong with you?!? Go take a chill pill or seek some help.

    Most people understand that a President or any leader isn't qualified in anything he is actually leading. That they don't make decisions in a vacuum.

    So in that real world context, the poster's post on Clinton making the decision is far more accurate than your drivel. As a leader, he made a decision. This isn't a situation of Bush Sr raised taxes when it was actually Congress.

  15. The war metaphor is inapplicable here by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

    Because each new GPS satellite adds accuracy to the existing set of constellations, it’s technical cooperation, not war. The only reason why any country needs to add its own GPS constellation is to assure that it can never lose the ability to navigate, whatever other countries do.

  16. Re: Payment by gnasher719 · · Score: 2

    The whole Brexit debacle is being handled by people that are bungling it purely out of spite. The UK is to the EU as the US is to NATO - pay for everything all the time but get bullied by your only reason and biggest dependent - Germany

    Talk about deluded. The Brexit negotiations were done by professionals on the EU side and by unprepared amateurs on the UK side - no wonder they got their ass handed to them. And what you call "spite" and "being bullied" should have been the simple realisation that the EU negotiators act in the best interest of their member states - and the UK isn't one.

  17. Re:My four year old supports herself by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 3, Informative
    In fact the UK, since it joined the EU, has finally become independent in food production, thanks in no small part to EU farming subsidies. Which is quite a feat consider that was not the case like over a century.

    This is utterly incorrect. We import 3/4 of our food (the official figure is 66%) - which corresponds to 100% in the winder and 50% in the summer. Britain has not been self sufficient in food since the industrial revolution, and prior to then depended on large scale starvation to keep the population down. Our climate and geography make it impossible to grow food for much of the year.

    Most of the imported food (by volume) comes from the EU (on account of the Americas and Australia being a long way away).

    The main consequence of a no-deal Brexit will be no food in England. However, Boris and Rees-Mogg will be away in their holiday homes abroad, so they don't care. The impact on the rest of the EU will be fairly minimal except in a few industries. (Eg Farming in Spain will suffer a bit).

    Disclaimer: I spend 10 years working in food distribution in the UK.

    --
    Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
  18. Re:Galileo vs the UK by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 2
    The notion that we will blow billions of pounds in a fit of pique because the EU won't let us play with their toys is laughable.

    Politicians are involved. Laughably stupid for reason of pique is the most likely outcome.

    --
    Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
  19. Re: Payment by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

    Even with professionals the UK couldn't have got a good deal from the negotiations, simply because of the political situation in the UK.

    The UK didn't know what it voted for or what it wanted. All sorts of nonsense was proposed before the referendum, none of it at all realistic except for the "Norway model" that was immediately rejected within hours of the result. So all the UK had left was cakeism - the strategy document literally said "have our cake and eat it".

    Naturally the EU simply stuck to the basic principals of the Single Market and the procedure laid out in Article 50 (which was written by a British guy). Given that the Single Market is vastly larger than the UK market they were never going to compromise it just to help the UK out. So the British government pissed away the two year negotiation period trying to find something that the EU would accept and that it could sell to its own MPs, failed and now we are in deep, deep shit with the clock ticking.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  20. Got it Wrong by BrendaEM · · Score: 2

    No, the GPS wars will begin with an enemy destroys GPS satellites, leaving driver-less cars stranded.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM