On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 9:25 AM, dpr...@deepplum.com <dpr...@deepplum.com> wrote: > > > This is fascinating. Could it be that the idea of "open networks of > satellites" are going to start to play the role of WiFi or UWB? Scalable > sharing of orbital space, using a simple cooperative protocol? In other > words, the first step toward what Vint Cerf championed as the > "Interplanetary Internet?
I hope so. > > > > > > > If so, that explains why the FCC id doing the bidding of its masters. Sure, > we need a few rules of the road to manage space orbits, etc. That's in > *everyone's* public interest. > > > > > > > > But do we need the rules to be set by a fully captured regulatory mechanism > in the pockets of monopoly capital? No! > > > > > > > > I wrote this comment to another mailing list. Thought you might find it > interesing here as well. (This reflects very deep personal experience with > building scalable decentralized systems for most of my life, plus encounters > with the FCC around getting UWB authorized - it was defenestrated in the > form that they authorized it - and my experiences with the "be very afraid" I tend to think that even the defenstrated version of UWB is totally doable now, and I wish we'd re-explore the concept. > camp that informs the FCC's idea that SDR is not to be allowed, ever, in > products certified for sale in the US to consumers). It's remarkable how the > idea that "we need rules of the road" gets perverted into "the US and its > corporate owners must have power over", esp. in the FCC. > > > > ----------------------- > > > > One should ask, why hasn't NASA stepped in to facilitate discussion of > orbital rules of the road? Preferably the minimum necessary rules, allowing > the most flexibility to innovate and create value. I'm not as plugged into this as I used to be, but I'm a lot more excited about the possibilities nowadays. I should try to schedule myself for a smallsat conference to see how things stand. > > > > > > > > And one should also ask, one whose behalf is FCC making these choices? > > > > > > > > Space, in theory, belongs to all of us. Not governments defined by national > boundaries, not the UN, ... it *belongs* to us, just as the Sea does. > > > > > > > > It's helpful to have rules (for example, the WiFi rules which extend Part > 15's "accept all interference and don't deliberately interfere" to a > concrete - listen for energy before you transmit, and transmit using a power > and modulation that has the least impact on others. Bran Ferren called this > the "Golden Rule". The law of the sea is similar. > > > > > > > > One can ask whether the FCC has any legitimate constitutional mandate over > space at all. Maybe that should be taken to the (sadly plutocratic) Supreme > Court, or even better, a true judicial court that incorporates the interests > and fairness to all of the planet? Top down governance of space scares me. > > > > > > > > We should remember that if Swarm launched and operated its network of > satellites from the middle of the ocean (remember Pirate Radio Stations in > the UK beyond the coastal zone), the US FCC could not touch them. Arguably, > there's no one who could legally touch them. Assuming they pulled it off, it's a start at competition for https://www.orbcomm.com/en/networks/satellite/orbcomm-og2 > > > > > > > > That said, we need rules of the road, like we do for drones. But they should > not be written by those who stand to lose their privileges. > > > > > > -- Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC http://www.teklibre.com Tel: 1-669-226-2619 _______________________________________________ Cerowrt-devel mailing list Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
