Re: 10 years from now...

[Eric Kuhnke]

The present architecture is logically a bent pipe, where a moving satellite
(preferably more than one, for make before break handoff function) needs to
be simultaneously in view of a starlink earth station and the CPE.

In the long term this may not be an absolute. Ten beta test satellites that
were launched into a near polar orbit a few months back have test equipment
on them for inter-satellite laser links.

Satellite to Satellite relay by Ka-band for low bandwidth stuff has been
demonstrated and in production for a long time. For quite a while the only
two Iridium earth stations existed in Arizona and Hawaii. A handheld phone
call or SMS from an Iridium terminal anywhere in the world would make its
way through the satellite network to those locations. Statements by Musk
indicate that they have a strong desire for a long term ability to do
something like that, but optically and with much higher throughput. I would
also be surprised if Kuiper does not have similar intentions.



On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 9:05 PM  wrote:

> This is a fascinating discussion.
>
> Also keep in mind that starlink satellites need many earth stations to
> downlink customer packets and provide internet transit. There are over
> 50 satellite earth stations in the US already.
>
> Here is a great google map of the current ground stations based on FCC
> license data:
>
> https://www.google.com/maps/@36.6554578,-111.9151229,4.5z/data=!4m2!6m1!1s1H1x8jZs8vfjy60TvKgpbYs_grargieVw
>
> -Keith
>
> Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote on 3/28/2021 6:58 PM:
>
> > No need for all that fancy RF tools.
> > Moreover, detecting >10Ghz transmission is not such an easy task.
> > The beam is most likely narrow enough to be difficult to detect.
> >
> > But, (for example) it's enough to visit from foreign IPs some local
> > website,
> > to have cookie set: SATELLITE_USER=xyz
> > Then when person use local connection and visit same website, this cookie
> > will send law enforcement hint.
> > And there are many more automated, software-based ways to detect that a
> > device has been connected via satellite in past.
> >
> > Not to mention the fact that any attempt to provide services illegally
> > is pandora box.
> > At least it may end up with the fact that the country will start
> > jamming uplink
> > frequencies, which will affect the service in whole region.
> > And in the worst case, it will give reason to use anti-satellite weapons.
> >
> >
> > On 2021-03-29 03:23, Eric Kuhnke wrote:
> >> I would also concur that the likelihood of Starlink (or a Oneweb, or
> >> Kuiper) terminal being used successfully to bypass the GFW or similar
> >> serious Internet censorship, in an authoritarian environment, is
> >> probably low. This is because:
> >>
> >> a) It has to transmit in known bands.
> >>
> >> b) It has to be located in a location with a very good, clear view of
> >> the sky in all directions (even a single tree obstruction in one
> >> section of the sky, relative to where the antenna is mounted will
> >> cause packet loss/periodic issues on a starlink beta terminal right
> >> now). Visually identifying the terminal would not be hard.
> >>
> >> c) Portable spectrum analyzers capable of up to 30 GHz are not nearly
> >> as expensive as they used to be. They also have much better GUIs and
> >> visualization tools than what was available 6-10 years ago.
> >>
> >> d) You could successfully train local law enforcement to use these
> >> sort of portable spectrum analyzers in a one-day, 8-hour training
> >> course.
> >>
> >> e) The equipment would have to be smuggled into the country
> >>
> >> f) Many people such as in a location like Iran may lack access to a
> >> standard payment system for the services (the percentage of Iranians
> >> with access to buy things online with visa/mastercard/american express
> >> or similar is quite low).
> >>
> >> There are already plenty of places in the world where if you set up a
> >> 1.2, 1.8 or 2.4 meter C, Ku or Ka band VSAT terminal using some sort
> >> of geostationary based services, without appropriate government
> >> "licenses", men with guns will come to dismantle it and arrest you.
> >>
> >> I am not saying it is an impossible problem to solve, but any system
> >> intended for that sort of purpose would have to be designed for
> >> circumvention, and not a consumer/COTS adaptation of an off the shelf
> >> starlink terminal.
> >>
> >> On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 8:31 PM na...@jima.us  wrote:
> >>
> >>> Please don't forget that RF sources can be tracked down by even
> >>> minimally-well-equipped adversaries.
> >>>
> >>> - Jima
> >>>
> >>> -Original Message-
> >>> From: NANOG  On Behalf Of
> >>> scott
> >>> Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2021 19:36
> >>> To: nanog@nanog.org
> >>> Subject: Re: 10 years from now... (was: internet futures)
> >>>
> >>> On 3/26/2021 9:42 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
>  LEO internet providers will be coming online which might make a
>  difference in the corners of the world where it's hard to get

Re: 10 years from now... (was: internet futures)

[Mark Tinka]

On 3/29/21 07:21, Eric Kuhnke wrote:

The US State Department is already a large customer for dedicated 
transponder capacity, in C-band hemispheric and Ku beams in some weird 
places in the world.


As a randomly chosen example if you take a look at the roof of the UK 
embassy in Kabul, there's a nice 4 meter size Andrew/Commscope compact 
cassegrain dish up there. Pretty typical thing already for embassies, 
the big difference would be that that they'll have more market options 
for high-throughput service.


Exactly... those would be the kinds of places grumpy dudes with guns 
can't just show up. However, that does not prevent the local gubbermint 
from jamming signals to the extent they can without infringing on the 
sovereign rights of the consulate.


Mark.

Re: 10 years from now... (was: internet futures)

[Eric Kuhnke]

The US State Department is already a large customer for dedicated
transponder capacity, in C-band hemispheric and Ku beams in some weird
places in the world.

As a randomly chosen example if you take a look at the roof of the UK
embassy in Kabul, there's a nice 4 meter size Andrew/Commscope compact
cassegrain dish up there. Pretty typical thing already for embassies, the
big difference would be that that they'll have more market options for
high-throughput service.


On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 10:18 PM Mark Tinka  wrote:

>
>
> On 3/29/21 02:23, Eric Kuhnke wrote:
>
> >
> > I am not saying it is an impossible problem to solve, but any system
> > intended for that sort of purpose would have to be designed for
> > circumvention, and not a consumer/COTS adaptation of an off the shelf
> > starlink terminal.
>
> Behind the walls of an embassy, perhaps :-).
>
> Mark.
>

Re: 10 years from now... (was: internet futures)

[Eric Kuhnke]

By definition and orbital mechanics, low earth orbit things don't "park"
anywhere. There's an equal number of starlink satellites over Mongolia
right now as there are over the same latitude locations in the US and
Canada.

https://satellitemap.space/

This also becomes intuitive once one plays Kerbal Space Program for a few
hours...




On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 9:16 PM Keith Medcalf  wrote:

>
> Net to mention, of course, that the Low Orbit constellation would need to
> be "parked" over China (or where-ever you want to access it).  I am quite
> sure that "shooting down" such low orbit stationary vehicles would not be
> too difficult.  And if they are owned by an adversary who has no permission
> to fly those objects in your airspace, I doubt that anything could be done
> about it.
>
> If I owned a bunch of low orbit satellites costing millions of dollars
> each, I would not want to "park" them in low orbit over a hostile territory.
>
> Then you also have the requirement to maintain positive control over the
> satellites which, unlike those in geostationary orbits, need to be under
> continual thrust and control in order to stay "parked".  I doubt that any
> "private" (ie, non-Government organization) could afford to do so without
> the cooperation of the state over which they are parking.
>
> --
> Be decisive.  Make a decision, right or wrong.  The road of life is paved
> with flat squirrels who could not make a decision.
>
> >-Original Message-
> >From: NANOG  On Behalf Of
> >Eric Kuhnke
> >Sent: Sunday, 28 March, 2021 18:24
> >To: na...@jima.us
> >Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> >Subject: Re: 10 years from now... (was: internet futures)
> >
> >I would also concur that the likelihood of Starlink (or a Oneweb, or
> >Kuiper) terminal being used successfully to bypass the GFW or similar
> >serious Internet censorship, in an authoritarian environment, is probably
> >low. This is because:
> >
> >a) It has to transmit in known bands.
> >
> >
> >b) It has to be located in a location with a very good, clear view of the
> >sky in all directions (even a single tree obstruction in one section of
> >the sky, relative to where the antenna is mounted will cause packet
> >loss/periodic issues on a starlink beta terminal right now). Visually
> >identifying the terminal would not be hard.
> >
> >
> >c) Portable spectrum analyzers capable of up to 30 GHz are not nearly as
> >expensive as they used to be. They also have much better GUIs and
> >visualization tools than what was available 6-10 years ago.
> >
> >
> >d) You could successfully train local law enforcement to use these sort
> >of portable spectrum analyzers in a one-day, 8-hour training course.
> >
> >
> >e) The equipment would have to be smuggled into the country
> >
> >f) Many people such as in a location like Iran may lack access to a
> >standard payment system for the services (the percentage of Iranians with
> >access to buy things online with visa/mastercard/american express or
> >similar is quite low).
> >
> >
> >
> >There are already plenty of places in the world where if you set up a
> >1.2, 1.8 or 2.4 meter C, Ku or Ka band VSAT terminal using some sort of
> >geostationary based services, without appropriate government "licenses",
> >men with guns will come to dismantle it and arrest you.
> >
> >I am not saying it is an impossible problem to solve, but any system
> >intended for that sort of purpose would have to be designed for
> >circumvention, and not a consumer/COTS adaptation of an off the shelf
> >starlink terminal.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 8:31 PM na...@jima.us 
> >mailto:na...@jima.us> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >   Please don't forget that RF sources can be tracked down by even
> >minimally-well-equipped adversaries.
> >
> >   - Jima
> >
> >   -Original Message-
> >   From: NANOG  > > On Behalf Of scott
> >   Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2021 19:36
> >   To: nanog@nanog.org 
> >   Subject: Re: 10 years from now... (was: internet futures)
> >
> >
> >   On 3/26/2021 9:42 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
> >   > LEO internet providers will be coming online which might make a
> >   > difference in the corners of the world where it's hard to get
> >access,
> >   > but will it allow internet access to parachute in behind the
> Great
> >   > Firewall?
> >   
> >   > How do the Chinas of the world intend to deal with the Great
> >Firewall
> >   > implications?
> >
> >
> >   This is what I hope will change in the next 10 years.  "Turning off
> >the
> >   internet" will be harder and harder for folks suppressing others,
> >many
> >   times violently, and hiding it from everyone else.  A small-ish
> >antenna
> >   easily hidden would be necessary.
> >
> >   scott
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>

Re: 10 years from now... (was: internet futures)

[Mark Tinka]

On 3/29/21 02:23, Eric Kuhnke wrote:



I am not saying it is an impossible problem to solve, but any system 
intended for that sort of purpose would have to be designed for 
circumvention, and not a consumer/COTS adaptation of an off the shelf 
starlink terminal.


Behind the walls of an embassy, perhaps :-).

Mark.

RE: 10 years from now... (was: internet futures)

[Keith Medcalf]

Net to mention, of course, that the Low Orbit constellation would need to be 
"parked" over China (or where-ever you want to access it).  I am quite sure 
that "shooting down" such low orbit stationary vehicles would not be too 
difficult.  And if they are owned by an adversary who has no permission to fly 
those objects in your airspace, I doubt that anything could be done about it.

If I owned a bunch of low orbit satellites costing millions of dollars each, I 
would not want to "park" them in low orbit over a hostile territory.

Then you also have the requirement to maintain positive control over the 
satellites which, unlike those in geostationary orbits, need to be under 
continual thrust and control in order to stay "parked".  I doubt that any 
"private" (ie, non-Government organization) could afford to do so without the 
cooperation of the state over which they are parking.

--
Be decisive.  Make a decision, right or wrong.  The road of life is paved with 
flat squirrels who could not make a decision.

>-Original Message-
>From: NANOG  On Behalf Of
>Eric Kuhnke
>Sent: Sunday, 28 March, 2021 18:24
>To: na...@jima.us
>Cc: nanog@nanog.org
>Subject: Re: 10 years from now... (was: internet futures)
>
>I would also concur that the likelihood of Starlink (or a Oneweb, or
>Kuiper) terminal being used successfully to bypass the GFW or similar
>serious Internet censorship, in an authoritarian environment, is probably
>low. This is because:
>
>a) It has to transmit in known bands.
>
>
>b) It has to be located in a location with a very good, clear view of the
>sky in all directions (even a single tree obstruction in one section of
>the sky, relative to where the antenna is mounted will cause packet
>loss/periodic issues on a starlink beta terminal right now). Visually
>identifying the terminal would not be hard.
>
>
>c) Portable spectrum analyzers capable of up to 30 GHz are not nearly as
>expensive as they used to be. They also have much better GUIs and
>visualization tools than what was available 6-10 years ago.
>
>
>d) You could successfully train local law enforcement to use these sort
>of portable spectrum analyzers in a one-day, 8-hour training course.
>
>
>e) The equipment would have to be smuggled into the country
>
>f) Many people such as in a location like Iran may lack access to a
>standard payment system for the services (the percentage of Iranians with
>access to buy things online with visa/mastercard/american express or
>similar is quite low).
>
>
>
>There are already plenty of places in the world where if you set up a
>1.2, 1.8 or 2.4 meter C, Ku or Ka band VSAT terminal using some sort of
>geostationary based services, without appropriate government "licenses",
>men with guns will come to dismantle it and arrest you.
>
>I am not saying it is an impossible problem to solve, but any system
>intended for that sort of purpose would have to be designed for
>circumvention, and not a consumer/COTS adaptation of an off the shelf
>starlink terminal.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 8:31 PM na...@jima.us 
>mailto:na...@jima.us> > wrote:
>
>
>   Please don't forget that RF sources can be tracked down by even
>minimally-well-equipped adversaries.
>
>   - Jima
>
>   -Original Message-
>   From: NANOG  > On Behalf Of scott
>   Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2021 19:36
>   To: nanog@nanog.org 
>   Subject: Re: 10 years from now... (was: internet futures)
>
>
>   On 3/26/2021 9:42 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
>   > LEO internet providers will be coming online which might make a
>   > difference in the corners of the world where it's hard to get
>access,
>   > but will it allow internet access to parachute in behind the Great
>   > Firewall?
>   
>   > How do the Chinas of the world intend to deal with the Great
>Firewall
>   > implications?
>
>
>   This is what I hope will change in the next 10 years.  "Turning off
>the
>   internet" will be harder and harder for folks suppressing others,
>many
>   times violently, and hiding it from everyone else.  A small-ish
>antenna
>   easily hidden would be necessary.
>
>   scott
>
>
>
>

Re: 10 years from now...

[blakangel]

This is a fascinating discussion.

Also keep in mind that starlink satellites need many earth stations to 
downlink customer packets and provide internet transit. There are over 
50 satellite earth stations in the US already.


Here is a great google map of the current ground stations based on FCC 
license data:

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.6554578,-111.9151229,4.5z/data=!4m2!6m1!1s1H1x8jZs8vfjy60TvKgpbYs_grargieVw

-Keith

Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote on 3/28/2021 6:58 PM:


No need for all that fancy RF tools.
Moreover, detecting >10Ghz transmission is not such an easy task.
The beam is most likely narrow enough to be difficult to detect.

But, (for example) it's enough to visit from foreign IPs some local 
website,

to have cookie set: SATELLITE_USER=xyz
Then when person use local connection and visit same website, this cookie
will send law enforcement hint.
And there are many more automated, software-based ways to detect that a
device has been connected via satellite in past.

Not to mention the fact that any attempt to provide services illegally
is pandora box.
At least it may end up with the fact that the country will start 
jamming uplink

frequencies, which will affect the service in whole region.
And in the worst case, it will give reason to use anti-satellite weapons.


On 2021-03-29 03:23, Eric Kuhnke wrote:

I would also concur that the likelihood of Starlink (or a Oneweb, or
Kuiper) terminal being used successfully to bypass the GFW or similar
serious Internet censorship, in an authoritarian environment, is
probably low. This is because:

a) It has to transmit in known bands.

b) It has to be located in a location with a very good, clear view of
the sky in all directions (even a single tree obstruction in one
section of the sky, relative to where the antenna is mounted will
cause packet loss/periodic issues on a starlink beta terminal right
now). Visually identifying the terminal would not be hard.

c) Portable spectrum analyzers capable of up to 30 GHz are not nearly
as expensive as they used to be. They also have much better GUIs and
visualization tools than what was available 6-10 years ago.

d) You could successfully train local law enforcement to use these
sort of portable spectrum analyzers in a one-day, 8-hour training
course.

e) The equipment would have to be smuggled into the country

f) Many people such as in a location like Iran may lack access to a
standard payment system for the services (the percentage of Iranians
with access to buy things online with visa/mastercard/american express
or similar is quite low).

There are already plenty of places in the world where if you set up a
1.2, 1.8 or 2.4 meter C, Ku or Ka band VSAT terminal using some sort
of geostationary based services, without appropriate government
"licenses", men with guns will come to dismantle it and arrest you.

I am not saying it is an impossible problem to solve, but any system
intended for that sort of purpose would have to be designed for
circumvention, and not a consumer/COTS adaptation of an off the shelf
starlink terminal.

On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 8:31 PM na...@jima.us  wrote:


Please don't forget that RF sources can be tracked down by even
minimally-well-equipped adversaries.

- Jima

-Original Message-
From: NANOG  On Behalf Of
scott
Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2021 19:36
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: 10 years from now... (was: internet futures)

On 3/26/2021 9:42 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:

LEO internet providers will be coming online which might make a
difference in the corners of the world where it's hard to get

access,

but will it allow internet access to parachute in behind the Great



Firewall?



How do the Chinas of the world intend to deal with the Great

Firewall

implications?


This is what I hope will change in the next 10 years.  "Turning off
the
internet" will be harder and harder for folks suppressing others,
many
times violently, and hiding it from everyone else.  A small-ish
antenna
easily hidden would be necessary.

scott

Re: 10 years from now...

[Denys Fedoryshchenko]

No need for all that fancy RF tools.
Moreover, detecting >10Ghz transmission is not such an easy task.
The beam is most likely narrow enough to be difficult to detect.

But, (for example) it's enough to visit from foreign IPs some local 
website,

to have cookie set: SATELLITE_USER=xyz
Then when person use local connection and visit same website, this 
cookie

will send law enforcement hint.
And there are many more automated, software-based ways to detect that a
device has been connected via satellite in past.

Not to mention the fact that any attempt to provide services illegally
is pandora box.
At least it may end up with the fact that the country will start jamming 
uplink

frequencies, which will affect the service in whole region.
And in the worst case, it will give reason to use anti-satellite 
weapons.



On 2021-03-29 03:23, Eric Kuhnke wrote:

I would also concur that the likelihood of Starlink (or a Oneweb, or
Kuiper) terminal being used successfully to bypass the GFW or similar
serious Internet censorship, in an authoritarian environment, is
probably low. This is because:

a) It has to transmit in known bands.

b) It has to be located in a location with a very good, clear view of
the sky in all directions (even a single tree obstruction in one
section of the sky, relative to where the antenna is mounted will
cause packet loss/periodic issues on a starlink beta terminal right
now). Visually identifying the terminal would not be hard.

c) Portable spectrum analyzers capable of up to 30 GHz are not nearly
as expensive as they used to be. They also have much better GUIs and
visualization tools than what was available 6-10 years ago.

d) You could successfully train local law enforcement to use these
sort of portable spectrum analyzers in a one-day, 8-hour training
course.

e) The equipment would have to be smuggled into the country

f) Many people such as in a location like Iran may lack access to a
standard payment system for the services (the percentage of Iranians
with access to buy things online with visa/mastercard/american express
or similar is quite low).

There are already plenty of places in the world where if you set up a
1.2, 1.8 or 2.4 meter C, Ku or Ka band VSAT terminal using some sort
of geostationary based services, without appropriate government
"licenses", men with guns will come to dismantle it and arrest you.

I am not saying it is an impossible problem to solve, but any system
intended for that sort of purpose would have to be designed for
circumvention, and not a consumer/COTS adaptation of an off the shelf
starlink terminal.

On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 8:31 PM na...@jima.us  wrote:


Please don't forget that RF sources can be tracked down by even
minimally-well-equipped adversaries.

- Jima

-Original Message-
From: NANOG  On Behalf Of
scott
Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2021 19:36
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: 10 years from now... (was: internet futures)

On 3/26/2021 9:42 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:

LEO internet providers will be coming online which might make a
difference in the corners of the world where it's hard to get

access,

but will it allow internet access to parachute in behind the Great



Firewall?



How do the Chinas of the world intend to deal with the Great

Firewall

implications?


This is what I hope will change in the next 10 years.  "Turning off
the
internet" will be harder and harder for folks suppressing others,
many
times violently, and hiding it from everyone else.  A small-ish
antenna
easily hidden would be necessary.

scott

Re: 10 years from now... (was: internet futures)

[Eric Kuhnke]

I would also concur that the likelihood of Starlink (or a Oneweb, or
Kuiper) terminal being used successfully to bypass the GFW or similar
serious Internet censorship, in an authoritarian environment, is probably
low. This is because:

a) It has to transmit in known bands.

b) It has to be located in a location with a very good, clear view of the
sky in all directions (even a single tree obstruction in one section of the
sky, relative to where the antenna is mounted will cause packet
loss/periodic issues on a starlink beta terminal right now). Visually
identifying the terminal would not be hard.

c) Portable spectrum analyzers capable of up to 30 GHz are not nearly as
expensive as they used to be. They also have much better GUIs and
visualization tools than what was available 6-10 years ago.

d) You could successfully train local law enforcement to use these sort of
portable spectrum analyzers in a one-day, 8-hour training course.

e) The equipment would have to be smuggled into the country

f) Many people such as in a location like Iran may lack access to a
standard payment system for the services (the percentage of Iranians with
access to buy things online with visa/mastercard/american express or
similar is quite low).


There are already plenty of places in the world where if you set up a 1.2,
1.8 or 2.4 meter C, Ku or Ka band VSAT terminal using some sort of
geostationary based services, without appropriate government "licenses",
men with guns will come to dismantle it and arrest you.

I am not saying it is an impossible problem to solve, but any system
intended for that sort of purpose would have to be designed for
circumvention, and not a consumer/COTS adaptation of an off the shelf
starlink terminal.









On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 8:31 PM na...@jima.us  wrote:

> Please don't forget that RF sources can be tracked down by even
> minimally-well-equipped adversaries.
>
> - Jima
>
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG  On Behalf Of scott
> Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2021 19:36
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: 10 years from now... (was: internet futures)
>
>
> On 3/26/2021 9:42 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
> > LEO internet providers will be coming online which might make a
> > difference in the corners of the world where it's hard to get access,
> > but will it allow internet access to parachute in behind the Great
> > Firewall?
> 
> > How do the Chinas of the world intend to deal with the Great Firewall
> > implications?
>
>
> This is what I hope will change in the next 10 years.  "Turning off the
> internet" will be harder and harder for folks suppressing others, many
> times violently, and hiding it from everyone else.  A small-ish antenna
> easily hidden would be necessary.
>
> scott
>
>
>
>