Page 1 of 2
Iran
Posted: Tue Nov 19, 2019 6:14 pm
by shpalman
... is going to sh.t but nobody really knows because internet has been cut off.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-50474405
Re: Iran
Posted: Tue Nov 19, 2019 11:12 pm
by Grumble
I wonder how this sort of thing will go down in years to come if Elon Musk gets
Starlink running.
Re: Iran
Posted: Wed Nov 20, 2019 4:42 am
by bolo
I doubt that Starlink will be permitted to offer internet service in countries that want the ability to shut off the internet.
Re: Iran
Posted: Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:23 am
by dyqik
bolo wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 4:42 am
I doubt that Starlink will be permitted to offer internet service in countries that want the ability to shut off the internet.
How exactly are those countries going to prevent it?
Admittedly, you'd need a credit card or other payment method outside of that country's control to continue to use it during long term bans, but I don't think any country but North Korea and similar can forbid overseas credit cards ahead of time.
Re: Iran
Posted: Wed Nov 20, 2019 12:14 pm
by Gfamily
dyqik wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:23 am
bolo wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 4:42 am
I doubt that Starlink will be permitted to offer internet service in countries that want the ability to shut off the internet.
How exactly are those countries going to prevent it?
Admittedly, you'd need a credit card or other payment method outside of that country's control to continue to use it during long term bans, but I don't think any country but North Korea and similar can forbid overseas credit cards ahead of time.
How will devices communicate with Starlink? Presumably there will have to be something to transmit powerfully enough to get a signal to the constellation.
Countries may not be able to shut off the internet, but they may make the means of communicating with Starlink illegal or inaccessible.
Re: Iran
Posted: Wed Nov 20, 2019 12:36 pm
by Matatouille
I think I recall that the system design does require some form of base stations either big ones to serve an area, or small ones to serve a dwelling/device. Could be very wrong and not able to check this up right now. If in a few years, recievers are so develloped as to be shipped in a standard phone, I could imagine human rights organisations using them to broadcast uncensored internet connections into a "closed" area.
Re: Iran
Posted: Wed Nov 20, 2019 12:46 pm
by dyqik
Matatouille wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 12:36 pm
I think I recall that the system design does require some form of base stations either big ones to serve an area, or small ones to serve a dwelling/device. Could be very wrong and not able to check this up right now. If in a few years, recievers are so develloped as to be shipped in a standard phone, I could imagine human rights organisations using them to broadcast uncensored internet connections into a "closed" area.
My understanding was that the all was to have very small direct access connections, either home wifi router scale or phone scale.
But I'll admit I haven't looked into it much.
Even 15 year old satphone systems could handle Twitter text on something man portable with batteries and solar panels.
Re: Iran
Posted: Wed Nov 20, 2019 12:50 pm
by Gfamily
the wikipedia author wrote:it will be linked to flat user terminals the size of a pizza box, which will have phased array antennas and track the satellites. The terminals can be mounted anywhere, as long as they can see the sky
[1]
But that's from a 2015 interview with Elon Musk, so ...
Re: Iran
Posted: Wed Nov 20, 2019 1:18 pm
by tom p
Gfamily wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 12:50 pm
the wikipedia author wrote:it will be linked to flat user terminals the size of a pizza box, which will have phased array antennas and track the satellites. The terminals can be mounted anywhere, as long as they can see the sky
[1]
But that's from a 2015 interview with Elon Musk, so ...
and if they can see the sky, then the sky, or something in it, can track their transmissions.
Several drones mounted with receivers could surely pinpoint where a signal is coming from pretty accurately through triangulation.
Narrow it down to a specific block of flats and then you just have to photograph the windows to narrow it down then send in the police to the suspected flats.
Re: Iran
Posted: Wed Nov 20, 2019 1:30 pm
by dyqik
tom p wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 1:18 pm
Gfamily wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 12:50 pm
the wikipedia author wrote:it will be linked to flat user terminals the size of a pizza box, which will have phased array antennas and track the satellites. The terminals can be mounted anywhere, as long as they can see the sky
[1]
But that's from a 2015 interview with Elon Musk, so ...
and if they can see the sky, then the sky, or something in it, can track their transmissions.
Several drones mounted with receivers could surely pinpoint where a signal is coming from pretty accurately through triangulation.
Narrow it down to a specific block of flats and then you just have to photograph the windows to narrow it down then send in the police to the suspected flats.
Not that easily, tbh. These are fairly low level and directional signals, sending signals that are largely indistinguishable from noise (all compressed signals are noise like if you don't know the decompression/encryption key). There's probably a carrier or handshake signal as well, but those may well be intermittent.
And unless you make all systems that can transmit noise like signals illegal, you may not be able to easily distinguish Starlink signals from other less problematic signals. I think the Ka band of Starlink isn't that heavily used right now, but there's at least some 5g technology that's covering there as well, plus radars and other things.
Re: Iran
Posted: Wed Nov 20, 2019 1:59 pm
by bolo
Yes, a transceiver is required. I suspect the details are proprietary so not something an average person could throw together in their basement. Presumably owning or importing a transceiver for a prohibited service would also be prohibited.
Like any other ISP, SpaceX will want to be paid for providing service. It's difficult to collect payment for a prohibited service.
Providing a prohibited telecommunications service in another country would probably violate international telecomms treaty agreements. As such, it would probably violate Starlink's operating license from the U.S. FCC.
If the United States decided for policy reasons to blow off the treaty issue, that would annoy a lot of other countries because of the precedent it would set, even if those countries would otherwise strongly support free internet access in Iran.
Re: Iran
Posted: Wed Nov 20, 2019 2:03 pm
by tom p
dyqik wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 1:30 pm
tom p wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 1:18 pm
Gfamily wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 12:50 pm
But that's from a 2015 interview with Elon Musk, so ...
and if they can see the sky, then the sky, or something in it, can track their transmissions.
Several drones mounted with receivers could surely pinpoint where a signal is coming from pretty accurately through triangulation.
Narrow it down to a specific block of flats and then you just have to photograph the windows to narrow it down then send in the police to the suspected flats.
Not that easily, tbh. These are fairly low level and directional signals, sending signals that are largely indistinguishable from noise (all compressed signals are noise like if you don't know the decompression/encryption key). There's probably a carrier or handshake signal as well, but those may well be intermittent.
And unless you make all systems that can transmit noise like signals illegal, you may not be able to easily distinguish Starlink signals from other less problematic signals. I think the Ka band of Starlink isn't that heavily used right now, but there's at least some 5g technology that's covering there as well, plus radars and other things.
Interesting. Thanks for the explanation.
Re: Iran
Posted: Wed Nov 20, 2019 2:05 pm
by tom p
bolo wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 1:59 pm
Yes, a transceiver is required. I suspect the details are proprietary so not something an average person could throw together in their basement. Presumably owning or importing a transceiver for a prohibited service would also be prohibited.
Like any other ISP, SpaceX will want to be paid for providing service. It's difficult to collect payment for a prohibited service.
Providing a prohibited telecommunications service in another country would probably violate international telecomms treaty agreements. As such, it would probably violate Starlink's operating license from the U.S. FCC.
If the United States decided for policy reasons to blow off the treaty issue, that would annoy a lot of other countries because of the precedent it would set, even if those countries would otherwise strongly support free internet access in Iran.
I suppose payment via paypal or from a forrin account would be supported. Maybe also in bitcoin.
So SpaceX could take in the money and just say they don't know where the data is coming from or that hey don't technologically support providing the service in Iran, but they can't block it or something like that.
Re: Iran
Posted: Wed Nov 20, 2019 2:15 pm
by Gfamily
tom p wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 2:05 pm
bolo wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 1:59 pm
Yes, a transceiver is required. I suspect the details are proprietary so not something an average person could throw together in their basement. Presumably owning or importing a transceiver for a prohibited service would also be prohibited.
Like any other ISP, SpaceX will want to be paid for providing service. It's difficult to collect payment for a prohibited service.
Providing a prohibited telecommunications service in another country would probably violate international telecomms treaty agreements. As such, it would probably violate Starlink's operating license from the U.S. FCC.
If the United States decided for policy reasons to blow off the treaty issue, that would annoy a lot of other countries because of the precedent it would set, even if those countries would otherwise strongly support free internet access in Iran.
I suppose payment via paypal or from a forrin account would be supported. Maybe also in bitcoin.
So SpaceX could take in the money and just say they don't know where the data is coming from or that hey don't technologically support providing the service in Iran, but they can't block it or something like that.
I would have thought that the constellation would need to identify the (approximate) surface location for the IP requests, which it would use to send the responses, as it could not guarantee that the same satellite would handle both - particularly for streaming data.
Claims they 'don't know' would be hard to say with a straight face. Though Elon....
Re: Iran
Posted: Wed Nov 20, 2019 4:29 pm
by tom p
Gfamily wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 2:15 pm
tom p wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 2:05 pm
bolo wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 1:59 pm
Yes, a transceiver is required. I suspect the details are proprietary so not something an average person could throw together in their basement. Presumably owning or importing a transceiver for a prohibited service would also be prohibited.
Like any other ISP, SpaceX will want to be paid for providing service. It's difficult to collect payment for a prohibited service.
Providing a prohibited telecommunications service in another country would probably violate international telecomms treaty agreements. As such, it would probably violate Starlink's operating license from the U.S. FCC.
If the United States decided for policy reasons to blow off the treaty issue, that would annoy a lot of other countries because of the precedent it would set, even if those countries would otherwise strongly support free internet access in Iran.
I suppose payment via paypal or from a forrin account would be supported. Maybe also in bitcoin.
So SpaceX could take in the money and just say they don't know where the data is coming from or that hey don't technologically support providing the service in Iran, but they can't block it or something like that.
I would have thought that the constellation would need to identify the (approximate) surface location for the IP requests, which it would use to send the responses, as it could not guarantee that the same satellite would handle both - particularly for streaming data.
Claims they 'don't know' would be hard to say with a straight face. Though Elon....
well, yeah, of course they would need to do it, but companies have been known to be economical with the truth when they want to keep on making money.
maybe then claim that at the speed of the satellites moving overhead they couldn't prevent it.
Of course, I guess someone could amend such a dish to broadast horizontally. Tehran is 260km from the Turkmenistan border. The spaceX satellites are >300km in the sky. So go sideways instead of up to a friend's device & then up from there.
Re: Iran
Posted: Wed Nov 20, 2019 4:50 pm
by username
The current trading embargo on Iran would probably make it illegal in the US for any US company to market services there at present, even with a bit of fudge, so legality at the Iranian end is academic even with an available Starlink or Oneweb type network. I doubt that'd be changing in the foreseeable future at least.
Re: Iran
Posted: Wed Nov 20, 2019 5:53 pm
by bolo
Like I said, also probably illegal in the US under Starlink's license from the FCC, per its adherence to the ITU. Not that I have actually looked this up, though.
Re: Iran
Posted: Wed Nov 20, 2019 6:28 pm
by basementer
Gfamily wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 2:15 pm
tom p wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 2:05 pm
I suppose payment via paypal or from a forrin account would be supported. Maybe also in bitcoin.
So SpaceX could take in the money and just say they don't know where the data is coming from or that hey don't technologically support providing the service in Iran, but they can't block it or something like that.
I would have thought that the constellation would need to identify the (approximate) surface location for the IP requests, which it would use to send the responses, as it could not guarantee that the same satellite would handle both - particularly for streaming data.
Claims they 'don't know' would be hard to say with a straight face. Though Elon....
From links you've posted elsewhere, the satellites are intended to orbit at 550km which means the orbital period is about 95min. I reckon the client on the ground will need to hand the session on to a new satellite about every five minutes. They probably have something akin to the mobile phone reception data that I was interpreting for Motorola twenty years ago: your handset wasn't reporting its location, it was reporting signal quality for all the nearby masts, not just the one you were currently using, every 480ms. The network used that to decide which one to switch to if you were moving out of range.
Re: Iran
Posted: Wed Nov 20, 2019 10:34 pm
by Sciolus
username wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 4:50 pm
The current trading embargo on Iran would probably make it
illegal in the US for any US company to market services there at present, even with a bit of fudge, so legality at the Iranian end is academic even with an available Starlink or Oneweb type network. I doubt that'd be changing in the
foreseeable future at least.
And this of course is the reason* why Iran is going to sh.t.
*to the extent that anything is
the reason for anything.
Re: Iran
Posted: Thu Nov 21, 2019 8:59 am
by tom p
username wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 4:50 pm
The current trading embargo on Iran would probably make it
illegal in the US for any US company to market services there at present, even with a bit of fudge, so legality at the Iranian end is academic even with an available Starlink or Oneweb type network. I doubt that'd be changing in the
foreseeable future at least.
good point
Re: Iran
Posted: Thu Nov 21, 2019 4:45 pm
by Bird on a Fire
Sciolus wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 10:34 pm
username wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 4:50 pm
The current trading embargo on Iran would probably make it
illegal in the US for any US company to market services there at present, even with a bit of fudge, so legality at the Iranian end is academic even with an available Starlink or Oneweb type network. I doubt that'd be changing in the
foreseeable future at least.
And this of course is the reason* why Iran is going to sh.t.
*to the extent that anything is
the reason for anything.
Yep. And out of the chaos will arise a well-organised group who take power and are unprecedentedly friendly to USian oil corporations.
Re: Iran
Posted: Thu Nov 21, 2019 5:25 pm
by tom p
Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2019 4:45 pm
Sciolus wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 10:34 pm
username wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 4:50 pm
The current trading embargo on Iran would probably make it
illegal in the US for any US company to market services there at present, even with a bit of fudge, so legality at the Iranian end is academic even with an available Starlink or Oneweb type network. I doubt that'd be changing in the
foreseeable future at least.
And this of course is the reason* why Iran is going to sh.t.
*to the extent that anything is
the reason for anything.
Yep. And out of the chaos will arise a well-organised group who take power and are unprecedentedly friendly to USian oil corporations.
There is plenty of precedent for an Iranian ruler being friendly to US oil corporations.
Re: Iran
Posted: Thu Nov 21, 2019 6:53 pm
by username
Yeah, it's pretty much how the UK and US orchestrated it back in the 50s
Re: Iran
Posted: Thu Nov 21, 2019 6:57 pm
by Bird on a Fire
Ok fine, I'll revise my statement to 'unprecedentedly (since the previous coup)' - how's that?
Re: Iran
Posted: Fri Nov 22, 2019 10:16 am
by tom p
Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2019 6:57 pm
Ok fine, I'll revise my statement to 'unprecedentedly (since the previous coup)' - how's that?
or just change "precedented" to "surprising". That's more realistic for both Iran and everywhere else the yanks have interfered