Iran
- shpalman
- Princess POW
- Posts: 8341
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
- Location: One step beyond
- Contact:
Iran
... is going to sh.t but nobody really knows because internet has been cut off.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-50474405
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-50474405
having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk
Re: Iran
I wonder how this sort of thing will go down in years to come if Elon Musk gets Starlink running.shpalman wrote: ↑Tue Nov 19, 2019 6:14 pm... is going to sh.t but nobody really knows because internet has been cut off.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-50474405
where once I used to scintillate
now I sin till ten past three
now I sin till ten past three
Re: Iran
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
How will devices communicate with Starlink? Presumably there will have to be something to transmit powerfully enough to get a signal to the constellation.dyqik wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:23 amHow 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.
Countries may not be able to shut off the internet, but they may make the means of communicating with Starlink illegal or inaccessible.
My avatar was a scientific result that was later found to be 'mistaken' - I rarely claim to be 100% correct
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!
- Matatouille
- Fuzzable
- Posts: 320
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 5:26 pm
- Location: UK
Re: Iran
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
My understanding was that the all was to have very small direct access connections, either home wifi router scale or phone scale.Matatouille wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 12:36 pmI 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.
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
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 ...
My avatar was a scientific result that was later found to be 'mistaken' - I rarely claim to be 100% correct
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!
Re: Iran
and if they can see the sky, then the sky, or something in it, can track their transmissions.Gfamily wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 12:50 pmthe 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 ...
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
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.tom p wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 1:18 pmand if they can see the sky, then the sky, or something in it, can track their transmissions.Gfamily wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 12:50 pmthe 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 ...
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.
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
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.
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
Interesting. Thanks for the explanation.dyqik wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 1:30 pmNot 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.tom p wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 1:18 pmand 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.
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
I suppose payment via paypal or from a forrin account would be supported. Maybe also in bitcoin.bolo wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 1:59 pmYes, 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.
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
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.tom p wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 2:05 pmI suppose payment via paypal or from a forrin account would be supported. Maybe also in bitcoin.bolo wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 1:59 pmYes, 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.
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.
Claims they 'don't know' would be hard to say with a straight face. Though Elon....
My avatar was a scientific result that was later found to be 'mistaken' - I rarely claim to be 100% correct
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!
Re: Iran
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.Gfamily wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 2:15 pmI 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.tom p wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 2:05 pmI suppose payment via paypal or from a forrin account would be supported. Maybe also in bitcoin.bolo wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 1:59 pmYes, 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.
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.
Claims they 'don't know' would be hard to say with a straight face. Though Elon....
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
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.
The half-truths, repeated, authenticated themselves.
- basementer
- Dorkwood
- Posts: 1504
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:03 pm
- Location: 8024, Aotearoa
- Contact:
Re: Iran
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.Gfamily wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 2:15 pmI 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.tom p wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 2:05 pmI 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.
Claims they 'don't know' would be hard to say with a straight face. Though Elon....
Money is just a substitute for luck anyway. - Tom Siddell
Re: Iran
And this of course is the reason* why Iran is going to sh.t.username wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 4:50 pmThe 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.
*to the extent that anything is the reason for anything.
Re: Iran
good pointusername wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 4:50 pmThe 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.
- Bird on a Fire
- Princess POW
- Posts: 10142
- Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
- Location: Portugal
Re: Iran
Yep. And out of the chaos will arise a well-organised group who take power and are unprecedentedly friendly to USian oil corporations.Sciolus wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 10:34 pmAnd this of course is the reason* why Iran is going to sh.t.username wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 4:50 pmThe 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.
*to the extent that anything is the reason for anything.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.
Re: Iran
There is plenty of precedent for an Iranian ruler being friendly to US oil corporations.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2019 4:45 pmYep. And out of the chaos will arise a well-organised group who take power and are unprecedentedly friendly to USian oil corporations.Sciolus wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 10:34 pmAnd this of course is the reason* why Iran is going to sh.t.username wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 4:50 pmThe 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.
*to the extent that anything is the reason for anything.
- Bird on a Fire
- Princess POW
- Posts: 10142
- Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
- Location: Portugal
Re: Iran
Ok fine, I'll revise my statement to 'unprecedentedly (since the previous coup)' - how's that?
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.
Re: Iran
or just change "precedented" to "surprising". That's more realistic for both Iran and everywhere else the yanks have interferedBird on a Fire wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2019 6:57 pmOk fine, I'll revise my statement to 'unprecedentedly (since the previous coup)' - how's that?