Re: [Cerowrt-devel] spacebee

[Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 9:25 AM, dpreed@deepplum.com
<dpreed@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