[Starlink] The DoD "Transport Layer"

[Bruce Perens]

On the other hand, people have been lecturing me about cognitive radio
since 1980, and it still doesn't work. FCC is pretty good about handing out
special testing authority if you want to _actually_demonstrate_something_.
Rather than theorize. It gets you a _lot_ farther when you ask for spectrum
and rule changes.

    Thanks

    Bruce

On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 9:14 PM David P. Reed via Starlink <
starlink at lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:

> Hi Dave -
>
>
>
> Well, you may not be happy with my response, but I think my views below
> are likely to play out in some form that is pretty predictable. I think it
> will be a bad result in Space. (The idea of Space being "free" is very
> unlikely to occur, just as unlikely as the current Internet was to happen
> in 1975.)
>
>
>
> > Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2022 12:31:35 -0700
> > From: Dave Taht <dave.taht at gmail.com>
> > To: "David P. Reed" <dpreed at deepplum.com>
> > Cc: starlink at lists.bufferbloat.net
> > Subject: Re: [Starlink] The DoD "Transport Layer"
> > Message-ID:
> > <CAA93jw4bZBDf3jJ-dboBbf9PS2TsYYJhW+myWHNUdOt7CJqWTw at mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> >
> > Dear David:
> >
> > Would it cheer you up any to learn, that 15+ years after the debate
> > over UWB ended, that it's finally seeing FAR more
> > major uptake and reasonable standardization, and actual working chips?
> >
>
> [DPR} not that much cheered up, actually. While that disaster around UWB
> got me interested in how the politics worked, that isn't what depressed me.
> I won't be cheered up until the FCC stops treating the spectrum like
> property and started basing its decisions on achieving fully scalable
> wireless networking. UWB doesn't address that issue. It's unscalable for
> the same reasons - the misunderstanding of information theory and physics
> of propagation that remains endemic in the whole framework of spectrum
> "property rights".
>
>
> > It did me. I was pretty scarred by that mess also, and what was it?
> > the 272 notches the FCC demanded be cut out of it, which swamped
> > circuit design capabilities at the time... but not as bad as you.
> >
> > I didn't know until recently that it had hit iphones in 2019. and was
> > part of the airtags, nor that the baseline latency on the things was
> > 50us, with admittedly only a 1000 bit payload - Still crippled as to
> > distance, and total bandwidth to under 10mbits, but, power usage is
> > *amazing*.
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-wideband
> >
> > The SPARK chips in particular have a nice looking devkit.
> >
> > Anyway... just as the swamp of ipx and non-interoperable email systems
> > finally died...
> >
> > You can't in the end, keep a good idea down. Maybe on average it takes
> > 25 years to settle on saner things.
>
>
>
> It's taken over 50, and counting, for the FCC to acknowledge that
> co-channel signalling actually works, because in digital systems we have
> channel coding since Shannon first wrote about information theory. And that
> is only the beginning of what is wrong with the "property" model, which
> assumes all wireless signals require a perfectly clear channel.
>
>
>
> The FCC still doesn't acknowledge that Cooperative signalling protocols
> can create huge capacity gains, or that it's possible that multiple
> co-channel signals can actually create channel capacity that grows with the
> number of antennas (as long as modest cooperation is ensured).
>
>
>
> The FCC still doesn't acknowledge that the Internet is a unifying
> "service" that obviates almost all of the concepts of "allocating spectrum"
> to "services". (they still treat Broadcast services separately from
> telephony, and telephony separately from Land Mobile, etc.) So, for
> example, Emergency Communications is regulated as if the Internet cannot be
> utilized, as just one example. In other words, to a thoughtful
> communications engineer, the FCC is a joke.
>
>
>
> Mostly this is due to two factors. 1. Property rights creates opportunity
> for scarcity based monopoly to be granted by the government to its friends.
> 2. The folks who have demonstrated these technologies (using information
> theory and propagation physics and internetworking of wireless nets) are
> paid entirely by the would be monopolists (what used to be called "The
> Phone Company", the evil conspiracy of The President's Analyst, which you
> might have seen). The FCC is a captured regulator. And its role, sanctified
> by Congress is to create siloed monopolies. Not for the public good, but
> for the control of communications and enrichment of the controllers.
>
>
> >
> > ... We have centuries to sort the solar system's internet out, and the
> more
> > we can do to convince the next generation as to the right principles
> > to apply to it, the better.
>
>
>
> I don't think the World Radio Conference (which manages all RF services in
> the world, including the US), even has thought about Space, but to be
> honest, what they want is to control all Space communications on behalf of
> all governments, most of which derive substantial revenue by blocking
> innovative new ideas.
>
>
>
> I am sad that is true, but it is almost certainly gonna happen. The DoD
> will play the same role it did with radio in the beginning of the 20th
> century, buying up all the patents, blocking any new entrants, and
> eventually creating RCA, a monopoly on all radio technology. That will
> almost certainly happen to the Solar System's communications (and property
> rights on messages from the earth to asteroids will be *owned* by some
> company, backed by the coercive power of the governments colonizing space).'
>
>
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Subject: Digest Footer
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Starlink mailing list
> > Starlink at lists.bufferbloat.net
> > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > End of Starlink Digest, Vol 19, Issue 7
> > ***************************************
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink at lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>


-- 
Bruce Perens K6BP
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/starlink/attachments/20221015/99b0cdab/attachment-0001.html>