Re: [Starlink] Main hurdles against the Integration of Satellites and Terrestial Networks

[Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>]

Le 01/09/2023 à 18:27, Inemesit Affia a écrit :
> For the US military, starlink has already allowed two
> antenna/terminal manufacturers to connect to the network.
> 
> Ball aerospace for aircraft.
> 
> DUJUD(hope I got that right) for regular user terminals.

Thanks, I did not know that.

It is not clear from the announcements I read whether Ball aerospace and
DUJUD are simply antennas (albeit complex) plugged into starlink boxes
with a 50 ohm RF cable, or are they more computing than that.

I must say that I dont know whether the original 'DISHY' is simply a
dish antenna with an analog amplifier and maybe some mechanical motor
steering, or whether DISHY includes a computer to execute some protocol,
some algorithm.

If DUJUD and Ball aerospace make more than just the antennas, maybe
program some computers, then indeed there can be a sharing of protocol
documents from SpaceX (starlink) to DUJUD and Ball aerospace.  At that
point we'd be talking maybe of licensing.  These might be the premisses
of a need of interoperability.

Alex

> 
> Any antenna that connects with OneWeb should theoretically work apart
>  from the DRM
> 
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 8:36 PM David Lang <david@lang.hm 
> <mailto:david@lang.hm>> wrote:
> 
> Exactly my thoughts (I haven't downloaded and read the full report 
> yet). What are they looking to do with this 'integration'? I can
> integrate my starlink just like any other ISP.
> 
> or are they looking at the 'cell phones to orbit' functionality thats
> due to roll out very suddently
> 
> or are they looking for "intergration" as another way to say "force 
> SpaceX to open the specs for Starlink and allow other user terminals
> to interact with the Starlink satellites?
> 
> The cynic in me says it's the latter.
> 
> long term it may make sense to do this to some degree, but we are WAY
> too early to define "Interoperability Standards" and block people
> from coming up with better ways to do things.
> 
> the Apple vs SpaceX cellphone-to-satellite have completely different 
> ways of operating, and who wants to tell all the Apple people that
> their way isn't going to be the standard (or worse, that it is and
> they have to give everyone else the ability to use their currently
> proprietary protocol)
> 
> David Lang
> 
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2023, Inemesit Affia via Starlink wrote:
> 
>> With the existence of solutions like OpenMTCProuter, SDWAN,
> policy based
>> routing or any solution in general that allows combination in a
> sense of
>> any number of IP links, I really don't see a point for specific
> solutions.
>> Can anyone enlighten me?
>> 
>> For home users an issue may be IP blocks for certain services
> like Netflix
>> when the egress is out of a VPN or cloud provider richer than a
> residential
>> provider
>> 
>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023, 2:57 PM Alexandre Petrescu via Starlink < 
>> starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> <mailto:starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Le 30/08/2023 à 14:10, Hesham ElBakoury via Starlink a écrit :
>>>> Here is a report which summarizes the outcome of the last
> Satellites
>>>> conference [
>>> 
> https://www.microwavejournal.com/articles/39841-satellite-2023-summary-linking-up
> <https://www.microwavejournal.com/articles/39841-satellite-2023-summary-linking-up>
>
> 
>> ]
>>>> 
>>>> The report highlights the two main hurdles against the
> integration of
>>>> satellites and terrestrial networks: standardization and
> business model.
>>>> 
>>>> "/Most of the pushback against closer integration of
>>>> terrestrial wireless and satellite networks revolved around
> standardization. This
>>>> may just be growing pains and it likely reflects the relative 
>>>> positions of wireless and satellite along the maturity curve,
> but some
>>>> of the speakers were arguing against standardization. The basis
>>>> of this argument was that the mobile industry only understands
> standards,
>>>> but the satellite industry is currently differentiating based
>>>> on custom systems and capabilities. The feeling was that the
>>>> satellite industry had focused on technology and not
>>>> regulations or standards and changing that course would not be
>>>> helpful to the industry
> in the
>>>> short term. Timing is important in this analysis because
>>>> almost everyone agreed that at some point, standardization
>>>> would be a good thing, but the concern was the best way to get
>>>> to the point in the future. The other interesting argument
>>>> against closer integration between wireless and satellite had
>>>> to do with the business model. Several speakers questioned
>>>> where the customers would go as terrestrial and non-terrestrial
>>>> networks become more
> integrated. The
>>>> underlying issues seemed to include who is responsible for
>>>> solving network issues and perhaps more importantly, who
>>>> recognizes the revenue. These issues seem, perhaps a bit
>>>> simplistically, to be similar to early wireless roaming issues.
>>>> While these issues
> created
>>>> turbulence in the wireless market, they were solved and that
>>>> is probably a template to address these challenges for the
> wireless and
>>>> satellite operators."/ / / Comments?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> It is an interesting report.
>>> 
>>> For standardisation standpoint, it seems SDOs do push towards 
>>> integration of 5G/6G and satcom; there are strong initiatives at
> least
>>> at 3GPP (NTN WI proposals) and IETF (TVR WG) in that direction.
>>> But these are SDOs traditionally oriented to land communications,
>>> rather than space satcom.
>>> 
>>> I wonder whether space satcom traditional SDOs (which ones?)
>>> have initiated work towards integration with 5G/6G and other
>>> land-based Internet?
>>> 
>>> Alex
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Hesham
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________ Starlink
>>>> mailing list Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> <mailto:Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
> <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink>
>>> _______________________________________________ Starlink mailing
>>> list Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> <mailto:Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
> <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink>
>>> 
>> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> <mailto:Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> 
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink 
> <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink>
>