-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Mobile Starlink Discussion
- Thread starter Buckminster
- Start date
Quite a while since I was in the field but wouldn't a proxy server with a web cache provide similar functionality whilst avoiding the 'too many CDNs' problem?
In context Youtube (and other ‘diy’ streaming sites) is actually way worse than movies/shows. It’s the ~same high data load, but the scope of content is so wide there’s not a lot of usefulness in storing popular titles.
Unless Baby Shark is your jam.
Given the initial tweet was public, it seems entirely reasonable the ensuing discussion pointing out the inaccuracies contained therein was in the context of how it might lead the public to wrong conclusions. Given that this, as you say, is an "extremely tech forward forum" one must assume that when you also pointed out that:
it appears you were also addressing the public at large, as we here are indeed reasonably aware of what a single Starlink terminal would be capable of.
I likewise interpreted @JB47394 's comments in the context of the average public person, as I suspect many would find a reasonable conclusion.
Seems excessive. I don't think pointing out that the average Joe doesn't really get how sat IP service works when you suggested this was a "duh, look at reality" situation that could have been interpreted as expecting them to recognize what the service offering must be... is "non-constructive" point...
TLS/HTTPS everywhere basically makes a caching proxy almost useless for modern content.
I have used them for decades, but unless you are willing to MiTM the traffic, and even then you really should not be caching it, it becomes very very little bandwidth savings.
-Harry
Not sure I understand... carriers?
"GPS" is owned by t e US gov't, although that name has become generic enough that I suspect it refers to any of the positioning sat systems the other few nation-states operate.
I suspect they aren't happy about it, but the spoofing is interfering with receivers owned by the folks involved with the conflict.. not the sats themselves.
Not sure what Starlink integration would do here...
GNSS (GPS is the American instance--the Russians, Europeans, and Chinese also have versions) is basically a broadcast from the satellites; the Israelis (presumably the IDF?) are interfering with that broadcast rather than the satellites themselves. I don’t know Israeli law so I can’t say if its above board for warfighters to **** with otherwise authorized communications, but one could imagine there could be some complaints from the GNSS operators to the ITU (that grants license to use the various GNSS frequencies around the world) and potentially even from global RF operators at large. Seems to me this could easily set a pretty shitty precedent for people stomping on other people's spectrum.
The carriers are users of the GNSS signals. So...they could complain, but they'd be a once removed complaint. If the IDF/whoever is messing with carrier frequencies also in an effort to shut down non-GPS based location services then the carriers could certainly be justified jumping to the front of the customer service line to file a complaint...though its hard to imagine getting much traction there as the line would most likely start at the door to Israeli ministry of communications who likely has bought off on this jamming.
No help from starlink here--in fact, there's potential for Starlink service degradation (or worse) in a GPS-less war theater. Because of the way starlink communicates (through many very narrow beams that only cover a ~town vs fewer wide beams that could cover state-sized areas or more), GPS is pretty integral for the ground antenna to know exactly where it should point to find a satellite and for a satellite to know exactly where to point to find that ground antenna. Two way comms are still possible without GPS for sure (especially after initial location finding) but not ideal. Any mobile starlink based services (mobile starlink, D2D, whenever that becomes available) would be even more difficult.
It's hard to imagine this kind of jamming being above board in the US--there are so many things that use GNSS that jamming would really grind the country to a halt. There are also so many layers of protection from external aggressors that the lack of GNSS probably wouldn't really move the safety needle, and any we-done-infiltrated-y'all-already aggressors likely wouldn't have an attack strategy built around using GPS anyway.
The US regularly tests GPS jamming and spoofing in southwest (affecting CA, NV and AZ).
Maybe that’s why I often get an FSD warning saying my GPS accuracy may be degraded here in San Diego. We are close to several military bases.The US regularly tests GPS jamming and spoofing in southwest (affecting CA, NV and AZ).
Sort of. You can already use the current Starlink signal for a crude GPS, see this article: Starlink signals can be reverse-engineered to work like GPS—whether SpaceX likes it or not
Error is pretty large at 30 meters, and it relies on reverse-engineered knowledge about Starlink signal, so not officially supported by SpaceX and not something you can get into a product. As the article says, Elon is hyper focused on getting the broadband business profitable first, so side projects like augmenting or even replacing GPS is on backburner.
But I think eventually they'll go there, it's just a natural application of LEO constellation, albeit one that is hard to monetize. In fact they modified the Starlink trademark application to add global positioning and geo-location as one of its services, so they do have this ambition.
Think Starlink less as a broadband satellite constellation, more of a generic LEO platform that can (eventually) do everything.
Similar threads
