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 <da...@lang.hm
<mailto:da...@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>
_______________________________________________
Starlink mailing list
Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
