[HN Gopher] Apple and Globalstar Rumored to Announce Satellite C...
___________________________________________________________________
Apple and Globalstar Rumored to Announce Satellite Connectivity for
iPhone 14
Author : bookofjoe
Score : 122 points
Date : 2022-08-27 13:35 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.macrumors.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.macrumors.com)
| jsjohnst wrote:
| As someone who owns most of the common satellite phones and data
| devices available today and sees the antennas on each, I'm sorry,
| still calling bullshit on this, just like every previous year
| this rumor came out.
| CharlesW wrote:
| > _...I'm sorry, still calling bullshit on this, just like
| every previous year this rumor came out._
|
| To me, the bizarrely premature T-Mobile/SpaceX pre-announcement
| ("beta in select areas by the end of 2023") makes a lot more
| sense if they felt they needed to beat Apple's announcement.
|
| But I'm still mystified by this for two reasons:
|
| (1) Apple doesn't/can't do niche. So either all customers will
| get this benefit for free, _or_ it 'll be another checklist
| feature of iCloud+ and/or Apple One.
|
| (2) Presumably, there are non-trivial, hardware-related costs
| to doing this. I find it hard to believe that Apple's going to
| enable this esoteric capability on every device.
|
| What am I missing?
| jacques-noris wrote:
| I can very well imagine that Apple will offer this service
| only for the Pro models for the time being. Apple has been
| trying to differentiate the expensive Pro models from the
| normal iPhones for some time now. And perhaps you only get if
| for free with iCloud+
| tra3 wrote:
| What about the tmobile/spacex announcement earlier in the week?
| jsjohnst wrote:
| Iridium flies at about 450mi above the ground,
| SpaceX/Starlink does a bit lower around 350mi. Both are still
| a VERY long way to transmit a gigahertz signal, especially
| unless you are standing in a wide open area with no
| obstructions of the sky. Iridium uses frequencies well suited
| for space to ground comms and has specially designed antennas
| on both ends with high power radios (hence the whip antenna).
| Even with all that, Iridium is unreliable at best, but better
| than nothing. So now you want to do that with standard 5G
| frequencies (which are more impacted by weather), using
| standard terrestrial phone antennas and radios on the ground,
| and you expect it to work?
| tra3 wrote:
| Well, I've got a garmin inreach that uses iridium and it's
| been quite reliable. Inreach mini is cell phone sized... of
| course it's super low bandwidth so I assume that's what's
| gonna happen with the new functionality as well. Anyway all
| speculation at this point.
| prescriptivist wrote:
| I spend a fair amount of time in northern New England and
| my mini takes a while to connect and sync up (10 minutes
| or more in some cases) and requires more or less
| stabilizing it somewhere where there is no tree cover. I
| wonder if these various satellite/phone connections
| coming online will require similar steps.
| katbyte wrote:
| If my iPhone could replace my inreach for sos/simple
| texting and data I'd be over the moon. That's all I want
| out of sat connectivity
| blantonl wrote:
| Iridium and Inmarsat have transponders that are much higher
| power and have much higher RF bandwidth that supports
| devices at very low speed data rates.
|
| It's very conceivable that with an L-band or similar patch
| antenna some kind of low speed connectivity can be
| accomplished with line of sight to the sky via a mobile
| device. There are already devices sold for hikers etc that
| operate like this (simple SOS text messaging etc) and sat
| tracking of vehicles and trucks. A lot of it is store and
| forward type stuff.
|
| As for full voice and high speed data - yeah, that ain't
| happening yet at the consumer level mobile device.
| fragmede wrote:
| T-Mobile's likely going to use their 600MhZ spectrum
| allocation for this, which is lower than the multi-GhZ
| frequency used by the other parts of the 5G frequencies,
| and is less impacted by weather and goes further.
| virtuallynathan wrote:
| They already said it's PCS, 1900Mhz.
| bogomipz wrote:
| I'm curious do you work environment require you to have
| multiple sat phones? For someone who knows nothing about these,
| what are some of the state of the art choices right now?
| blantonl wrote:
| Oil and Gas are huge users of Sat phones - there are huge
| areas of Oil and Gas infrastructure across the country that
| reside in areas not served by cell phone service.
|
| Also, marine (ships, platforms etc)
| FeistySkink wrote:
| Looks like somebody beat them to the punch.
| kylehotchkiss wrote:
| What's gonna happen when you enter a country with strict
| satellite phone restrictions with one of these new iPhones?
| Airport security in these places is already looking for any
| devices capable of satcoms and possession is a crime, not just
| usage.
|
| Here's a list: https://support.garmin.com/en-
| US/?faq=Dq3CEPZjfRAhtToGD4Yrz9
| ghaff wrote:
| Well, this is still very hypothetical (and probably unlikely
| near-term). But certainly it will get interesting when standard
| smartphones get capabilities that some countries have banned in
| standalone devices.
|
| At an organizational rather than a country level you already
| have a situation where everyone has a camera in their pocket.
| At a lot of companies, it used to be a big deal to bring a
| camera into a building involving security passes etc.
| ghaff wrote:
| Presumably some sort of satellite connection will become true at
| some point--at which point the devil will be in the details. If
| it's a subscription offering (which it's reasonable to assume it
| will be), it's not clear to me that you wouldn't be better off
| carrying a separate rugged device like a Garmin Spot if the point
| is to maintain text contact under most circumstances.
| s0rce wrote:
| I carry a Garmin Inreach hiking/biking when out of cell
| service, personally I always have my phone so it would be nice
| to have it all in one, possibly with a slight loss in
| redundancy.
| ghaff wrote:
| All other things being equal, e.g. subscription cost, I'd
| probably go with the redundancy for safety equipment. Of
| course, if phone sat is cheaper, that starts to look more
| attractive in a lot of scenarios, especially less hardcore
| ones.
| Axsuul wrote:
| "The best camera is the one that's with you"
| ghaff wrote:
| Yes, but the circumstances where having a satellite
| connection are most important as opposed to mildly convenient
| for the most part--like hiking in more remote areas--I'm not
| strolling around with just my phone. I'm already carrying
| other safety/etc. gear. Of course, others might care more
| about just not having the inconvenience of the occasional
| cell dead spot.
|
| To be sure, if your use case is a car breakdown at night on a
| country road with no cell service, you're probably better off
| with just using your phone.
| eastbound wrote:
| Most of Australia is out of reach from phone. I remember
| driving to Broome, and the network suddenly connects 5km
| from the city, when you have the visual contact.
|
| With remote working, if it were possible through satellite,
| digital native people would populate the unoccupied land
| (and oceans). The definition of "remote areas" is that you
| don't know how populated they would be if network were
| available.
| ghaff wrote:
| >With remote working, if it were possible through
| satellite,
|
| It is possible with Starlink where available. You could
| never have worked from my brother's house with either a
| hot spot or 1Mbps DSL. With Starlink, while not 100%
| reliable, it's quite doable.
|
| However, I'm making the assumption that for the
| foreseeable future a sat option for phones would look
| more like the text messaging of the Garmin devices.
| majormajor wrote:
| There's probably a lot of total utility from getting
| something out that'll mostly work for the unprepared who go
| on a hike and don't realize how remote it may or may not be
| (or take a wrong turn, etc), even if those who plan ahead
| more thoroughly have better options.
| ghaff wrote:
| I'm not sure how useful in general an unprepared person
| being able to call for help necessarily is. There is
| search and rescue (mostly volunteer) of course. But no
| one is going to assemble a rescue team at the drop of a
| hat.
| jonah wrote:
| I'm not exactly sure what point you're trying to make.
| However, as a member of one of those volunteer search and
| rescue teams, people absolutely do get themselves into
| trouble and need help whether it's through being
| unprepared or injury or etc. If someone is able to call
| for help when they need it using their cell phone or one
| of the various satellite based systems - PLB, inReach,
| the new iPhone or StarLink capabilities, etc. - then we
| are able to go directly to them and render the necessary
| aid. That is a rescue. The alternative is their spouse or
| friend or someone noticing that they haven't returned by
| the expected time and they then report the person
| missing. Hopefully the missing person has told someone
| where they were going and their intended route, but in
| any case, this becomes a search and we first have to find
| the person before being able to help them and this can
| add hours or days to the operation. Depending on the
| condition of the person that at a time can greatly affect
| the outcome.
|
| In this regard, broader access to communication outside
| of cell phone coverage is a huge benefit.
|
| Now, this isn't discussing whether people are more likely
| to push themselves further or do things they're not
| capable of or adventure alone or go out insufficiently
| prepared if they feel they can just push a button and get
| rescued if anything happens. that broader question is an
| important one but for the individual person being able to
| communicate can absolutely make a difference in whether
| you survive or not.
| ghaff wrote:
| Your last point is pretty much the one I was trying
| poorly to make. Individually, cell phones are a safety
| feature [1] even if they lead some people to think too
| much in terms of make a call and someone will zip up the
| mountain and help them down.
|
| [1] In fact, I'd argue that while over-reliance on
| electronics generally is a poor practice, a cell phone
| (along with external battery pack) should probably be
| considered essential safety equipment in most
| circumstances.
| jonah wrote:
| Your point about the external battery pack is a good one.
| Even if you have cell coverage, your phone will do you no
| good if it's out of battery. "Phone about to die" is a
| common refrain we hear. You're likely at the edge of
| coverage and so your phone is using high power and
| constantly searching for towers and been out longer than
| you were expecting and now it's dark and you're using
| your phone as a flashlight..
| ghaff wrote:
| >and you're using your phone as a flashlight
|
| And they've probably been using it as a GPS all day which
| can come pretty close to draining the battery all by
| itself.
|
| Modern smartphones are pretty wonderful but it's easy to
| put all your eggs in that one basket and have no
| realistic fallback.
| UncleEntity wrote:
| I'd say the difference between a full scale search and
| rescue operation and a "we'll get someone out to your
| location lickety-split" text messages is significant.
|
| I used to hear on the news about people getting lost all
| the time on the trails around Phoenix, in flip flops and
| without water, having to spend the night outside before
| they could find them. Often enough they would have
| warnings on the radio and TV about it.
|
| Hell, one of the big forest fires a couple years ago was
| started by a lost hiker trying to signal for help.
| jonah wrote:
| Absolutely true.
|
| A large search is very personnel and time intensive.
|
| Depending on the situation though, even a relatively
| simple rescue can take a dozen or more people and many
| hours.
| UncleEntity wrote:
| If they want to be found and can text their GPS location
| they probably could just be given directions to the
| nearest road where a ranger truck can pick them up. I
| think most people just don't know how to reorient
| themselves and as little kids are told "if you get lost
| just stay where you are and someone will find you". Give
| them a little help and they can get themselves out of
| trouble.
|
| Reminds me of the time we were in Jungle School down in
| Panama. The first day was the land navigation course and
| a squad from headquarters had their one (and only)
| compass break. They ended up walking around the jungle
| for over a week before they found a road and flagged down
| a passing vehicle. If they had a way to communicate (or
| could read a frickin' map) they'd have been back by chow
| time but, nope, the senior officers were like "they'll
| turn up eventually" and didn't even try to find them.
| prh8 wrote:
| A lot of US national parks have cell phone dead zones.
| Angel's Landing is wildly popular, and dangerous, and most
| of it and the trail to it don't have service, or very
| minimal/broken service.
|
| There are PLENTY of areas people go under normal
| circumstances that don't have sufficient service if there's
| an emergency.
| ghaff wrote:
| Angel's Landing is also incredibly crowded. Unless
| someone is hiking there under inappropriate conditions,
| no one's remotely by themselves. And that's pretty true
| of a lot of areas in national parks generally.
|
| There are use cases although I wonder how many of the
| people who wouldn't buy a separate device would pay for a
| hypothetical satellite subscription. But I'm sure some
| would.
| Jcowell wrote:
| In this case it would've be a separate satellite
| subscription but apart of Apple One's plan with other
| incentive offerings
| muststopmyths wrote:
| Not to mention that the battery life of an inreach or spot
| is orders of magnitude better.
| jherskovic wrote:
| This rumor made the rounds years ago, and it turned out to be a
| big pile of hot air. It's the same pundit (Mark Gurman)[0].
|
| It's possible he jumped the gun in 2019 and it's finally coming
| to fruition. It is cool, and Starlink shows it's possible, but it
| may also just be wishcasting.
|
| [0] https://www.macrumors.com/2019/12/20/apple-secret-team-
| satel...
| samwillis wrote:
| > Starlink shows it's possible
|
| I wouldn't say it shows it's possible yet. They _claim_ it's
| possible but there are none of the starlink v2 satellites in
| orbit that are required for it to work. Originally v2
| satellites required Starship for launching, it sounds like they
| are pivoting to Flacon now though due to delays in Starship
| reaching orbit.
|
| Apple will want the service to be available as soon as the
| Phone launches, so potentially in late September. It's going to
| be at least late 2023 before the SpaceX/T-Mobile service
| lunches.
| gibolt wrote:
| They have tested it in a lab to show it is possible. There is
| nothing physically limiting it from working.
|
| Getting the v2 satellites up is an unmet milestone, not proof
| that it won't work.
| dev_tty01 wrote:
| > There is nothing physically limiting it from working.
|
| Clouds, rain, atmospheric density variations, interfering
| signals and noise sources, phone positioning, the
| attenuation and reflections from nearby materials...
|
| Also, don't forget that the SpaceX announcement was for a
| max of about 4 Mbps for an entire cell which they said was
| a very large geographic area. It will also be asynchronous
| short message (text) for quite a while. Next time I am
| backpacking in Canyonlands it will be great to have, but it
| will have very little impact on the vast majority of phone
| usage for quite some time. Its a small but important step.
| gibolt wrote:
| Those all physically limit any signal. Starlink already
| communicates with the ground, just depends on reading
| phone signal from noise at that altitude.
|
| That is the intent of Starlink. Some amount of
| connectivity everywhere. For all the corners of the world
| that no traditional carrier will cover.
| nomel wrote:
| > Starlink already communicates with the ground
|
| With a complex, large, high gain antenna.
|
| Satellite phones you can buy right now don't look like
| iPhones, for a reason.
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| the antenna geometry will be physically interesting
| matheweis wrote:
| So if you have an iPhone 14 on T-Mobile, will you have dual
| satellite connectivity, through both Globestar and SpaceX?
| ganoushoreilly wrote:
| I imagine so, T-Mobile is setting their capabilities up using
| 5G and existing spectrum vs proprietary hardware, or at least
| that's how it read.
| merely-unlikely wrote:
| I wonder if they made the public announcement at least in
| part as an opening salvo against the FCC. Ie the FCC may not
| like the sat use of 5G (or other carriers may push the FCC to
| object similar to the cable companies suing over Starlink
| receiving federal subsidies for rural coverage).
| balderdash wrote:
| Seems weird to me we almost sort of had this eight years ago with
| AT&T and TerreStar
|
| https://www.cnet.com/reviews/terrestar-genus-at-t-review/
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/TerreStar-1
| ra7 wrote:
| This would be amazing for hiking in remote areas. Garmin InReach
| is quite expensive for the occasional use and I believe it has a
| subscription too.
| ghaff wrote:
| I would assume any sat option for a phone would have a similar
| subscription--and would therefore be more or less equally
| expensive for occasional texts and safety backup.
| wepple wrote:
| Depends on the use case, but for emergency use and sending
| check-ins it's quite cheap. I pay about $10/month for the peace
| of mind and feel that's reasonable.
| jordemort wrote:
| It's amazing to me that a satellite can pick up a signal from a
| normal-sized cell phone. What kind of advances have we had in the
| past few years that have made this possible without needing a
| bulky Iridium-style device? Have the satellites gotten much more
| sensitive, or are we somehow cramming more TX power into regular
| phones?
| matrix_overload wrote:
| Cheaper launches -> More satellites viable -> Lower orbit
| (shorter distance to the terminal at a cost of much smaller
| area covered by each satellite).
| wyldfire wrote:
| And those bulky devices didn't work well without LOS to the
| sky.
| breckenedge wrote:
| I'm fairly certain they will all require LOS or an external
| antenna.
| breckenedge wrote:
| Globalstar devices were already pretty small even 10 years ago.
| I think they only require a 2W transmitter, whereas Iridium
| requires 10W. And their satellites are in more normal orbits
| rather than Iridium's polar orbits, so coverage isn't truly
| global. The satellite has to see you and a base station at the
| same time.
|
| Edit: Globalstar modem data sheet:
| https://www.globalstar.com/Globalstar/media/Globalstar/Downl...
| kotaKat wrote:
| And Globalstar's network has been in a variety of decays ever
| since.
|
| There were periods of time that the Globalstar network was
| literally requiring you to use a "call times tool" to
| determine the paltry 10 to 20 minute windows at a time every
| hour you could even get a call out on the system. They were
| so desperate to keep customers that you could get a satphone
| for a whole $40 a month - with unlimited! calling.
|
| They then, finally, a few years back, launched their Sat-Fi2
| service. Instead of using bent-pipe CDMA, they decided to use
| bent-pipe UMTS. As a Sat-Fi2 customer I can assure you I
| never got a working voice call, and barely working data.
| Globalstar was so impressed with their own technology they
| killed off this "next generation" service.
|
| Now to this day, they stopped selling satellite phones (while
| still allowing activation), dropped every single reference to
| the Sat-Fi and Sat-Fi2, and are pushing hard on their simplex
| burst data services.
| GeekyBear wrote:
| > Globalstar's network has been in a variety of decays
|
| >TAMPA, Fla. -- Globalstar has signed a term sheet with a
| "large, global customer" to start deploying some of its
| spectrum for terrestrial use "in the U.S. and beyond," the
| satellite operator said May 5.
|
| The operator said Feb. 24 it picked MDA and Rocket Lab to
| supply a set of 17 satellites to replenish its
| constellation after a "potential customer" agreed to fund
| most of the $327 million project. The agreement includes an
| option for up to nine additional satellites at $11.4
| million each.
|
| https://spacenews.com/globalstar-agrees-terms-with-global-
| cu...
|
| A secret customer fronting large amounts of money to enable
| goods or services they want to offer is certainly in
| keeping with how Apple operates.
| kylehotchkiss wrote:
| $300mil is the cost of a widebody jet or two, that's
| pretty reasonable for almost a constellation of
| satellites
| tedivm wrote:
| > The satellite has to see you and a base station at the same
| time.
|
| The satellites aren't capable of a small amount of buffering?
| For text messages it shouldn't take up much space, and a lag
| on the delivery is better than no delivery at all.
| kylehotchkiss wrote:
| That's why apples choice is pretty meh, if there's a large
| scale regional disaster that knocks out communications,
| globalstars local coverage isn't going to really let people
| get around that like iridium or starlink could
| bobthepanda wrote:
| In general any sort of large scale regional disaster will
| down any communications network, no matter how robust, as
| people panic and simultaneously try contacting emergency
| services or their loved ones.
| kotaKat wrote:
| Nope. Globalstar's voice and data network (specifically) is
| a literal 'bent pipe'. They use modified CDMA base stations
| on the ground, and it's all CDMA end-to-end through the sky
| to the sat and back down to your phone.
|
| The original phone they offered (the GSP-1600) was a
| modification of a Qualcomm QCP-860 that they just slapped
| the Globalstar stuff on top of. The only difference here is
| that Globalstar's CDMA authentication was done on a SIM
| card inside the phone (which is a supported CDMA feature,
| R-UIM).
| nickpp wrote:
| Went pretty far at sea recently, weeks from any land. For keeping
| in touch with loved ones I bought a Garmin inReach Mini 2 device.
| Together with a monthly data plan I was able to send and receive
| short messages in the middle of the ocean. Not a lot, but much
| better than nothing.
|
| But the biggest surprise was the size: the device was tiny, I was
| easily able to hold it in my hand. The antenna extended a little
| but still under the size of my iPhone. Needed LOS to the sky
| though. Battery lasted for days. Software was atrociously bad:
| lots of errors and problems.
|
| So after my trip I was 100% convinced that we will soon see this
| kind of connectivity built into smartphones. It's great to still
| be able to contact the world even when truly remote and of course
| phone manufacturers would love to sell us another subscription.
| post_break wrote:
| Are you able to type out texts or is it canned messages only?
| I've always wanted one of these but have zero use for them.
| nickpp wrote:
| My monthly plan allowed unlimited your own texts and replies.
| Limited number of characters each though.
|
| There are also some settable canned messages and an emergency
| signal options, but I never used them.
|
| Do you hike, sail or otherwise travel in truly remote areas?
| That was my scenario - being able to tell my wife and kids
| that I am OK while days away from the closest outpost of
| civilization.
| wepple wrote:
| Both, depends on your plan. Custom messages cost more. My
| $10/month-ish plan allows unlimited pre-canned, which I use
| to check in with family "I'm still alive" / "on my way home"
| type thing. Then I get a certain allocation of custom.
| Sending GPS waypoints counts as custom IIRC?
| vorpalhex wrote:
| Time to take up hiking
| randyrand wrote:
| And move to somewhere with mountains.
| danw1979 wrote:
| Have these additional globalstar sats actually launched yet ?
|
| If so, maybe it'll work at launch of the iPhone 14 and even
| though they didn't beat SpaceX/T-mobile to the announcement,
| they'll implement first; I don't see Starship / Starlink 2 flying
| anytime in the next 10 days...
| fragmede wrote:
| T-mobile's own announcement says it'll be in beta end of 2023,
| so definitely not in the next 10 days.
| danw1979 wrote:
| but interestingly, they might be launching Starlink 2 on F9
| now - https://spacenews.com/spacex-adds-falcon-9-back-to-
| second-ge...
| judge2020 wrote:
| Seems like ATT also already had a partnership in the works:
| https://redd.it/wybhuh
| martin_henk wrote:
| Tmobile would still need masts to redirect the signal, correct?
| But Apple is rumored to receive the satellite signal directly?
| cookingmyserver wrote:
| No, The T-Mobile and Starlink agreement uses part of their
| existing spectrum to communicate directly between the phone and
| Starlink Satellite.
| samwillis wrote:
| It's interesting that the latest rumour is Globalstar, previously
| they were rumoured to be going with OneWeb who I believe will
| have a better network when it's complete.
|
| OneWeb were due to finish their constellation this summer, but
| have had to redirect launches from Russia to SpaceX delaying the
| completion of it. I wander if that impacted the Apple deal, with
| Apple wanting to launch the product this year.
|
| OneWeb were launching incredibly quickly last year, achieving one
| launch of 34-36 satellites per month. It's unfortunate that it
| came to a halt in February due to Ukraine. They are currently on
| 428 of 648 for the complete constellation, I believe just below
| what's needed for initial operation.
|
| 0:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/OneWeb_satellite_constellati...
| justusthane wrote:
| > constipation
| samwillis wrote:
| Ha, autocorrect...
| metadat wrote:
| Aw, why'd you fix it? That was gold.
| samwillis wrote:
| Alas, constipation eventually does come to an end.
| gibolt wrote:
| Maybe... but this was compete constipation
| yetanotherloser wrote:
| I hear the inventor of autocorrect died and went to hello.
| andy_ppp wrote:
| I really can't stand how stupid autocorrect is, surely in
| an age where deep learning can predict how proteins fold it
| can phonetically and contextually correct words?
| dmitriid wrote:
| iPhone's autocorrect at one point was rather decent
| because it was running from a language model. And then
| AFAIK they switched to a crowdsourced model which... just
| sucks and is never correct
| colejohnson66 wrote:
| That "language model" and the keyboard itself would also
| adapt to your own writing patterns. As you'd type, the
| hit areas of the letters would dynamically change to
| adapt based on the previously typed letters and your
| typing history. For example, if, when typing a word, you
| consistently would hit between two keys when only one
| made sense, it would increase the hit area of the key you
| meant to hit and decrease the other.
| moonchrome wrote:
| I keep hearing how robo taxies are a year away -
| meanwhile when I asked Google assistant to call my wife
| to avoid looking at the screen and driving it decided to
| call some company in Delaware (despite me living in
| central Europe).
|
| Seems like there's low hanging fruit in AI applications
| that are still not even close to optimal.
| smcl wrote:
| I've just accepted that it about 70% of the time it'll
| switch the words "ill"/"I'll", "well"/"we'll" and
| "its"/"it's" to the wrong version even when I use them
| correctly.
| classified wrote:
| I just switched it off.
| smcl wrote:
| It's useful enough in other cases though - it's just a
| bit overzealous when I am accurate. The weird thing is
| that there was a period where it was near-perfect, then
| one iOS upgrade caused a sudden decline in quality that's
| remained ever since
| samwillis wrote:
| I know right, it's definitely not related to words you
| write on a regular basis...
| zaroth wrote:
| 100% agree. Maybe the specific layout of a QWERTY
| keyboard is somehow particularly bad for this, but
| jabbing at the general location of the letters I want
| combined with a half decent AI should make text entry
| really damn reliable.
|
| Even just writing that paragraph, so many autocorrect
| opportunities were missed, and so many were suboptimal or
| just plain wrong...
|
| Blows my mind that Apple isn't doing better at this
| feature at this ooont. No, I meant to type "point"!
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| I was recently on a US aircraft carrier and there was a real
| problem keeping the crew off their cellphones trying to catch
| service while near land. I wonder what the Navy will do when
| common cellphones can talk to satellites.
| metadat wrote:
| Thanks for announcing how undisciplined the US Navy is with
| regard to SIGINT OPS, especially the grunts, apparently. Good
| to know.
| thatguy0900 wrote:
| Surprise, a bunch of 19 and 20something years old are going
| to use their phones against orders, and they always will. All
| armies do this. For a funnier one look at the fit bit
| military base leaks, where fit bit released detailed paths of
| military bases and patrol routes because the people on them
| wore their fit bit's around.
| tra3 wrote:
| Why? Opsec or for focus?
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Both but mostly opsec
| gumby wrote:
| They are the navy -- why can't they use jammers for the
| relevant frequencies?
| crazygringo wrote:
| You want them to use jammers near land?
| gumby wrote:
| Sure: it's 1/r^2, so they don't have to have one big one on
| the superstructure -- they could deploy a bunch on the deck
| and other areas with radio "holes". I presume the rest of
| the boat is steel.
|
| Presumably it's also OK if a warship that shows up at a
| military dock frotzes mobile phones -- maybe even if mobile
| phones were disabled on bases in general? I've never been
| in a military and haven't the faintest idea how much is
| confidential. And it's not like the military doesn't have
| other telecom gear.
|
| If a warship ties up at a civilian dock it's a little more
| tricky, but in general I'd think this principle would also
| apply.
| diebeforei485 wrote:
| Personally, I don't see why this is an issue if they don't have
| specific duties at the time.
| mig39 wrote:
| Seems like a really easy way to triangulate the location of
| ships.
| blantonl wrote:
| In today's sensor rich environment of satellites, aircraft
| etc, a carrier's location is never a secret to an
| adversary. Ever.
| netsharc wrote:
| The Russian cannon-fodder invading Ukraine were so ill-
| equipped they were using their own phones and roaming on the
| Ukranian network to call their commanders. They were easily
| triangulated...
| scoopertrooper wrote:
| https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-42853072
| closewith wrote:
| They'll probably confiscate anything with a radio while
| underway.
| KptMarchewa wrote:
| There is no internet for the aircraft carrier crews on the sea?
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Location data. They probably also monitor that traffic.
| mwilliaams wrote:
| Connectivity is limited due to bandwidth prioritization for
| ship systems as well as OPSEC.
| blantonl wrote:
| The Navy has a process to halt all this activity, called going
| "River City" (slang) - which basically is a standing order by
| the commanding officer to halt all outgoing communications from
| a ship unless specifically authorized by the CO.
|
| Aircraft carriers now have Wifi available for sailors for
| morale reasons, so cell phones are used all the time while
| underway for text and email.
|
| However, if an incident happens (such as a crash) or, you know,
| going to war or etc - the ship will undergo "River City"
| conditions and I guarantee you everyone on board knows the
| drill and you'll be in deep shit if you violate River City.
| River City conditions will also be implemented in the case of a
| fatality, accident or death onboard the ship so the identity of
| the victims is preserved so the Navy can make next of kin
| notifications without family being alerted early to the issue.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-08-27 23:02 UTC)