backtop


Print 61 comment(s) - last by rcc.. on Apr 1 at 4:26 PM


The B2 Bomber's radar frequency was recently sold to a Russian entrepeneur on accident. The incident emphasized the military's increasing spectrum woes.  (Source: U.S. Air Force)

The F22 Raptor's AWACS targeting probably won't work outside the U.S. This is just one of the many costly spectrum issues the Air Force and armed forces are having in the U.S. as civilian spectrum use increases.  (Source: Wikimedia)
Costly blunders and redesigns all part of military networking growth pains

The U.S. military originally had a virtual monopoly of certain communications channels.  It was one of the few entities to be using internet, and it used many areas of the spectrum untouched by civilian communications.  However, with the digital revolution and the expansion of civilians onto the internet and increasing using of the digital spectrum, the military is finding adapting to the deprivation of these bands difficult.

Last year during the bandwidth auction, the portion of the spectrum used by the B-2 bomber's Raytheon APQ-181 radar was accidentally sold to an obscure multinational organization according to Military.com.  As a result, U.S. taxpayers will be footing the over $1B USD bill to replace the radar in the 20 remaining jets.

With users demanding video-ready smartphones, high-speed mobile internet, and other emerging applications, the military is finding that the spectrum is quickly disappearing, and it’s having trouble finding areas for its own sensitive technologies.

Other expensive losses abound.  The Joint Tactical Information Distribution System, a costly system used to get AWACS targeting data to F-22 fighter jets has "limited supportability outside the continental U.S."

Another key issue is the steady creep of civilian communications into the spectrum used for flight-test telemetry.  While there are workarounds to gather some additional information, telemetry data remains essential to testing both manned and unmanned aircraft and protecting pilots from failures.

Ultimately, more data takes more bandwidth -- an unalterable fact -- and to achieve higher frequencies more power is required.  This places inherent limitations to the amount of data capable of being communicated over the spectrum.

Military designers are in a sticky situation as they can't compress their data, in many cases, like civilian applications.  "This is not a cell phone,” said Darrell Ernst. "You can't ask the pilot to wait while you redial."

Ernst works for the Mitre Corp., a member of a U.S.-European delegation trying to raise international awareness of bandwidth issues, and estimates that by 2020 the Air Force will need 600 MHz of spectrum for telemetry data.  Currently the only vacant spot suggested to them is the 5091 and 5150 MHz band.  The Air Force is eager to occupy even this meager 59 MHz offer.  States Mr. Ernst, "If [the flight-test community] can get in there and start using it, we can be established as the primary user and it will be hard for them to throw us out."

When it comes to the spectrum issues, there are few good answers, just more fears and doubts.  As a final example of the industry problems, when the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) test program is flying two missions no other combat aircraft will be able to fly in the Western U.S.  States Mr. Ernst, "They're the 600-lb. gorilla. They don't see that they have any reason to move, and they don't have the radios to do it."





Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Why can't they compress data??
By estarkey7 on 3/23/2009 12:13:59 PM , Rating: 3
How do you back up the statement that the military can't compress communications data? Can you provide a citation or white paper that would give reasons why this is not possible.

I myself have a hard time believing this is true, unless the data is already compressed as much as it can be...




RE: Why can't they compress data??
By Amiga500 on 3/23/2009 12:45:25 PM , Rating: 2
They can...

High speed data-bursts are compressed data - the shorter your transmission time - the harder it is to detect - kinda critical eh?

I am somewhat confused at the mentioning of that in the article.


RE: Why can't they compress data??
By dever on 3/23/2009 3:16:47 PM , Rating: 2
The question I have is why does the military expect to monopolize any bandwidth? Do they really think an enemy state is going to honor their claim to a certain frequency range? If not, then they should practice at home by similarly having to work around the private sector.


RE: Why can't they compress data??
By Adonlude on 3/23/2009 6:59:40 PM , Rating: 2
I see what you are saying but do you really want the military "working around" the private sector here in America? If so expect droped calls and lost connections as the military jams and overpowers communication signals at will.


By RagingDragon on 3/28/2009 12:47:52 PM , Rating: 2
Or better yet, bombs annoying civilian transmitters? In an actual war blowing up inconvenient enemy tranmitters would be a viable option - but it's not so viable when "working around" the domestic private sector.


RE: Why can't they compress data??
By afkrotch on 3/23/2009 8:46:30 PM , Rating: 1
During peace times, yes. I would expect a differing country to honor their agreements to leave specific freq ranges open.

During war, trying to jam communications would be an obvious tactic. Pinpoint the jam, then drop a bomb on it. Easy work around.


RE: Why can't they compress data??
By Griswold on 3/24/2009 9:50:26 AM , Rating: 2
What agreement? Most countries outside NATO or without US military presence of significance (Japan, S-Korea for example) wont have any agreements with the US of that kind.

Also, a capable military doesnt jam frequencies from one single position that can be destroyed by a single bomb anyway. Thats a hollywood fairytale.


RE: Why can't they compress data??
By Alpha4 on 3/23/2009 12:54:24 PM , Rating: 1
I'm guessing telemetry data can't be compressed because even a 1 millisecond delay to decompress it could compromise a target acquisition and cause even a tiny mis-alignment for precision targeting.

I remember an article discussing the "Surveillance Target Attack Radar System" (STARS) system and how it was completely written in assembly code to minimize processing time. That's probably consistent with all military software, though.


RE: Why can't they compress data??
By barjebus on 3/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: Why can't they compress data??
By Lord 666 on 3/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: Why can't they compress data??
By hyperbolicparody on 3/23/2009 2:42:25 PM , Rating: 4
Ada is still used extensively for aircraft and DoD applications. OFPs are still often written in Ada83, as are a lot of the military flight and ground simulations (both for testing and training purposes) out there, and I think it's a total shame that it wasn't until recently there was a free compiler (GNAT has come a long way in the past few years).

I actually wouldn't be surprised if the data coming off of the OFPs would be remarkably hard to compress. Working on them... hooks for simulation, test and debug are such an afterthought... the engineers are primarily focused on the insane flaming hoops they must jump through to get everything written, verified and approved.

There's rarely ANY overhead written into the hardware specs, and the components are horrifically sensitive to timing requirements. It makes non-normal operation rough... you might find your component locked out of the MS1553 bus (or even worse designed to self-destruct) if it's cycle count is out-of-whack with other components. But that's all done to make components pulled from crashed aircraft useless.

Also, it's tough to compress data fast enough on the hardware available. It's not the size, it's the volume, and it's the hardware on the aircraft. Gathering and packaging all your data at deterministic rates higher than 200Hz is harder than you think... and need all that data transmitted to the ground station with as little transport delay as possible. Also, imagine trying to do all of that on the embedded hardware available to you 10 years ago.

...oh, and some of it is written in FORTRAN. FORTRAN!


By lotharamious on 3/23/2009 3:25:40 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
...oh, and some of it is written in FORTRAN. FORTRAN!

What's wrong with Fortran? It's a powerful computation language. Unless you're talking about something prehistoric like Fortran 4.


RE: Why can't they compress data??
By rcc on 3/23/2009 4:15:40 PM , Rating: 1
True, but anything that is mission critical, or time critical, gets an automatic exception to the requirements for Ada.

For that matter, if you can claim COTS (commercial off the shelf) you can get an automatic exception.

Ada isn't fast, and it isn't small.


RE: Why can't they compress data??
By eachus on 3/24/2009 5:12:33 PM , Rating: 2
True, but anything that is mission critical, or time critical, gets an automatic exception to the requirements for Ada.

I wish I thought you were joking. Just about everyone who works on safety-critical systems, including mission critical systems, now knows that the only sensible choice is SPARK. SPARK is technically a subset of Ada, but the subset of interest is that programs in Ada that cannot be proven correct are not valid SPARK. Even if the Ada compiler produces no errors or warnings, the SPARK Examiner will reject any program, or module, as incorrect or ambiguous if it can't be proven correct. The savings from using SPARK on just about any large program are significant, and it results in even larger savings in safety-critical systems.

Check out this article: http://www.stsc.hill.af.mil/crosstalk/2002/03/amey... on the C130J project. The author said: In my 10-plus years of using SPARK, I have never needed to use a debugger. I have become so used to things working the first time that my debugging skills have almost completely atrophied. The only price I pay for this is the SPARK Examiner pointing at the source code on my terminal and displaying messages telling me I have been stupid again; I find I am grateful for those messages!

The author works for a company that produces SPARK tools, but I can vouch for the above. The only two times in the last 20 years or so of programming in Ada that I have had to use a debugger, the error turned out to be in Solaris. No, I am not knocking Sun or Solaris, and both of those (obscure) bugs have since been fixed. But I knew my program was correct, so the bug had to be in the OS. ;-)

As for efficiency of Ada programs, lots of studies have shown that the code produced from Ada programs identical to the C version are much the same, assuming you chose the right compiler options in both cases. GNAT for example has an option to avoid loading--or using--any compiler run-time. Slower and bigger if you write programs which make heavy use of the run-time, much faster and smaller otherwise.


RE: Why can't they compress data??
By SignoR on 3/23/2009 12:58:57 PM , Rating: 5
I believe what they mean by "compressing" the data is to send a larger amount of data on the same corresponding bandwidth of the EM Spectrum. Satellite companies use Quadrature Phase-shift keying (QPSK:wiki it) to modulate their signals and increase the amount of data that can be sent in the same analog bandwidth. The article talks about the "constellation diagram" QPSK uses 1 point per quadrant(for 4 total 'symbols'). You can increase the number of symbols in each quadrant (64QAM has 16/Quadrant and 1024QAM has 256/quadrant) in order to push more data through, but for each increase in the number of symbols you need a higher SNR ratio in order to not lose data. The higher SNR requirements are not obtainable at the modest speeds of cars on a highway, much less mach 2+.
I assume this is what they define as compression, not running the data through winzip a couple more times.


RE: Why can't they compress data??
By nafhan on 3/23/2009 1:01:10 PM , Rating: 3
Since they were comparing this to civilian communications (cell phones), I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say
he probably meant that they can't overallocate the number of channels in critical applications.
With a cell phone tower, it would be OK to only have enough bandwidth for 5 people even if there are 10 users with cell phones in the area. There might be a rare missed call or dropped signal, but that's OK. It's even standard practice.
With critical military applications, such as telemetry, all 10 users need to have their own channel all the time. No exceptions.


RE: Why can't they compress data??
By nixoofta on 3/23/2009 2:44:18 PM , Rating: 5
RE: Why can't they compress data??
By ebeneezersquid on 3/24/2009 3:15:26 PM , Rating: 2
Why can't they compress data?

Encryption.

They all ready compress the data all they can, then encrypt it with heavy duty keys (256+).
They then may compress again, but the encryption adds a LOT of bulk to the data.
If you want to help, find a slimmer form of encryption that is just as secure, then navigate the byzantine maze of Regulations in order to get it approved for military use.


By MozeeToby on 3/24/2009 6:32:40 PM , Rating: 2
After encryption it would be pointless to try to recompress the data. You can't compress random data, which is what encryption produces.


RE: Why can't they compress data??
By Smilin on 3/27/2009 4:23:01 PM , Rating: 2
Encrypted data cannot use lossy compression.

Furthermore it cannot use lossless compression effectively as highly encrypted data is nearly random and has few patterns.


By RagingDragon on 3/28/2009 1:03:38 PM , Rating: 2
Data can be compressed before it's encrypted, though I guess that might might weaken the encryption. It's also possible that the hardware on the aircraft simply doesn't have the processing power to compress large volumes of data (in addition to whatever else it's doing), and that adding that capability would be prohibitively expensive or time consuming.


Get Holistic
By KristopherKubicki on 3/23/2009 12:28:07 PM , Rating: 2
It's the military -- 59 MHz for communication seems like exactly the 59 MHz I'd jam if I was up against something like this.

What the military should be doing is make their hardware work on any available frequency and optimize on the fly. But that's just me. And others have said, this is the military, you just change the rules in the FCC if there's an issue not vice versa.




RE: Get Holistic
By MozeeToby on 3/23/2009 12:44:36 PM , Rating: 4
It's called software-defined radios. Specifically, int he US it is known as JTRS and we've spent a lot of money on it over the last decade or so.

There's a lot of electrical and antenna engineering that needed to go into creating a system that is capable of receiving signals from such a wide range of frequencies; when the project was first started there were a lot of people that claimed it was physically impossible to do (they were wrong, radios are in use already which fit the spec).

More importantly, the article seams to be mixing two slightly different subjects. One is the B-2 radar spectrum being sold. The second is flight test telemetry radios (radios used to send position and instrument information to the ground for the monitoring of flight tests). The 59 MHz chunk is for flight testing telemetry, it isn't for combat operations.


RE: Get Holistic
By rudy on 3/23/2009 12:47:01 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly these air craft have no chance if they cannot deal with massive interference since that is exactly what ever enemey already does and will keep doing.


RE: Get Holistic
By Mojo the Monkey on 3/23/2009 3:06:07 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I am not inspired with confidence if civilian companies buying parts of a spectrum make their targeting systems worthless.... wtf? in any real threat where these high end fighters would be truly needed, one can almost guarantee a sophisticated enemy with the capability to throw up some interference on all of these frequencies!

please tell me there are redundant systems that we just dont know about...


RE: Get Holistic
By rcc on 3/23/2009 4:06:06 PM , Rating: 2
It may well be that the Military won't have a problem with the link if a civilian entity is using the frequency. After all, it is designed for jamming scenarios. However, the civilian entity especting to use that spectrum would likely not appreciate being dumped off the air every time the appropriate aircraft cruises through.


RE: Get Holistic
By RagingDragon on 3/28/2009 1:13:22 PM , Rating: 2
Military combat systems would have ECCM (Electronic Counter Counter Measures), but would these affect just the one problematic frequency, or would they disrupt a wide range of civilian frequencies? I'm not certain it would be possible to use these systems domestically, or during peace time.

The telemetry systems for test flights are not intended for use in combat; therefore, they wouldn't be built with jamming in mind.


RE: Get Holistic
By rcc on 4/1/2009 4:26:12 PM , Rating: 2
I doubt that commercial traffic is going to impact a B2s radar (not that they use it much). OTOH, if the B2 fires up the radar while the civilian channel is in use......

As far as telemetry channels go, some are pretty vanilla. Some are encrypted and have strong error correction capabilities. But no, they aren't generally configured with jamming in mind.


$50M Radar?
By HammerZ on 3/23/2009 5:44:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
As a result, U.S. taxpayers will be footing the over $1B USD bill to replace the radar in the 20 remaining jets.


So it costs over $50M to replace the radar in the B-2?




RE: $50M Radar?
By Master Kenobi on 3/24/2009 11:14:59 AM , Rating: 2
With a price tag of over 1B per plane, yes.


RE: $50M Radar?
By Black69ta on 3/25/2009 12:46:04 AM , Rating: 3
No, not $50M per bomber! At $1B total that would be a $1 part from Radioshak (times 20 bombers) and $999,998,999,980 to study a solution to the problem. What about the other Million? That goes to grease the proper hands make sure the contract goes to the least qualified company.


RE: $50M Radar?
By Regs on 3/25/2009 12:16:28 PM , Rating: 1
We call this licensing. Like your daughter who was licensed to drive that night that crashed into me drunk.


why cant they un-sell it?
By kattanna on 3/23/2009 12:12:36 PM , Rating: 5
it would be interesting to see hard numbers on how much that piece sold for, and if less then the cost of refit, why can't they un-sell that block?




RE: why cant they un-sell it?
By tjr508 on 3/23/2009 5:09:15 PM , Rating: 2
I sort of thought the same thing. Our president and our congress seemed to have no problem with Indian-giving on the major blocks for our DTV delay.


Sold to whom?
By ascian5 on 3/23/2009 12:38:22 PM , Rating: 2
"An obscure multi-national corporation" wtf? Who even owns it now?




RE: Sold to whom?
By bbomb on 3/23/2009 12:47:16 PM , Rating: 2
Al Qaeda


RE: Sold to whom?
By Golgatha on 3/23/2009 1:02:57 PM , Rating: 3
The Multinational Aeronautical Flight Industry Association. Otherwise known as M.A.F.I.A.

They'll be glad to sell back the spectrum for an extortionate amount of money I'm sure.


By Shadowself on 3/23/2009 2:48:06 PM , Rating: 5
inaccurate statements in this article! As someone who is the relevant authority on many DD1494 filings for the U.S. military I can say without any doubt that the U.S. military shares many, many bands with civilian and commercial users for many, many systems on a daily basis.

A few egregious errors:
quote:
The Joint Tactical Information Distribution System, a costly system used to get AWACS targeting data to F-22 fighter jets has "limited supportability outside the continental U.S."

In a word: BULL! In a combat scenario, the military uses the frequencies and powers that are necessary for the communications. Period.

quote:
Ultimately, more data takes more bandwidth -- an unalterable fact -- and to achieve higher frequencies more power is required. This places inherent limitations to the amount of data capable of being communicated over the spectrum.

Never heard of higher order modulations? A 16 APSK modulated waveform will use 1/2 the bandwidth of a BPSK modulated waveform while transmitting data at twice the data rate.
Additionally, there are cases where going to higher frequencies (e.g., going from X-band to Ka-band) with the same size antennas and the same data rates can actually lower the power required.

quote:
Military designers are in a sticky situation as they can't compress their data, in many cases, like civilian applications.

This is flatly WRONG. While there are cases where the U.S. military uses ONLY lossless compression, for most imagery the U.S. military uses commercial standards for compression, e.g., JPEG2000, H.264, MPEG-2. What the real issue is about is latency. Some systems cannot stand even 100 milliseconds of latency (compression and decompression takes time which shows up as latency in the communications). So the U.S. military uses custom chips to get the latency down.

quote:
Ernst works for the Mitre Corp., a member of a U.S.-European delegation trying to raise international awareness of bandwidth issues, and estimates that by 2020 the Air Force will need 600 MHz of spectrum for telemetry data.

This guy has NO IDEA what he is talking about or he's lying. 600 MHz? The U.S. military used over 300 MHz for telemetry for a single system back in the 70s! Typical systems today can use more than that for a single airborne platform. The cutting edge systems today can use more than 2.5 GHz.




let me clear some things up
By inperfectdarkness on 3/24/2009 8:23:50 AM , Rating: 3
JTIDS (aka link 16) is a TDMA datalink. due to the number of players who can be tranmitting on this link--as well as the fraction of a second allotted to data transmission--as well as the required signal for net-time-reference & encryption; well i would think it's rather obvious why compression isn't much of an option.

you also have to comprehend that what technology is possible in the civillian world was originally pioneereed by military technology. that said; once the militay pays for something--it doesn't get upgraded for free. this is why the AWACS, for instance, is still using the same phased-array radar designed in the 1960's. it's why the USAF still uses bulky-oversized consoles for its C2 platforms--rather than laptops (which could most likely replace all of these at a fraction of the space).

COTS supply has made huge inroads in the last 2 decades--but we're still not where we COULD be...because even "recent" platforms still used antiquated hardware--not to mention some software. JSTARS (where i work--since someone already brought it up) is a mostly COTS supplied weapons-system. however, it is also a 20+ year old design--and even upgrading to hardware/software made in the last 10 years would be a dramatic improvement.

moving on:

the military does NOT have to work around civillian traffic. nor should it have to. we specifically employ airframes such as the compass-call & JSIR tracking to create "pinholes" in an otherwise unusable EM spectrum--within which our platforms can function. in the event of a war, the idea is to control the EM spectrum & keep the enemy from using it to their advantage. playing "tap-dance" with consumer bandwidth (which, if you recall...has to be GRANTED to the private sector) only would defeat the purpose.

it is a damn shame we have to retrofit the entire b2 fleet--and i sincerely hope that the cost of the retrofit will come out of the FCC budget or whomever is responsible for the auction--it DAMNED WELL SHOULDN'T come out of the military budget. and it's not like we can say "oops, my bad! can we have that bandwidth back, please?" we've pretty much broadcast a secret-classified radar operating frequency.




By inperfectdarkness on 3/24/2009 8:34:07 AM , Rating: 2
forgot to mention 1 other thing:

communications systems are more adaptable to changes in transmission bandwidth than radar systems--exponentially so if we're talking about a datanet.

data can be transmitted without signal distortion/corruption & be interpreted correctly by the receiving systems on the other end easily.

radar systems, on the other hand, are tailor-made to fit the intention of the platform. without going into extensive radar theory--the combination of PRF, beamwidth, signal attenuation, etc. all combine to form a rather narrow "optimum frequency band" for a specific radar system.

and even our military doesn't have all the kinks totally worked out; which is why we have JSIRs.


LOL!
By SpaceRanger on 3/23/2009 12:07:47 PM , Rating: 2
Accidently sold?!?!?! How the hell does that happen with something as big as this?!?!




RE: LOL!
By Aloonatic on 3/23/2009 12:14:04 PM , Rating: 2
Thank god, I thought these sorts of blunders only happened in the UK. Like buying Chinook helicopters without the software needed to run them. Just be grateful that (at least) your hardware gets off the ground.


Need More Spectrum...
By InfantryRocks on 3/23/2009 12:23:03 PM , Rating: 2
A simple answer, right? :-)

Unfortunately this is a problem that is only going to get worse. A lot of the new generation commo systems for the military are going to be completely wireless. When you look at something the size of a Brigade Combat Team, that's a sizable chunk of the spectrum right there.




Obviously....
By abitofgo on 3/23/2009 1:50:41 PM , Rating: 2
It is cheaper to replace the radar than give the money back and cancel their liscence.




Limited bandwidth
By Clarencio on 3/23/2009 5:22:31 PM , Rating: 2
I was actually pretty surprised to see this. The Air Force actually funded five of us students at my college to try and solve this problem. The USAF has many research projects going on to try and solve their spectrum problem, and the solution I researched was using a laser communications system. Basically we put a laser on the plane (which can theoretically transmit infinite data without anyone else being able to detect it) and pointed it at a telescope on the ground with a little optical detector on the output. It was ridiculously time consuming and difficult. Some of the other potential solutions they had other universities researching were pretty theoretical but brilliant if they ever work out. Military problems like this are great because they are such a great driver of science. Brilliant people at universities get a lot of research money to figure this stuff out. The spectrum problem is a big one that even top brass know about. I thought it was pretty awesome helping to solve that. Unfortunately our project kind of just died when we graduated. They sure did spend a pretty penny buying us equipment though.




Real story?
By knutjb on 3/23/2009 6:37:40 PM , Rating: 2
I think someone is making a bigger deal out of this than it really is. I remember reading some articles 2001-06 and the military cherry picked the bandwidth they wanted knowing full well they would lose some current bands. I don't remember the specific sources so don't cry do the search yourself. It might be cheaper and easier in the long run to replace the B2s radar due to a small number of aircraft to get sole control over other bands. Now if someone goofed and let go of a critical band it shouldn't have wouldn't surprise me but I doubt it. In war they will use whatever they need.




Knight to D2, capture Queen
By Azsen on 3/23/2009 7:21:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The B2 Bomber's radar frequency was recently sold to a Russian "entrepeneur" on accident. As a result, U.S. taxpayers will be footing the over $1B USD bill to replace the radar in the 20 remaining jets.

Well played Russia, well played.

What's the point in advertising the spectrum they use on military hardware anyway? If you were in a country about to be attacked by the U.S. couldn't you just jam/flood that entire spectrum and their aircraft would be rendered useless?




I made a bad career choice!
By IcePickFreak on 3/24/2009 4:52:51 PM , Rating: 2
Damn, I should of stuck with graphics arts in high school. I bet print press operators are raking in the cash (legally) as the US Treasury has them working overtime printing more money.

If I were president though I'd push to have all midgets hired for the press operators, make their uniforms look like Santa's elves, performance reviews based on their participation in singing happy songs, ect.




By Amiga500 on 3/23/2009 12:49:03 PM , Rating: 1
Can quite easily be disabled by someone broadcasting noise on a load* of select frequencies...

*Not too hard compared to the alternative - trying to disable a mutually supporting system.

The phrase "Vietnam missile kill ratios" pops into my head.




Classic
By Elementalism on 3/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: Classic
By estarkey7 on 3/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: Classic
By Elementalism on 3/23/2009 12:19:26 PM , Rating: 2
Irrelevant as the last 2 weeks have proven. Govt is govt, and govt is incompetent.


RE: Classic
By weskurtz0081 on 3/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: Classic
By weskurtz0081 on 3/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: Classic
By croc on 3/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: Classic
By FITCamaro on 3/23/2009 1:15:59 PM , Rating: 2
The spectrum sale wasn't a problem. This problem is just an unfortunate side effect of the developing world.

Besides, its doubtful a president has any involvement with the sale of frequencies.


RE: Classic
By Lord 666 on 3/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: Classic
By goz314 on 3/23/2009 1:56:22 PM , Rating: 2
Do you think the Russians, or any foreign nation that has past or present adversarial overtures towards the U.S. for that matter, gives a damn about what the FCC regulates on the EM spectrum? Any enemy or nation with less than benevolent intentions that has the capability will simply just use the spectrum guidelines and rules set forth by the FCC as a roadmap of how best to exploit the United States' wireless infrastructure. Essentially, they just take the info and wipe their collective a$$@# with it.


RE: Classic
By Mojo the Monkey on 3/23/2009 3:06:56 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, very troubling to think about. I hope we have a backup system in place.


RE: Classic
By FITCamaro on 3/23/2009 3:23:39 PM , Rating: 3
Exactly. Our spectrum laws only apply here.


RE: Classic
By SignoR on 3/24/2009 8:41:54 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
But I disagree... any sale of FCC spectrum should be on the daily CIA briefing of the president and especially when it is to Russians.


I doubt this or any previous president could even understand the ROY-G-BIV concept of the Visible EM Spectrum. Presidents aren't scientists they are lawyers and politicians. Having this kind of stuff in an intel brief would be like trying to explain it to the HS dropout gril working the register at Burger King.


"A lot of people pay zero for the cellphone ... That's what it's worth." -- Apple Chief Operating Officer Timothy Cook
Related Articles



Latest Headlines



Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Yahoo Hacked - Change Your Passwords and Security Info ASAP!
September 23, 2016, 5:45 AM
A is for Apples
September 23, 2016, 5:32 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM







botimage
Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki