French Company Potentially Could Solve Balkanization of the Internet” 🇫🇷

Years ago now Google quietly announced its “Loon Balloon Project” in New Zealand. The objective was to launch high altitude balloons that could potentially float over areas of the globe that did not yet have Internet access. The tech press predicted that the idea was “loony” indeed, though some called it “crazy cool.” Google has since also dabbled with the idea of low earth orbit satellites to achieve the same goal. With the rise of SpaceX, this seems an even more interesting technological approach, though other firms in the 1990s lost large amounts of money and failed.  A modest aerospace company and a subsidiary of Airbus in Toulouse France is manufacturing low-orbit internet access satellites, hoping to launch as many as 650 such satellites. The idea that is captivating me is the potential for space-based Internet access to potentially provide an alternative to growing political and corporate control and Balkanization of the Internet.


Net Neutrality May Yet Be Achievable…Maybe

Years ago now Google quietly announced its “Loon Balloon Project” in New Zealand. The objective was to launch high altitude balloons that could potentially float over areas of the globe that did not yet have Internet access. The tech press predicted that the idea was “loony” indeed, though some called it “crazy cool.” Google has since also dabbled with the idea of low earth orbit satellites to achieve the same goal. With the rise of SpaceX, this seems an even more interesting technological approach, though other firms in the 1990s lost large amounts of money and failed.  A modest aerospace company and a subsidiary of Airbus in Toulouse France is manufacturing low-orbit internet access satellites, hoping to launch as many as 650 such satellites in a “global constellation”. The idea that is captivating me is the potential for space-based Internet access to potentially provide an alternative to growing political and corporate control and Balkanization of the Internet.

OneWeb Launches First Six Internet Access Satellites

Ariane Soyuz rocket launch with six OneWeb satellites on board. February 27, 2019

Political Internet Censorship And Access In Developing World Potentially Solvable

Aclear plastic box the size of a sofa sits in an underground factory in the suburbs of Toulouse in southern France. Inside it, a nozzle fixed to a robot arm carefully drips translucent gloop onto bits of circuitry. This is to help get rid of excess heat when the electronics start to operate. The slab that is created is then loaded onto a trolley and taken away as the next piece of electronics arrives for the same treatment.

This is what the mass production of satellites looks like. Making them in quantity is a necessity for OneWeb. The company was founded in 2012, and it has yet to launch a single satellite. Yet it plans to have 900 in orbit by 2027. That seems a tall order. Intelsat, the firm which currently operates more communications satellites than any other, has been around for 54 years and has launched just 94.

OneWeb, which is part-owned by Airbus, a European aerospace giant, and SoftBank, a Japanese tech investor, needs such a large quantity of satellites because it wants to provide cheap and easy internet connectivity everywhere in the world. Bringing access to the internet to places where it is scarce or non-existent could be a huge business. Around 470m households and 3.5bn people lack such access, reckons Northern Sky Research, a consultancy. OneWeb is one of a handful of firms that want to do so. They think the best way to widen connectivity is to break with the model of using big satellites in distant orbits and instead deploy lots of small ones that sit closer to the ground.

The rate at which an object orbits depends on how far away it is. At a distance of 380,000km, the Moon takes a month to travel around the Earth. The International Space Station, around 400km up, buzzes round in an hour and a half. In between, at an altitude of about 36,000km, there is a sweet spot where satellites make an orbit once a day. A satellite in this orbit is thus “geostationary”—it seems to sit still over a specific spot. Almost all today’s satellite communications traffic, both data and broadcasts, goes through such satellites.

The advantage of a geostationary orbit is that the antennae that send data to the satellite and those that receive data coming down from it do not need to move. The disadvantage is that sending a signal that far requires a hefty antenna and a lot of power. And even at the speed of light, the trip to geostationary orbit and back adds a half-second delay to signals. That does not matter for broadcasts, but it does a little for voice, where the delay can prove tiresome, and a lot for some sorts of data. Many online services work poorly or not at all over such a connection. And it always requires a dish that looks up at the sky.

Head in the clouds

Ships, planes and remote businesses rely for internet connections on signals sent from geostationary orbit, but this method is too pricey for widespread adoption. Beaming the internet via satellites orbiting closer to the planet has been tried before. The idea was popular at the height of the tech boom of the late 1990s. Three companies—Teledesic, Iridium and Globalstar—poured tens of billions of dollars into the low-Earth orbit (leo) satellite internet. It culminated in the collapse of Teledesic. Although the technology of the time worked, it was very costly and so the services on offer had to be hugely expensive, too. Iridium survived, but as a niche provider of satellite telephony, not a purveyor of cheap and fast internet access.

OneWeb is among several firms that are trying leo satellites again. SpaceX, a rocket company founded by Elon Musk, a tech entrepreneur, is guarded about its proposed system, Starlink, but on November 15th American regulators approved an application for 7,518 satellites at an altitude of 340km (bringing the total for which the firm has approval to nearly 12,000). Telesat, a Canadian firm, has plans for a 512-satellite constellation. LeoSat, a startup with Japanese and Latin American backers, aims to build a 108-satellite network aimed at providing super-fast connections to businesses. Iridium, still in the game, will launch the final ten satellites in its new constellation of 66 by the end of the year. Not to be outdone, a Chinese state-owned firm recently announced the construction of a 300-satellite constellation. In ten years’ time, if all goes to plan, these new firms will have put more satellites into orbit by themselves than the total launched to date (see chart).

These companies want to avoid the technical issues of geostationary satellites by putting theirs into a low orbit, where the data will take only a few milliseconds to travel to space and back. And because signals need not be sent so far the satellites can be smaller and cheaper. OneWeb claims they might weigh 150kg and cost a few hundred thousand dollars, compared with a tonne or more, and tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars, for the geostationary sort.

Floating in a most peculiar way

At 1,200km up, where OneWeb intends its first satellites to operate, they do not sit still in the sky. A satellite overhead will sink below the horizon seven minutes later. That has two consequences. First, to ensure that a satellite is always available to any user, a great many are required. Second, to talk to such a satellite you need an antenna that can track it across the sky.

One way to understand this is as a cellular-phone network turned inside out. On Earth, cell-phone towers are fixed; a user’s phone talks to the closest or least busy one, which may change as the user moves or traffic alters. In OneWeb’s system each satellite is a moving cell tower, circling the Earth from pole to pole in one of 18 orbital planes that look like lines of longitude (see diagram). The 900 cells, each one covering an area of a bit more than 1m kilometres, skim across the Earth at 26,000km an hour. Clever software hands transmission from one satellite to the next as they move into and out of range.

There are three ways to connect to such a network. One is to place an antenna on a terrestrial cell tower, which can use the satellites to get data to and from a mobile-phone network, in place of the fibre optic, microwave or cable links that are normally used. The second is for homes and businesses to have their own ground terminals, smaller and cheaper antenna that can talk to the satellite. The third is for vehicles to have ground terminals. This might be important for driverless cars, which will need to transmit and receive large volumes of data over an area which may be broader than that covered by appropriate terrestrial cellular networks.

In all cases data will make their way to the wider internet through large ground-based dishes, called gateways. An email sent from a house connected to one of the new satellite network, for example, would travel up to a passing satellite, down to a gateway then onward to its destination.

The firms involved today hope to overcome the obstacles confronting the previous generation of leo satellite firms because building and launching hundreds of satellites is now much cheaper. The cost of launch in particular has tumbled in the past decade with the arrival of better rockets and more competition. OneWeb has a contract, reportedly valued at over €1bn ($1.1bn), for 21 launches with Arianespace, a European consortium. Russian-built Soyuz craft will also take 34 to 36 satellites up at a time from either French Guiana or Kazakhstan. OneWeb may later use Blue Origin, a rocket firm owned by Amazon’s founder, Jeff Bezos; it also has a contract for launching single satellites to replace ones that break down with Virgin Orbit. Virgin Group, like Airbus and SoftBank, is an investor in the company. SpaceX intends to launch its satellites on its own rockets.

Space to grow

The bigger challenge is making satellites quickly and cheaply enough to fill up these rockets. It typically takes existing satellite-makers two years to build one after contracts are signed. They are not up to the challenge, says Jonny Dyer, who worked on a Google project that first brought the OneWeb team together (but stayed with Google when the two parted ways). “The supply chain does not scale,” he says. “They’re not used to working at those volumes, and they’re not used to the unit cost.”

OneWeb and SpaceX thus not only have to make new satellites, they have to build a system for building satellites. OneWeb has been doing so in Toulouse for the past two years. Its first satellite was completed in April and ten more will be ready in time for the company’s first launch, some time before February 2019. To step up manufacture, OneWeb is building two copies of its production line in a new factory in Florida. It hopes to have the first satellite from this facility ready before March 2019 and to raise output to ten a week not long after.

The factory floor in Toulouse has separate workstations for propulsion systems, communications payload, solar panels and so on. Satellites in the making move on robot carts from one station to the next. Cameras track the components and look out for errors—misalignments and the like. The finished cube is about the size of a beach ball bedecked with antennae and solar panels. After testing, it is shipped out. The system has had teething problems. The first launch will be more than a year behind schedule. But Greg Wyler, OneWeb’s boss, says he still hopes to offer connectivity in places in higher northern latitudes, such as Alaska and Britain, by the end of 2019.

Putting satellites in place is only part of the problem. How useful they will prove to be depends on designing and building antennae to get data to homes or vehicles that are not close to terrestrial cell towers. “The elephant in the room…has always been the ground terminal,” says Nathan Kundtz, the former boss of Kymeta, which makes antennae. Mr Kundtz says that tracking satellites across the sky mechanically is untenable if the antennae are to be affordable and widely used. His firm does tracking electronically. No moving parts, he says. Teledesic failed in part because no such ground terminal existed in the late 1990s. Fortunately, the necessary electronics have shrunk in size and cost.

Aerial combat

Firms such as Kymeta, along with at least two other companies, Phasor and Isotropic Systems, are producing flat, electronically “steerable” antennae with no moving parts that can send and receive signals from leo satellites. Kymeta’s antenna is the least orthodox. It relies upon the same kind of lcddisplay found in laptops and flat-screen televisions. Instead of using the 30,000 pixels in its screen to display images, it uses them to filter and interpret the satellite signal by allowing it to pass through at some pixels and blocking it at others. Different patterns of pixels act like a lens, focusing the signal onto a receiver beneath them; the pattern shifts up to 240 times a second, changing the shape of the “lens” and thus keeping track of the satellites overhead. Phasor’s system works similarly, but uses an electronically controlled array of microchips to perform the same task. Isotropic Systems, which has said that it is developing an antenna that will be able to receive signal from OneWeb’s satellites, uses an optical system more like Kymeta’s.

Kymeta and Phasor have both said that they do not want to sell antennae directly to consumers, but will focus on businesses, cellular networks, maritime and aviation customers instead. Isotropic Systems has announced that it will use its technology to produce a “consumer broadband terminal” in time for OneWeb’s launch. Once available, consumers are most likely to get the new pizza-size antennae through their internet service providers. But if it is too expensive for people to receive signals on the ground—most of the world’s unconnected are poor—those ventures selling direct to consumers will struggle. Mr Wyler says his firm needs antennae that cost $200 at most for the consumer business to thrive.

Telesat, the next biggest firm in terms of constellation size, is taking a different approach. It does not plan to offer services to consumers directly, but instead is focusing on filling in gaps for cellular networks, as well as businesses, ships and planes. Specialised telecoms companies would buy bandwidth and resell it. In contrast to Messrs Wyler and Musk, and their aspirations for global coverage, Telesat has divided the surface of the planet into thousands of polygons, and modelled exactly in which ones it makes financial sense to offer strong connectivity. This means its constellation needs fewer expensive gateways.

Mr Wyler, in contrast, is known as something of a connectivity evangelist. His first satellite internet firm, o3b (Other 3 Billion), placed large satellites in a higher orbit, providing a connection only slightly slower than a leosatellite. Now owned by ses, a larger satellite company, o3b specialises in providing connectivity to islands that are otherwise cut off. OneWeb’s goal of connecting consumers is largely in the hands of SoftBank, its main investor, which owns the exclusive rights to sell the new bandwidth.

Even if the new satellites bring the internet to people and parts of the planet that have been ill-served up until now, putting ever more objects in space brings another set of difficulties. Satellites in densely packed constellations may crash into each other or other spacecraft. “If there are thousands [of satellites] then they’ll have much higher probability of colliding,” says Mr Dyer. “If there is a collision in these orbits it will be a monumental disaster. At 1,000km, if there’s an incident it will be up there for hundreds of years.” Geostationary satellites, because they do not move relative to each other, are unlikely to collide.

Managing constellations is particularly difficult, says Mr Wyler, because each satellite has only a tiny amount of power to work with (equipping small ones with bigger thrusters would be hugely expensive). So even if a crash were imminent, there would be little that could be done about it other than watch. “What are you gonna do? Nothing. Get popcorn. There’s nothing to do,” says Mr Wyler. OneWeb has designed its constellation so that faulty satellites fall out of orbit immediately to avoid this risk.

Access all areas

The new constellations will also raise tricky questions of national jurisdiction. Countries generally have control of the routers which connect them to the wider terrestrial internet. Satellites threaten that control. The national regulators that OneWeb has talked to are uneasy, says Mr Wyler, because it would create a route to the internet that countries could not monitor. OneWeb’s intention is to build 39 “gateways” on the ground around the world that will beam up and receive traffic from its satellites.

The first is under construction in Svalbard, a remote Norwegian island chain. These access points, and those planned by other firms, present another difficulty. Some countries are willing to share gateways with other countries. Others want their own because they are concerned that third parties will be able to monitor internet traffic, potentially using it to hack data flows of national importance.

Questions remain about whether the businesses involved can do all they promise cheaply enough. But if these companies succeed, their impact will go beyond helping to bring 3.5bn people online. Mr Musk has hazy plans to use Starlink as the foundation for a deep-space network that will keep spacecraft connected en route to Mars and the Moon.

With a network of satellites encircling the planet, humans will soon never be offline. High-quality internet connections will become more widespread than basic sanitation and running water. The leo broadband firms are trying to reinvent the satellite industry. But the infrastructure they are planning will provide a platform for other industries to reinvent themselves, too.

Correction (December 11th, 2018): This piece originally stated that Intelsat has launched 59 satellites in its 54-year history. That is the number of active satellites the firm has in orbit. The firm has successfully launched 94. Sorry.

This article appeared in the Briefing section of the print edition under the headline “A worldwide web in space”

Wireless networks aren’t ready for the smartphone revolution


Uh oh! Expect to see the cost of wireless data skyrocket

In addition to Ericsson’s forecast of inadequate capacity, the base cost of data backhaul from cellular is astronomical. A fix is needed or we will all be paying through the nose.

Ericsson: Wireless networks aren’t ready for the smartphone revolution

nathanielBY 
ON NOVEMBER 11, 2013

subway_phone

Ericsson today released its quarterly Mobility Report, an in-depth study meant to identify and quantify the major trends in mobile device usage. It confirms what many have long suspected. Smartphones are more popular than they were just a few months ago. China is one of the most important mobile markets in the world. Reaching another billion consumers will take less time than reaching the first billion. The instincts of many reporters and pundits have now been sufficiently measured, projected, and published in a handy-dandy PDF.

There is one aspect of the report that might surprise some readers, however. Ericsson says that the rate at which smartphone owners use wireless data connections will grow much faster than the rate at which people are buying new smartphones. The report says that the smartphone market is likely to triple by 2019; the amount of data used by smartphone owners is expected to grow tenfold in the same time period. That’s where things get interesting.

Ericsson expects much of this data — more than 50 percent — to be consumed by streaming videos. The problem: many cities don’t boast wireless coverage strong enough to support such streaming. Only two cities (Copenhagen and Oslo) regularly offered a strong enough connection to offer the stutter-free streaming experience many consumers might expect from these apps. Other cities could handle less data-intensive tasks, and could certainly create public WiFi hotspots capable of handling the strain, but other networks simply aren’t yet up to the task.

That’s where companies like Onavo, which Facebook recently bought for “about $120 million,” might come in. Onavo’s data compression software makes it easier for companies to reach consumers with poor Internet connections. “We expect Onavo’s data compression technology to play a central role in our mission to connect more people to the internet, and their analytic tools will help us provide better, more efficient mobile products,” a Facebook spokeswoman told Reuters when the acquisition was announced. Facebook wants to reach another billion people, and it’s going to have to solve or mitigate this data problem in order to do so.

But the technologies that allow people to use increasingly data-intensive services won’t just be for the next billion people to join the Internet. They’re likely to become more important in developed countries, too — especially if the current state of broadband in countries like the US remains dire. Wireless networks are becoming easier to access even as they best the speed of their broadband counterparts, and some companies, like FreedomPop, are trying to convince consumers that wireless data has gotten so good that they probably don’t even need a broadband connection.

The rise of smartphones isn’t a surprise. Neither is the idea that a country with 1 billion citizens will prove integral to its continuation. But the increasing requirements of people who are using their smartphones more than ever before, combined with the increased number of people purchasing smartphones for the first time, might surprise those who wonder about just how important these devices might become to our daily lives.

Getting the next billion people onto the Internet will be hard. Supporting all of ‘em once they’re here will be even harder.

How Gigabit Fiber to the Home Will Transform Education Way Beyond MOOC’s

The post below caught my attention because of the current industry debate and competitive battle over deployment of much higher Gigabit Internet bandwidth via optical fiber to consumers, known as Fiber to the Home or FTTH, at prices much lower than they currently pay for even 50 Megabit Internet connectivity. Gigabit connectivity is already a reality in Hong Kong and South Korea, with Europe not far behind. The big cable carriers, Comcast and Time Warner, have actually argued publicly that consumers don’t want or need higher bandwidth. How they came to that conclusion is a mystery. Now Google has entered into direct competition with the cable carriers, deploying Gigabit FTTH in Kansas City and Austin, Texas to be followed by other locations, at prices a fraction of Comcast’s pricing for lower bandwidth.


The post below caught my attention because of the current industry debate and competitive battle over deployment of much higher Gigabit Internet bandwidth via optical fiber to consumers, known as Fiber to the Home or FTTH, at prices much lower than they currently pay for even 50 Megabit Internet connectivity.  Gigabit connectivity is already a reality in Hong Kong and South Korea, with Europe not far behind. The big cable carriers, Comcast and Time Warner, have actually argued publicly that consumers don’t want or need higher bandwidth. How they came to that conclusion is a mystery.  Now Google has entered into direct competition with the cable carriers, deploying Gigabit FTTH in Kansas City and Austin, Texas to be followed by other locations, at prices a fraction of Comcast’s pricing for lower bandwidth.  This battle has been admirably described in the book Captive Audience, The Telecom Industry and Monopoly Power in the New Gilded Age, by Yale Law Professor, Susan P. Crawford.

Captive Audience

So people have asked the question, “what will people do with all of this massive bandwidth?” Having lived with Moore’s Law for most of my career, I smile in bemusement. I can remember a fear that the 256K flash memory chip was “too big.” The truth is that if you were asked 20 years ago to predict how we would be using the Internet today, I doubt many would have accurately predicted our current global village.  The few exceptions would be visionaries like Dave Evans, Chief Futurist at Cisco Systems, who authored this Huffington Post article, providing an excellent prediction of how FTTH may impact just one aspect of the future: education.

Reblogged from Huffington Post ImpactX

Beyond Online Classes: How The Internet of Everything Is Transforming Education

Posted: 08/22/2013 10:36 am
By Dave Evans, Chief Futurist, Cisco Systems

Over the next few weeks, students will be heading back to school for the fall semester. In fact, my oldest child will be starting college for the first time, and I have another one not far behind. So naturally, I’ve been thinking about the future of education, and the opportunities and challenges 21st century technology might bring.

Technology has had an amazing impact on education in the last few years. But what we’ve seen so far is nothing compared to the sea change that will be created by the Internet of Everything (IoE) in the coming decade. The networked connections among people, processes, data and things will change not just how and where education is delivered, but will also redefine what students need to learn, and why.

When we talk about technology-enabled learning, most people probably think of online classes, which have had mixed results so far. On one hand, online courses can make higher education much more affordable and accessible. On the other hand, not all students can stay engaged and successful without regular feedback and interaction with their instructor and other students. Even the best online classes cannot hope to duplicate the rich spontaneous interactions that can take place among students and instructors in the classroom.

But with connection speeds going up, and equipment costs going down, we can go beyond online classes to create widely accessible immersive, interactive, real-time learning experiences. Soon, time and distance will no longer limit access to an engaging, high quality education. Anywhere there is sufficient bandwidth, a student can participate in a rich virtual classroom experience — attending lectures, asking questions, and participating in real-time discussions with other students.

And the “sufficient bandwidth” requirement is not that far away. Connection speeds to the high-end home user are doubling every 21 months. Said another way, this is a doubling of almost 64 times over the next decade. Consider a home with a 10 Mbps connection today; this same home could have a 640 Mbps in a decade, and a home with a 50 MB broadband connection today might have a 3 GB connection in 10 years — this is sufficient bandwidth to display streaming video on every square inch of the walls of a 1,800-square-foot home! What type of immersive experiences could educators create with these types of connections?

cisco roomWithin the next decade, high connection speeds and low hardware costs could bring immersive, interactive classes right into the home.
Of course this is about more than simply raw network speeds; the Internet of Everything will also impact some of our basic assumptions about the purpose and nature of education. People today generally agree that the purpose of education is to convey knowledge. But if all the world’s knowledge is instantaneously available online via smartphone or Google Glass, how does that affect what we need to teach in school? Perhaps education will become less about acquiring knowledge, and more about how to analyze, evaluate, and use the unlimited information that is available to us. Perhaps we will teach more critical thinking, collaboration, and social skills. Perhaps we will not teach answers, but how to ask the right questions.

I know that technology will never replace the full, face-to-face experience that my son will have when he starts university next month. But technology can supplement and enrich the traditional in-person school experience. And I hope the school my son attends will teach the new set of 21st century skills needed to help him make the most of technology.

Google’s “Loon Balloon” Internet Feels Like A Kiwi #8 Wire Project

At an absolute minimum, Google has scored a PR coup with their blog announcement of “Project Loon,” a trial of Internet Wifi via balloons floating in the stratosphere over New Zealand. You may have already seen, heard or read about this, as the story has appeared in much of the mainstream media, albeit without much journalistic scrutiny. The Loon project has also been covered extensively in the tech “blogosphere” (pun intended). From my reading, only very few journalists have delved into the devil of the details, and asked serious questions, which remain largely unanswered. It is probably not in Google’s best interest to say too much more, as they have already favorably established the Loon Project in the media. The Kiwi’s have a term for this kind of project. They are known in New Zealand as “#8 Wire” projects. Read on and I will explain.



GoogleLoonBallon3

Google Loon Balloon Over South Island New Zealand

At an absolute minimum, Google has scored a PR coup with their blog announcement of “Project Loon,”  a trial of Internet via balloons floating in the stratosphere over New Zealand.  You may have already seen, heard or read about this, as the story has appeared in much of the mainstream media, albeit without much journalistic scrutiny.  The Loon project has also been covered extensively in the tech “blogosphere” (pun intended).  From my reading, only very few journalists have delved into the devil of the details, and asked serious questions, which remain largely unanswered.  It is probably not in Google’s best interest to say too much more, as they have already favorably established the Loon Project in the media.  The Kiwi‘s have a term for this kind of project.  They are known in New Zealand as “#8 Wire” projects.  Read on and I will explain.

Google should be applauded for committing research and development dollars to a project they openly admit is “crazy.”  Gizmodo called it “crazy cool.”  The TechCrunch blog has called it a very long shot.  Google has also explained that the project is in the very early experimental stage. We should remember that this is the company that is also developing the driverless vehicle, which is becoming more real by the day, and Google Glass. Google is also a global leader in the emergence of Big Data. The bottom line is that Google has shown commendable leadership in pursuing these Big Ideas.   However, I am leaning toward the conclusion that this one is a very long shot, though it will be fun to follow.

IMHO, this may also be a very interesting story that involves Kiwi innovation, Kiwi culture and history, and the challenges of commercializing innovation. But for now, let’s just follow the story and the Google Loon Project, and see what develops.

With regard to the metaphor of Kiwi #8 Wire projects, it is part of the history of New Zealand.  #8 wire is the stuff that is used in New Zealand to fence in the sheep, thousands of miles of it. The term is used loosely to describe “loony” far fetched innovation projects, probably including eccentric tinkers.   For many years until PM David Lange opened the NZ economy in the 1980’s, it was heavily protectionist. The tariff burden on imports was heavy, and the economy was stuck in a South Pacific doldrum.  As a consequence, Kiwi’s increasingly became known for extraordinary ingenuity with whatever found materials they could lay their hands on. A #8 wire project became the metaphor for creative thinking in NZ.  Examples of this abound.  There is even a prominent venture capital firm in Wellington named “#8 Ventures.”

My first exposure to this phenomenon was meeting former Financial Times journalist, Craig Oram, who had immigrated to New Zealand from the UK, and was reporting on economic topics in NZ.  Oram gave a captivating presentation to our New Zealand Trade & Enterprise group.  He had quickly grasped the #8 phenomenon and seized on the amazing true story of Burt Munro, the Invercargill tinker and motorcycle racer, who set numerous motorcycle land speed records in the 1950’s and ’60’s at the Bonneville salt flats in Utah.  Despite these achievements, Munro never turned his high profile successes into commercial success. Kiwi’s in the know will often mention the name “Burt,” with all of the heavy implied meaning, to remind themselves.  Oram used the Burt Munro story in his presentations to typify “#8 wire projects,” and a broader failure in the NZ economy to effectively commercialize their innovations.  For those interested, the Burt Munro story was made into an excellent  feature film (4 stars on Rotten Tomatoes) starring Anthony Hopkins as Munro, The World’s Fastest Indian.” 

Another more relevant example of this type of Kiwi innovation was published in the Wall Street Journal years ago, about an innovator who had converted a Weber barbeque tub into a long-range WiFi antenna to successfully transmit a WiFi signal a record 100 kilometers. I can no longer find the story reference in the WSJ archives, but there is another connection between a Weber barbeque and WiFi.  You can now buy a product online that allows you to use WiFi to control the temperature of your Weber barbeque from your remote mobile phone while you are away on errands.

But back to the main point of this post, solar powered, stratospheric balloon delivery of 3G cellular data service to remote locations.  Apparently New Zealand is an ideal location to trial this kind of balloon project because the most favorable winds are at 40 degrees latitude south, directly over the North Island of New Zealand and perhaps the next trial site, Tasmania.  The Google Loon project is being launched over Christchurch on the South Island, but this is a minor point.

The BBC June 15th online article is one of the better articles, that explores the numerous issues with this approach.

Read more: Google Balloon Project

The first obvious concern is how do you effectively navigate in the stratosphere and keep an untethered balloon in one place?  The military apparently has tried this concept, but on a much smaller scale, and a smaller area. Tethered balloons apparently have been a failure, the most notable of these failures may be the U.S. border security tethered balloon surveillance project that was canned after spending Billions.  Google says they have navigation solved, using Google’s massive databases and servers, by controlling the altitude of the balloons to take advantage of varying wind direction.  Part of the justification for this approach is to provide service quickly and efficiently to areas with no terrestrial Internet infrastructure, which seems to make sense, but there are also potential geopolitical issues.  A recent round-the-World balloon record attempt was vexed by their failure to obtain approval from China to overfly their territory. With nations increasingly seeking to control their Internet access, Google may be creating a technology that could be politically dead on arrival.  The balloons have transponders to alert aircraft, but with potentially thousands of these Google balloons all over the globe, I could envision the International Air Transport Association (IATA), or the United Nations seeking to control the balloons. It dawns on me that powered blimp drones could potentially solve the navigation problem, but not the other problems below.

GoogleLoonBallon1

Google Loon Project Solar Panels

The second concern I have is the use of only 4 apparently standard photovoltaic solar panels (pictured above), which can generate maybe 500 to 600 Watts maximum, but only during the daylight hours.  Energy storage is the key challenge of renewable energy generally, which requires batteries.  Batteries of all varieties are very heavy and bulky.  The stratosphere is about 15 to 20 miles up in the atmosphere.  So how can a 600 Watt, daylight only, solar powered balloon deliver 3G or standard WiFi signals 20 miles and more, 24 hours a day, to cover a very large area on the ground, perhaps 50 miles in diameter?   This seems implausible at best.

Wide area coverage from a distance of 20 to 25 miles also begs the question of user contention, with potentially large numbers of users all accessing the balloon antenna simultaneously.  A mobile device cannot transmit upstream a distance of 20 miles.  Or is there some proprietary Google radio signal technology acting as an intermediary link to standard access points on the ground. But isn’t this about delivering Internet connectivity without any terrestrial infrastructure? Does the balloon technology only work at much lower wireless bandwidth, which in such situations would be better than having nothing.

What about Internet traffic backhaul from the balloon to the Cloud, at an optical fibre multi-gigabit level, as is done on the ground?  First, I must admit that I do know a bit about radio signal propagation, spectrum, and power, but a little bit is a dangerous thing. I am no expert.  But a logical assumption, since this operates over areas with no terrestrial Internet infrastructure, would be that a satellite link would be the choice, but I don’t see a dish. If so this would require very stable platform acquisition and maintenance of the satellite link.   If not satellite, what other backhaul link is being used?  Can 500 to 600 Watts handle all of this on a balloon platform?

Another key point is that cellular data service is expensive. There is a reason for that.  The backhaul from cellular towers is expensive.

Google has made clear that expanding the global Internet to new markets that are currently underserved on not served at all, is a strategic priority for them.  This initiative, as off the wall as it may be, and with its Super WiFi ground-based technology trial in South Africa, Google is putting its money where its mouth is. Google’s must grow its business beyond its current developed markets to maintain its dominance.  Google Chairman Eric Schmidt has been taking on the role of global ambassador for their strategy.  But there are serious technical questions with the untethered balloon concept. More concerning, Google may be running into international political resistance as nations take a much more proactive role in managing and regulating the Internet in their territories, as they do with telecommunications, radio spectrum and other national resources.

UPDATE:  Google Loon Project leader Mike Cassidy was interviewed by Ira Flatow, this morning on National Public Radio’s Science Friday program.  Mr. Cassidy clarified that they are delivering a 3G mobile “Internet” data service from the balloons. Employing 3G has been criticized by the MIT Technology blog below, for being impractical, and expensive. Regrettably, there was no discussion on NPR of the technical and geopolitical issues, and no call-in questions. 

RELATED ARTICLES: African Entrepreneurs Deflate Google’s Loon Balloon Project (Tech in America via MIT Technology Review)