Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Tzeentch tzeentch666@*********.net
Subject: The Matrix: Satellites
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1999 16:47:12 -0800
Looking through VR2 and I noticed the often-unused or abused satellite
jackpoint...

Some of the things I noted are the fact that it has a higher base bandwidth
(50) as compared to 20 for a legal or illegal connection. Access is a bit
harder (+2).

Ok satellites... good bandwidth but harder access. Let's cover this, break
out those dusty Virtual Realities 2.0 books and consult pages 29 and 30. Gee
guess satellites are no big deal in the future! They only get a few short
paragraphs!

According to VR2 you experience a signal lag using a satellite that reduces
your Reaction by -2. Excuse me? If you buy the millisecond response cycles
of a William Gibson style cyberworld ok, but if you start giving Reaction
modifiers for satellite runs you better REALLY start piling on the negatives
once people start hopping RTGs. What do you think those signals travel on
anyways? Overseas is almost all satellite, and long haul continental traffic
is either satellite and/or microwave towers. So that makes little sense
given that you don't get Reaction penalties for hacking systems on the other
side of the planet. So that's right out. (Or alternately every RTG you
travel you get a cumulative -2 Reaction).

Trace IC can trace you back to the satellite jackpoint...I'd go so far as to
say they can only trace you back to the groundstation the satellite was
feeding data to - they would not know what satellite you were using unless
they called the ground station up and asked them to identify a particular
feed (very doubtful).

Next you have to have satlink interface software to locate a
commsat..hmm..uhm ok (we'll get to this later as well). Well assuming
satellite constellations continue to grow like they are now I'd the target
numbers half what they are in the book. the only time you'll have to ever
worry about NOT having satellite access is if you are on one of the poles
(actually Iridium even works there..).

Throw out that crap on decking the satellite, thats pretty bogus. I'd simply
make the decker pay for satphone service like anything else or hack into the
satcomm company and hack an account. The satellite will not be set up to
"hack into" I'm sorry. It's a relay station.

Forget the concept of it being an system that you can be "in". You simply
connect to the satellite and bammo you're on the normal Matrix, probably
starting in your 'home' LTG (the one you signed up for the satcomm service
in). The satellite is part of the invisible backbone of the Matrix, you
won't even notice you are on a satellite connection.

This also means you can't do the double-bogus hack into another satellite
network from the current one trick they mention. Urr, sorry folks but while
satellites in the same constellation may/will communicate between themselves
its not something you can hack into. Keep repeating "satellites are relays
satellites are relays" over and over.

That's it as far as the rules mechanics for satellites go and thats as it
should be! You won't even think about satellites in the future because they
will be everywhere! Tracing programs should be practically worthless in SR
if you think about it - how could you track someone using a HALO relay for
example? Don't think current cellphone tech, that stuff could very easily go
away if/when cheap HALO and satellite networks are up and running. You might
be able to know they are somewhere in satellite X's or a HALO stations
footprint but that can be a damn large footprint!

On into the book we have the rules for building satlink interfaces (pg 88).
Whoa what were they smoking when they came up with this section? Paul Hume
must be the owner of one of those giant 80's satellite dishes. These things
are _big_ even by todays standards.
Standard portable (1/2m across, 5kg)
Large portable (1m across, 8kg) -1 to TN for satellite location
Fixed-base earth station (unknown, not stated) -2 TN for satellite location
Mobile fixed-base earth station (trucks and trailers) Guess bonus is same as
above

That's __gigantic__ chummers. You can get an Iridium satphone NOW that as
small as a shoe or smaller. This needs to be completely revised, and since
we've stated that you won't have any problems FINDING satellites you may
want to say that any TN modifiers are for keeping connections if you start
moving, go into buildings (not recommended!) or things get in the way of the
antenna. Most satphone antennas will be about as big as a cellphone antenna
is now.

The prices are also way whacked out, 800 nuyen for a portable antenna? Huh?
Never of of DirectTV? :) The temporary dish components was OBVIOUSLY cribbed
from William Gibson and while cool I think the electronics price is
ridiciculous (1000Y?!!!??).

Then we have the construction part...all I can say is yeah RIGHT. The
satcomm interface should be a simple box you can buy at radio shack. You
won't have to "tune" it for your deck any more then you have "tune"
your
current modem to work in your PC when you upgrade processors. Give it a
fixed cost and the satellite interface software should be very small (its
just a database and some drivers for antenna tuning). If you're on the
Matrix patching into a satellite you won't need the software since you could
grab that from off the companies support site, or use their online database.

The actual interface would be a small box you plug your cyberdeck into and
that's about it. Hell you could probably get satphones that have a jack for
plugging decks into! Ditch the entire bogus section on satlink interfaces
unless you are running a really wierd shadowrun campaign where all the
satellites have gotten shot down or something and it's really hard to get
legit satphone hardware. And guess what, if you build a new cyberdeck you
don't need to make a new interface, just use the old one!

Ok, you can't hack a satellite for access, the antennas will be damn small,
there will be a LOT of satellites to connect to, you still have the normal
problems with satphones (no indoors use, make sure the view is
unobstructed). Satphones will still cost money in the future though. So
going by current rates (just as a guide) I'd start charging my friendly
deckers 2Y/minute for access in addition to the cost of the hand unit (3000Y
now so about 300Y in the future?) Of course you have to subscribe to the
service, which by itself won't cost much and will include the software you
need for your deck. Let's call it 50Y for giggles. Bandwidth will be FIXED,
sorry chummers. You want more bandwidth I'm sure the satcomm company will be
happy to give you extra channels for a premium price. Make the base
bandwidth..hmm..15 (its not really intended for hardcore decking) and every
multiple of that they get charged x2. So if they used 75mp that's a charge
of 2^52Y right off the bat. That's per minute, using the highest spike.

Comments?

Ken

"If some unemployed punk in New Jersey can get a casette to make love to
Elle McPherson for $19.95, this virtual reality stuff is going to make crack
look like Sanka."
-Dennis Miller
Message no. 2
From: Da Twink Daddy datwinkdaddy@*******.com
Subject: The Matrix: Satellites
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1999 21:24:08 -0600 (CST)
Today, Tzeentch spoke on The Matrix: Satellites:

> Comments?

*Maybe* you have a point, it some areas. However, I don't like the system
you propose at ALL. I like the VR2 rules as is, they are simple and very
workable. Maybe I can't explain it completely, but nor can I describe
exactly how ASIST works.

Sorry, didn't like it,

Da Twink Daddy
e-mail: bss03@*******.uark.edu
ICQ: 514984
Message no. 3
From: Tzeentch tzeentch666@*********.net
Subject: The Matrix: Satellites
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1999 20:00:53 -0800
From: Da Twink Daddy <datwinkdaddy@*******.com>


> Today, Tzeentch spoke on The Matrix: Satellites:
>
> > Comments?
>
> *Maybe* you have a point, it some areas. However, I don't like the system
> you propose at ALL. I like the VR2 rules as is, they are simple and very
> workable. Maybe I can't explain it completely, but nor can I describe
> exactly how ASIST works.

Is it too complex? I did not think it added any rules complexity.

> Sorry, didn't like it,

Ok, I'll try to work out a simpler method. Thanks.

Ken

"If some unemployed punk in New Jersey can get a casette to make love to
Elle McPherson for $19.95, this virtual reality stuff is going to make crack
look like Sanka."
-Dennis Miller

> Da Twink Daddy
> e-mail: bss03@*******.uark.edu
> ICQ: 514984
>
>
>
Message no. 4
From: Elindor Quinn rjakins@******.murdoch.edu.au
Subject: The Matrix: Satellites
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 12:39:49 +0800
Tzeentch indicated The Matrix: Satellites

> Looking through VR2 and I noticed the often-unused or abused satellite
> jackpoint...

Hey, bouncing off of a sattelite it extremely useful. And I've some
thoughts about this.

> Some of the things I noted are the fact that it has a higher base
> bandwidth (50) as compared to 20 for a legal or illegal connection. Access
> is a bit harder (+2).

Yep. You're not using the sattelite in the manner it's supposed to
be used, but they have a lot of bandwidth to spare.

> Ok satellites... good bandwidth but harder access. Let's cover this, break
> out those dusty Virtual Realities 2.0 books and consult pages 29 and 30.
> Gee guess satellites are no big deal in the future! They only get a few
> short paragraphs!
>
> According to VR2 you experience a signal lag using a satellite that
> reduces your Reaction by -2. Excuse me? If you buy the millisecond
> response cycles of a William Gibson style cyberworld ok, but if you start
> giving Reaction modifiers for satellite runs you better REALLY start
> piling on the negatives once people start hopping RTGs. What do you think
> those signals travel on anyways? Overseas is almost all satellite, and
> long haul continental traffic is either satellite and/or microwave towers.
> So that makes little sense given that you don't get Reaction penalties for
> hacking systems on the other side of the planet. So that's right out. (Or
> alternately every RTG you travel you get a cumulative -2 Reaction).

More to do with the fact that the RTG links use dedicated sattelites
which only carry the traffic between RTG's at High Speed.
Additionally, those use more powerful transmitters, and generally
use tight beam transmissions. A personal sattelite link has a lot
less power, and needs to be processed to improve the signal
quality. These factors combine to cause signal lag.

> Trace IC can trace you back to the satellite jackpoint...I'd go so far as
> to say they can only trace you back to the groundstation the satellite was
> feeding data to - they would not know what satellite you were using unless
> they called the ground station up and asked them to identify a particular
> feed (very doubtful).

That would be like saying that trace IC can locate the RTG you're
connected to, but not the LTG number. The LTG is the access port
to the RTG, just as the Sattelite is an access port to the Ground
Station.

> Next you have to have satlink interface software to locate a
> commsat..hmm..uhm ok (we'll get to this later as well). Well assuming
> satellite constellations continue to grow like they are now I'd the target
> numbers half what they are in the book. the only time you'll have to ever
> worry about NOT having satellite access is if you are on one of the poles
> (actually Iridium even works there..).

Space is big. Really big. Sattelites are rather small, and tend to
point only in certain directions. It's not finding a sattlite that's the
problem. It's finding one that is aligned in your direction, and is set
up to accept signals.

Also, you have to factor in interference from the surroundings.

> Throw out that crap on decking the satellite, thats pretty bogus. I'd
> simply make the decker pay for satphone service like anything else or hack
> into the satcomm company and hack an account. The satellite will not be
> set up to "hack into" I'm sorry. It's a relay station.

A sattelite will need a computer on-board to make sure it remains
pointed in the right direction, report faults, verfiy signals and other
tasks. And it's going to need to be an extremely secure computer.
Can't have anyone else moving your billion nuyen communications
sattelite.

> On into the book we have the rules for building satlink interfaces (pg
> 88). Whoa what were they smoking when they came up with this section? Paul
> Hume must be the owner of one of those giant 80's satellite dishes. These
> things are _big_ even by todays standards. Standard portable (1/2m across,
> 5kg) Large portable (1m across, 8kg) -1 to TN for satellite location
> Fixed-base earth station (unknown, not stated) -2 TN for satellite
> location Mobile fixed-base earth station (trucks and trailers) Guess bonus
> is same as above

> That's __gigantic__ chummers. You can get an Iridium satphone NOW that as
> small as a shoe or smaller. This needs to be completely revised, and since
> we've stated that you won't have any problems FINDING satellites you may
> want to say that any TN modifiers are for keeping connections if you start
> moving, go into buildings (not recommended!) or things get in the way of
> the antenna. Most satphone antennas will be about as big as a cellphone
> antenna is now.

Except for the fact that the signal quality and bandwidth for a
simsense connection are much larger than that of a telephone
conversation. Compare the sizes of a Quicktime movie to a
telephone quality audio clip of the same length. Now add additional
senses in, make it a two way connection, add in a *lot* of error
correction (I don't know about you, but I can do without white noise
for all of my senses), and the bandwidth requirements dramatically
expand.

> The prices are also way whacked out, 800 nuyen for a portable antenna?
> Huh? Never of of DirectTV? :) The temporary dish components was OBVIOUSLY
> cribbed from William Gibson and while cool I think the electronics price
> is ridiciculous (1000Y?!!!??).

These components are designed to be knocked and jostled about,
be strung out on webbing, and then covered in a sticky polymer
which then degrades, then they get pulled apart, stuck in a box,
and carried around until the process begins again. I'd like some
fairly sturdy components for that. And for it to be sturdy, it's going
to be expensive.

> Then we have the construction part...all I can say is yeah RIGHT. The
> satcomm interface should be a simple box you can buy at radio shack. You
> won't have to "tune" it for your deck any more then you have
"tune" your
> current modem to work in your PC when you upgrade processors. Give it a
> fixed cost and the satellite interface software should be very small (its
> just a database and some drivers for antenna tuning). If you're on the
> Matrix patching into a satellite you won't need the software since you
> could grab that from off the companies support site, or use their online
> database.

This is the only part of the Sattelite rules that I don't agree with.
The 2000Y satlink interface for Otaku should do the job just as well.



Elindor Quinn
When I split an infinitive, God damn it, I split it
so it will stay split.
- Raymond Chandler
Message no. 5
From: Da Twink Daddy datwinkdaddy@*******.com
Subject: The Matrix: Satellites
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 00:34:16 -0600 (CST)
Yesterday, Tzeentch spoke on Re: The Matrix: Satellites:

> Is it too complex? I did not think it added any rules complexity.

Hrm, it seems to me that it was adding complexity, maybe because I didn't
see any *concrete* rules at all. Plus, I can justify most of what's in
there (VR2) to myself and all my players. None of us are satelite geeks.
I have a friends would is finishing his Cicso certification, probably as I
speak, but he doesn't mind the unreality of VR2, I'm never even hear him
talk about it.

> > Sorry, didn't like it,
>
> Ok, I'll try to work out a simpler method. Thanks.

Well, I am going to be biased, I'm not looking for another system, I'll
like and accept that in VR2, your system may be great for those who need a
new system.

Maybe I'm the only one, but I am a computer geek compared to my
friends, and a fairly good programmer [Anyone here in ACM?], that likes
the VR2 rules, sure maybe they are a little screwy but, I don't know what
the hell is going to happen in the next 60 years of computing. Maybe it's
not realistic, but neither is the magic system. For me, it's a gamne it's
not supposed to be hard science fiction. Really, I'm more of a soft
sci-fi guy anyway.

Da Twink Daddy
e-mail: bss03@*******.uark.edu
ICQ: 514984
Message no. 6
From: Sommers sommers@*****.edu
Subject: The Matrix: Satellites
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 1999 11:03:53 -0500
At 04:47 PM 12/5/99 -0800, Tzeentch posited:
>Looking through VR2 and I noticed the often-unused or abused satellite
>jackpoint...
>
>Some of the things I noted are the fact that it has a higher base bandwidth
>(50) as compared to 20 for a legal or illegal connection. Access is a bit
>harder (+2).
>
>Ok satellites... good bandwidth but harder access. Let's cover this, break
>out those dusty Virtual Realities 2.0 books and consult pages 29 and 30. Gee
>guess satellites are no big deal in the future! They only get a few short
>paragraphs!

Okay, I don't have it with me so I'll have to wing it on some of these
things. I'll try to clarify more when I get home if it is needed.

>According to VR2 you experience a signal lag using a satellite that reduces
>your Reaction by -2. Excuse me? If you buy the millisecond response cycles
>of a William Gibson style cyberworld ok, but if you start giving Reaction
>modifiers for satellite runs you better REALLY start piling on the negatives
>once people start hopping RTGs. What do you think those signals travel on
>anyways? Overseas is almost all satellite, and long haul continental traffic
>is either satellite and/or microwave towers. So that makes little sense
>given that you don't get Reaction penalties for hacking systems on the other
>side of the planet. So that's right out. (Or alternately every RTG you
>travel you get a cumulative -2 Reaction).

There is a reason for the -2 system lag, which I will get to a little
farther down. I don't think that there should be penalties for jumping RTGs.

As for right now, and in the future, I don't think that most oversees or
long haul continental communications are by satellite or microwave towers,
at least for data transmission. Wide broadcast stuff like TV is, and a lot
of phone is too, but most is still done over cable. A geo-comm sat costs
over a billion dollars to build and launch into geo. Its still cheaper for
most applications to go cable.

>Trace IC can trace you back to the satellite jackpoint...I'd go so far as to
>say they can only trace you back to the groundstation the satellite was
>feeding data to - they would not know what satellite you were using unless
>they called the ground station up and asked them to identify a particular
>feed (very doubtful).

It should be able to trace you back to your jackpoint. The whole idea
behind trace IC is that it looks for the header info attached to data to
track it back to your origin. When you're terrestrial, that back to Joe's
Bar and Grill. When you're decking the sat, the jackpoint is the sat (see
below).

>Next you have to have satlink interface software to locate a
>commsat..hmm..uhm ok (we'll get to this later as well). Well assuming
>satellite constellations continue to grow like they are now I'd the target
>numbers half what they are in the book. the only time you'll have to ever
>worry about NOT having satellite access is if you are on one of the poles
>(actually Iridium even works there..).

Yes, but you have to figure out which sat you want to find and be very
specific about it. When you're talking about several hundred klicks up,
tiny differences in your tracking can make a huge difference in your signal
strength. Oh, and there are still going to be lots of places where sats
don't cover. Its expensive to get them up there, and you don't want to
waste coverage on 24 Innuits if they're not going to pay.

Because each satellite constellation will have a different set of operating
instructions, you need to be locked onto a particular sat. And going to
deep search mode, trying to find a random one, just won't work. My grad
project currently involves tracking GPS sats, and its a LOT harder than it
sounds.

>Throw out that crap on decking the satellite, thats pretty bogus. I'd simply
>make the decker pay for satphone service like anything else or hack into the
>satcomm company and hack an account. The satellite will not be set up to
>"hack into" I'm sorry. It's a relay station.

That's actually the best part. You're sat is a relay station, it doesn't
matter that its not set up to "hack into." The junction box between two
fiber-optic lines is not setup to hacj into. You walk up to it, pull off
the cover, splice a line into the terminals between the two lines and go.

There isn't and need to set up an account, that would be nuts. It works
like a tcpip network with DHCP today. You plug in you're ethernet cable
into the jack, you get a random IP number, and off you go. The masking chip
in your deck fakes out the phone company, which would normally read your ID
off of your deck and then bill the appropriate account for your access
time. That's the way that it works for normal decking.

When you deck the satellite, what you're really doing is first hacking into
the control program for the satellite. Its got a computer there that
controls the sat for guidance, comm to ground station, and how it relays
info. Normally that part of the program tells it to only relay info from
ground stations with the proper authorization code on the proper freqs down
to similar station. You hack into the sat's OS and tell it that its also
okay to receive and forward transmissions from your dish too.

The -2 Reaction penalty comes from having to go through these extra steps
of getting into the guts of the sat and fooling it into doing what you want
it to do. What you could physically do on the ground with a dataline tap,
you're now doing with software which is taking up bandwidth. When you start
out in the Matrix normally and get passed through a sat, you don't have to
worry about faking it out since you're going along normal data channels.

>Forget the concept of it being an system that you can be "in". You simply
>connect to the satellite and bammo you're on the normal Matrix, probably
>starting in your 'home' LTG (the one you signed up for the satcomm service
>in). The satellite is part of the invisible backbone of the Matrix, you
>won't even notice you are on a satellite connection.

That's the way it would work if you hacked the groundstation, since that
would be your point of entry. Each sat has its own little system, since its
a computer. The background sat connection program sets it up so that you
then jump into the system through whichever LTG you pick the groundstation
in. So if you want to start in the Seattle system, you pick a sat that has
a gs in Seattle and go there.

And you never want to sign up for a satcomm service. Just like you never
want to sign up for a normal ISP on the Matrix. You exist in the background
without an ID.

>This also means you can't do the double-bogus hack into another satellite
>network from the current one trick they mention. Urr, sorry folks but while
>satellites in the same constellation may/will communicate between themselves
>its not something you can hack into. Keep repeating "satellites are relays
>satellites are relays" over and over.

Yes, sats are relays. And in the same const they do talk to each other for
various reasons on maintenance channels. Since that's what you're really
decking, that's where you would want to get into. I don't remember the part
about getting into different networks, but you should be able to bounce
around inside the same constellation.

>That's it as far as the rules mechanics for satellites go and thats as it
>should be! You won't even think about satellites in the future because they
>will be everywhere! Tracing programs should be practically worthless in SR
>if you think about it - how could you track someone using a HALO relay for
>example? Don't think current cellphone tech, that stuff could very easily go
>away if/when cheap HALO and satellite networks are up and running. You might
>be able to know they are somewhere in satellite X's or a HALO stations
>footprint but that can be a damn large footprint!

You won't have to think about sats in normal operations. What this is
talking about is the ability to scam your way into the sat system itself,
just like you can break into a normal junction box. Just like there are
rules fro using the Electronics skill to break into those, the sat rules
allow you to break into them.

The tracing programs would still work normally because they'll follow the
data trail to the ground relay, then to the sat and right back down to the
next relay. The same way the trace can follow data through a fiberoptic
line, into a junction box, and out onto another line. The reason you can't
be traced farther back than the sat when you hack it is because you're
creating a ground relay that is not normally on the network.

I don't know if they'll still have it but soon all cell phones are going to
be required to have a GPS unit installed for the 911 system to lock onto.
So not only can a cell phone be triangulated from its signal, it can be
tracked by the GPS signal. Of course, any good decker with this kind of
phone would have this spoofed right away, but still.

I'm not familiar with the term HALO (except for parachuting), but it could
be that I know it under a different name. What kind of system are you
referring to here?

>On into the book we have the rules for building satlink interfaces (pg 88).
>Whoa what were they smoking when they came up with this section? Paul Hume
>must be the owner of one of those giant 80's satellite dishes. These things
>are _big_ even by todays standards.
>Standard portable (1/2m across, 5kg)
>Large portable (1m across, 8kg) -1 to TN for satellite location
>Fixed-base earth station (unknown, not stated) -2 TN for satellite location
>Mobile fixed-base earth station (trucks and trailers) Guess bonus is same as
>above
>
>That's __gigantic__ chummers. You can get an Iridium satphone NOW that as
>small as a shoe or smaller. This needs to be completely revised, and since
>we've stated that you won't have any problems FINDING satellites you may
>want to say that any TN modifiers are for keeping connections if you start
>moving, go into buildings (not recommended!) or things get in the way of the
>antenna. Most satphone antennas will be about as big as a cellphone antenna
>is now.

I'm not sure why you think that the size of the dish is whacked. A protable
dish 1/2m across is about 1.5 feet, which is about the size of a DirectTV
dish. A large portable is 3 feet. Those are about the same size and
dimensions of the portable sat comm the military uses, which is where I'm
sure he got it.

The Iridium antenna is about 6 inches long by an inch wide by 1/2 inch
think. Is a beefy thing because inside is the wiring necessary to get the
signal strength up to useable levels. If you stretched it out, it would be
about as big as the small dish above.

Currently, the Iridium phone is about the size of a good sized cell phone
(not the little thin flip jobs) but the antenna is as big as above. Because
of physical limits and the problems with signal strength, they probably
won't be able to get them much smaller. Cell phones got smaller because the
number of cell towers increased, so you didn't have to go as far. Sats
can't get much closer than the orbit they're in.

See above about the not having trouble FINDING sats statement.

>The prices are also way whacked out, 800 nuyen for a portable antenna? Huh?
>Never of of DirectTV? :) The temporary dish components was OBVIOUSLY cribbed
>from William Gibson and while cool I think the electronics price is
>ridiciculous (1000Y?!!!??).

The DirectTV dish is a small dish that cannot be easily disassembled for
transport, and has additional components that hook up near the TV. They
also sell it at a discount to get people to purchase the services. I
haven't looked in a bit, but isn't like $399 normally, along with a 2 year
service agreement? The electronics would be pre-programmed to lock onto a
few sats that are in its constellation.

The portable antenna can be broken down for easy transport in a little bag,
making it more expensive. The electronics have to be able to lock onto all
kinds of sats that use different protocols for different constellations, so
it'll be more complicated.

>Then we have the construction part...all I can say is yeah RIGHT. The
>satcomm interface should be a simple box you can buy at radio shack. You
>won't have to "tune" it for your deck any more then you have
"tune" your
>current modem to work in your PC when you upgrade processors. Give it a
>fixed cost and the satellite interface software should be very small (its
>just a database and some drivers for antenna tuning). If you're on the
>Matrix patching into a satellite you won't need the software since you could
>grab that from off the companies support site, or use their online database.

First, you're going to need more than a cable modem. Think of this stuff as
the equivalent of a dataline tap on a landline. It needs more than the
database and drivers. When you tune it to your deck, you're making sure
that your Masking subroutines will carry over to masking the satlink, so
that it can't figure out who you really are. Sucks to go through all of
that work and then send out your true ID.

I very much doubt that the company would have sat software on their support
site. In normal operations a sat would be invisible to your decking. If you
needed to set one up legally, they would provide all of that in a nice
black box that was set to not let you in. If you spent all of that money to
put one up, would you want to make it easier for people to hack it?

>The actual interface would be a small box you plug your cyberdeck into and
>that's about it. Hell you could probably get satphones that have a jack for
>plugging decks into! Ditch the entire bogus section on satlink interfaces
>unless you are running a really wierd shadowrun campaign where all the
>satellites have gotten shot down or something and it's really hard to get
>legit satphone hardware. And guess what, if you build a new cyberdeck you
>don't need to make a new interface, just use the old one!

See above for why its more than just a box. Just like it says that there's
not enough bandwidth to jack through a cellphone, that why you can't just
use a satphone. They're not made to carry that kind of traffic.

>Ok, you can't hack a satellite for access, the antennas will be damn small,
>there will be a LOT of satellites to connect to, you still have the normal
>problems with satphones (no indoors use, make sure the view is
>unobstructed). Satphones will still cost money in the future though. So
>going by current rates (just as a guide) I'd start charging my friendly
>deckers 2Y/minute for access in addition to the cost of the hand unit (3000Y
>now so about 300Y in the future?) Of course you have to subscribe to the
>service, which by itself won't cost much and will include the software you
>need for your deck. Let's call it 50Y for giggles. Bandwidth will be FIXED,
>sorry chummers. You want more bandwidth I'm sure the satcomm company will be
>happy to give you extra channels for a premium price. Make the base
>bandwidth..hmm..15 (its not really intended for hardcore decking) and every
>multiple of that they get charged x2. So if they used 75mp that's a charge
>of 2^52Y right off the bat. That's per minute, using the highest spike.

Ok, you can hack a sat for access, the antennas are about the right size,
there will be a lot to connect to but you still have to find them, you
still have the normal problems with satphones (no indoors use, make sure
the view is unobstructed).

Normal people might get charged extra by the phone company for direct sat
access, but it will probably be a flat additional fee. You'll have to make
some additional changes to your deck to get it to happen. They will
probably limit you, but you'll get certain limits depending on which plan
you take.

If you hack it, like they describe, you won't get charged because you're
sending up an illegal signal. You'll get all of the bandwidth you want
because you're setting up your own relay point.

>Comments?

Is that enough of them? ;)

>Ken
>
>"If some unemployed punk in New Jersey can get a casette to make love to
>Elle McPherson for $19.95, this virtual reality stuff is going to make crack
>look like Sanka."
> -Dennis Miller


Sommers
Insert witty quote here.
Message no. 7
From: Tzeentch tzeentch666@*********.net
Subject: The Matrix: Satellites
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 11:19:17 -0800
From: Sommers <sommers@*****.edu>


> >According to VR2 you experience a signal lag using a satellite that
reduces
> >your Reaction by -2. <snip rest>
> There is a reason for the -2 system lag, which I will get to a little
> farther down. I don't think that there should be penalties for jumping
RTGs.
>
> As for right now, and in the future, I don't think that most oversees or
> long haul continental communications are by satellite or microwave towers,
> at least for data transmission. Wide broadcast stuff like TV is, and a lot
> of phone is too, but most is still done over cable. A geo-comm sat costs
> over a billion dollars to build and launch into geo. Its still cheaper for
> most applications to go cable.

All long-haul communications now is via microwave and satellite. The fiber
backbone does not stretch to every area in the US, much less anywhere else.
Overseas I guarantee your signal is being bounced off a satellite, unless
the Atlantic cable is replaced with high densitiy fiberlines (I seem to
remember that this is the case). But for the Pacific? Out of luck chummer,
it's bouced off a commsat. You out in the boonies? You're going to be routed
over a microwave tower.

Satellites do not cost a billion dollars to build and launch anymore, and
with the advances in materials science and supercheap orbital transfer via
the semiballistic craft it will be even cheaper. Remember that commsats are
not necessarily "smart". They just relay the traffic.

> >Trace IC can trace you back to the satellite jackpoint...I'd go so far as
to
> >say they can only trace you back to the groundstation the satellite was
> >feeding data to - they would not know what satellite you were using
unless
> >they called the ground station up and asked them to identify a particular
> >feed (very doubtful).
>
> It should be able to trace you back to your jackpoint. The whole idea
> behind trace IC is that it looks for the header info attached to data to
> track it back to your origin. When you're terrestrial, that back to Joe's
> Bar and Grill. When you're decking the sat, the jackpoint is the sat (see
> below).

It would trace you back to the satellites groundstation but that's about it.
Your signal goes up to the commsat, it's interrogated and you are then
connected to the satellites groundstation in the RTG you are contacting.
From that groundstation is the link to the terrestial Matrix. In effect you
are coming out of the groundstations host system. There is no identifying
"tag" that would appear in your datastream any more then a microwave tower
would add.

The company you just hacked could call the commsat owners and ask them to
identify the source of the transmission but not much else. Depending on the
time taken and how many satellites are in the constellation you are being
routed through even this could take some time (I doubt it but the GM could
say it takes extra time). Most satellite constellations have channels that
allow them to route traffic among themselves so they can avoid switching
down to ground stations. It does not get much faster then laser links in a
near vacuum.

> >Next you have to have satlink interface software to locate a
> >commsat..hmm..uhm ok (we'll get to this later as well). Well assuming
> >satellite constellations continue to grow like they are now I'd the
target
> >numbers half what they are in the book. the only time you'll have to ever
> >worry about NOT having satellite access is if you are on one of the poles
> >(actually Iridium even works there..).
>
> Yes, but you have to figure out which sat you want to find and be very
> specific about it. When you're talking about several hundred klicks up,
> tiny differences in your tracking can make a huge difference in your
signal
> strength. Oh, and there are still going to be lots of places where sats
> don't cover. Its expensive to get them up there, and you don't want to
> waste coverage on 24 Innuits if they're not going to pay.

Not really, satcomm constellations NOW cover pretty much the entire planet
(Iridium even covers the poles). You don't need to "locate" a satellite
since you're going to be in a satellites footprint no matter where you are.
You just whip out your satcomm receiver and that's it. No precise aligning
of dishes or funky software. It's as easy to use as a cellphone (if more
finnicky).

Since satellites will be very cheap the companies can afford to provide
coverage to those 24 Inuits and their huskies. The satellites are not in GEO
so remember those satellites are going to cover other, more profitable,
areas as well.

> Because each satellite constellation will have a different set of
operating
> instructions, you need to be locked onto a particular sat. And going to
> deep search mode, trying to find a random one, just won't work. My grad
> project currently involves tracking GPS sats, and its a LOT harder than it
> sounds.

GPS is not satcomm though. There are a lot more satcomm systems up there now
the Navstar and GLONAS. You don't have to lock onto a particular sat, the
constellation providers have made that part really easy. Open phone, turn on
phone, that's it.

> >Throw out that crap on decking the satellite, thats pretty bogus. I'd
simply
> >make the decker pay for satphone service like anything else or hack into
the
> >satcomm company and hack an account. The satellite will not be set up to
> >"hack into" I'm sorry. It's a relay station.
>
> That's actually the best part. You're sat is a relay station, it doesn't
> matter that its not set up to "hack into." The junction box between two
> fiber-optic lines is not setup to hacj into. You walk up to it, pull off
> the cover, splice a line into the terminals between the two lines and go.

You can't hack into fiber relay boxes externally either, why a "dumb"
satellite. Noone in their right mind would make the satellite "hackable"
directly. Especially after the scares in the 90s. And to use your example it
would make sense if you were physically present at the satellite - and that
could be an adventure in itself ;)

In short there will be various way's of "controlling" the satellite but the
difficulties of this should make it a no-go as far as deckers go. For one
you would need to be at a company groundstation...

When you "contact" the satellite your just faking it's access methods and
interrogation. If successful you've fooled the controlling groundstation
into thinking you have an account and they unlock a transponder for you and
bammo you're on the net routed through the satellite. You don't even "see"
the satellite since you're only being bouced through it back down to a
terrestrial ground station.

> There isn't and need to set up an account, that would be nuts. It works
> like a tcpip network with DHCP today. You plug in you're ethernet cable
> into the jack, you get a random IP number, and off you go. The masking
chip
> in your deck fakes out the phone company, which would normally read your
ID
> off of your deck and then bill the appropriate account for your access
> time. That's the way that it works for normal decking.

Why would a satellite network work just like the normal Matrix? I would be
loath to think that the satellites are that open to spoofing. Remember, like
you said each constellation will use its own signal, and that signal will be
encrypted. It's not "open" like the Matrix. You can't decode the traffic?
Then you're out of luck right from the start. You have to pay to play
chummer.

> When you deck the satellite, what you're really doing is first hacking
into
> the control program for the satellite. Its got a computer there that
> controls the sat for guidance, comm to ground station, and how it relays
> info. Normally that part of the program tells it to only relay info from
> ground stations with the proper authorization code on the proper freqs
down
> to similar station. You hack into the sat's OS and tell it that its also
> okay to receive and forward transmissions from your dish too.

Heh, the satellite can interrogate the signal strength as well, and you
can't fake the power that a groundstation has. The commsat is "dumb" and
"off the Matrix" as far as it goes. The grounstations will use their own
transponder (not a public one) on a separate frequency and encryption
method. If you want the players to start hacking satellites I'd make it a
very difficult venture. And if they get caught EVERYONE will be unhappy,
without satcomm the entire Matrix would fall apart and noone would
appreciate the characters messing with one of the backbones of the Matrix..

In short you can't hack the satellite directly since there is nothing for
you to access. When you're spoofing the satellite at connection you're
actually fooling the groundstation on the other end that is checking your
access request. If you succeed they unlock a transponder and you're shifted
to that. You're only contacting a "public" transponder when you first
contact the satellite that connects to a groundstation. The groundstation
does the verification of your account. The satellite can interrogate your
actual signal even before allowing access to the "public" transonder (that's
part of your access cards functions).

> The -2 Reaction penalty comes from having to go through these extra steps
> of getting into the guts of the sat and fooling it into doing what you
want
> it to do. What you could physically do on the ground with a dataline tap,
> you're now doing with software which is taking up bandwidth. When you
start
> out in the Matrix normally and get passed through a sat, you don't have to
> worry about faking it out since you're going along normal data channels.

I'm not so sure of that, especially when I can't see a decker having any
internal access at all to the satellite. These things are not hosts of their
own and it would be a waste of money (and very dangerous!) for anyone to set
a commsat up like that. If the player was at a groundstation, had the
correct keys and knew what he was doing then yes he could directly screw
with the satellite but he has NO chance doing it from his cyberdeck and
satdish. At least IRL, YMMV.

> >Forget the concept of it being an system that you can be "in". You
simply
> >connect to the satellite and bammo you're on the normal Matrix, probably
> >starting in your 'home' LTG (the one you signed up for the satcomm
service
> >in). The satellite is part of the invisible backbone of the Matrix, you
> >won't even notice you are on a satellite connection.
>
> That's the way it would work if you hacked the groundstation, since that
> would be your point of entry. Each sat has its own little system, since
its
> a computer. The background sat connection program sets it up so that you
> then jump into the system through whichever LTG you pick the groundstation
> in. So if you want to start in the Seattle system, you pick a sat that has
> a gs in Seattle and go there.

The satellite is not a host that you can access normally. It's control
functions will be part of the constellation providers PLTG, not accessable
from a normal transponder on the craft. You'll have to hack the providers
PLTG if you want access chummers.

You have to start at an RTG from a satellite. To me that's you getting
routed down to a groundstation. Big advantage to satellites with the RTG/LTG
framework is you can jump right back to the constellation "RTG" and then to
another RTG without making another Access test. Don't confuse the
constellation RTG with the actual satellite, it's just a metaphor for the
system - your satlink software contains the necessary information the
satcomm network needs to route you to the correct RTG groundstation (ie
"phone numbers" ) and this is done without any conscious hacking by the
decker any more then you have to "hack" every switch when making a long
distance call now.

> And you never want to sign up for a satcomm service. Just like you never
> want to sign up for a normal ISP on the Matrix. You exist in the
background
> without an ID.

Pay in cash, constellation providers cover the world chummer. Not everyone
has a SIN or equivalent. Pay in caribbean dubloons and a fake name - you get
a valid access card and account you can use anywhere in the world, as long
as the account has money or you pay your bills on time they won't care. I
have no problem with this idea, especially in a world where hired
mercenaries are all the rage ;)

> >This also means you can't do the double-bogus hack into another satellite
> >network from the current one trick they mention. Urr, sorry folks but
while
> >satellites in the same constellation may/will communicate between
themselves
> >its not something you can hack into. Keep repeating "satellites are
relays
> >satellites are relays" over and over.
>
> Yes, sats are relays. And in the same const they do talk to each other for
> various reasons on maintenance channels. Since that's what you're really
> decking, that's where you would want to get into. I don't remember the
part
> about getting into different networks, but you should be able to bounce
> around inside the same constellation.

Satellites are relays, and the "maintenance" channels are for routing
traffic so I'd not call them that, nor are they normally accessable. If
you're in Seattle and you're wanting to contact Germany through the satcomm
you contact the constellation. You're then patched to a commsat that you're
in the footprint of and then that commsat routes your traffic to other
commsats until it gets to the commsat that has the RTG you desire in it's
footprint and connects you to that groundstation. You have no control over
it. It's subsumed into the metaphor of the matrix. As far as you can tell
bammo you're in Germany.

> >That's it as far as the rules mechanics for satellites go and thats as it
> >should be! You won't even think about satellites in the future because
they
> >will be everywhere! Tracing programs should be practically worthless in
SR
> >if you think about it - how could you track someone using a HALO relay
for
> >example? Don't think current cellphone tech, that stuff could very easily
go
> >away if/when cheap HALO and satellite networks are up and running. You
might
> >be able to know they are somewhere in satellite X's or a HALO stations
> >footprint but that can be a damn large footprint!
>
> You won't have to think about sats in normal operations. What this is
> talking about is the ability to scam your way into the sat system itself,
> just like you can break into a normal junction box. Just like there are
> rules fro using the Electronics skill to break into those, the sat rules
> allow you to break into them.

I'l agree if you have physical access to the satellite. Satellites are in
orbit, you can access a junction box dirtside. You'r only receiving their
signal and sending your own up to it's transponder, not physically
overriding an existing connection or leeching off of one.

> The tracing programs would still work normally because they'll follow the
> data trail to the ground relay, then to the sat and right back down to the
> next relay. The same way the trace can follow data through a fiberoptic
> line, into a junction box, and out onto another line. The reason you can't
> be traced farther back than the sat when you hack it is because you're
> creating a ground relay that is not normally on the network.

Hmm. You could be anywhere in the footprint of the satellite. And a typical
commsats footprint could cover an area larger then Great Britain. You could
be ANYWHERE in that area and the satellite has no way of telling.

> I don't know if they'll still have it but soon all cell phones are going
to
> be required to have a GPS unit installed for the 911 system to lock onto.
> So not only can a cell phone be triangulated from its signal, it can be
> tracked by the GPS signal. Of course, any good decker with this kind of
> phone would have this spoofed right away, but still.

Just rip it out if it is in there. GPS is also fairly easy to jam or even
spoof (against low powered receivers). Only real use I could see for
built-in GPS would be setting coverage areas..and even then you could fake
your location identifier...

Cellphones won't be using GPS directly, they will be using other location
methods. I have some files on GPS and cellphone tracking on my site. I can't
imagine a satphone adding this extra junk in for any reason unless it was a
marketing "extra". Constellations are global, and in 2060 run by
extraterritorial corps, they could care less about the legalities of a
single country.

> I'm not familiar with the term HALO (except for parachuting), but it could
> be that I know it under a different name. What kind of system are you
> referring to here?

HALO is High Altitude Long Endurance. Essentially a long-loiter aircraft
that hovers over an area acting as atmospheric "satellite". Not as big a
footprint as a satellite (5-75 mile diameter) but way cheaper. Think of it
like a celltower in the sky, since that's essentially what it amounts to.
http://www.angeltechnologies.com/

<snip dish sizes>
> >That's __gigantic__ chummers. You can get an Iridium satphone NOW that as
> >small as a shoe or smaller. This needs to be completely revised, and
since
> >we've stated that you won't have any problems FINDING satellites you may
> >want to say that any TN modifiers are for keeping connections if you
start
> >moving, go into buildings (not recommended!) or things get in the way of
the
> >antenna. Most satphone antennas will be about as big as a cellphone
antenna
> >is now.
>
> I'm not sure why you think that the size of the dish is whacked. A
protable
> dish 1/2m across is about 1.5 feet, which is about the size of a DirectTV
> dish. A large portable is 3 feet. Those are about the same size and
> dimensions of the portable sat comm the military uses, which is where I'm
> sure he got it.

Except you don't need anything that big. A typical satcomm antenna (not dish
shaped) can fit in a package as big as a largish cellphone.

> The Iridium antenna is about 6 inches long by an inch wide by 1/2 inch
> think. Is a beefy thing because inside is the wiring necessary to get the
> signal strength up to useable levels. If you stretched it out, it would be
> about as big as the small dish above.

It's an antenna, not a dish though. You can get external antennas for the
units that resemble a DirecTV dish or ones that look like a book. But they
are nowhere near as large as you would think from reading the entry in VR2.
http://www.motorolasatellite.com/new/index.htm has some pics of Iridium
units and how large the antenna is.

> Currently, the Iridium phone is about the size of a good sized cell phone
> (not the little thin flip jobs) but the antenna is as big as above.
Because
> of physical limits and the problems with signal strength, they probably
> won't be able to get them much smaller. Cell phones got smaller because
the
> number of cell towers increased, so you didn't have to go as far. Sats
> can't get much closer than the orbit they're in.

I'd go out on a limb and say the uplink/downlink signal strength laws got
thrown right out the window. So you could have a pretty darn small antenna.
Even if they remain the same I'll live with a six inch antenna.

> See above about the not having trouble FINDING sats statement.
>
> >The prices are also way whacked out, 800 nuyen for a portable antenna?
Huh?
> >Never of of DirectTV? :) The temporary dish components was OBVIOUSLY
cribbed
> >from William Gibson and while cool I think the electronics price is
> >ridiciculous (1000Y?!!!??).
>
> The DirectTV dish is a small dish that cannot be easily disassembled for
> transport, and has additional components that hook up near the TV. They
> also sell it at a discount to get people to purchase the services. I
> haven't looked in a bit, but isn't like $399 normally, along with a 2 year
> service agreement? The electronics would be pre-programmed to lock onto a
> few sats that are in its constellation.

That's with service and all the associated electronics (I know a LOT of
people who have them). The dish itself is WAY cheaper. Like $80 used for
just the dish. I'd not say "few" satellites either. Teledesic says they want
to put over 200 satellites in orbit. And that's just ONE constellation,
their original plan topped 800.

> The portable antenna can be broken down for easy transport in a little
bag,
> making it more expensive. The electronics have to be able to lock onto all
> kinds of sats that use different protocols for different constellations,
so
> it'll be more complicated.

All the decoding is handles by your access card or decryption box just like
DirecTV now. It's not built into the antenna.

<snip>
> First, you're going to need more than a cable modem. Think of this stuff
as
> the equivalent of a dataline tap on a landline. It needs more than the
> database and drivers. When you tune it to your deck, you're making sure
> that your Masking subroutines will carry over to masking the satlink, so
> that it can't figure out who you really are. Sucks to go through all of
> that work and then send out your true ID.

Eh? A satellite is not a dataline you can tap into exactly. All satellite
signals will be encrypted yes, that's why you need an access card to decode
and code your traffic. Satellites work differently then terrestrial
communications systems so the same tricks won't work.

You work with GPS so you're aware of SA, same idea. A commsat is just a
relay like a microwave tower. You can't exactly hack a microwave tower
either.

> I very much doubt that the company would have sat software on their
support
> site. In normal operations a sat would be invisible to your decking. If
you
> needed to set one up legally, they would provide all of that in a nice
> black box that was set to not let you in. If you spent all of that money
to
> put one up, would you want to make it easier for people to hack it?

Exactly, that's what the access cards are for. You still need things like
drivers, updated satellite listings and coverage areas. And that the
companies support site would provide. If you were a legitmate user firmware
updates to your access card (SOTA upgrade) would also be available. But
without an account tied to your specific card it would do you little good.

<snip>
> See above for why its more than just a box. Just like it says that there's
> not enough bandwidth to jack through a cellphone, that why you can't just
> use a satphone. They're not made to carry that kind of traffic.

Yes they are, in fact thats the big push for all the satellite
constellations. I know right now most of the constellations can carry data
just fine although I'd be leery of the signal quality of Iridium at the
present time.

As for cellphones not allowing decking...yeah ok (yes I read it in SR3,
p.287). Nothing would prevent you from turtling the Matrix through a
cellphone. You want to comment on this Asymmetric, I seem to remember you
had a cellphone with a data jack.

<snip>
> Ok, you can hack a sat for access, the antennas are about the right size,
> there will be a lot to connect to but you still have to find them, you
> still have the normal problems with satphones (no indoors use, make sure
> the view is unobstructed).
>
> Normal people might get charged extra by the phone company for direct sat
> access, but it will probably be a flat additional fee. You'll have to make
> some additional changes to your deck to get it to happen. They will
> probably limit you, but you'll get certain limits depending on which plan
> you take.

Phone companies don't own the constellations (though in 2060 they could).
Phone companies have their own satellites but they are usually just
reflective spheres for all the interaction you can get from them. The
constellations are trying to compete with the terrestrial phone companies.

As for flat fee, I doubt it. Going by your satellites are expensive idea the
fees would be very high (its about $2/minute now). I see them as being
cheaper since there will be a lot more networks and satellites as well as
very little regulation on signal strengths and the like.

> If you hack it, like they describe, you won't get charged because you're
> sending up an illegal signal. You'll get all of the bandwidth you want
> because you're setting up your own relay point.

Not sure where you're getting this relay point idea. You're contacting a
transponder on the satellite and sending/receiving data through it.

Hmm, thanks for the feedback. We obviously have very different ideas on this
though, I'll try to break out my satellite communications book and break it
down barney style and see if that helps people understand where I'm coming
from.

Ken

"If some unemployed punk in New Jersey can get a casette to make love to
Elle McPherson for $19.95, this virtual reality stuff is going to make crack
look like Sanka."
-Dennis Miller


> Sommers
> Insert witty quote here.
Message no. 8
From: Wildfire Wildfire@*************.com
Subject: The Matrix: Satellites
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 1999 15:21:54 -0500
Beware: VERY large snips follow...

Tzeentch wrote:

>
> Satellites do not cost a billion dollars to build and launch anymore, and
> with the advances in materials science and supercheap orbital transfer via
> the semiballistic craft it will be even cheaper. Remember that commsats are
> not necessarily "smart". They just relay the traffic.

Nowhere near that much to build and launch. I work for a company that
specializes in low-cost communication satellites. No figures, proprietary info
and all.

>
>
> It would trace you back to the satellites groundstation but that's about it.
> Your signal goes up to the commsat, it's interrogated and you are then
> connected to the satellites groundstation in the RTG you are contacting.
> >From that groundstation is the link to the terrestial Matrix. In effect you
> are coming out of the groundstations host system. There is no identifying
> "tag" that would appear in your datastream any more then a microwave tower
> would add.
>
> The company you just hacked could call the commsat owners and ask them to
> identify the source of the transmission but not much else. Depending on the
> time taken and how many satellites are in the constellation you are being
> routed through even this could take some time (I doubt it but the GM could
> say it takes extra time). Most satellite constellations have channels that
> allow them to route traffic among themselves so they can avoid switching
> down to ground stations. It does not get much faster then laser links in a
> near vacuum.
>

The satellites are blind to subscribers. You have your subscriber unit, it
"looks up" for lack of a better term. Its attuned to a certain signal or
pattern, and once it finds that, the unit knows it has a connection. It has no
idea which satellite it is. The unit broadcasts, the satellite recieves. The
computer which handles reciver and transceiver signals (which is usually one of
3-5 SEPARATE computers in the satellite) looks for the message destination. If
the destination is not in its footprint, it sends it down the line to the next
satellite, etc, until a satellite recognizes the destination ground station code
and transmits it to the ground. Meanwhile the unit says your message was
recieved at the destination. It has no clue how many or which staellites it
went through. Say you are in Austrailia and send something to Germany, when
they try and trace, they'll get to the ground station in Germany, and it will
say recieved from unit #### at GPS point xxx. The GPS is only there in the
constellation I work on, becuase the whole point is resource location. Normal
phone and such just say the unit number.

> > Because each satellite constellation will have a different set of
> operating
> > instructions, you need to be locked onto a particular sat. And going to
> > deep search mode, trying to find a random one, just won't work. My grad
> > project currently involves tracking GPS sats, and its a LOT harder than it
> > sounds.
>

One, each CONSTELLATION has a different set of instructions, but each SAT in the
constellation is software identical. Two, you don't have to track a GPS sat.
Lots of commerical comsats do the GPS tracking themselves.

>
>
> > >Throw out that crap on decking the satellite, thats pretty bogus. I'd
> simply
> > >make the decker pay for satphone service like anything else or hack into
> the
> > >satcomm company and hack an account. The satellite will not be set up to
> > >"hack into" I'm sorry. It's a relay station.
> >
>

Nope, can't hack a satellite. Each company has propriety encryption to upload
code and such to the satellite constellation. It locks out all subscriber
traffic. Besides, usually the computer that does the code uploading and
permission stuff is totally separate from the one that does the communicating,
which means hacking into at least 2 computers, 3 if you don't want the satellite
to log the change to the permissions and code in the maintanance computer.

>
> In short there will be various way's of "controlling" the satellite but the
> difficulties of this should make it a no-go as far as deckers go. For one
> you would need to be at a company groundstation...
>
> When you "contact" the satellite your just faking it's access methods and
> interrogation. If successful you've fooled the controlling groundstation
> into thinking you have an account and they unlock a transponder for you and
> bammo you're on the net routed through the satellite. You don't even "see"
> the satellite since you're only being bouced through it back down to a
> terrestrial ground station.

Snip, agree that can't fake being a ground station. You wouldn't believe the
number of valididy checks a groundstation/sat link goes through before any code
is allowed to be uploaded.

>
> I'm not so sure of that, especially when I can't see a decker having any
> internal access at all to the satellite. These things are not hosts of their
> own and it would be a waste of money (and very dangerous!) for anyone to set
> a commsat up like that. If the player was at a groundstation, had the
> correct keys and knew what he was doing then yes he could directly screw
> with the satellite but he has NO chance doing it from his cyberdeck and
> satdish. At least IRL, YMMV.
>

I agree with that arguement.


> Satellites are relays, and the "maintenance" channels are for routing
> traffic so I'd not call them that, nor are they normally accessable.

Definitely not. Maintanance logs are send only to groundstations, and handled
from the maintanance computer, not the subscriber computer, where traffic goes
in and out from.

> > I very much doubt that the company would have sat software on their
> support
> > site. In normal operations a sat would be invisible to your decking. If
> you
> > needed to set one up legally, they would provide all of that in a nice
> > black box that was set to not let you in. If you spent all of that money
> to
> > put one up, would you want to make it easier for people to hack it?
>

Ha! Sat software on a website. No way. Satellite software is only allowed on
specific computers on a purely internal network. And yes, if we do a satellite
for someone, they get a black box launched and support from us. No code goes
out the door, unless it was non-hereditary and co-written by the customer.

Yeesh, talking about work on a list for something I do in my spare time for
fun...
Very scary.

Wildfire (sometimes with a DC)
Terminally Behind SOTA
---
www.nexusgate.freeservers.com/Shadowrun
Play with the Target Number Calculator! SR2 implemented only.
Message no. 9
From: Asymmetric all@******.net
Subject: The Matrix: Satellites
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 1999 22:10:58 -0500
Just thought I'd throw some more ideas out here bro..


>All long-haul communications now is via microwave and satellite. The fiber
>backbone does not stretch to every area in the US, much less anywhere else.
>Overseas I guarantee your signal is being bounced off a satellite, unless
>the Atlantic cable is replaced with high densitiy fiberlines (I seem to
>remember that this is the case). But for the Pacific? Out of luck chummer,
>it's bouced off a commsat. You out in the boonies? You're going to be routed
>over a microwave tower.

I agree with most of this.. but the point was made that the voice network
is still run over copper.. and it is, via the transatlantic cable. I don't
remember reading anything about it being replaced with fiber, so I could be
wrong, but I doubt it was.

Coax is much cheaper to install and maintain than fiber is, and contrary to
popular opinion, has more inherent bandwidth to boot.. given it's larger,
heavier, and all around less esthetic, but as a side effect, it's able to
withstand a lot more abuse, and requires a lot less maintenence. A crack
in the housing around a coax cable won't screw your signal all to hell, but
you can kiss it goodbye if it's fiber.

If I remember correctly, a standard fiber bundle about the size of a
quarter in diameter, containing multiple individual fibers, coating, etc,
currently has about 100Mbits/sec of bandwidth. A coaxial cable the same
size as the one your television uses, maybe a bit larger.. say the size of
10-Base-5 Ethernet, has something like 455Mbits of bandwidth. The
limitation comes in mostly from the signalling/detection speed of the gear
on either end, transient noise in the system, signal attenuation,
etc. With fiber the current limitation isn't how fast we can signal, but
how fast a detector on the other end can decode the signals.. the
phototransistors or whatever it is they use just aren't fast enough to pick
up changes faster than that..

I do really expect this to change eventually, and laying fiber that was
reasonably protected from the elements to allow the same degree of
independance from maintenence that coax has would be a damn good idea.. I
just don't remember it happening yet.



>Satellites do not cost a billion dollars to build and launch anymore, and
>with the advances in materials science and supercheap orbital transfer via
>the semiballistic craft it will be even cheaper. Remember that commsats are
>not necessarily "smart". They just relay the traffic.

Sats have some decent bandwidth already.. christ, DSS can pump you a couple
hundred channels with ease.. but the higher the bandwidth, the higher the
frequency of the signal being used. The higher the frequency, the more LOS
it becomes.. after a certain point, it will become important to aim the
satellite.. thats why I suggested multiplexing satellites to you before..
It requires a little software, and no more hardware than another antenna
lead and jack on the decks end.

If the deck couldn't support it itself, you could always network a few of
them together into a sort of LAN and let the software on that do the load
balancing for you.. then it would require NO special hardware on the sat
end or the matrix end..

Just for example with contemporary stuff. Say you've got four phone lines
coming into your house out in the sticks, where the best bandwidth you can
get is a 28.8k connection. So, you rig up four modems on your machine,
each to a different line, and a little custom piece of software. All the
software does is when you request a file to download, it gets the size of
the file, then sends seperate commands to each modem. Using something like
FTP/HTTP Resume, you'd start four downloads, at 0, 1/4, 2/4 and 3/4 into
the file, and reassemble the pieces yourself.

I think the only downside is that right now.. most satellite systems can
operate at such an ungodly bandwidth because it's a single direction
transmission, broadcast to everyone who cares to listen and has the gear..
there is no two-way stuff going on for the applications that really pump
out the info.

So you have to ask yourself, how much total bandwidth does the sat have
incoming and outgoing, and how many systems are currently using it? Figure
you can get 1/N the bandwidth each way, where N is the number of
connections.. or you just connect at a constant rate that divides evenly
into the bandwidth the sat has..

>Not really, satcomm constellations NOW cover pretty much the entire planet
>(Iridium even covers the poles). You don't need to "locate" a satellite
>since you're going to be in a satellites footprint no matter where you are.
>You just whip out your satcomm receiver and that's it. No precise aligning
>of dishes or funky software. It's as easy to use as a cellphone (if more
>finnicky).
>
>Since satellites will be very cheap the companies can afford to provide
>coverage to those 24 Inuits and their huskies. The satellites are not in GEO
>so remember those satellites are going to cover other, more profitable,
>areas as well.

True enough on all counts. I don't know anywhere that an Iridium or GPS
device won't work on the surface of the planet.. besides down in the mess
between skyscrapers or in some other kind of crevasse that limits LOS to
most of the sky around you. If you can see a chunk of sky, you should be fine.

>GPS is not satcomm though. There are a lot more satcomm systems up there now
>the Navstar and GLONAS. You don't have to lock onto a particular sat, the
>constellation providers have made that part really easy. Open phone, turn on
>phone, that's it.

Yep. As I said earlier.. the only stuff that really requires you to aim
before you shoot are the really really high bandwidth situations, such as
DSS recievers and so on. Thats also a side effect of the DSS sats being
somewhat low power considering the area they transmit over, so the reciever
needs a parabolic dish antenna to achieve enough gain to get a strong
enough signal.

The phones and what not don't require any sort of dish antenna.. a signal
from a sat that was low bandwidth (compared to multiple high resolution
television stations simulcast, just about everything is low bandwidth..
even the matrix) could cover a lot more area with more signal strength for
the same power... or have a larger footprint, whatever the company wanted
to do.. but with the first option, which is what they're using now, you can
pick the stuff up with any decent quality copper antenna cut to the right
length.

>You can't hack into fiber relay boxes externally either, why a "dumb"
>satellite. Noone in their right mind would make the satellite "hackable"
>directly. Especially after the scares in the 90s. And to use your example it
>would make sense if you were physically present at the satellite - and that
>could be an adventure in itself ;)

True again. Try and splice into a fiber loop the same way you splice into
a copper pair and you're in for a rude awakening. You'd need to cut the
line, attach both ends to a device with the same reflective characteristics
of the fiber you were splicing, and then have your deck attached to that.

Also, keep in mind the "passive" act of listening is actually stealing
signal strength from the line.. it's using power that would otherwise be
used to keep the transmission going.. so you'll have to re-amp the
signal. If you're smart, you'll reamp the signal to just what it is on the
incoming side so they don't pick you up just by the signal loss on a
certain segment. Thats if they don't notice you cutting the wire in the
first place which would result in zero bandwidth on the line for the
duration between cut and splice, which even if you are super-enhanced
lightning hands, is still going to seem like an eternity to any decent
monitoring software.

If the line drops and suddenly comes back up that's even more suspicious,
ESPECIALLY for fiber.. fiber lines don't break and then repair themselves
they way copper can appear to at a faulty junction or something.


>In short there will be various way's of "controlling" the satellite but the
>difficulties of this should make it a no-go as far as deckers go. For one
>you would need to be at a company groundstation...
>
>When you "contact" the satellite your just faking it's access methods and
>interrogation. If successful you've fooled the controlling groundstation
>into thinking you have an account and they unlock a transponder for you and
>bammo you're on the net routed through the satellite. You don't even "see"
>the satellite since you're only being bouced through it back down to a
>terrestrial ground station.

Again, true.

>Why would a satellite network work just like the normal Matrix? I would be
>loath to think that the satellites are that open to spoofing. Remember, like
>you said each constellation will use its own signal, and that signal will be
>encrypted. It's not "open" like the Matrix. You can't decode the traffic?
>Then you're out of luck right from the start. You have to pay to play
>chummer.

Or steal.. ;)
...

>I'm not so sure of that, especially when I can't see a decker having any
>internal access at all to the satellite. These things are not hosts of their
>own and it would be a waste of money (and very dangerous!) for anyone to set
>a commsat up like that. If the player was at a groundstation, had the
>correct keys and knew what he was doing then yes he could directly screw
>with the satellite but he has NO chance doing it from his cyberdeck and
>satdish. At least IRL, YMMV.

You can always deck into the matrix, through the sat/groundstation, and
then by looking at your own trace, determine the groundstation address and
hack IT from the matrix, and take control from there. A little coup de grace.

>Pay in cash, constellation providers cover the world chummer. Not everyone
>has a SIN or equivalent. Pay in caribbean dubloons and a fake name - you get
>a valid access card and account you can use anywhere in the world, as long
>as the account has money or you pay your bills on time they won't care. I
>have no problem with this idea, especially in a world where hired
>mercenaries are all the rage ;)

baddabing. ;)

>Satellites are relays, and the "maintenance" channels are for routing
>traffic so I'd not call them that, nor are they normally accessable. If
>you're in Seattle and you're wanting to contact Germany through the satcomm
>you contact the constellation. You're then patched to a commsat that you're
>in the footprint of and then that commsat routes your traffic to other
>commsats until it gets to the commsat that has the RTG you desire in it's
>footprint and connects you to that groundstation. You have no control over
>it. It's subsumed into the metaphor of the matrix. As far as you can tell
>bammo you're in Germany.

I'd expect the inter-satellite comm isn't even available on the ground..
it'd be low power, and highly directional.. sat to sat.. no reason to waste
power.


>Hmm. You could be anywhere in the footprint of the satellite. And a typical
>commsats footprint could cover an area larger then Great Britain. You could
>be ANYWHERE in that area and the satellite has no way of telling.

Well, since you're transmitting broadband, just up into the sky, they could
pull a reverse GPS hack on you and attempt to triangulate you based on your
signal strength to any number of satellites.. but that'd be after they were
already on to you.. way late in the game to be worried about it.. by that
time you should already be jacking out.

>Just rip it out if it is in there. GPS is also fairly easy to jam or even
>spoof (against low powered receivers). Only real use I could see for
>built-in GPS would be setting coverage areas..and even then you could fake
>your location identifier...

Just rip the antenna off.. or better yet, to avoid burning out the
transmitter altogether, hook it up to a test load. Same way Ham operators
test their gear for SWR in the cables without transmitting anything.


>Cellphones won't be using GPS directly, they will be using other location
>methods. I have some files on GPS and cellphone tracking on my site. I can't
>imagine a satphone adding this extra junk in for any reason unless it was a
>marketing "extra". Constellations are global, and in 2060 run by
>extraterritorial corps, they could care less about the legalities of a
>single country.

If the ARRL can put their own satellite up, I'm sure a concerted group of
determined deckers could siphon enough money away to donate to a non-profit
group that would pay for putting satellites up that don't have this
capability at all.

> >
> > I'm not sure why you think that the size of the dish is whacked. A
>protable
> > dish 1/2m across is about 1.5 feet, which is about the size of a DirectTV
> > dish. A large portable is 3 feet. Those are about the same size and
> > dimensions of the portable sat comm the military uses, which is where I'm
> > sure he got it.
>
>Except you don't need anything that big. A typical satcomm antenna (not dish
>shaped) can fit in a package as big as a largish cellphone.

Covered that earlier.. right with ya.. it's all about the bandwidth, marty!

>Exactly, that's what the access cards are for. You still need things like
>drivers, updated satellite listings and coverage areas. And that the
>companies support site would provide. If you were a legitmate user firmware
>updates to your access card (SOTA upgrade) would also be available. But
>without an account tied to your specific card it would do you little good.

Thats why you buy the blackmarket card, just like the chips for CATV
descramblers.. put the box into test mode so it'll decrypt everything for
you.. They'll still exist, they do for DSS.

(A finer bitching point. Direct TV is the provider, DSS is the
system. There are at other providers than Direct TV that use the exact
same dish/reciever/access card.. even the same sats.)


><snip>
> > See above for why its more than just a box. Just like it says that there's
> > not enough bandwidth to jack through a cellphone, that why you can't just
> > use a satphone. They're not made to carry that kind of traffic.
>
>Yes they are, in fact thats the big push for all the satellite
>constellations. I know right now most of the constellations can carry data
>just fine although I'd be leery of the signal quality of Iridium at the
>present time.

"not enough bandwidth to jack through a cellphone" hmm?

Tell it to PCS, CDPD, RAM, and all the other plethora of
TCP/IP-via-cellular systems. They're not on par with a T1 or anything like
that yet, but I own a Sierra Wireless Aircard for my laptop, and it'll do
14.4k. It's two PCMCIA cards, mainly because one is a modem, the other the
cellular radio.. you can take one out and use just the modem half like a
normal modem. The antenna for it is about five inches long, and 14.4k may
be really slow for watching all your streaming net porn, but it's WAY more
than fast enough to hack with.


>As for cellphones not allowing decking...yeah ok (yes I read it in SR3,
>p.287). Nothing would prevent you from turtling the Matrix through a
>cellphone. You want to comment on this Asymmetric, I seem to remember you
>had a cellphone with a data jack.

Done and done. ;)

I think the reason the game says no to decking via cellular is because of
the completely bogus assumption that all that 3D crap is actually existing
-inside- the network, and using bandwidth. I'm sorry, but it'll never work
that way.. it's just way too wasteful. It'll be quite simply a packet sent
to you with some information amounting to "I am program HappyFunBall-1. My
position is X. My graphic representation is available at
matrix://happyfunball.pokemon.lame.company/happyfunball.data"

The day the netproviders start shelling out major dollars to render all the
3D stuff for you instead of making you pay for your own hardware, and on
top of it pay for the bandwidth to make it even remotely possible... yeah
right.


-A

"There comes a time when the operation of a machine becomes so odious,
makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part; not even tacitly take
part, and you have to throw yourself on all the gears and all the levers
and you have to make it stop."

-Mario Savio, founder of the free speech movement.

Commandment XI: Thou shalt not inflict upon me thy useless prattlings, for
I thy God am a busy God.
-Joe Thompsonn
Message no. 10
From: Tzeentch tzeentch666@*********.net
Subject: The Matrix: Satellites
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 20:02:43 -0800
From: Asymmetric <all@******.net>
> Just thought I'd throw some more ideas out here bro..

Uh oh :)

> I agree with most of this.. but the point was made that the voice network
> is still run over copper.. and it is, via the transatlantic cable. I
don't
> remember reading anything about it being replaced with fiber, so I could
be
> wrong, but I doubt it was.

I was talking of long-haul. At least according to that telecommunications
book you used to have, long distance voice traffic was switched on microwave
towers for most areas. I concede that cable will still be the dominant media
into the future (whether it be copper or fiber).

> Sats have some decent bandwidth already.. christ, DSS can pump you a
couple
> hundred channels with ease.. but the higher the bandwidth, the higher the
> frequency of the signal being used. The higher the frequency, the more
LOS
> it becomes.. after a certain point, it will become important to aim the
> satellite.. thats why I suggested multiplexing satellites to you before..
> It requires a little software, and no more hardware than another antenna
> lead and jack on the decks end.

That does bring up a good point though, because of the different signal
strengths your downstream bandwidth would be a LOT higher then your upstream
one. IE you could get very fast "downloads" but slow "uploads".

I would subsume multiplexing channels into the standard VR2 mechanic of
getting additional bandwidth..given the high Access numbers of satcomm
networks it would be quite hard to do. Although like we talked about you
could have multiple "accounts" sending and have them recombined at a
different location..

Another method (as we talked about) is setting up a "antenna farm"
consisting of networked antennas and decoder cards so you could seize and
use multiple channels (oe even constellations!) at the same time from the
same deck. Keep the antennas spread out and linked via fiber or even laser.
Some could even be hundreds of miles away linked through the Matrix as
below...

Even better, have the antenna hooked up to the Matrix with a router. Connect
to the router from wherever and get out over the satellite that way. And
wire the external unit with explosives just in case they somehow track it.

> If the deck couldn't support it itself, you could always network a few of
> them together into a sort of LAN and let the software on that do the load
> balancing for you.. then it would require NO special hardware on the sat
> end or the matrix end..

That's an interesting concept. Not sure if it jives well with how you are
assumed to "load" your persona onto the Matrix though. I would assume you
would need a system or piece of "front-end" software loaded on the
destination end to combine your traffic.

> I think the only downside is that right now.. most satellite systems can
> operate at such an ungodly bandwidth because it's a single direction
> transmission, broadcast to everyone who cares to listen and has the gear..
> there is no two-way stuff going on for the applications that really pump
> out the info.

Upload speeds are a bottleneck with all portable satcomm units... even
military Trojan Spirit links are not exactly the fastest things on the
planet...

> So you have to ask yourself, how much total bandwidth does the sat have
> incoming and outgoing, and how many systems are currently using it?
Figure
> you can get 1/N the bandwidth each way, where N is the number of
> connections.. or you just connect at a constant rate that divides evenly
> into the bandwidth the sat has..

I would think each transponder can handle only so many connections upward
and the received data is broadcast down to everyone, coded for each
subscriber. Interesting implications for deckers thinking of "intercepting"
satcomm traffic....

Time to break out my satcomm book again...

> True again. Try and splice into a fiber loop the same way you splice into
> a copper pair and you're in for a rude awakening. You'd need to cut the
> line, attach both ends to a device with the same reflective
characteristics
> of the fiber you were splicing, and then have your deck attached to that.
> Also, keep in mind the "passive" act of listening is actually stealing
> signal strength from the line.. it's using power that would otherwise be
> used to keep the transmission going.. so you'll have to re-amp the
> signal. If you're smart, you'll reamp the signal to just what it is on
the
> incoming side so they don't pick you up just by the signal loss on a
> certain segment. Thats if they don't notice you cutting the wire in the
> first place which would result in zero bandwidth on the line for the
> duration between cut and splice, which even if you are super-enhanced
> lightning hands, is still going to seem like an eternity to any decent
> monitoring software.

Which is why fiber is the only medium authorized for unshielded connections
between classified systems...

> You can always deck into the matrix, through the sat/groundstation, and
> then by looking at your own trace, determine the groundstation address and
> hack IT from the matrix, and take control from there. A little coup de
grace.

I'd be willing to bet all satellite control functions would be very separate
from all the subscriber services. Can you imagine the lure for script kiddie
attacks if it was even remotely possible?

> Well, since you're transmitting broadband, just up into the sky, they
could
> pull a reverse GPS hack on you and attempt to triangulate you based on
your
> signal strength to any number of satellites.. but that'd be after they
were
> already on to you.. way late in the game to be worried about it.. by that
> time you should already be jacking out.

Ouch. Did not think of that. Simple countermeasures though. Use a remotely
accessed antenna. And if you're out in the boonies with a satlink and you
hear aircraft approaching bug out :)

> >Cellphones won't be using GPS directly, they will be using other location
> >methods. I have some files on GPS and cellphone tracking on my site. I
can't
> >imagine a satphone adding this extra junk in for any reason unless it was
a
> >marketing "extra". Constellations are global, and in 2060 run by
> >extraterritorial corps, they could care less about the legalities of a
> >single country.
>
> If the ARRL can put their own satellite up, I'm sure a concerted group of
> determined deckers could siphon enough money away to donate to a
non-profit
> group that would pay for putting satellites up that don't have this
> capability at all.

ARRL? Good point about the satellites though...I'd bet the Denver Data Haven
has a commsat or two they can use and abuse.

> >As for cellphones not allowing decking...yeah ok (yes I read it in SR3,
> >p.287). Nothing would prevent you from turtling the Matrix through a
> >cellphone. You want to comment on this Asymmetric, I seem to remember you
> >had a cellphone with a data jack.
>
> Done and done. ;)

Guess its a play balance issue. It's a central tenant in CP2020 though they
had some really funky abilities to go with it...

> I think the reason the game says no to decking via cellular is because of
> the completely bogus assumption that all that 3D crap is actually existing
> -inside- the network, and using bandwidth. I'm sorry, but it'll never
work
> that way.. it's just way too wasteful. It'll be quite simply a packet
sent
> to you with some information amounting to "I am program HappyFunBall-1.
My
> position is X. My graphic representation is available at
> matrix://happyfunball.pokemon.lame.company/happyfunball.data"

Well that's why you were making your own system remember? :)

Didn't you used to have plans to make a 3d BBS system using something like
this? Back when we were still into the BBS 'thing' and we had to deal with
"Goff" or whatever we called him...heheh

> The day the netproviders start shelling out major dollars to render all
the
> 3D stuff for you instead of making you pay for your own hardware, and on
> top of it pay for the bandwidth to make it even remotely possible... yeah
> right.

I can hear it now "It's only a game." :)~ Well it's fun to speculate
anyways.

This satellite comm material is quickly turning into an entire chapter!
Thanks for everyones responses, I really appreciate any feedback.

Ken

"If some unemployed punk in New Jersey can get a casette to make love to
Elle McPherson for $19.95, this virtual reality stuff is going to make crack
look like Sanka."
-Dennis Miller

> -A
>
> "There comes a time when the operation of a machine becomes so odious,
> makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part; not even tacitly
take
> part, and you have to throw yourself on all the gears and all the levers
> and you have to make it stop."
>
> -Mario Savio, founder of the free speech movement.

Why do I think of Nine Inch Nails 'Broken' when I read this.... just some
flesh caught in this great big broken machine...

> Commandment XI: Thou shalt not inflict upon me thy useless prattlings, for
> I thy God am a busy God.
> -Joe Thompsonn
Message no. 11
From: Asymmetric all@******.net
Subject: The Matrix: Satellites
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 1999 23:41:49 -0500
At 20:02 12/6/99 -0800, you wrote:

>I was talking of long-haul. At least according to that telecommunications
>book you used to have, long distance voice traffic was switched on microwave
>towers for most areas. I concede that cable will still be the dominant media
>into the future (whether it be copper or fiber).

I kinda figured transatlantic data transfer was long haul... about as long
haul as you can get, outside of bouncing signals to the moon or stuff like
that.. which really leaves you with no choice.. unless we feel like moving
the moon and whatever else into a geostationary orbit so we can run cable
up to it.. then have the groundstation under miles and miles of water since
it has to be on the side with the now constant super-high-tide. ;)

Fiber may win in the end.. but I don't think it'll ever be used as a long
distance carrier through "hostile" terrain like copper is.. by hostile I
mean open to various environmental events, in relatively unpopulated areas.

Microwave towers on buoys across the ocean are unlikely as well. ;)

So either sat or copper..


>That does bring up a good point though, because of the different signal
>strengths your downstream bandwidth would be a LOT higher then your upstream
>one. IE you could get very fast "downloads" but slow "uploads".

As I mentioned earlier.. a slight distinction, but thats frequency, not
signal strength.. signal strength is just the distance you can send a
signal and expect it to be free of errors at the end.. frequency is
bandwidth. This is true using any current encoding scheme.. AM, FM,
CW.. They all derive their bandwidth from the time between signal peaks,
or signal peaks and troughs... hence more freq = more bandwidth.

More freq also means more required, and that means you're going to want to
use a directional setup to minimize the power consumption. Sure, you could
use a high frequency signal multidirectionally.. but the power would have
to be phenominal.


>I would subsume multiplexing channels into the standard VR2 mechanic of
>getting additional bandwidth..given the high Access numbers of satcomm
>networks it would be quite hard to do. Although like we talked about you
>could have multiple "accounts" sending and have them recombined at a
>different location..
>
>Another method (as we talked about) is setting up a "antenna farm"
>consisting of networked antennas and decoder cards so you could seize and
>use multiple channels (oe even constellations!) at the same time from the
>same deck. Keep the antennas spread out and linked via fiber or even laser.
>Some could even be hundreds of miles away linked through the Matrix as
>below...
>
>Even better, have the antenna hooked up to the Matrix with a router. Connect
>to the router from wherever and get out over the satellite that way. And
>wire the external unit with explosives just in case they somehow track it.

Wouldn't this part require you to already be on the matrix to use the
satsignal? It would make the signal physically impossible to trace to the
base station you set up.. but that doesn't matter, cuz all your connection
crap is still going to lead back to wherever you're accessing it from..

Even if you ran encrypted weirdness between yourself and your router, then
did your normal matrix stuff from there, they'll still see the only traffic
going to a user from the router is going to you..


>That's an interesting concept. Not sure if it jives well with how you are
>assumed to "load" your persona onto the Matrix though. I would assume you
>would need a system or piece of "front-end" software loaded on the
>destination end to combine your traffic.

Well the multi-link, in present sense, emulates one IP address, not many..
so traffic destined to the net would work just fine.. packets would appear
out of order as hell, but the whole thing behind TCP is that packets -can-
arrive out of order, and they're put back together by the receiver.

>Upload speeds are a bottleneck with all portable satcomm units... even
>military Trojan Spirit links are not exactly the fastest things on the
>planet...

Due no doubt to the catch-22 of the backbone system. The sats accept lower
frequency incoming connections from subscribers and send a high frequency
stream to the groundstation.

This allows the users to have low power transmitters.. but also limits
bandwidth.. it also keeps one user from being able to saturate the satellite.


>I would think each transponder can handle only so many connections upward
>and the received data is broadcast down to everyone, coded for each
>subscriber. Interesting implications for deckers thinking of "intercepting"
>satcomm traffic....
>
>Time to break out my satcomm book again...

I suppose yeah.. I was thinking geostationary in my above comment.. that
way the sat could have a permanent downlink at high speed to a single
groundstation.. and it'd be damn hard to intercept. DSS sats are in GEO..
they have to be, since your dish doesn't just autotrack them. I'd expect
anything high-bandwidth would be in GEO, and lower bandwidth could do
whatever it feels like doing.. thus DSS and so on in GEO, GPS, Iridium, etc
all whizzing all over the place.

>Which is why fiber is the only medium authorized for unshielded connections
>between classified systems...

Smart plan. ;)

I'm sure somebody, someday, will figure a way around it.. probably some
microfilament "vampire tap" into the line.. something that would insert
into the fiber through a very very small hole, then expand inside to catch
signals.. but thats still scifi.. it has no useful commercial
applications.. so you'll have to steal one from the military after they
invent it. (and pay me royalties)

>I'd be willing to bet all satellite control functions would be very separate
>from all the subscriber services. Can you imagine the lure for script kiddie
>attacks if it was even remotely possible?

Hmm.. I guess.

Kind of like the lure of hacking into Canadian Intel and getting their
agent roster. Or british intel.

Wait.. both of those things already happened.. ;)

I think the lure to do remote administration always outweighs the lure to
be totally secure.. it prevails today due to lazy sysadmins with god
complexes.. from what I've seen of the books, they're just as "sure" that
their system is impenetrable in the cyberfuture. ;)

>Ouch. Did not think of that. Simple countermeasures though. Use a remotely
>accessed antenna. And if you're out in the boonies with a satlink and you
>hear aircraft approaching bug out :)

Yep. And if someone suggests a reaction modifier for a couple kilometer
laser link I'm going to smack them.

>ARRL? Good point about the satellites though...I'd bet the Denver Data Haven
>has a commsat or two they can use and abuse.

Amateur Radio Relay League.


>Guess its a play balance issue. It's a central tenant in CP2020 though they
>had some really funky abilities to go with it...

I think it's more a very poor prediction of future technology, and I won't
cover for it any more than that. It's common on scifi.. but less common in
really good scifi.

There was just enough metaphorical talk using current systems as an example
to get people like you and I all up in arms over the "new" stuff.. Either
extrapolate from what we have now and live with it when it goes out of
date, or start from scratch all the way.. otherwise.. it's just a poor
attempt to explain something you don't understand.

>Well that's why you were making your own system remember? :)
>
>Didn't you used to have plans to make a 3d BBS system using something like
>this? Back when we were still into the BBS 'thing' and we had to deal with
>"Goff" or whatever we called him...heheh

Yeah.. kinda stillborn.. systems really weren't back up to par in the old
286 days, nor was my coding skill.. I'm still toying with the idea of doing
something like it with Flash on my website.. just gotta toy with it more.

>I can hear it now "It's only a game." :)~ Well it's fun to speculate
>anyways.

Fun I suppose.. but as I said way early in the thread. I want a system
that I, as a programmer/hacker/buzzword/whatever can accept as being even
possible. Possible from a physical standpoint.. possible from a corporate
motivation standpoint.. possible from a general public acceptance standpoint.

>This satellite comm material is quickly turning into an entire chapter!
>Thanks for everyones responses, I really appreciate any feedback.

*SQUEEEEEEEEEEEEEL*

er.. feedback. ;)


-A

"There comes a time when the operation of a machine becomes so odious,
makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part; not even tacitly take
part, and you have to throw yourself on all the gears and all the levers
and you have to make it stop."

-Mario Savio, founder of the free speech movement.

Commandment XI: Thou shalt not inflict upon me thy useless prattlings, for
I thy God am a busy God.
-Joe Thompsonn
Message no. 12
From: Tzeentch tzeentch666@*********.net
Subject: The Matrix: Satellites
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 21:21:36 -0800
From: Asymmetric <all@******.net>
> As I mentioned earlier.. a slight distinction, but thats frequency, not
> signal strength.. signal strength is just the distance you can send a
> signal and expect it to be free of errors at the end.. frequency is
> bandwidth. This is true using any current encoding scheme.. AM, FM,
> CW.. They all derive their bandwidth from the time between signal peaks,
> or signal peaks and troughs... hence more freq = more bandwidth.

Whoops. I'll try not to make that mistake again.

Perhaps this could be best simulated by giving the antenna a Device and Flux
Rating. When you get the books you'll see what this means (in short Device
Rating is how good/power/efficient the device is and Flux is the raw
electrical power/range of the unit. Running things like ECCM, encryption etc
decrease your flux rating while getting signal boosters or being on a
mountain increase it).

It would also make it possible to jam the satcomm signals withing the
mechanics of existing rules.

> Wouldn't this part require you to already be on the matrix to use the
> satsignal? It would make the signal physically impossible to trace to the
> base station you set up.. but that doesn't matter, cuz all your connection
> crap is still going to lead back to wherever you're accessing it from..

Hmm, yes I could see it being Not a Good Thing(tm) if you did it my way.
Good point.

> >Upload speeds are a bottleneck with all portable satcomm units... even
> >military Trojan Spirit links are not exactly the fastest things on the
> >planet...
>
> Due no doubt to the catch-22 of the backbone system. The sats accept
lower
> frequency incoming connections from subscribers and send a high frequency
> stream to the groundstation.
>
> This allows the users to have low power transmitters.. but also limits
> bandwidth.. it also keeps one user from being able to saturate the
satellite.

True, it may suck for deckers but its a good play balance and realism hook.
Though if computer intrusion really is dealt with as draconianly as the
books suggest I'd take the bandwidth hit if it meant I would not get gacked
"resisting arrest".

> I suppose yeah.. I was thinking geostationary in my above comment.. that
> way the sat could have a permanent downlink at high speed to a single
> groundstation.. and it'd be damn hard to intercept. DSS sats are in GEO..
> they have to be, since your dish doesn't just autotrack them. I'd expect
> anything high-bandwidth would be in GEO, and lower bandwidth could do
> whatever it feels like doing.. thus DSS and so on in GEO, GPS, Iridium,
etc
> all whizzing all over the place.

Most, if not all, constellation services are in LEO. As you pass out of one
satellites footprint you're handed off to another one, just like moving
between cells on a cellular network. All the satellites use the same signals
so it's not a hardship for the receiver to stay connected.

> Kind of like the lure of hacking into Canadian Intel and getting their
> agent roster. Or british intel.

Hey, if they were dumb enough to have classified data connected to an
unclassified system that's there problem. Not everyone is THAT careless...

> I think it's more a very poor prediction of future technology, and I won't
> cover for it any more than that. It's common on scifi.. but less common
in
> really good scifi.

Wait until you read the cellphone description in SR3. According to the text
simply having your phone turned ON, not even connected to anything, means
you can be traced to within 5meters. And this is without moving or doing
anything with the phone. P.287 of SR3. Guess you can't keep it on "receive
only" for pages or anything...

> There was just enough metaphorical talk using current systems as an
example
> to get people like you and I all up in arms over the "new" stuff.. Either
> extrapolate from what we have now and live with it when it goes out of
> date, or start from scratch all the way.. otherwise.. it's just a poor
> attempt to explain something you don't understand.

Well noone can predict the future, especially given the current rate of
technological acceleration... I'm happy for the most part with the Shadowrun
system - I'd like to use that as a general base at least for mechanics. The
actual "why it works" can vary.

The system has to be simple mechanics wise, or noone will play it. I'd like
to keep the concept of abstracts defining the 'potential' of the systems. We
don't need the equivalent of Guns, Guns, Guns for decking (ie incredibly
complex but realistic system).

> Fun I suppose.. but as I said way early in the thread. I want a system
> that I, as a programmer/hacker/buzzword/whatever can accept as being even
> possible. Possible from a physical standpoint.. possible from a corporate
> motivation standpoint.. possible from a general public acceptance
standpoint.

Those can be hard to pin down, but I agree no current system fills all the
criteria for a believable system. VR2 comes close as far as it goes though.

CP2020's netrunning (my favorite whipping boy) lacks in all the respects. I
can't even talk about the system postulated for Cybergeneration without
frothing at the mouth.

Ken

"If some unemployed punk in New Jersey can get a casette to make love to
Elle McPherson for $19.95, this virtual reality stuff is going to make crack
look like Sanka."
-Dennis Miller

> -A
>
> "There comes a time when the operation of a machine becomes so odious,
> makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part; not even tacitly
take
> part, and you have to throw yourself on all the gears and all the levers
> and you have to make it stop."
>
> -Mario Savio, founder of the free speech movement.
>
> Commandment XI: Thou shalt not inflict upon me thy useless prattlings, for
> I thy God am a busy God.
> -Joe Thompsonn
Message no. 13
From: Christopher Pratt valen@*******.com
Subject: The Matrix: Satellites
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 06:13:31 -0500
-----Original Message-----
From: Asymmetric <all@******.net>
To: shadowrn@*********.org <shadowrn@*********.org>
Date: Monday, December 06, 1999 10:14 PM
Subject: Re: The Matrix: Satellites


[major serious sinpage...]


>
>I think the reason the game says no to decking via cellular is because of
>the completely bogus assumption that all that 3D crap is actually existing
>-inside- the network, and using bandwidth. I'm sorry, but it'll never work
>that way.. it's just way too wasteful. It'll be quite simply a packet sent
>to you with some information amounting to "I am program HappyFunBall-1. My
>position is X. My graphic representation is available at
>matrix://happyfunball.pokemon.lame.company/happyfunball.data"
>
>The day the netproviders start shelling out major dollars to render all the
>3D stuff for you instead of making you pay for your own hardware, and on
>top of it pay for the bandwidth to make it even remotely possible... yeah
>right.
>

Exactly the same way eversmack (er... everquest or an online 3D game) works.
The game servers don't render all that 3D crap and send it out to you, the
just send you the info you need to render that stuff locally and you only up
load the response to the server. I would be pretty damn suprised if the
system they were using as a server even had a 3D accelerator in it...

later
Chris

>
>-A
>
>"There comes a time when the operation of a machine becomes so odious,
>makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part; not even tacitly take
>part, and you have to throw yourself on all the gears and all the levers
>and you have to make it stop."
>
>-Mario Savio, founder of the free speech movement.
>
>Commandment XI: Thou shalt not inflict upon me thy useless prattlings, for
>I thy God am a busy God.
>-Joe Thompsonn
>
Message no. 14
From: Oliver McDonald oliver@*********.com
Subject: The Matrix: Satellites
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 10:19:36 -0800 (PST)
On Mon, 06 Dec 1999 22:10:58 -0500, Asymmetric wrote:

>If I remember correctly, a standard fiber bundle about the size of a
>quarter in diameter, containing multiple individual fibers, coating, etc,
>currently has about 100Mbits/sec of bandwidth. A coaxial cable the same
>size as the one your television uses, maybe a bit larger.. say the size of
>10-Base-5 Ethernet, has something like 455Mbits of bandwidth. The
>limitation comes in mostly from the signalling/detection speed of the gear
>on either end, transient noise in the system, signal attenuation,
>etc. With fiber the current limitation isn't how fast we can signal, but
>how fast a detector on the other end can decode the signals.. the
>phototransistors or whatever it is they use just aren't fast enough to pick
>up changes faster than that..

Recently the AT&T labs have spewed a gigabit over a single fibre.... Most fibre
bundles carry far more data than you cite,
considering that each fibre is about the thickness of a human hair..

-----------------------------------------------------------
Oliver McDonald - oliver@*********.com
http://www.spydernet.com/oliver/
-----------------------------------------------------------
Space. The Final Frontier. Let's not close it down.
Brought to you via CyberSpace, the recursive frontier.

"that is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even death may
die."
-H.P. Lovecraft, "The Call of Cthulhu."

ICQ: 38158540
Message no. 15
From: lomion lomion@*********.org
Subject: The Matrix: Satellites
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 11:07:57 -0800
At 10:19 AM 12/7/99 -0800, you wrote:
>On Mon, 06 Dec 1999 22:10:58 -0500, Asymmetric wrote:
>
> >If I remember correctly, a standard fiber bundle about the size of a
> >quarter in diameter, containing multiple individual fibers, coating, etc,
> >currently has about 100Mbits/sec of bandwidth. A coaxial cable the same
> >size as the one your television uses, maybe a bit larger.. say the size of
> >10-Base-5 Ethernet, has something like 455Mbits of bandwidth. The
> >limitation comes in mostly from the signalling/detection speed of the gear
> >on either end, transient noise in the system, signal attenuation,
> >etc. With fiber the current limitation isn't how fast we can signal, but
> >how fast a detector on the other end can decode the signals.. the
> >phototransistors or whatever it is they use just aren't fast enough to pick
> >up changes faster than that..
>
>Recently the AT&T labs have spewed a gigabit over a single fibre.... Most
>fibre bundles carry far more data than you cite,
>considering that each fibre is about the thickness of a human hair..

also canada has the highest capacity backbone in theory over
2.5Gigabits. Also i nfrance they have sustained over a gigbat on a lan in
some lab.

--lomion
Message no. 16
From: Da Twink Daddy datwinkdaddy@*******.com
Subject: The Matrix: Satellites
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 13:32:59 -0600 (CST)
Today, lomion spoke on Re: The Matrix: Satellites:

> also Canada has the highest capacity backbone in theory over
> 2.5Gigabits. Also i nfrance they have sustained over a gigbat on a LAN in
> some lab.

My college, U of A, has new policy that all the new network wire they lay
will be gigabit wire. Unfortunately they won't be scrapping the 100
megabit wire we already have, so it'll take at least a decade before the
entire network is running that fast...

Da Twink Daddy
e-mail: bss03@*******.uark.edu
ICQ: 514984
Message no. 17
From: paul collins paulcollins@*******.com
Subject: The Matrix: Satellites
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 16:55:48 +1100
>
> Ok satellites... good bandwidth but harder access. Let's cover this, break
> out those dusty Virtual Realities 2.0 books and consult pages 29 and 30.
Gee
> guess satellites are no big deal in the future! They only get a few short
> paragraphs!
>
> According to VR2 you experience a signal lag using a satellite that
reduces
> your Reaction by -2. Excuse me? If you buy the millisecond response cycles
> of a William Gibson style cyberworld ok, but if you start giving Reaction
> modifiers for satellite runs you better REALLY start piling on the
negatives
> once people start hopping RTGs. What do you think those signals travel on
> anyways? Overseas is almost all satellite, and long haul continental
traffic
> is either satellite and/or microwave towers. So that makes little sense
> given that you don't get Reaction penalties for hacking systems on the
other
> side of the planet. So that's right out. (Or alternately every RTG you
> travel you get a cumulative -2 Reaction).

Actually. Most of the International traffick these days is via undersea
optic
As for cross country Microwaves, they are being phased out now. Optic has a
much better capacity
and fewer costs and fewer problems. Usually a lag sensitive cct only ends
up on the satelites if there is a system failure
(At least that's the way the system runs out of Australia, but I'll look
into it a bit more when I return to work from holidays. In Feb next year)


> Trace IC can trace you back to the satellite jackpoint...I'd go so far as
to
>Tracing programs should be practically worthless in SR
> if you think about it - how could you track someone using a HALO relay for
> example? Don't think current cellphone tech, that stuff could very easily
go
> away if/when cheap HALO and satellite networks are up and running. You
might
> be able to know they are somewhere in satellite X's or a HALO stations
> footprint but that can be a damn large footprint!
>

Do you think, in your wildest dreams, that the NSA et will let any satelite
phone service get off the ground if they couldn't track the users?
(That's right folks, hack you Satphones and remove the 'I am here' functions
:o) )
The other thing is that your satphone link will have to give an
identification number of some kind, and I'm sure it would be fairly simple
to have a couple of spy type sat's up there to triangulate your phone. (Of
course they have to be able to identify it in the first place)

**snip**

> That's __gigantic__ chummers. You can get an Iridium satphone NOW that as
> small as a shoe or smaller. This needs to be completely revised, and since
> we've stated that you won't have any problems FINDING satellites you may
> want to say that any TN modifiers are for keeping connections if you start
> moving, go into buildings (not recommended!) or things get in the way of
the
> antenna. Most satphone antennas will be about as big as a cellphone
antenna
> is now.

Technology is outstripping the writers is all. But your right, it needs
updating.

>
**snip**

> Ok, you can't hack a satellite for access, the antennas will be damn
small,
> there will be a LOT of satellites to connect to, you still have the normal
> problems with satphones (no indoors use, make sure the view is
> unobstructed). Satphones will still cost money in the future though. So
> going by current rates (just as a guide) I'd start charging my friendly
> deckers 2Y/minute for access in addition to the cost of the hand unit
(3000Y
> now so about 300Y in the future?) Of course you have to subscribe to the
> service, which by itself won't cost much and will include the software you
> need for your deck. Let's call it 50Y for giggles. Bandwidth will be
FIXED,
> sorry chummers. You want more bandwidth I'm sure the satcomm company will
be
> happy to give you extra channels for a premium price. Make the base
> bandwidth..hmm..15 (its not really intended for hardcore decking) and
every
> multiple of that they get charged x2. So if they used 75mp that's a charge
> of 2^52Y right off the bat. That's per minute, using the highest spike.
>
> Comments?
>
> Ken
Ok, modern satphone have a narrower bandwith than normal calls. (On par
with the GSM mobiles from memory)
and have LAG. Noticable lag. Like over 1 second or so. It's enough to be
annoying in a conversation anyway. I get less lag
talking to England. (Unless it routes via sat for some reason)

Paul in Melbourne, Australia
Message no. 18
From: Tzeentch tzeentch666@*********.net
Subject: The Matrix: Satellites
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 23:54:12 -0800
From: paul collins <paulcollins@*******.com>
> Actually. Most of the International traffick these days is via undersea
> optic

I don't know of any Pacific fiber cables. Do you have an source?

> As for cross country Microwaves, they are being phased out now. Optic has
a
> much better capacity
> and fewer costs and fewer problems.

I don't know about fewer problems...and installing the fiber is VERY
expensive. Most long-haul here in the states is microwave until it can reach
a fiber backbone. Maybe by 2060 that will not be the case.

> Usually a lag sensitive cct only ends
> up on the satelites if there is a system failure
> (At least that's the way the system runs out of Australia, but I'll look
> into it a bit more when I return to work from holidays. In Feb next year)

A system failure of what? The fiber backbone?

> Do you think, in your wildest dreams, that the NSA et will let any
satelite
> phone service get off the ground if they couldn't track the users?
> (That's right folks, hack you Satphones and remove the 'I am here'
functions
> :o) )

Well since the NSA does not control foreign companies I'm not worried
overmuch about it. The NSA is not QUITE the boogyman some make out...

> The other thing is that your satphone link will have to give an
> identification number of some kind, and I'm sure it would be fairly simple
> to have a couple of spy type sat's up there to triangulate your phone.
(Of
> course they have to be able to identify it in the first place)

Then separate the antenna from your actual location if you're really
paranoid. Or go into the boonies before making your call.

The military/NSA do have LEO SIGINT sats that could probably locate your
sorry hoop though....

> Ok, modern satphone have a narrower bandwith than normal calls. (On par
> with the GSM mobiles from memory)
> and have LAG. Noticable lag. Like over 1 second or so. It's enough to
be
> annoying in a conversation anyway. I get less lag
> talking to England. (Unless it routes via sat for some reason)

The lag is for GEO sats (.5 sec+ round-trip). Delay time for LEO sats is
negligable. Upload speeds on a sat will not be all that great, downlink
speeds can be VERY impressive however.

Ken

"If some unemployed punk in New Jersey can get a casette to make love to
Elle McPherson for $19.95, this virtual reality stuff is going to make crack
look like Sanka."
-Dennis Miller

> Paul in Melbourne, Australia
>
>
>
Message no. 19
From: Andrew Norman andrew_norman@******.com
Subject: The Matrix: Satellites
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 1999 08:37:45 +0000
Tzeentch wrote:
> From: paul collins <paulcollins@*******.com>
> > Actually. Most of the International traffick these days is via undersea
> > optic
> I don't know of any Pacific fiber cables. Do you have an source?

I'm not sure if this is what you are looking for but New Zealand has a
fiber
link between itself and Australia. About 1800kn (I think) long with
mulitple
self healing cable segments. Its due to be finished shortly. Once it is
finished then most of the phone calls / internet traffic will be routed
via
australia and to the sats there if necessary (I believe this is how it
will
work)

-Andrew

--
"Politics and morality on the same side! That doesn't happen every day"
-Londo (B5)

"These are my opinions and not those of my employer"
Message no. 20
From: paul collins paulcollins@*******.com
Subject: The Matrix: Satellites
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 20:01:13 +1100
>But for the Pacific? Out of luck chummer,
> it's bouced off a commsat. You out in the boonies? You're going to be
routed
> over a microwave tower.
>


Hate to rain on your parade, but it's mostly optic now. Let alone in 60
yrs.
Sure, out where there are no people, it could be anything, but for anywhere
of interest to a SR, even these days, it's optic.

Oh, the microwave tower is digital, and not much slower than optic. (About
the same spead actually)

Paul in Melbourne Aust. (Who's data goes over the Optic via singapore
,Japan and San Fran)
Message no. 21
From: Tzeentch tzeentch666@*********.net
Subject: The Matrix: Satellites
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 01:06:40 -0800
From: paul collins <paulcollins@*******.com>
> Hate to rain on your parade, but it's mostly optic now. Let alone in 60
> yrs.

I'd be leery of making that statement. I'm in SoCal, land of the silicon
genie, and looking out my window I can see the lights from a microwave
tower. Back home in Montana I know for a fact that's what long distance
calls are routed over. I think you underestimate the amount of traffic going
over satellite and microwave link.

In 2060? They'll still be some microwave and coax lines running around.
Especially in areas unsuitable for fragile fiberlines or in areas too poor
or unstable to install anything better.

> Sure, out where there are no people, it could be anything, but for
anywhere
> of interest to a SR, even these days, it's optic.

In SR yes. Today? No. Unless you consider rural areas of "no interest".

> Oh, the microwave tower is digital, and not much slower than optic.
(About
> the same spead actually)

The switching stations may be digital but the microwave towers are just
relays. The tower does not care if the signal it is sending is digital or
analog. It receives, boosts and resends.

> Paul in Melbourne Aust. (Who's data goes over the Optic via singapore
> ,Japan and San Fran)

Are you sure it's all optic? That's extremely unlikely. At best you're
running primarily on copper cable. Plus I suspect a commsat link or two as
well.

Ken

"If some unemployed punk in New Jersey can get a casette to make love to
Elle McPherson for $19.95, this virtual reality stuff is going to make crack
look like Sanka."
-Dennis Miller
Message no. 22
From: paul collins paulcollins@*******.com
Subject: The Matrix: Satellites
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 21:04:28 +1100
>
> I agree with most of this.. but the point was made that the voice network
> is still run over copper.. and it is, via the transatlantic cable. I
don't
> remember reading anything about it being replaced with fiber, so I could
be
> wrong, but I doubt it was.
>
> Coax is much cheaper to install and maintain than fiber is, and contrary
to
> popular opinion, has more inherent bandwidth to boot.. given it's larger,
> heavier, and all around less esthetic, but as a side effect, it's able to
> withstand a lot more abuse, and requires a lot less maintenence. A crack
> in the housing around a coax cable won't screw your signal all to hell,
but
> you can kiss it goodbye if it's fiber.
>
> If I remember correctly, a standard fiber bundle about the size of a
> quarter in diameter, containing multiple individual fibers, coating, etc,
> currently has about 100Mbits/sec of bandwidth. A coaxial cable the same
> size as the one your television uses, maybe a bit larger.. say the size of
> 10-Base-5 Ethernet, has something like 455Mbits of bandwidth. The
> limitation comes in mostly from the signalling/detection speed of the gear
> on either end, transient noise in the system, signal attenuation,
> etc. With fiber the current limitation isn't how fast we can signal, but
> how fast a detector on the other end can decode the signals.. the
> phototransistors or whatever it is they use just aren't fast enough to
pick
> up changes faster than that..

I hate to put it this way, but Oh boy are you wrong. I wont go into co-ax
capacity, because memory fails me, it's been that long since we shut it
down.
Co-ax is prone to lightning strikes, whereas optic (After they took out the
steel tensioning element and replaced it with Teflon) is immune to
lightning. Just think of that for a moment. Can you imagine how many
cables get wiped out by Lightning a year?

The size optic that you mention would have at least 10 pairs of Fibres in
it. At the moment we are testing 10GIG/SEC!!!!! 10GIG. Times 10 pairs and
we end up with ... We are using 2.5GIG now. And then there is the
Multiple beams per Fibre that they are playing with.

Lastly is signal attenuation. CO-Ax suffers from electrical interferance,
which optic doesn't. One good lightning strike in the vacinity will induce
errors like nobody's business. Let alone runing cables along electic
trains, or even an electric fence. Co-Ax suffers from more attenuation due
to distance than fibre does by a long way. It is theoretically posible to
do the trans-atlantic hop with NO repeaters. (But the fibre costs a bloody
fortune)
Message no. 23
From: paul collins paulcollins@*******.com
Subject: The Matrix: Satellites
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 21:15:29 +1100
> >I was talking of long-haul. At least according to that telecommunications
> >book you used to have, long distance voice traffic was switched on
microwave
> >towers for most areas. I concede that cable will still be the dominant
media
> >into the future (whether it be copper or fiber).
>
> Fiber may win in the end.. but I don't think it'll ever be used as a long
> distance carrier through "hostile" terrain like copper is.. by hostile I
> mean open to various environmental events, in relatively unpopulated
areas.
>


Ok fellows, a little lesson here. Australia is now almost all Optic. The
only place we currently use microwave is legacy stuff as backup, and doing a
little mountain top hopping to feed a real low number of customers. (Like
10 at a time)

This includes runs 2000km long or so accross deserts. Some of the most
inhospitable places on earth. We also run fibres into the Ski resorts on
top of mountains. Optic works well in almost any enviroment.

Whilst our particular setup telecommunications wise might have advanced us
in front of most countries, I'm sure within a few years, it will be almost
all optic

Paul in Melbourne Australia

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about The Matrix: Satellites, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!