Showing posts with label Internet. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Internet. Show all posts

Wednesday, 25 March 2020

What if internet by satellite were to lead to congestion in orbit?



Internet satellite companies, such as Starlink, OneWeb and Blue Origin (Amazon), aim at providing global internet access via satellites. This will bring many benefits to citizens, isolated regions and the global economy, but what if internet satellites collide with other satellites? What if an internet satellite company becomes the next internet monopoly? What if satellite debris hits people on the ground?

Throughout history, humans have developed ways of communicating and transferring knowledge over long distances, from transmitting public information via smoke signals and sending private messages via homing pigeons to developing modern telecommunication technologies, with the internet at the top of the list. The internet is a global network of interconnected computers that communicate with each other by sending and receiving signals. Although the military used the internet as early asthe 1960s (ARPANET), it took until the 1990s to commercialise the network for the public. The internet is provided at local level by different organisations that serve limited geographical areas either via wire (fibre optic, digital subscriber line (DSL)) or wireless connections. The organisations that connect end-users to the internet are known as internet service providers (ISPs).

Starlink aims at providing worldwide high-speed internet access via thousands of satellites. The project is run by an American aerospace company, SpaceX, which plans to serve North America by 2020 and the rest of the globe by 2021. In October 2019, paperwork for an additional 30 000 satellites was filed, on top of 12 000 that have already been approved by the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Once approved, the FCC will submit these filings to the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), the United Nations agency that coordinates telecommunications at international level. Although launching a great number of satellites was hitherto considered an expensive option, SpaceX benefits from its relatively cheap launchers due to its success in developing reusable rockets. The revenue from Starlink will be invested in SpaceX and CEO Elon Musk's goal of colonising Mars. Europe has long been interested in Mars exploration, and the European Union supports missions to Mars via the European Space Agency (Aurora and ExoMars).

Potential impacts and developments


With the explosive spread of digital transformation, the internet has become a vital element of human life, from contacting people and shopping online to controlling internet-connected devices. Nevertheless, half of the world's population still has no internet access, and many areas in the world, including oceans and remote islands, are not easily accessible. Global internet access would therefore not only connect isolated regions of the planet to the internet but also provide dense cities with high-speed internet of low latency (the delay between sending a signal and receiving a response). This would have a positive impact in various sectors, including the following examples.

·    Every internet of things(IoT) device needs the internet to communicate. For example, medical devices could access the internet to contact an ambulance, and self-driving cars could access the internet to pick the best route.

·   Rural areas, which historically suffer from a lack of services, could accelerate their development. Moreover, children in these areas would have access to online education.

·      In the ocean, fishermen and sailors could access the internet easily, and the availability of the internet would help in ocean governance.

·    Internet coverage in farming would allow for more information transfer, and increase capabilities for planting, harvesting and other activities in the food cycle.

·      Global internet access would open new markets for internet technologies, as well as boost the creative industries. It is worth mentioning that internet satellites could be a cheaper solution for 5G deployment than replacing ground infrastructure. For example, it is estimated that shifting to 5G in the USA using fibre optics will cost US$130–150 billion, whereas the entire Starlink project will only cost around US$10 billion.

Some technical risks arise from the life cycle of satellites and the nature of satellite communications. Signals transferred in an open medium (air or space) are easier to interrupt and could be collected by unintended receivers, although decrypting the signal would have to take place before accessing useful information. At the end of its life, an internet satellite turns into uncontrolled space debris that contaminates space and can potentially cause collisions. While there are projects that aim at removing debris from space, such as RemoveDEBRIS and ESA ADR, Starlink satellites are designed to avoid contamination of space by burning up in Earth's atmosphere, which results, however, in fragments that could reach the ground. In addition, astronomers are concerned that the growing number of satellites obscures their view of the Universe.

Since covering the globe with internet via satellites implies no escape from exposure to electromagnetic waves, there are concerns about the health impacts of the radiation. Although the relation between cancer and telecommunication waves is controversial, it is agreed that the risks depend on the type of wave and the intensity of radiation. International standards, set by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), define radiation exposure limits. The EU rules on electromagnetic fields are laid down in Council Recommendation 1999/519/EC, based on the ICNIRP guidelines.

Data has grown exponentially in recent years, and globalising internet connectivity would boost the already tremendous growth of data. However, storing massive amounts of data comes at a cost: it consumes energy, much of which contributes to carbon emissions. Moreover, the machine-learning industry is hungry to develop what can be sold as artificial intelligence by mining these data using intensive computing power. Having thousands of satellites in space would intersect with European space projects and would require coordination of satellites in order to avoid collisions between European and internet satellites. In September 2019, the European Space Agency performed an evasive manoeuvre to avoid a potential collision with SpaceX, demonstrating an urgent need for space traffic management with more intelligent control.

As internet infrastructure (cell towers or fibre optic cables) is expensive to build, it is not easy to break the monopoly of the current players in the market. If successful, internet satellites would break the present ISP monopoly, but might perhaps replace it with another monopoly. A global internet satellite service would also weaken the potential for internet censorship compared to the present situation, where local authorities control internet access by blocking websites or even shutting down the internet via national ISPs.

Anticipatory policy-making


As internet satellites are not deployed in air space, but in outer space, which according to international law, is free for use by all states and thus not subject to a claim of sovereignty. However, international space law enforces liability for any damage caused by space objects and obliges states to avoid harmful contamination.

It is advisable that future EU space policy consider the swift development of internet satellites. It is vital that EU legislation is reviewed with an eye on the potential risks such as the health impacts, the internet monopoly, signal disturbances by destructive interference, and the consequences of satellite debris. Some of these issues (i.e. signal disturbances and satellite debris) were addressed in the Commission's proposal for the Space Programme in 2018. A critical issue is the balance between the risks and gains, especially the tradeoff between the security of the European Union and catching up with competitive technological advances. The security aspects include ensuring the robustness of communications and the ISPs' compliance with the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Additionally, handling soft impacts is also needed, perhaps by pushing ICT industries towards cleaner energy.

This article was written by Science and Technology Options Assessment Committee of the European Parliament.

Monday, 21 January 2019

The Copyright Directive's Article 13: An Orwellian Nightmare #SaveYourInternet



On January 2018, the European Council didn't convene to discuss what was supposed to be the last round on the discussions around reforming the Copyright Directive. This outcome indicates that the final adoption of this law will likely be delayed. Good news considering the  disastrous consequences of the adoption of Articles 11 and 13. Policy-makers are starting to doubt that the adoption of the Directive will happen before the upcoming European elections, in May 2019.

After the Council's results and public opinion pressure, Greens/European Free Alliance German MEP Julia Reda announced the outcomes of the Council's reunion saying that it is "less likely" that the controversial Articles 11 and 13 will be adopted. However, Reda let the alarm on, stating that these two articles are not dead either. The S&D British MEP Catherine Stihler told the EUobserver that the "meme ban" is still on the table in the EU copyright bill. "My kids look at that and think: how can you possibly even thinking about banning memes," said Stihler.

Do you enjoy scrolling around 9GAG? Forget it as it is under Article 13. Below is one of the countless memes all over the web. They are fruit of the work of independent creators who just want to banter around. Banning memes on the web it's almost like banning stand-up comedy shows George Carlin-style. It's outlawing and suppressing the magnificent art of using word play, opinions, exaggeration, irony, sarcasm and another comic themes to playfully humiliate. And according to Julia Reda, it's incompatible with existing EU law and the Charter of Fundamental Rights.


The adoption of these two catastrophic articles would drastically change the internet as we know it while imposing a gloomy cut on our freedoms of expression. Simple acts like linking a source in an article would not be allowed under Article 11. As for Article 13, it would basically censor indiscriminate content using bots and algorithms. How scary is this?


Julia Reda's announcement on Twitter, January 2018:



Hopefully, the meaning of the recent non-adoption of this bill implies that internal disagreement is shaking things around, and Articles 11 and 13 are at the core of this contention. As Green MEP Julia Reda put on her blog: "national governments failed to agree on a common position on the two most controversial articles, Article 11, also known as the Link Tax, and Article 13, which would require online platforms to use upload filters in an attempt to prevent copyright infringement before it happens." 

A total of 11 countries voted against the compromise text proposed by the Romanian Presidency: Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Finland, Slovenia, Italy, Poland, Sweden, Croatia, Luxembourg and Portugal.





How did the parties in the European Parliament vote under the Copyright Directive in July and September 2018?

September 2018

July 2018


Both in July and September 2018, the European Parliament voted different set of rules that, according to digital activists, will entirely change the internet as we know it. As we see it, the majority of the Conservatives were in favour of ban content as well as a slight majority of the Socialists. The most controversial articles under the Copyright Directive include the already mentioned Article 11, also known as the Link Tax and Article 13, or Upload Filters.

After the Romanian presidency cancelled on January 18 the supposedly final negotiation of the Copyright Directive between the Council, the Commission and the Parliament, it will be up to the Romanian presidency - chairing the presidency of the Council of the EU since January 2019 - to draft a new text in order to gain a qualified majority. The adoption is not foreseen to happen before the European elections in May.

Expert Opinion regarding Article 13 (via Julia Reda)

  • Article 13 takes an unprecedented step towards the transformation of the Internet, from an open platform for sharing and innovation, into a tool for the automated surveillance and control of its users. – 70 internet luminaries including World Wide Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee and Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales 
  • This [law] will lead to excessive filtering and deletion of content and limit the freedom to impart information on the one hand, and the freedom to receive information on the other. – 57 signatories representing fundamental rights organisations, including Human Rights Watch and Reporters without Borders 
  • States and intergovernmental organizations should refrain from establishing laws or arrangements that would require the “proactive” monitoring or filtering of content, which is both inconsistent with the right to privacy and likely to amount to pre-publication censorship. – United Nations Human Rights Council report

Expert Opinion regarding Article 11 (via Julia Reda)


Independent academics unanimously criticise the proposal:
  • “Unnecessary, undesirable, would introduce an unacceptable level of uncertainty and be unlikely to achieve anything” –37 IP professors and scholars 
  • “An interference with freedom of speech”, “may well set back the function of the press as public watchdog” –Prof van Eechoud 
  • “Contrary to the objective of creating a Single Digital Market”, “detrimental for authors’ interests”, “a negative impact on small publishers”, “risks having undesired repercussions for the acceptability and legitimacy of the copyright system as a whole” –Uni Strasbourg 
  • ”Will not foster quality journalism”, ”adversely affects authors economically”, ”directly affects the online communication of the European population”, ”will not create additional revenues for press publishers” –Prof Peukert 
  • “will ultimately privilege large incumbent (US-based) online news providers, such as Google”, “Small (European) entities and startups will be prevented from entering this emerging market” –European Copyright Society 
  • “The final result … may … be further market concentration and less information diversity.” –Prof Senftleben 
Several stakeholders who are supposed to benefit from the proposal have rejected it:
  • “An attack on innovation” … “unhelpful, counterproductive and not in the interest of all publishers” … “bad for competition, media pluralism and for internet users” … “Serious negative effects on the quality of the press, freedom of opinion and freedom of expression” –European Innovative Media Publishers (also here) 
  • “Such proposals make it harder for us to be heard, to reach new readers and new audiences. They create new barriers between us and our readers […] It will be harder for us to be present, discovered and accessed by our readers online. It will be harder for our readers to engage with our stories online, to share links or our headlines with their friends. It will be harder for us to grow, develop new sources of information and innovate in our business.” –Alliance of independent publishers, including the publishers of 900 periodicals in Spain and 155 local newspapers in Italy 
  • “[The plan] will stifle and drown the process of digital transformation” –Major Spanish daily El País 
  • “[The plan] risks […] putting all EU-based publications at a competitive disadvantage.” –71 independent publishers 

Don't feel powerless. If you want to raise your voice against this unconstitutional law, join the struggle and tell your MEP to STOP COPYRIGHT CENSORSHIP here.