Satellites no substitute for terrestrial fiber-optic networks

Satellites no substitute for terrestrial fiber-optic networks

Recent satellite failures and Loral Space & Communications Ltd. troubles raise questions about security and reliability just as Motorola and Microsoft join forces to build Teledesic, the satellite equivalent of fiber.

By Stephen N. Brown

The explosion of commercial communications services based on satellite technology has brought with it the development of satellite launching services. Not surprisingly, satellite owners tend to gravitate toward launch service providers who can meet their satellite payload and position accuracy requirements at the lowest cost. In turn, such low-cost providers steadily acquire the benefit of experience.

This experience can have dangerous side effects, for the lessons learned from launching commercial satellites also can apply to weapons delivery, unless careful controls prevent technology transfer. This explains why Loral continues to take a beating from Congress--the company supposedly transferred missile guidance technology to the People`s Republic of China. U.S. Rep. Christopher Cox (R--CA) said, "The transfer of technology that will make [China`s missiles] more accurate is of grave concern."

Loral denies the charge and says the company "does not believe that any of its employees dealing with China acted illegally or damaged U.S. national security." The dispute is political because Loral`s chairman is a long-time financial supporter of President Bill Clinton, and the Republicans in Congress are implying that the Clinton administration has traded national security for campaign contributions. The entire matter is being investigated by Cox through his congressional panel, which is sure to keep the issue in the headlines until the November elections.

Government has muddied the waters

But by focusing on this incident, a broader point can be missed: Through both Republican and Democrat administrations, the U.S. government has long had a policy of promoting the use of commercial satellites that are launched in foreign countries. Perhaps the best example is international consortium Iridium, which has tactfully spread its launchings over several countries, including China. If such a policy has muddied military waters, then the blame lies with various congressmen and government officials who acquiesced to commercial interests.

Furthermore, satellites are operated by human beings who scheme, plot, and counterplot. Two news stories surfaced about Russia`s willingness to sell its satellite capabilities to the highest bidder; it offered China real-time surveillance of the Taiwan Strait and points beyond, while also selling satellite surveys of Syria, Iran, and Iraq to Israel for $1 million. In October 1997, the U.S. Department of Defense announced that the agency conducted tests to estimate the vulnerability of American satellites to two types of "laser events: an inadvertent lasing of a satellite" and the intentional disruption "by somebody who might want to blind the satellite or disable it in some way." At the Pentagon`s press briefing, a reporter leapt to a logical conclusion and asked, "You`re saying it was to test two things. One, accidental...and another, the ability of a laser to destroy a satellite." The dod`s spokesman responded: "I did not say that we were testing the ability of a laser to destroy a satellite."

In March 1998, the Beijing Youth Daily ran a story saying that China`s Apstar-1 satellite, which is used for commercial rather than military purposes, was "being neutralized" from an earth-based source and that sabotage was not ruled out. Supposedly, the interference began March 14 and extended into April. After the first week in April, China`s press no longer referred to the incident. Also, on March 31, Hughes Electronics Corp. filed a report with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission saying the company "became aware of certain anomalies and their effects relative to the Galaxy IV spacecraft," which was the main provider of paging services in North America until onboard computers and their backup systems failed in late May. The company said the failure was not related to the "anomalies" and ruled out sabotage as a cause of failure. In June, another news story surfaced saying that China`s army is using American-made commercial telecommunications satellites to transmit messages to army garrisons throughout China. The public will never know if the timing of these events is coincidental or the result of deliberate actions, but in either case the timeline illustrates the folly of over-reliance on satellites for commercial communications.

With Galaxy IV`s demise, Microsoft and Motorola coincidentally announced their partnership to build Teledesic, the "Internet in the Sky," composed of more than 200 low-earth-orbit satellites (leos). The project is being economically justified because fiber optics do not penetrate the local telephone loop. In an interview with Upside magazine, Teledesic president Russell Daggat said, "Teledesic is the first proposed...satellite equivalent of fiber....In the local-access network, where 80 percent or more of network costs reside, there is almost no switched broadband capability."

Thus if fiber optics were deployed in the local loop, Teledesic could come tumbling down. But there is a policy matter to consider, too. Teledesic represents further opportunities to repeat the actions for which Loral is being excoriated. Will the security rules change before the proponents of free enterprise give Motorola approval to set up launches in various countries across the world? This is an important issue because Skybridge, a European consortium, will need its own launch services to challenge Teledesic. Thus Skybridge could use China`s launch services, despite proposed legislation in the U.S. Congress meant to outlaw the launching of U.S. Satellites in China. Perhaps free-market purists would see nothing wrong with India or Pakistan entering the launch services market to drive down the price of launches for "Internet in the Sky" despite the hostility between these countries. When bombs and satellites can be slipped on a missile`s nose with equal ease, the proliferation of commercial satellite services has the potential, however small, to destabilize the military balance of power between nations.

Time to refocus

Governments need to reemphasize the development of communications through fiber-optic land-line networks and temper the continuing proliferation of satellites and launching services. From this perspective, the partnership of Microsoft and Motorola has a beneficial aspect, which is the ability to reduce the number of satellites circling the globe. In early 1997, the fcc approved Teledesic`s application to construct a system of 840 satellites. Motorola was going to build Celestri, a system that may have needed more than 500 satellites. By combining their efforts, the companies require only 242 satellites instead of 1300. But this consolidation has been achieved at a political cost: By forming their partnership, Microsoft and Motorola double-crossed the Europeans.

Last November, the International Telecommunications Union (itu) met in Geneva to agree on the allocation of spectrum between geostationary and low-earth-orbit satellites. The Europeans wanted the meeting to redress what they believed to be a major error in the itu`s 1995 meeting. At that time, the itu granted a virtual monopoly to Teledesic over the Ka frequency bands, which are needed for the leos to provide fiber-like communications services. Competition would be introduced by allowing the Celestri and Skybridge systems to share the Ku spectrum now used by geostationary satellites, such as the defunct Galaxy IV. But with Motorola cozying up to Microsoft, Teledesic has access to Ka and Ku bands, making "Internet in the Sky" a near monopoly.

The chief American delegate at the itu meeting, former U.S. Congressman John Bryant, accused the Europeans of causing a stumbling block: "My view is that the whole conference supports all three systems` [Teledesic, Celestri, and Skybridge] going forward....But the Europeans refuse; they want to undermine Teledesic." In retrospect, Celestri was a decoy, and if anyone was undermined, it was Skybridge, which will be nothing more than a minor player.

This turnabout conflicts with the policy articulated to Congress by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (ntia). Last summer, an official in the ntia`s International Affairs Office, Jack Gleason, testified to the Senate about reforming the international satellite market: "Satellites can provide greater access to basic telephone service to the half of the world`s population that lacks this service....Satellites can also provide low-cost access to the Internet and can open the doors to other communications media. In this context, the United States has approached...with a commitment that any restructuring must increase competition--not diminish."

Microsoft and Motorola`s partnership in Teledesic mocks that commitment to competitive markets. q