Karl Marx was right: Iridium

Eccentric Orbits: The Iridium Story was one of the Wall Street Journal “20 books that defined our year” for 2016. It isn’t perfectly edited, but it is rewarding for anyone interested in technology.

The Iridium satellite phone system was developed starting in 1988 by three engineers at Motorola (Ray Leopold, Ken Peterson, and Bary Bertiger). What was unique about the system was that there was a lot of satellite-to-satellite communication, an idea lifted from the Star Wars program.

Bertiger was a veteran of Cold War military systems, having designed most of the microwave communications for America’s spy satellites, and Leopold had been acting director of the Milstar Terminal program at Hanscom Air Force Base in Massachusetts. Milstar was the $5 billion super-satellite warfare system being built by the Pentagon to link bombers, nuclear missiles, submarines, fighter planes, and troops on the ground. Given “highest priority” by President Reagan to support Star Wars, Milstar had cross-links among eight satellites—ten-thousand-pound “switchboards in space” that cost $800 million apiece—so Leopold did know a little about linkage issues.

In theory the whole system could have operated with a single base station for bridging satphone calls into the terrestrial phone system. More than $6 billion in investor money was spent on the system. It went live on November 1, 1998 and bankrupt on August 13, 1999:

It was the biggest bankruptcy filing in the history of the United States—and the quickest. The company had been open for business a little over nine months.

The author attributes the insolvency to (1) slow adoption by customers, and (2) Motorola sucking all of the money out into its own pockets.

Karl Marx expressed sympathy for the capitalists who risk a lot of money on a project and then discover that there is no demand or there is too much competition. He thought that everyone would be happier with a centrally planned economy in which if you build it the customers will definitely come.

Iridium was conceived at a time when cell coverage was ridiculously bad and roaming was impractical. The idea was to sell to business travelers. By the time the satellites were up, the European GSM system was in place almost everywhere that rich business people might go. The natural customers were in specialized markets such as aviation, shipping, and military. I’ll cover the rescue out of bankruptcy in a subsequent posting.

As with most revolutionary ideas, the idea was not revolutionary at the time.

And yet creating a constellation of communications satellites that would cover the whole planet was not an entirely new idea. When AT&T launched Telstar in 1962, they expected it to anchor a system of forty satellites in polar orbits, fifteen satellites in geostationary orbits, and twenty-five ground stations positioned around the globe. The system would have depended on ordinary trunk lines to complete calls, but it was still acclaimed around the world as the most sophisticated satellite system ever launched and the future of communications for the planet. That promise was snuffed out by President Kennedy, who was alarmed by the very fact that AT&T was prepared to spend $500 million on the system, and the result was COMSAT, which ended up not being interested in voice communications at all.

Two scientists at Aerospace Corporation, William S. Adams and Leonard Rider, had recently published a theoretical article in the Journal of the Astronautical Sciences called “Circular Polar Constellations Providing Continuous Single or Multiple Coverage Above a Specified Latitude.”

Details matter, however:

When the inventors first talked about using LEOs, they envisioned an orbit of six hundred to eight hundred miles up. Satellites at that altitude would have to fly through the inner Van Allen Belt, a mass of charged particles discovered by Explorer 1. In fact there were two radiation belts at those altitudes, the other one having been created artificially in 1962 when both the United States and the Soviet Union exploded nuclear bombs in space. Once again Aerospace Corporation had the data needed. George Paulikas, the Aerospace engineer who stood by at all NASA launches to describe “solar particle events” in real time, had studied every aspect of radiation belts, and his research indicated that small satellites constantly flying through that plasma would take enormous punishment every day, regardless of what material they were made of. Eventually Leopold decided to go lower—420 nautical miles—using a seven-by-eleven constellation. There would be seven orbital paths converging at the poles, and in each of those orbital paths there would be eleven satellites. This meant that they would need seventy-seven satellites to make sure the entire Earth was covered.

The need for worldwide spectrum allocation and regulatory approval disfigured the project so that there were gateways in various places around the world and all kinds of different pricing plans. The legacy carriers fought hard in the regulatory domain:

The nations of the world were gathered in the neighboring town of Torremolinos [in 1992] to allocate radio-wave spectrum, an event called the World Administrative Radio Conference that is held infrequently—this was the first major one in thirteen years—but has a lot to do with what the electronic future of the world will look like. … A decision had been made in 1990 to “proceed on the assumption that we’ll get the frequency we need,” but the world had changed greatly from the days when big American and British companies could tell everyone else how the airwaves would be used. Almost as soon as Iridium was announced, a chorus of “You can’t do that” had gone up from several other corporations, including every national phone company in Europe. … That’s why Motorola had spent the previous sixteen months lobbying the entire world to make sure it got what it wanted: radio frequency bands that could be used to operate the first point-to-point global telephone system, not to mention the first commercial switching system in outer space. The army of Motorola employees sent to Torremolinos far outnumbered that representing the U.S. government. The United States sent teams from the FCC, Voice of America, Department of Commerce, Pentagon, State Department, NASA, National Science Foundation, Coast Guard, U.S. Information Agency, and FAA—but all of those delegations combined were still smaller than Motorola’s team. Since Motorola had offices around the world, the company was able to identify political allies in advance, but the company’s war plan went one step further and made sure that Motorola employees were named as actual voting members: the United States, Canada, France, and Australia all had Motorola employees sitting in their official delegations. Add to this the fact that Travis Marshall, Motorola’s chief lobbyist, was the U.S. ambassador to the International Telecommunication Union, which administers the conference, and you start to understand why many of the WARC delegates were resentful of the pressure, regarding the Motorolans as crass salespeople determined to hold them hostage, treating them like reluctant participants in the world’s biggest time-share presentation.

Motorola prevailed primarily by getting poorer countries to sign up:

Iridium would be the greatest thing to happen to the Third World since . . . well, since the United Nations was formed. At last every country, and every village in every country, could be connected to the worldwide grid. In actuality the Iridium business plan would not be focused on the Third World at all, but on the well-heeled executive travelers in North America, Europe, and Japan, but for the time being it was better to talk about straw huts in Papua New Guinea, not ski chalets in Gstaad. A promotional video for Iridium featured the President of Mali, his wife, and his staff in acting roles. After a while, Motorola’s incessant statements of love and affection for the outcasts of the world started to wear thin. An observer for the U.S. Office of Technology Assessment drily remarked that the average citizen of the Central African Republic would have to work for four years to earn enough money to purchase an Iridium phone, then work seventeen hours more to pay for a one-minute call.

Does your country have an entrenched phone company that fears Iridium? No problem—we’ll tack a dollar on to the “tail charges” of every Iridium phone call made from your country and send it back your way. If idealism didn’t work, maybe greed would. “The fifty-four African countries were used to getting checks every month from AT&T,” said Mondale, “so we had to agree not to undercut that direct-dial service.” This stratagem would come back to haunt Iridium in later years, as national telephone companies routinely asked for kickbacks disguised as fees—tiny Madagascar wanted $500,000 a year—just to keep the Iridium license in place.

Incumbents such as Inmarsat fought like tigers.

In France it was worse. Heading up the Motorola diplomatic effort there was Leo Mondale, nephew of Walter Mondale, the U.S. Senator who had served as Vice President under Jimmy Carter. Mondale was a talented communications lawyer who had worked in the Paris offices of Fairchild Space and for the aeronautics division of defense contractor Mécanique Aviation Traction (better known as Matra), and he was the first hire at Iridium, partly because Motorola thought his connections could bring the big European telecoms aboard. The initial meeting at France Télécom turned out to be an elaborate farce, during which the French executives affected bonhomie for their frères from across the pond while fishing for competitive information—but that wasn’t the worst part of the experience. Someone had managed to place listening devices in the first-class cabin of the Air France flight that carried the Motorolans to the meeting, so the Paris executives knew exactly what Motorola was trying to do and how they were trying to do it.

At the WARC, France Télécom delegates were telling anyone who would listen that participation in Iridium was a violation of the Inmarsat treaty. Then, after the Iridium system was patented anyway, France launched a complex and expensive legal challenge that resulted in a series of hearings before the European Patent Office in Munich.

After they got the spectrum they still had to build and launch nearly 100 satellites (the constellation plus spares):

He kept reminding Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and everyone else engaged in the project that the final assembly of a satellite built by NASA or the Air Force took anywhere from nine months to one year per satellite. But since Motorola needed a hundred satellites, including all the spares and demonstration units, “obviously we don’t have a hundred years to build this constellation.” If Iridium had been a government project, for example, Stamp would have had to perform a thermal vacuum test on every satellite, placing it in a chamber that simulates intense radiation and the other brutal elements it would eventually be exposed to in space. The process was time-consuming and expensive, so Stamp made an early decision: they would “thermal-vac” the first one off the assembly line and assume all the rest were sound.

Stamp was also innovative about his assembly line, setting up his factory in Chandler so that the satellites were built horizontally instead of vertically. That meant the assemblers could work at waist level, whereas on military satellites, the technicians stood on ladders and leaned over. He trained Lockheed Martin in the new technique, then later bragged about it to his friends at Khrunichev in Moscow, only to be told, “We’ve done it that way for forty years.”

Stamp started looking at the specs and launch histories of every rocket in the world and eventually told Motorola, “Look, I feel much safer on a Chinese or a Russian rocket than an American one.” All the American rockets were handled by either the Air Force or NASA, all of them had spotty launch histories, few of them had the power he wanted, and he didn’t trust the people in charge.

When he was first hired, Dannie Stamp shared an office with the Iridium inventors and was the only employee of the Space Segment Division. By 1995 he was supervising a hundred people and

Full post, including comments

Dumb Question #8241: why screen passengers who slip through security after they deplane at their destination?

Traveling today from Beaver Creek back to Boston and thinking about “Security Breach Allows Unchecked Passengers on Flights at JFK: Officials” (NBC):

Eleven people walked through an unscreened security lane at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York on Monday morning and apparently boarded flights, authorities said.

Three of the 11 were later identified through video and were believed to have boarded a flight to California, where they were to be screened upon arrival, the Port Authority said. The eight other passengers remained unidentified, it said.

Here’s my dumb question for today: What is the point of screening these folks after they’ve arrived at their destination? To make sure that they don’t have weapons to use for hijacking their Uber?

Full post, including comments

Companies shift to contractors simply to avoid unionization?

“The End of Employees” (WSJ, February 2, 2017) is an article that my Facebook friends continue to express outrage regarding.

No one in the airline industry comes close to Virgin America Inc. on a measurement of efficiency called revenue per employee. That’s because baggage delivery, heavy maintenance, reservations, catering and many other jobs aren’t done by employees. Virgin America uses contractors.

Never before have American companies tried so hard to employ so few people. The outsourcing wave that moved apparel-making jobs to China and call-center operations to India is now just as likely to happen inside companies across the U.S. and in almost every industry.

The contractor model is so prevalent that Google parent Alphabet Inc., ranked by Fortune magazine as the best place to work for seven of the past 10 years, has roughly equal numbers of outsourced workers and full-time employees, …

The shift is radically altering what it means to be a company and a worker. More flexibility for companies to shrink the size of their employee base, pay and benefits means less job security for workers. Rising from the mailroom to a corner office is harder now that outsourced jobs are no longer part of the workforce from which star performers are promoted.

I’m wondering if the main explanation isn’t a lot simpler than the WSJ suggests. They lead with a story about an airline. In “Unions and Airlines” I explained how airlines are sitting ducks for labor unions to extract all of the profits. Major airlines nearly always contract out regional flying because when one regional’s labor costs rise it can be dropped in favor of a startup regional airline that, by definition, has 100 percent of pilots and flight attendants on first-year pay (and might also be non-union).

Contracting can’t be a way to escape the costs of U.S. labor regulations, health insurance, etc., because the contractor will have to pay these costs. However, if 50 percent of a company’s workers are contractors then by definition at most 50 percent of a company’s workforce can become unionized (if a contractor’s costs rise due to unionization, they can be replaced by a non-union or startup contractor, as happens with regional airlines contracting to the majors).

Full post, including comments

Women in Open Source Award

In the bad old days when I was a sourpuss, a “Women in Open Source Award” would have prompted me to wonder “What would happen if someone kicked off a White Men in Open Source Award?” But today I am all about diversity and inclusion because the incomparable Avni Khatri has been nominated.

Via this posting I am begging readers to visit KidsOnComputers.org (what Avni does with open source software when she’s not at work doing stuff with open source software) and then, if you like what you see, vote for Avni! (takes about 30 seconds)

Thanks in advance.

Related:

Full post, including comments

Labor-intensive agriculture on its way out in Hawaii; coffee will become the mainstay?

One thing I learned in Hawaii was that the cost of labor has killed the sugar industry: “End of an era: Hawaii’s last sugar mill wraps up final harvest” (December 12, 2016 AP). This despite about $2 billion per year in subsidies (from a “temporary” program created in 1934).

What about Macadamia nuts? Can they be harvested by machine? The locals said “no” but that “Puerto Ricans” pick them by hand at a reasonable cost. I’m not sure if the Puerto Ricans come temporarily for a harvest season or live in Hawaii year-round.

“End of an era: Maui Land & Pineapple closing its pineapple operations” (November 4, 2009) says “The end of pineapple production on Maui will leave Oahu as the sole Hawaiian Island with any significant acreage of the fruit. … Hawaii pineapple production declined in the 1980s as Dole and Del Monte relocated much of their acreage elsewhere in the world, primarily due to high U.S. labor and land costs. Dole closed down the entirety of its Lanai pineapple operations in 1992, while Del Monte harvested its final Hawaii crop in 2008.”

I’m wondering if coffee will become the main crop. Retailing at roughly $40 per lb., even in Hawaii, Hawaiian coffee isn’t a bargain, but coffee-drinking is a religious activity for an increasing number of Americans. One part-time resident said that Kona coffee was unusual because a layer of moisture blowing up from the sea protects it from the sun. Couldn’t coffee grown under the shade of a tree be just as good? The answer was “no.”

Readers: What do you think? Is Hawaiian coffee uniquely great? Will it be the last crop standing, so to speak?

Full post, including comments

Can older Americans attack politicians for not conforming to modern-day political correctness?

A Hillary supporter expressed outrage about the confirmation of Jeff Sessions as Attorney General. He cited 1986 hearsay about how Sessions had called a black subordinate “boy” and had joked about the KKK. I said “Suppose that any of that were true. How many of us could survive scrutiny of things that we said 30 or more years ago against modern-day standards?

As an example, I asked him if he had reacted with proper outrage every time one of his high school friends had referred to someone as a “fag.” (he’d graduated from high school in New Jersey in the early 1980s) It turned out that he had never objected to anyone’s use of this term.

Did that make him as bad as Mr. Sessions?

The answer was “no” because he said that, as an 18-year-old, he had no idea what “fag” meant and in no way associated it with homosexuality.

Full post, including comments

Americans terrified of losing government regulations that have yet to take effect

A few weeks ago I wrote about Americans who are terrified that they can’t live without relatively new government handouts: End-of-Obamacare fears a good illustration of why government has to grow?

Here in Beaver Creek, Colorado, a subset of the millionaires can fairly be characterized as Millionaires for Obama. Recent conversations have included them expressing their horror, after reading the New York Times, that coal companies will now be able to dump unprecedented amounts of filth into America’s rivers. An example article seems to be “Republicans Move to Block Rule on Coal Mining Near Streams”. If you read the article carefully and also follow a link to the Federal Register you can learn that this rule was promulgated in December 2016 and never took effect. You would also learn that it was Congress rather than the Trumpenfuhrer who killed it. However, the Democrats here in Beaver Creek had the idea that a regulation that had been in place for decades had been revoked by King Donald I. They were preparing to find a whole new world of pollution any time that they visited the Midwest (i.e., never).

Regarding something that Trump actually did, the visiting and local Democrats had read “Trump Rescinds Rules on Bathrooms for Transgender Students” and concluded that we were in a whole new and unfamiliar world of hatred. The Times story was in the news section, not the editorial one, but the journalists give a misleading impression that the feds telling local school districts how to run their bathrooms was the policy throughout the Obama Administration (8 years) when in fact it was closer to 8 months. For most of the Obama Administration, and indeed at any time from 1635 through 2015, a public school could do whatever they thought best.

For both the coal mining/river and bathroom policy issues the country would simply be living under the regulations that prevailed during 2010 when Obama was in the White House and Democrats controlled Congress. Yet the idea of returning to a slightly less regulated time filled at least some wealthy and degreed Americans with terror.

Full post, including comments

What does marriage mean to people who support gay marriage?

A middle-aged married father of two, in between his ecstatic praise of Barack Obama and enthusiastic expressions of support of Hillary Clinton, often mentions his passion for gay marriage. Another subject of which this Bay Area dweller is fond is the pernicious influence of Christianity and Judaism on American society. The other day he said that he couldn’t stand conservative Christians for suggesting that Americans were descending into anarchy due to an abandonment of Christian values.

I asked “Without Christian values or similar cultural ones, wouldn’t a man be free to abandon his middle-aged wife and young children in favor of a childless 25-year-old woman?” He replied “If he needs to do that I wouldn’t judge him.” What about the woman who leaves her husband and kids to travel the world in an Eat, Pray, Love-style journey of self-discovery? It turned out that was okay as well.

The conversation reminded me of one that I had recently with a college student (and, of course, therefore at least a moderately outspoken advocate for LGBTQIA rights). His non-working mom, attractive at nearly 50, had sued his high-income father and used the resulting cash to enjoy a sex-and-travel relationship with a man just over 30. The student acknowledged that the divorce had a devastating effect on him and his sibling, ruining their teenage years. However, he said that he thought that his mother was right to break up their home because “people shouldn’t stay married if there is no passion.” I asked “So if a guy is married to a woman who is exhausted from running after kids and thus tends to collapse at night before the question of passion becomes relevant, he should feel free to seek passion with a 22-year-old off craigslist?” The answer turned out to be basically “yes” because in deciding whether or not to stay married there were no important considerations other than the passion currently experienced by one of the married adults.

I’m wondering if the whole gay marriage debate among heterosexuals was the result of the two sides misunderstanding each other’s concept of “marriage.” Marriage under the law of a typical U.S. state is a temporary financial arrangement that can be terminated by either party for any reason (“no fault”; see Real World Divorce). But citizens often invest the term with additional meaning. Perhaps the hetero anti-gay-marriage folks dragged in concepts from religion and ideas that marriage might involve a personal sacrifice? While the hetero pro-gay-marriage folks added in stuff about passion and personal satisfaction? So they ended up talking past each other and, though using the same word, were talking about two different things.

Related:

Full post, including comments

Women in Roman Times

SPQR: A History of Ancient Rome by Mary Beard explains that women were expected to get married (see quote below).

Roman marriage was, in essence, a simple and private business. Unlike in the modern world, the state played little part in it. In most cases a man and a woman were assumed to be married if they claimed that they were married, and they ceased to be married if they (or if one of them) claimed they no longer were. That, plus a party or two to celebrate the union, was probably all there was to it for the majority of ordinary Roman citizens. For the wealthier, there were often more formal and more expensive wedding ceremonies, featuring a relatively familiar line-up for such a rite of passage: special clothes (brides traditionally wore yellow), songs and processions and the new wife being carried over the threshold of the marital home. Considerations of property bulked larger for the rich too, in particular a dowry that the father of the bride provided, to be returned in the event of divorce.

The main purpose of marriage at Rome, as in all past cultures, was the production of legitimate children, who automatically inherited Roman citizen status if both parents were citizens or if they satisfied various conditions governing ‘intermarriage’ with outsiders.

Just as today, however, being married did not necessarily limit a woman’s freedom:

No less problematic is the competing image, prominent in the first century BCE, of a new style of liberated woman, who supposedly enjoyed a free social, sexual, often adulterous life, without much constraint from husband, family or the law. Some of these characters were conveniently dismissed as part of the demi-monde of actresses, showgirls, escorts and prostitutes, including one celebrity ex-slave, Volumnia Cytheris, who was said to have been the mistress at one time or another of both Brutus and Mark Antony, so sleeping with both Caesar’s assassin and his greatest supporter. But many of them were the wives or widows of high-ranking Roman senators. The most notorious of all was Clodia, the sister of Cicero’s great enemy Clodius, the wife of a senator who died in 59 BCE, and the lover of the poet Catullus, among a string of others. Terentia is rumoured to have had her suspicions about even Cicero’s relations with Clodius’ sister. She was alternately attacked and admired as a promiscuous temptress, scheming manipulator, idolised goddess and borderline criminal.

Women were not shut away:

Women also regularly dined with men, and not only the sex workers, escorts and entertainers who provided the female company at classical Athenian parties. In fact, one of the early misdeeds of Verres turned on this difference between Greek and Roman dining practices. In the 80s BCE, when he was serving in Asia Minor, more than a decade before his stint in Sicily, Verres and some of his staff engineered an invitation to dinner with an unfortunate Greek, and after a considerable quantity of alcohol had been consumed they asked the host if his daughter could join them. When the man explained that respectable Greek women did not dine in male company, the Romans refused to believe him and set out to find her. A brawl followed in which one of Verres’ bodyguards was killed and the host was drenched with boiling water; he was later executed for murder. Cicero paints the whole incident in extravagant terms, almost as a rerun of the rape of Lucretia. But it also involved a series of drunken misunderstandings about the conventions of female behaviour across the cultural boundaries of the empire. Some of the legal rules that governed marriage and women’s rights at this period reflect this relative freedom. There were, it is true, some hard lines claimed on paper. It may have been a nostalgic myth that once upon a time a man had the right to cudgel to death his wife for the ‘crime’ of drinking a glass of wine. But there is some evidence that the execution of a wife who was caught in adultery was technically within the husband’s legal power. There is, however, not a single known example of this ever happening, and most evidence points in a different direction. A woman did not take her husband’s name or fall entirely under his legal authority. After the death of her father, an adult woman could own property in her own right, buy and sell, inherit or make a will and free slaves – many of the rights that women in Britain did not gain till the 1870s.

The only restriction was the need for an appointed guardian (tutor) to approve whatever decision or transaction she made. Whether Cicero was being patronising or misogynistic or (as some critics generously think) having a joke when he put this rule down to women’s natural ‘weakness in judgement’ is impossible to tell. But there is certainly no sign that for his wife it was much of a handicap: whether she was selling a row of houses to raise funds for Cicero in exile or raking in the rents from her estates, no tutor is ever mentioned. In fact, one of the reforms of Augustus towards the end of the first century BCE or early in the next was to allow freeborn citizen women who had borne three children to be released from the requirement to have a guardian; ex-slaves had to have four to qualify. It was a clever piece of radical traditionalism: it allowed women new freedoms, provided they fulfilled their traditional role. Oddly, women had much less freedom when it came to the act of marriage itself. For a start, they had no real option whether to marry or not. The basic rule was that all freeborn women were to be married. There were no maiden aunts, and it was only special groups, such as the Vestal Virgins, who opted, or were compelled, to remain single.

Being a virgin might have been a wise career choice:

The production of children was a dangerous obligation. Childbirth was always the biggest killer of young adult women at Rome, from senators’ wives to slaves. Thousands of such deaths are recorded, from high-profile casualties such as Tullia and Pompey’s Julia to the ordinary women across the empire commemorated on tombstones by their grieving husbands and families. One man in North Africa remembered his wife, who ‘lived for thirty-six years and forty days. It was her tenth delivery. On the third day she died.’ Another, from what is now Croatia, put up a simple memorial to ‘his fellow slave’ (and probably his partner), who ‘suffered agonies to give birth for four days, and did not give birth, and so she died’. To put this in a wider perspective, statistics available from more recent historical periods suggest that at least one in fifty women were likely to die in childbirth, with a higher chance if they were very young.

most of their contraceptive efforts were defeated by the fact that ancient science claimed that the days after a woman ceased menstruating were her most fertile, when the truth is exactly the opposite.

The best estimate – based largely on figures from comparable later populations – is that half the children born would have died by the age of ten, from all kinds of sickness and infection, including the common childhood diseases that are no longer fatal. What this means is that, although average life expectancy at birth was probably as low as the mid twenties, a child who survived to the age of ten could expect a lifespan not wildly at variance from our own. According to the same figures, a ten-year-old would on average have another forty years of life left, and a fifty-year-old could reckon on fifteen more. The elderly were not as rare as you might think in ancient Rome. But the high death rate among the very young also had implications for women’s pregnancies and family size. Simply to maintain the existing population, each woman on average would have needed to bear five or six children. In practice, that rises to something closer to nine when other factors, such as sterility and widowhood, are taken into account. It was hardly a recipe for widespread women’s liberation.

More: read SPQR: A History of Ancient Rome

Full post, including comments