Arthur T Knackerbracket has processed the following story:
Beijing has published its proposed regulations for satellite broadband, including a requirement that operators conduct censorship in real time.
In its latest draft rules, the Cyberspace Administration of China proposes any organization or individual using terminal equipment with direct connection to satellite services is not allowed to "produce, copy, publish, or disseminate content prohibited by laws and administrative regulations, such as content that incites subversion of state power, overthrows the socialist system, endangers national security and interests, damages the national image, incites secession of the country, undermines national unity and social stability, promotes terrorism, extremism, ethnic hatred, ethnic discrimination, violence, pornography, and false information."
It clarifies that terminal equipment includes civilian handheld, portable, and fixed terminals, as well as terminals installed on aircraft, ships, and vehicles – essentially any device that enables users to access satellite communication systems for voice calls, text messaging, and data exchange.
The document states that providers must align their operations with national security and network security requirements, and prevent illegal activities.
This includes complying with China's cyber security, data security, and personal information protection laws – plus potentially being responsible for users' activities.
"If a terminal equipment direct satellite service provider finds that a user has published or transmitted information prohibited by laws and regulations, it shall immediately stop the transmission, take measures such as elimination in accordance with the law, preserve relevant records, and report to the relevant competent authorities," stipulates the CAC.
The draft rules further include articles that would make tracking of providers and users easier. This includes requiring providers to:
- Obtain licenses and approvals, whether telco, radio frequency related or otherwise;
- Collect real identity information from those using its services, as China already requires of telcos;
- Integrate monitoring and supervision into their platforms to allow Beijing's oversight;
- Locate ground facilities – such as gateway stations and Earth stations – and user data on Chinese soil. Any data that does need to go overseas must be processed through a gateway approved by the telecommunications regulatory department of the State Council.
The rules even go so far as to require anyone who uses satellite broadband to publish news – or distribute video and audio content – to obtain a license.
The rules mean that non-Chinese satellite broadband operators will need Beijing's approval to offer their services in the Middle Kingdom.
China is an enormous market, but The Register can't imagine that space broadband players like SpaceX or Amazon will be keen to sign up for Beijing's rules – especially as Elon Musk's professed fervent belief in free speech is at odds with China's desire to monitor content and require takedowns. Then again, maybe it's not as fervent as his desire to sell lots of Teslas in China.
The CAC includes other items that provide an overall industry vision – such as encouraging the construction of satellite communication systems and making them compatible and interoperable with network architectures. It also states it would like to cultivate technical talent in the industry and actively participate in the formulation of relevant international rules and standards.
A deadline for feedback was set for October 27, 2024.
China launched its first space broadband satellites into orbit in August. In all, 108 satellites are slated to go up this year to start the Qianfan constellation, followed by 540 more in 2025. China aims to have 15,000 internet-slinging satellites in low Earth orbit by 2030.
It has been suggested that the constellation system will help run and export the nation's content censorship system, known as the Great Firewall – a hypothesis lent significant credence by these draft rules.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Frosty Piss on Tuesday October 01, @10:11PM (19 children)
This is China proposing rules for China that are pretty much the same as their existing rules for existing Chinese media.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by corey on Tuesday October 01, @10:14PM (9 children)
Yeah. Mobile phones are increasingly using direct satellite links for low bandwidth data, so this is just a move to regulate that as well.
(Score: 3, Funny) by corey on Tuesday October 01, @10:30PM (8 children)
Replying to my own comment again.
That makes me wonder, if eventually mobile phones communicate mostly or entirely via satellite, would Americans still call them cellphones? Or move to mobile phones?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Barenflimski on Tuesday October 01, @11:15PM (3 children)
If you want to get pedantic, should a device that does 100 things and only 1 is "phone" have the word phone in it?
(Score: 4, Funny) by Kell on Tuesday October 01, @11:26PM
Telephone and microphone - That's two things! :D
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
(Score: 2, Touché) by ntc on Wednesday October 02, @12:35AM
If you want to get more pedantic : Phone is a contraction of telephone, which means distant sound/voice. So a phone should be a sound, not a communication device ;-)
English is composed of memes (Dawkins's memes, not internet memes), and therefore defined by the majority of English speakers. Not by any individual, or dictionary.
IMHO, how a word "should" be used is irrelevant in practice. The majority will decide how it will be used, and everybody must follow, or be left behind.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 02, @01:31AM
"should a device that does 100 things and only 1 is "phone" have the word phone in it? "
Leash
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Tuesday October 01, @11:36PM (3 children)
Some of us USAians sometimes call it a "mobile" phone.
From one of the too many AI / LLM "helpers" on the 'net:
"A cell phone is called a cell phone because the service area is divided into small cells, each with a base station. The transmission ranges of the towers at the center of each cell define the cells."
You could have a mobile phone that isn't cellular. "Ham" radio operators used to (and maybe still do) set up a mobile phone that used amateur radio bands to communicate with their home 2-way radio, which then communicates over their home (landline) phone.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 02, @01:56AM (1 child)
The term used by hams is a phone patch, and their radios are half-duplex so you can't talk and
listen at the same time.
Celluar telephone systems are weird in that the back haul goes through a different path than
the call establishment/maintenance information, which follows every cell that the call went
through.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 02, @02:00AM
Hams also have commonly shared split frequency radio systems called repeaters that would normally provide
the POTS connection. In the Internet era, they can tunnel through the interwebs to provide connectivity beyond
the range of the repeaters.
There is also a huge difference in how these links can be used. They require a licesnse, cannot be encrypted nor
used for commercial purposes.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Wednesday October 02, @02:13PM
I mean, the number of times I've heard people just say, "let me get my cell". I guarantee you they're not talking about some specific biological cell or cinder-block cell.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 5, Touché) by janrinok on Wednesday October 02, @02:32AM (8 children)
No, this is not limited to Chinese businesses. This actually implies that existing satellite broadband providers must either agree to China's rules while they are potentially usable by the Chinese population, or that they must disable themselves at such times.
As TFA points out, existing satellite broadband providers are unlikely to accept the proposed rules, nor do they outline how enforcement would be carried out in the event of non-compliance.
I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 02, @03:43AM
A simple query of the spreadsheet cost/benefit ratios will determine the outcome. Apple and Google, etc. have decided that compliance is more profitable.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 02, @05:49AM
*cough*
Under Elon Musk, Twitter has approved 83% of censorship requests by authoritarian governments [elpais.com]
*cough*
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Wednesday October 02, @09:01AM (5 children)
A Long March with a full load of coarse sand and a couple of sticks of dynamite in the middle could eliminate pretty much any non-compliant satellite. If you blew it up while on a retrograde elliptical trajectory that went between say, 300 and 2000 km I think you'd get them all in pretty short order.
Might be a bit of collateral damage though.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday October 02, @04:44PM (4 children)
While China does have capacity to shoot down satellites, historically, the precedent for what they actually do to suppress technology outside their direct control(such as VPNs or crytpo currencies) is to punish people caught using them.
If china's sigint capabilities are anything like the US's, they wouldn't have a hard time finding satellite internet transmitters on the ground. You gotta operate in your designated frequency band after all.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 02, @05:20PM (3 children)
Every transmitter is a beacon. Deep packet inspection will reveal all unauthorized encryption. You cannot hide. The only way to protect free speech is through the use of heavy weaponry, so we may as well give it up, the tyrants win, unless you're willing to destroy the planet to defeat them.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Thursday October 03, @07:44AM (2 children)
> The only way to protect free speech is through the use of heavy weaponry
Well, free speech in Eastern Europe won in early 1990s without heavy weaponry. Russia, let's call it a 1-1 draw (soccer).
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 03, @01:19PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 03, @09:55PM
The only thing resembling free speech law on the entire planet is in the U.S. Constitution's 1st Amendment (corrupt lack of enforcement notwithstanding). Europe has nothing of the sort, even after 1990. The U.N. version comes with all kinds of conditions.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 03, @02:02AM
So if the Chinese government considers that bad, then maybe we should be thinking about how to generate and distribute more of that in China? My take is that the stuff at the end is there for developed world consumption and isn't a serious consideration. For example, the Chinese government has never cared about ethnic hatred and discrimination when they're doing it. Same for terrorism, extremism, and false information.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by Username on Thursday October 03, @01:39PM
Why is it that the only way socialism works is with orwellian type laws?
(Score: 2) by Tokolosh on Thursday October 03, @02:18PM (1 child)
The absence of freedom and democracy is the reason that China will never be a long-term world power. These kinds of system are unstable and inevitably collapse. They have no means to self-correct. The USA is (mostly) free and democratic, viz. the civil war restoration of liberties. How many regimes has China had since the founding of America?
People who fret that China will rule the world should relax, although that is not to say China will not cause a lot of damage as it implodes. Be patient, China contains the seeds of its own demise.
(Score: 2) by gnuman on Thursday October 03, @08:05PM
Not that many, especially since US is not that old? like 1700s?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qing_dynasty [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_China_(1912%E2%80%931949) [wikipedia.org]
People's Republic of China (since 1949)
So, 3. And the Republic of China is basically what Taiwan is, so not sure, maybe just 2 if you count it like that?
I wouldn't bet that China's government is about to implode based on Chinese history here.
So does every country. US too. "It can never happen here" by Sinclair Lewis is a nice depiction of how things could go down in US. It's a out of copyright book from the 1930s, so just look for it.