Whoops I don't know how I missed that in your links!
replyThe weird part to me is that Glonass was not approved either, yet it's as openly as allowed as Galileo that went through a tedious FCC approval process that was invented later. Grandfathered or not, we're clearly not in a worse place using Russian tech for the last 15 years.
Read only or not, relying on Chinese or Russian gps data for increased accuracy even in civilian increases dependency no?
That seems like a bad idea to me. I’ve thought for about 20 years that increasing our dependence on anti democratic regimes was a risk, no matter what the benefits for global development etc. It’s not isolationist to want to only rely on your friends and not enemies.
(Which is why Europe needs to disentangle itself from the US as fast as possible).
replyIf you are relying on it without a graceful fall back then it would be a problem. If you take it as a boost on top of existing capabilities then it is a pure win. In practice it can be hard to parse the two scenarios. People get used to thinking that something is available and it turns out that it was always leverage against them.
replyIt decreases dependency on GPS and thus it decreases risk because if there's an attack on a GPS system by an adversary, it's likely that they will not be attacking their own system at the same time. I'd rather have my enemy's open source, perfectly functional clock in my back pocket than be without the time. Enjoying that the competing clock has a sub second display is optional.
reply