 |
| Alan Gross and his wife Judy |
I can readily believe that USAID might have commissioned such a project -- they are pretty open about their goals and funding programs -- but I can't get a fix on exactly what Gross allegedly brought in. I've read cryptic statements saying he brought:
- Sophisticated satellite communications equipment, Raúl Castro quoted in the Washington post
- Cell phones, laptops and other communications equipment, Marc Lacey and Ginger Thompson, NY Times
- BGAN Satellite ground stations, Elsa Claro, El Progresso
Cell phones and laptops are increasingly available in Cuba, so those he might have brought would not have made a significant difference.
What about BGAN ground stations, which can be used for clandestine Internet connectivity? I discussed the limited capability of BGAN equipment in a previous post -- a few BGAN ground stations would have no practical impact. (Elsa Claro speculated that they could be used for encrypted messages perhaps containing bombing coordinates, but so could any other IP-connected computer in Cuba -- see, for example, this post).
Without taking a position on the right or of the US and USAID to meddle in Cuban affairs, the efficacy of that meddling or Alan Gross' motives, it seems clear that what he allegedly tried to do would not have made a difference even if he had succeeded.
From the point of view of the cuban government, Gross was just one small piece on a larger agenda from USAID (and this is not far from the true actually). So if he had succeeded, and 1000 other "contratists" just like him had also succeeded, I do belive it would be a difference.
ReplyDeleteHow many illegal satellite TV stations do you think are active in havana now? around 1000? however right now the access to the distributed underground cables comming from those stations is so wide spreaded that it is difficult to find someone who have not seen them at least once.
I can imagine how afraid the goverment is of something like this happening with internet.
> 1000 other "contratists" just like him had also succeeded, I do believe it would be a difference.
ReplyDeleteI agree with that. I wonder if they planned or did more. Your suggestion got me curious, so I Googled the State Department budget for Cuba -- it is $20 million for fiscal year 2011 to:
"continue to promote self-determined democracy in Cuba. Funds will be used to provide humanitarian assistance to political prisoners, their families, and other victims of repression; advance human rights; strengthen independent civil society organizations; and support information sharing into and out of Cuba".
I don't know how much they allocated to support "information sharing" using BGAN ground stations, but it would have to cover the cost of the equipment, travel and expenses, bandwidth charges, overhead charges at Gross' employer, etc. It does not seem like they could have planned to send many ground stations, and I can't help thinking a lot of the smugglers would have been caught. From what I've read, it does seem that USAID sponsored Alan Gross, but, given this arithmetic, I wonder what they hoped to achieve.
(Does anyone know if the trial made it clear what he brought in and how he was carrying it)?
> How many illegal satellite TV stations do you think are active in Havana now? around 1000?
It would really be interesting to estimate how many there were and what the people watch.
I suspect that these TV links do make a difference in public opinion.
> access to the distributed underground cables coming from those stations is so wide spread that it is difficult to find someone who have not seen them at least once.
That takes me back. I was at the Informatica conference in February 1994, and was told there were about 100,000 TV antennae pointed at a transmitter on the Habana Libre Hotel. Walking around the city, it seemed like there was a dish on every balcony. The government began scrambling the signals in May, and, when people started installing de-scramblers, they banned the antennae. The deadline for removing them was September 13, 1994.
From what you say, it sounds like they may have given up on controlling TV.
(I wrote about the 1994 TV antennae in: http://www.rand.org/pubs/drafts/DRU1330-1.html, and found the $20 million budget figure at
https://sites.google.com/site/cubamoneyproject/exec-budget-summary/exec-budget-summary.pdf?attredirects=0&d=1).
Wow! That was an impressive research you did there! I am glad I was able to boost your curiosity :)
ReplyDelete"in February 1994, and was told there were about 100,000 TV antennae pointed at a transmitter on the Habana Libre Hotel."
This brought memories to me too, I have a friend (he should be now ~60-years old) who used to build those antennas at that time. He made a huge fortune with that, but he "retired" when the police started to get close to him.
Later on in 2000 when I was studding at the university he called me, he wanted me to help him with some programming for a similar "business" he just started, this time for decryption of analog satellite signals. I rejected his offer, (I am too coward for those kind of things) but I know he succeeded. Analog signals are not used anymore on satellites, but I am sure he is still "active".
You like that word "objective". It's on the Rand site, too, right on top.
ReplyDeleteI read(well, tried to) the pdf, DRU1330. The only honest thing therein is the call to protect "US Interests".
Why does the US need to sneak around behind the back of the Cuban govt. for the sake of "civility"?
Why is DARPA so interested in these BGAN units?
ReplyDelete> I read(well, tried to) the pdf, DRU1330.
ReplyDeleteTry a little harder uh-huh. Take a baby step first.
Read my affiliation -- I was a professor asked to evaluate the then current state of the Internet in Cuba because I had done similar studies in several other nations and had co-developed a widely used framework for doing such studies.
Look at my other publications at the time. I was not an employee of RAND or the government and had no specific interest in Cuba -- I was a researcher who specialized in the Internet in developing nations.
If reading my affiliation does not tire you too much, read the rest of the report you mentioned -- the entire report. See if you can see anything you might agree with.
If that is too taxing, just skip to the recommendations, and let me know which you oppose.
You might even try reading some of the other things I wrote at the time about the Internet or other nations. Let me know if you find anything you can agree with.
(What grade would you have me give a student who said "well, I tried to read it")?
Cordyceps, I have tender grey matter to consider.
ReplyDeleteQuit playing games. Your pose as a disinterested third party is a sham.
A-political man lives in a cave.
I took a look at that paper and am making my way through it.
ReplyDeleteWhen you state in it that Castro would face a "dictator's dilemma" would it be fair to you if I stated that you described him as a dictator?
That seems to be a logical inference from your words.
Still looking for an answer to my previous DARPA question in this thread.
Thanks!
Matt said:
ReplyDelete> Why is DARPA so interested in these BGAN units?
Matt,
You are confusing the ground station(s?), which Gross brought in with the satellite communication network they connect to. DARPA is interested in using Inmarsat's satellite network. They plan to build a research prototype of a system that uses the network. Gross brought in satellite ground station(s) to connect to the network. It is as if he had brought in a telephone(s) to connect to the phone network.
What DARPA is doing is reminiscent of the ARPANet, which preceded the Internet. ARPA contracted with researchers at several labs to develop experimental hardware and software to connect computers using the existing AT&T telephone network.
> I took a look at that paper and am making my way through it.
Cool -- I bet you find some things you agree with and others you disagree with.
> would it be fair to you if I stated that you described him as a dictator?
I started to answer this, but changed my mind because I really do not want to spend time on this blog debating about such things as the definition of "dictator" and trying to defend or attack simple explanations for things that have multi-faceted, complex explanations. So, I am going to stick with my no politics policy.
Let's talk about things like the capacity of WiFi links on this blog and save the other stuff for another venue.
Larry
Between 2003 and early 2005 I was engaged in installing illegal DirecTv receivers in Cuba. Only I get to have around 300 clients. So I am sure that 1000 satellite receivers is a very low estimate.
ReplyDeleteCyber Accion wrote:
ReplyDelete> Between 2003 and early 2005 I was engaged in installing illegal DirecTv receivers in Cuba.
Was the equipment smuggled in by someone like Alan Gross or made in Cuba?
Were you (or others) also installing Hughes or other home Internet dishes?
Larry
The receivers and LNBs were smuggled by Cuban customs officials in connection with Miami Cubans. Satellite dishes were manufactured in Cuba using any type of fiberglass. Directv LNB was sold between 80 and 100 CUC. A homemade satellite dish was sold up to 70 CUC.
ReplyDeleteI met a person who installed Hughes Satellite Internet, but i never knew how they introduce the equipment in Cuba.
ReplyDelete> I met a person who installed Hughes Satellite Internet
ReplyDeleteDepending on the account and monthly payment, a Hughes Internet ground station is roughly equivalent to one of Alan Gross' ground stations.
Do you think the Hughes installations were common? If so, there are already "Alan Gross" stations in Cuba.
> but i never knew how they introduce the equipment in Cuba.
Perhaps the same way as you saw with Direct TV -- make the dishes in Cuba and smuggle the electronics??? (Could they have made those larger Hughes dishes)?
Larry
Hughes satellite dishes were not common. I only knew 2 or 3. With regard to the monthly fee, I charged $ 650 dollars for the receiver, antenna, LNB and installation of DirecTV, including coaxial cable and the first month of service, I was paid 50 dollars monthly for the subscription. As I mentioned previously I come to have about 300 customers, so I do not think the financial issue is the problem for the existence of such satellite Internet connections. Satellite dishes large as those of Hughes where not manufactured in Cuba, I dont know why. I think the reason to not have more, it was precisely because of antenna size and difficulty to hide them. Unlike the BGAN whose size helps.
ReplyDelete> I was paid 50 dollars monthly for the subscription.
ReplyDeleteDoes someone actually have to have a Direct TV account?
> because of antenna size and difficulty to hide them
I just looked and Hughes dishes are .74, .98, 1.2, or 1.8 meters. In the US, many people get by with .74 meter dishes, but Cuba may be near the edge of the satellite "footprint," and need a larger dish.
Direct TV dishes range from 18" round to 36" x 22" oval. Do people worry about their direct TV dishes being spotted? Do the authorities enforce the ban? What happens if you get caught?
Larry
Here is another post that relates first hand experience with the satellite TV "industry" in Cuba:
ReplyDeleteBuilder of Satellite Dishes, Risky Job in Cuba.
>Does someone actually have to have a Direct TV account?
ReplyDeleteYes, there are several accounts active in Cuba, it works this way, someone in the US paid for the service, once its instaled in that persons house, they ask for several extensions for more rooms, and that extensions cards are the ones they send to Cuba. Also in this moment DirecTv is the only way to watch Tv in Cuba, we also used Dish Networks but since they change the cards encription to Nagra 3 the only way to make it work its with a permanent internet conection using IKS (Internet Key Sharing) and that its almost impossible in Cuba.
You are right, Directv only needs the 18" dish to work in Cuba. Hughes needs the 74 to 1.2
>Do people worry about their direct TV dishes being spotted? Do the authorities enforce the ban? What happens if you get caught?
People are very concerned that they satellite dishes are not spoted. I repeatedly install antennas in plastic tanks simulating drinking water facilities. Once I installed an antenna inside the closet of a room, closet back wall was facing the street, so we shot down a piece of wall and cover it with an acrylic painted the same color of the exterior wall of the building. The authorities pursue and punish the possession of such equipment. If they catch you as a user, you will seize the equipment and put a fine of up to 5 000 pesos. If they catch you as a seller, you can be fined and also sentenced to terms ranging from 1 to 5 years in prison.