An American intelligence assessment found that the balloon used a commercially available U.S. network to communicate, primarily for navigation, U.S. officials say.
U.S. intelligence officials have determined that the Chinese spy balloon that flew across the U.S. this year used an American internet service provider to communicate, according to two current and one former U.S. official familiar with the assessment.
The balloon connected to a U.S.-based company, according to the assessment, to send and receive communications from China, primarily related to its navigation. Officials familiar with the assessment said it found that the connection allowed the balloon to send burst transmissions, or high-bandwidth collections of data over short periods of time.
The Biden administration sought a highly secretive court order from the federal Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to collect intelligence about it while it was over the U.S., according to multiple current and former U.S. officials. How the court ruled has not been disclosed.
Starlink? At least I think that’s what I think would be the logical choice for this use case.
NBC News is not naming the provider to protect the identity of its sources.
I think that is the right thing to do.
It’s so obviously starlink that it’s conspicuous not to name them. Who the fuck else could it be at that elevation?
Hughesnet or Viasat
I have been on hughesnet. It is so slow that I don’t think a burst transmission would be possible.
The whole thing is really bizarre.
Iridium? I think there are a couple options here.
You used to be able to get internet through satellite tv providers like DISH or DirectTV, but I don’t know if they would be classified as an ISP or if the satellite network was acting as a repeater or relay.
Aren’t traditional satellite providers download only via satellite and use phone line for upload?
I haven’t the faintest idea about that.
Does it really matter who provided the internet? It’s not like they would have known China was flying a surveillance balloon over the US with their service?
Like I guess it’s good for the DoD to know so they can subpoena some data, but there’s no wrong doing here.
If anything if naming it wouldn’t harm sources, it’d be good PR for whoever was able to provide service like that.
Starlink
Ooh what if the US tried to seize Elongated Muskrat’s toys
Ooooo who is the provider then? They’re quoted in the article but not named.
It would probably be Verizon or other cellular internet provider.
I read that it was able to detect signals but not that it necessarily connected to them.