“That is a definite form of communication, 1/0. All you would have to do is ‘modulate’ the spin of one particle, then detect that opposite spin in the other particle.”
Here’s what you are missing. A particle is not a light bulb, you cannot just look at it and see if the spin is 1 or 0. Observing a particle changes its state, due to the observer effect. So if your communication depends on determining exactly what state a particle is in, but you cannot observe that particle and then be sure what state it was in before you observed it, you have a useless communication system. Without transmitting additional bits of information through traditional means, this problem cannot be overcome.
So you have to wreck the entanglement to read its state? Bummer. Also then how would you even prove they were entangled? Read both simultaneously?
Way back in the 'old days' of RS-232 serial communications, they had this same problem.
When a 'sender' was at a different baud rate than the 'receiver' all you got was a bunch of useless bits.
Then they standardized the communications formats so everyone could use fixed baud rates.
But there was still a problem: The format of the communications itself. So they came up with 'parity' bits, 'check' bits, 'start' and 'stop' bits that would frame the 'data' bits to form bytes that actually contained the information to decode into an 'A' or 'H' or a '1' or a '5'.
At this stage, the scientists need to develop a system similar to this that can decode the seeming randomness of 'entangled' bits.................