Satellites Are Becoming the New Cellphone Towers(spectrum.ieee.org)
spectrum.ieee.org
Satellites Are Becoming the New Cellphone Towers
https://spectrum.ieee.org/satellite-cellphone-starlink
207 comments
Starlink blocks access to specific countries that it doesn't have approval to work in, so I presume they'll just be blocked while the totalitarian regimes are in power.
I don't think this is the case. They don't sell hardware/service in countries they don't have approval to operate in, but their global roam service operates in places they don't have an operation license for, which is why south Africa is pissed off [1]
[1]: https://www.itweb.co.za/article/icasa-takes-note-of-illegal-...
[1]: https://www.itweb.co.za/article/icasa-takes-note-of-illegal-...
> I don't think this is the case
Isn't that's how Ukraine got fucked. Sent their submarine drones towards Crimea but as soon they crossed the "border" they lost signal. They tried to contact Musk and the rest is history...
Isn't that's how Ukraine got fucked. Sent their submarine drones towards Crimea but as soon they crossed the "border" they lost signal. They tried to contact Musk and the rest is history...
They were using humanitarian/civilian internet given freely for deadly cross border offensives. If you want military grade comms, you can buy them.
Not cross-border from Ukraine's perspective. Or the US government's.
Yes, morally Ukraine is in the right, although it's understandable why Musk wants his globally operating businesses to at least appear to be neutral. Despite being obviously US-based.
Maybe more interesting is the question why they need Starlink at all? Why are they dealing with a private for profit company when the US military could provide them with satellite communications?
Maybe more interesting is the question why they need Starlink at all? Why are they dealing with a private for profit company when the US military could provide them with satellite communications?
They were using Starlink to get live video from small maritime drones. As in, things that you can only fit a tiny non-directional antenna onto. I can't imagine trying to talk to WGS with one of those would go well.
Meanwhile, US military contracts Starlink for some of its communications. Private contractors are very much the standard for military logistics these days.
starlink is the only game in town for high bandwidth low latency.
So Musk should grant internet to enemy occupied zone giving them super unfair advantage because of feelsies and vibes?
To be clear, Starlink is fine with defensive use, including Ukraine's cross-border counteroffensives that the US government sees as having a defensive purpose. They are very much already a military contractor, and Ukraine has gone through the proper avenues to receive the service for military purposes.^1
The problem is that the consequences of accidentally providing service to Russia, a country that is both sanctioned by the US (so Starlink would face headache-inducing legal problems in the US) and is conducting an offensive invasion (which matters because it's against Starlink policy), are considered far too high for the Pentagon to approve it without the use of hexagon geofencing. This hexagon geofencing means it's not as useful for crossing over the Russia-Ukraine front line. It is updated frequently to reflect the situation on the ground, but they can only provide service to a hexagon if all of that land has been taken back from Russia, so it will never quite satisfy how fast Ukrainian soldiers would prefer the geo-fencing to update.
It's likely that Starlink wants to refine this geofencing to be useful for Ukraine's cross-border counteroffensives, or to use some other measures to ensure the captured equipment and signals are not useful for Russia, but as long as the US Government says no, it won't happen.
---
^1: There was some usage of the service before it was properly approved, which was around the time Elon Musk was publicly saying Starlink wouldn't support counteroffensives and blocked off access in Crimea. But this is history now as Starlink is obligated by the Pentagon to support Ukraine, Musk's opinions do not appear to be guiding Starlink's current policies. Unfortunately this series of events has spawned some really confused news articles, angry Ukrainian soldiers on social media, and various partisan nonsense... the publicity and drama of it all pretty much overshadowed what actually ended up happening, which could have been much more interesting to investigate by anyone who is pro- or anti-ukraine, or pro- or anti-Musk -- or just anyone who is interested in how these military contracts work.
The problem is that the consequences of accidentally providing service to Russia, a country that is both sanctioned by the US (so Starlink would face headache-inducing legal problems in the US) and is conducting an offensive invasion (which matters because it's against Starlink policy), are considered far too high for the Pentagon to approve it without the use of hexagon geofencing. This hexagon geofencing means it's not as useful for crossing over the Russia-Ukraine front line. It is updated frequently to reflect the situation on the ground, but they can only provide service to a hexagon if all of that land has been taken back from Russia, so it will never quite satisfy how fast Ukrainian soldiers would prefer the geo-fencing to update.
It's likely that Starlink wants to refine this geofencing to be useful for Ukraine's cross-border counteroffensives, or to use some other measures to ensure the captured equipment and signals are not useful for Russia, but as long as the US Government says no, it won't happen.
---
^1: There was some usage of the service before it was properly approved, which was around the time Elon Musk was publicly saying Starlink wouldn't support counteroffensives and blocked off access in Crimea. But this is history now as Starlink is obligated by the Pentagon to support Ukraine, Musk's opinions do not appear to be guiding Starlink's current policies. Unfortunately this series of events has spawned some really confused news articles, angry Ukrainian soldiers on social media, and various partisan nonsense... the publicity and drama of it all pretty much overshadowed what actually ended up happening, which could have been much more interesting to investigate by anyone who is pro- or anti-ukraine, or pro- or anti-Musk -- or just anyone who is interested in how these military contracts work.
given how few starlink units are available and how ubiquitous wifi mesh network technology is this is likely a non issue. One starlink unit will likely be providing backhaul for a large portion of front line from a rear station.
There's thousands bought in Ukraine and at the beginning of the conflict it was 10 to 50 % of SL traffic.
Most users use 4G
Most users use 4G
oh wow, i thought there were just a couple hundred! I wonder where i got that idea from.
The first shipment was around that.
Every battlefield company in Ukraine has at least two.
Every battlefield company in Ukraine has at least two.
That's a justification but it doesn't rebut that it happened
Crimea is part of Ukraine. Only russia and its supporters recognize the russian occupation as valid.
And the ethnic Russian majority on it.
Of course the west and the neocons don't recognize it and their propaganda organs will make sure people think otherwise, after all Crimea is strategic for controlling the Black Sea.
enlighten yourself a bit on recent Crimea history:
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/why-did-russia-give...
enlighten yourself a bit on recent Crimea history:
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/why-did-russia-give...
You mean Russian speakers like Zelensky? And of course Crimea has less crimean tatars and Ukrainians now after Russian ethnic cleansing. Russians has always engaged in that.
I'm pretty sure the reason there was the free internet access being give to Ukraine was conditional on it being used for defence only and not offence. Seems pretty reasonable to me.
What is the difference between defense and offense when you are fighting against an invading army occupying ~20% of your country? Is it "offense" if you attempt to push them out?
It's offence when you leave your border on go over into another country. But either way, doesn't matter what I think, it's what Elon Musk thinks as he was giving them the starlink access for free.
The international consensus is that Crimea is Ukrainian territory.
Also, Musk wasn't giving it to them for free. The US was paying for it.
Consensus doesn’t change the fact the enemy has occupied that territory. Isn’t so hard to grok why you Musk wouldn’t open internet on there, esp without explicit DOD authorization.
The enemy is ALWAYS occupying any territory that they are on. It isnt like they are on vaccation. So with that logic it couldnt be used for any defence purposes that kills the invaders.
It's no different from the limits on use of HIMARS in UKr
HIMARS can be used in Crimea because Crimea is part of Ukraine. US govt recognise Crimea as Ukraine. It is only Elon that denies that Crimea is part of Ukraine.
Comment depth exceeded, but by your logic we should also send weapons and aid to crimea..?
US didn't pay for anything before April 2022 after Kyiv was freed.
Mariupol had starlink, it doesn't today. Can you guess why?
Mariupol had starlink, it doesn't today. Can you guess why?
Everyone except russians agree that crimea is inside Ukraine. Do you not recognize that Crimea is part of Ukraine?
Mariupol
Offensive operations are integral to achieving military strategy, including defenses. Passively defending has always been used to create conditions favorable to resuming offensive operations because only offensive operations get things done. Militarily, "defensive operations" include attacking the enemy
[deleted]
the defence/offence line is pretty blurred... What with 99+% of the kills by the US Department of Defence being on other peoples soil...
It used to be called the Department of War. The "Department of Defense" name came about in 1949 for PR reasons. Also, "PR" is an American propaganda term which means "propaganda".
Isn’t it public relations?
PR expands to public relations, which is a euphemism for propaganda. Propaganda was rebranded in America after WW2 because people associated the term with Nazis.
https://theconversation.com/the-manipulation-of-the-american...
https://theconversation.com/the-manipulation-of-the-american...
That really says more about America than it does the blurred lines between offence and defence :)
What can they do if Starlink doesn't obey them? Shoot them down with rockets?
Let's take China for instance. They can prosecute the the customers, interfere with the communications, prevent the building of or seize the ground stations (eventually the laser links could get around that), can blow the satelites up with missiles (though that is not likely), and in general prevent any future authorized business that Starlink might want to do.
If I were in charge, I'd try to get licensed and be able to collect money from customers there.
If I were in charge, I'd try to get licensed and be able to collect money from customers there.
Even India forbids sat phones except Inmarsat which they can monitor. But that's only one of the many networks. You can get in real trouble with one.
I wonder what will happen now that every phone will become a sat phone.
I wonder what will happen now that every phone will become a sat phone.
> I wonder what will happen now that every phone will become a sat phone.
Governments that don't want that will disallow the sale of such phones inside their country unless the manufacturer disables the satellite features for customers there.
Sure, some will get through via illegal imports, but largely this will be effective.
Governments that don't want that will disallow the sale of such phones inside their country unless the manufacturer disables the satellite features for customers there.
Sure, some will get through via illegal imports, but largely this will be effective.
The difference with these new satellite systems (if they can deliver what they promise) is that every phone sold within the past few years is essentially compatible.
At that point, you could only request that phone manufacturers retroactively provide firmware updates that ban these networks, or maybe make it hard to get SIMs allowed to connect to them (but then there's eSIMs too).
I think in practice we'll see a combination of these countries applying legal/economical pressure on the operators and jamming, with larger/less isolated countries leaning on the former, and the others on the latter.
At that point, you could only request that phone manufacturers retroactively provide firmware updates that ban these networks, or maybe make it hard to get SIMs allowed to connect to them (but then there's eSIMs too).
I think in practice we'll see a combination of these countries applying legal/economical pressure on the operators and jamming, with larger/less isolated countries leaning on the former, and the others on the latter.
That's what they did up to now but that doesn't work anymore. Starlink direct to cell works with any unmodified smartphone. They can't ban all of those and throw their country back 20 years :)
Never underestimate the violent stupidity a government will employ in pursuit of retaining its power.
most governments like this are technically incompetent and will be unable to prevent.
I'll believe it when I see it.
Until someone 'accidentally' releases update that enables feature and now you have a critical mass that you can't enforce laws on..?
Can’t enforce laws? Nerds will look for any opening for a techno-anarchist utopia. Most people are going to give up their phone when even remotely threatened. Before things even get to that point, there are lots of other levers to pull to stop people from getting access to an (esp. paid) service.
You know how 911 works without a valid cell plan?
Hypothetically, in the event of a war or similar unrest, the US could use satellite cell 'towers' to give an entire country limited connectivity with old devices people have stashed away in some drawer or closet without otherwise active cell plans, which are therefore off the local government's radar. People could be coerced to turn over the phones the government knows about but still retain some connectivity.
Hypothetically, in the event of a war or similar unrest, the US could use satellite cell 'towers' to give an entire country limited connectivity with old devices people have stashed away in some drawer or closet without otherwise active cell plans, which are therefore off the local government's radar. People could be coerced to turn over the phones the government knows about but still retain some connectivity.
Speeding is illegal yet most people do it because it’s impossible to enforce. There are (and aren’t) tons of laws that are like that.
- "Even India"
India routinely does total communications blackouts, so the satellite phone ban is unsurprising, in that context.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20701204 ("India Shut Down Kashmir’s Internet Access")
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10126931 ("India turned off mobile internet for 63M citizens amid protests in Ahmedabad")
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25972620 ("India protests: Internet cut to hunger-striking farmers in Delhi")
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%932021_Jammu_and_Ka... ("2019–2021 Jammu and Kashmir lockdown")
If you don't have enough things to worry about: the US has exactly the same legal powers—in fact they're national security powers the President can invoke unilaterally,
https://techcrunch.com/2020/10/22/representatives-propose-bi... ("Representatives propose bill limiting presidential internet ‘kill switch’")
India routinely does total communications blackouts, so the satellite phone ban is unsurprising, in that context.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20701204 ("India Shut Down Kashmir’s Internet Access")
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10126931 ("India turned off mobile internet for 63M citizens amid protests in Ahmedabad")
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25972620 ("India protests: Internet cut to hunger-striking farmers in Delhi")
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%932021_Jammu_and_Ka... ("2019–2021 Jammu and Kashmir lockdown")
If you don't have enough things to worry about: the US has exactly the same legal powers—in fact they're national security powers the President can invoke unilaterally,
https://techcrunch.com/2020/10/22/representatives-propose-bi... ("Representatives propose bill limiting presidential internet ‘kill switch’")
> If you don't have enough things to worry about: the US has exactly the same legal powers—in fact they're national security powers the President can invoke unilaterally,
I'm not in the US so I don't worry about that. But the US doesn't seem to actually use it as India does.
And besides I have other communications options if that would happen.
I'm not in the US so I don't worry about that. But the US doesn't seem to actually use it as India does.
And besides I have other communications options if that would happen.
Same as with drones - vendors will geofence them
Huh? Any particular reason why?
They say it's for terrorism reasons. They consider them a 'threat to national security': https://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-satellite-phones-in-de...
Also: https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/64974/why-are-sat...
Also: https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/64974/why-are-sat...
Because religiously motivated totalitarianism is a bad form of government.
Theoretically speaking, could you use high power lasers to overheat the satellites to the point that they break and permanently stop working?
I've had this idea on my mind for quite a while now, because some time ago I heard something about Starlink painting their satellites black, which reminded me of the "it's hotter in a black car" thing.
I've had this idea on my mind for quite a while now, because some time ago I heard something about Starlink painting their satellites black, which reminded me of the "it's hotter in a black car" thing.
There is a known threat in using lasers to damage the solar cells which would lead to the batteries fully discharging and the satellite becoming useless for lack of electrical power.
They can make SpaceX life hell through the ITU. Eventually SpaceX can only operate if they get the licences to operate, and if they bypass this, they would show that they have a disregard of RF regulations and this will be used against them the next time they need to get/renew a licence.
I wonder if SpaceX has enough clout to influence the ITU decisions somehow, through political lobbying, for example?
Maybe in the eyes of an Elon Musk fetishist. Realistically, no.
The USG does
Make the sales of Tesla hard to impossible, make the sales of minerals for Tesla cars hard to impossible.
That's usually how governments control businesspeople.
That's usually how governments control businesspeople.
If only the government could control the companies like 3M and the people behind it, that have been releasing toxic chemicals into the environment and killing people. How can these companies get away with murder while paying (relative) pocket change for their crimes?
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/07/1...
https://conservancy.umn.edu/handle/11299/171701
https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/toxic-secrets-the...)
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/07/1...
https://conservancy.umn.edu/handle/11299/171701
https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/toxic-secrets-the...)
You mean the government requiring militaries train with too much pfas (for missile explosion control) and no effort towards mitigation decades before the technology existed to even detect the presence of trace amounts (due to pfas being a ww2 classified technology)?
Sounds like standard live and learn tech development, like nuclear.
Sounds like standard live and learn tech development, like nuclear.
There is corruption in every country.
Ok, please tell us about the corruption in Norway and New Zealand? Please provide specific examples.
How about making satellite phones illegal and then put anyone with one in prison. Allows them to arbitrarily put opponents in prison.
Not just china, but certain parts of india, e.g. Ladakh, also ban satellite phones (and yes, will jail you if found with one).
These new systems work with any standard 5G phone
“All authorised phones must have this feature disabled”
It's not a feature, though. It looks like a regular old 4G/5G network to the phone.
I could see such a regulation be implemented for new phones (Apple's Globalstar functionality is already deactivated in software based on geolocation in non-supported countries and maybe even in hardware for models sold in some regions), but it won't help with existing devices.
Another avenue would be restricting access to SIMs capable of logging on to these networks. SIMs have supported mutual authentication since (I believe) 3G, so it's not possible for a satellite 4G service to provide "unilateral roaming".
I could see such a regulation be implemented for new phones (Apple's Globalstar functionality is already deactivated in software based on geolocation in non-supported countries and maybe even in hardware for models sold in some regions), but it won't help with existing devices.
Another avenue would be restricting access to SIMs capable of logging on to these networks. SIMs have supported mutual authentication since (I believe) 3G, so it's not possible for a satellite 4G service to provide "unilateral roaming".
Yes you are right actually, prohibition would need to be done at the SIM. Contraband much harder to detect.
Like the US does with Beidou GNSS receivers. Know how pretty much every flagship phone advertises support for it? Can't use in the US, blocked by geofence set at firmware level. Take the device outside of the geofence and it'll see them.
Really? Why? What's the problem with using multiple GNSS constellations? They're receive-only. My phone definitely supports GLONASS but I hadn't checked Beidou.
(sorry for late response, maybe you'll still catch it) There's not a technical problem using multiple GNSS constellations. Officially the US had some treaty with Russia to allow use of GLONASS as a second constellation. Later on Galileo became the next constellation approved through a civil route, not a treaty.
China's BeiDou would have to probably be approved through a treaty since it's run by their military, it's not going to happen. I've been told by someone who used to work at space force that beidou can be used to track users, but that's bullshit with how our receivers use it. Here's a US gov report on the matter, if it's receive only (no messaging component) tracking isn't going to happen https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/Research/Staff%20Re...
Finally, the way at least Qualcomm receivers work is they will only lock to GPS first and then mix in the other constellations (at least while in CONUS).
China's BeiDou would have to probably be approved through a treaty since it's run by their military, it's not going to happen. I've been told by someone who used to work at space force that beidou can be used to track users, but that's bullshit with how our receivers use it. Here's a US gov report on the matter, if it's receive only (no messaging component) tracking isn't going to happen https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/Research/Staff%20Re...
Finally, the way at least Qualcomm receivers work is they will only lock to GPS first and then mix in the other constellations (at least while in CONUS).
Thank you for the response anyway! I do review my comments every so often to catch these. How do you know so much about GPS and how can I learn more? :)
Also, is there any hope for "authenticated GPS" to prevent spoofing? Is that even technically possible for non-secret codes like C/A or L5?
Also, is there any hope for "authenticated GPS" to prevent spoofing? Is that even technically possible for non-secret codes like C/A or L5?
But if you are going to go this far, then you can just put anyone in prison for any reason anyway.
An advantage to a law which is widely flauted is that it gives arbitrary pretext to apprehend or detain any given person.
Those who are, at least for now, within good graces are of course exempted. Those who are systematically repressed can be systematically, specifically, and/or arbitrarily detained, investigated, and/or prosecuted, as suits political needs.
And the fact that the actions are based on at least nominal basis in law and procedure means that the practice is defensible both to those tasked with enacting it and with the institutions and general public. Even tyrants find that power is best and most readily exerted through cooperating and existing channels.
Those who are, at least for now, within good graces are of course exempted. Those who are systematically repressed can be systematically, specifically, and/or arbitrarily detained, investigated, and/or prosecuted, as suits political needs.
And the fact that the actions are based on at least nominal basis in law and procedure means that the practice is defensible both to those tasked with enacting it and with the institutions and general public. Even tyrants find that power is best and most readily exerted through cooperating and existing channels.
> An advantage to a law which is widely flauted is that it gives arbitrary pretext to apprehend or detain any given person.
A prime example: On a highway leading from Chechnya to Dagestan there is a traffic light. It is always red. https://en.rattibha.com/thread/1595456040677556226
A prime example: On a highway leading from Chechnya to Dagestan there is a traffic light. It is always red. https://en.rattibha.com/thread/1595456040677556226
That is an excellent example of a terrifying instance, thanks!
China, Russia and India have successfully tested anti-satellite weapons. Considering that Iran and North Korea have recently been able to acquire some pretty advanced Russian missiles, it might not be that hard for other countries to obtain them.
Beat/imprison/murder/'re-educate' anyone who is found to be in possession of the dish?
That said the only people who will be able to afford the dish and service will likely be people who are in bed with the government or vise-versa...
That said the only people who will be able to afford the dish and service will likely be people who are in bed with the government or vise-versa...
This is about phones
Make it socially unacceptable for anyone to use foreign electronics and scan the RF spectrum for unathorized devices.
It's not that hard if you're really committed and can accept chasing up offenders after-the-fact.
It's not that hard if you're really committed and can accept chasing up offenders after-the-fact.
Jamming or triangulate the phones? Also yes, anti satellite weapons.
Or physically targeting the base stations or people who possess them.
Threaten to ban Tesla from selling cars in their country? :)
Tesla has a brand, technology, energy storage and cost MOAT over other EV companies.
Countries that consider banning Tesla due to Starlink, would be effectively holding back their EV market.
Countries that consider banning Tesla due to Starlink, would be effectively holding back their EV market.
I am not sure that is so relevant everywhere. I think I have read about Tesla having problems staying competitive in the Chinese EV market, for example.
They’re MOAT isn’t incredibly effective in China.
But it is effective in most other countries where they operate
But it is effective in most other countries where they operate
Assuming Starlink is really willing to violate local frequency licensing requirements (which I doubt they'd dare for all but the most internationally isolated countries without anti-satellite weapons), given the low transmit powers, local wireless jammers should be relatively easy to implement.
> given the low transmit powers, local wireless jammers should be relatively easy to implement.
Not true. Both the transmitter and receiver (in both directions) utilize phased arrays. This means the receiver is very good at rejecting noise angularly separated from the expected location of the transmitter. Geometry dictates that jamming could be somewhat effective against upload (i.e. if the jammer is located roughly within the size of a spot beam from the transmitting dish), but is almost completely ineffective in the download direction.
This is all fairly theoretical since much of the details aren't publicly available; but as evidence I point to the fact that Russia has poured a huge amount of money into EW and, despite having considerable motivation to deny Starlink access, has consistently failed to prevent its widespread use by Ukrainian troops on frontlines mere kilometers from its own forces.
Not true. Both the transmitter and receiver (in both directions) utilize phased arrays. This means the receiver is very good at rejecting noise angularly separated from the expected location of the transmitter. Geometry dictates that jamming could be somewhat effective against upload (i.e. if the jammer is located roughly within the size of a spot beam from the transmitting dish), but is almost completely ineffective in the download direction.
This is all fairly theoretical since much of the details aren't publicly available; but as evidence I point to the fact that Russia has poured a huge amount of money into EW and, despite having considerable motivation to deny Starlink access, has consistently failed to prevent its widespread use by Ukrainian troops on frontlines mere kilometers from its own forces.
I agree that jamming Starlink’s existing (dish-based) service might not be that easy, but mobile phones do not use phased arrays, and that’s what TFA is about.
MU-MIMO implies a phased array no?
They are conceptually related, and the more antennas you add ("massive MIMO"), the more you get into the "phased array" domain, especially on the base station side, which is where MU-MIMO is exploited.
But on common mobile devices, you only have two or four antennas, so the beamforming gain is much more limited. Having more than one antenna there is mostly done to leverage multipath propagation in a non-line-of-sight environment for capacity gains as far as I understand it, and in a line-of-sight environment, you only get very moderate steering gains of a few dB (and practically no steering/beamforming effect). Satellite communication is primarily line-of-sight, though.
So while the satellite can steer its beams towards a given mobile device (both for transmit and receive), and this allows for higher spectral efficiency and better use of the satellite's transmit power and better noise rejection, the mobile device can't do the same and will easily be overwhelmed by a jammer at least in the downlink path, as far as I understand.
But on common mobile devices, you only have two or four antennas, so the beamforming gain is much more limited. Having more than one antenna there is mostly done to leverage multipath propagation in a non-line-of-sight environment for capacity gains as far as I understand it, and in a line-of-sight environment, you only get very moderate steering gains of a few dB (and practically no steering/beamforming effect). Satellite communication is primarily line-of-sight, though.
So while the satellite can steer its beams towards a given mobile device (both for transmit and receive), and this allows for higher spectral efficiency and better use of the satellite's transmit power and better noise rejection, the mobile device can't do the same and will easily be overwhelmed by a jammer at least in the downlink path, as far as I understand.
This is in ideal condition, but how good is the rejection of other signals by the beamforming circuits in the receiver? Intuitively, I'd think that a powerful enough local jammer (I really mean local, not at some kilometers, EM fields weaken with the square of distance, so very quickly) would manage to create interferences despite the beamforming.
I have lost hope that human can fight totalitarianism, regardless the new technology been used. It is like the low energy state of society, similar to a ball tends roll down the hill, it is easier for a country to enter the totalitarian state and stays there than to get out of it by itself. Imagine a North Korean owns a such cell phone, according to rumors, it is a crime if the spouse, children, or neighbors don’t report to the authorities. Governments can also jam communication, just like they jam radio programs and censor Internet. A more likely scenario would be regimes use new technology, including direct cell phone to satellite communication, to monitor and control people.
[deleted]
You can have Starlink in Iran already, but neither in Russia or China.
What is the reason for that?
The US State department provided specific authorization empowering telecom companies (incl. Starlink) to operate in Iran and disregard local restrictions. If you can smuggle a dish into the country, you can use it. But the signal wouldn’t be too hard to detect, so it’s risky.
What about a special reduced uplink power mode, with only 128Kb of bandwidth for example? Additionally, you can conceal the dish from terrestrial detectors, by putting it in a forest clearing for example. Those two things combined might make it a lot more difficult for the Iranian government to find a Starlink dish.
They'll find you with a WiFi scan. Not with ELINT aircraft
I would guess because China and Russia are relevant markets for tesla...
I'd also guess that China and Russia are big enough that satellites would go unused a lot while flying over them.
While Iran isn't tiny (17th largest country), the satellites have several other territories nearby by that could use up the capacity that a no-Iran rule makes available.
While Iran isn't tiny (17th largest country), the satellites have several other territories nearby by that could use up the capacity that a no-Iran rule makes available.
The satellites fly over China and Russia either way. Starlink isn't geostationary, they're quite a few of them above you at any given time and place.
The situation in Iran is somewhat different. Despite being under heavy international sanctions and having a government that also exercises strict control over internet access, Iran saw the deployment of Starlink terminals following specific events, such as natural disasters or in response to certain socio-political situations. This deployment could be part of a broader strategy by the U.S. or other entities to provide uncensored internet access to the Iranian population during times of crisis. However, it's important to note that such deployments might be temporary, unofficial, or not fully sanctioned by the Iranian government.
Starlink would have that control.
LastNevadan(2)
I doubt satellites will be competing with land-based networks in general because they can't deliver the same throughput, latency, and capacity.
In addition, as others have mentioned, companies do not like to take on whole countries unless perhaps it is a very small and irrelevant one.
In addition, as others have mentioned, companies do not like to take on whole countries unless perhaps it is a very small and irrelevant one.
[deleted]
I wouldn't call it "The new cellphone towers" as if satellite service will replace ground based. Because it won't.
Starlink direct to cell will still cover huge areas per cell which is great for remote areas but not for high density like cities. It will not have strong enough signals to penetrate buildings. And it won't provide enough bandwidth for more than texts at least not for now.
It's an augmentation of the land based service, not a replacement.
Starlink direct to cell will still cover huge areas per cell which is great for remote areas but not for high density like cities. It will not have strong enough signals to penetrate buildings. And it won't provide enough bandwidth for more than texts at least not for now.
It's an augmentation of the land based service, not a replacement.
> And it won't provide enough bandwidth for more than texts at least not for now.
So are we back to 14k modem speed for Satellites data now?
Hopefully this will bring back website that is focus being on being lightweight, and just display information (or gemini type of alternative), and discourage the SPA development fiasco that has happened.
Hopefully this will bring back website that is focus being on being lightweight, and just display information (or gemini type of alternative), and discourage the SPA development fiasco that has happened.
> So are we back to 14k modem speed for Satellites data now?
Not 'back'. This is normal for satellite data other than static Starlink installs with their huge antenna. The iridium Go! Hotspot does about 2400 bps :) they also have a new note expensive version that does up to 88 kbps download and 22 up. Still dialup speed so?
Not 'back'. This is normal for satellite data other than static Starlink installs with their huge antenna. The iridium Go! Hotspot does about 2400 bps :) they also have a new note expensive version that does up to 88 kbps download and 22 up. Still dialup speed so?
SPAs should/could in general be more tolerant of restricted bandwidth, and more responsive in that environment.
If you download all the UI elements, layout, and styling up-front, and then only have to communicate with the server to fetch structured data that tells the app how to change the user interface, that's strictly better.
The issue, of course, is that most pages (regardless of whether they're SPAs or not) require a large amount of bandwidth to download assets.
But I would expect that a low-bandwidth SPA would be more responsive than a traditional low-bandwidth website where it has to reload the full page every time you do something.
If you download all the UI elements, layout, and styling up-front, and then only have to communicate with the server to fetch structured data that tells the app how to change the user interface, that's strictly better.
The issue, of course, is that most pages (regardless of whether they're SPAs or not) require a large amount of bandwidth to download assets.
But I would expect that a low-bandwidth SPA would be more responsive than a traditional low-bandwidth website where it has to reload the full page every time you do something.
Caching your assets will probably get you about 90% of the way there without having to rewrite everything to be a SPA.
Or - as a user - the LocalCDN addon
Or - as a user - the LocalCDN addon
Or we just preload jQuery onto phones and go back to the CDN days :P
When satellites first appeared the future was going to be satellites. It turned out that the future was land-based optic fibres because of thoughput, latency, and capacity.
Maybe the carriers’ marketing departments will hand out little 4 bar stickers to put in the upper corners of your phone while they loudly proclaim “full bars everywhere!” Of course, conveniently continuing to ignore latency in the mobile core, which is what increasingly impacts end user quality of service more than “bars.”
These satellites are around 500 km up. Round-trip latency is less than 10 ms if you’re somewhat close to a ground station, and if you’re not, odds are you’re not that close to your application server either and would have comparable latency in fiber.
I never before considered that "the edge" may become a constellation of Starlink satellites. Round-trip latency is a lot better if your messages are only going 500km.
That said — can you imagine deploying your service to ~5200 satellites? yikes
That said — can you imagine deploying your service to ~5200 satellites? yikes
Why you should if you don't have to ? Satellite phones are a thing at least since the 90s, but nowadays you prefer some kind of communication via Internet, possibly using wifi. Ok, emergency call, place out the civilisation, but those are same use case present 30 years ago. If you don't have to you want to use real cell towers or wifi. Also I think that to cover the communication needs of a single western rich country they have to increase the number of satellite drastically, with lot of side effects. So really satellites aren't new cell towers. Besides, is that type of infrastructure so profitable to justify its creation ? I want to say, if I wasn't able to do an emergency call the problem was dead battery, not absence of signal, in other cases I use the ol' dirty Marconi's wireless telegraph: the radio. Obviously , if I have a way to send sms from desert place, it's a "nice to have feature" not a necessity for the majority of us, so, again , how the company want to monetise from the infrastructure that is greatly expensive ?
I essentially pay a bunch of money to garmin so i can text people while camping and offroading and send tiny amounts of data to update my position on a map.
I got a iPhone 14 for a backup satellite sos method.
In Canada there are 100s of km of roads between towns with zero cellphone service, often for hours at a time. Having space based communication in a cellphone to fall back on would be extreme valuable and life saving to many. I know I already pay a bundle for it and many of my outdoorsy friends do the same. I can be driving to a friends house a few hours away and be out of signal for half of it, being able to call for help if I encounter or get into an accident is pretty important and building cell towers would be far more expensive then some satellites
I got a iPhone 14 for a backup satellite sos method.
In Canada there are 100s of km of roads between towns with zero cellphone service, often for hours at a time. Having space based communication in a cellphone to fall back on would be extreme valuable and life saving to many. I know I already pay a bundle for it and many of my outdoorsy friends do the same. I can be driving to a friends house a few hours away and be out of signal for half of it, being able to call for help if I encounter or get into an accident is pretty important and building cell towers would be far more expensive then some satellites
> send tiny amounts of data to update my position on a map
If you could clarify- is this data like mobile data/internet, or data in a literal sense? Because if you’re SMSing your GPS coordinates to a friend’s phone you could stick to only SMS.
If you could clarify- is this data like mobile data/internet, or data in a literal sense? Because if you’re SMSing your GPS coordinates to a friend’s phone you could stick to only SMS.
> and building cell towers would be far more expensive then some satellites
Historic.
Historic.
if by historic you think this statement is somehow extremely wrong, i don't think you realize how big canada is, how many cell towers it takes to get good coverages in mountainous areas, and how many small communities exist in the middle of nowhere and how remote they are - many of these towns don't even have cell coverage.
Cell coverage is simply is never going to happen for these areas and the roads to get to them as the telecommunication company will never recoup their costs.
Cell coverage is simply is never going to happen for these areas and the roads to get to them as the telecommunication company will never recoup their costs.
No, the opposite - historic because it's true.
Totally agree with your point of view.
Another thing to consider is how much the bands dedicated to cell phones are already saturated in dense urban environments. I don't see how a few thousands satellites would be able to scale if they were to replace our actual cell towers (some of them consisting of local cells on utility poles, etc.).
And also, satellites dedicated to search and rescue to locate emergency beacons already exist, and you don't need many of them to cover the whole planet.
Another thing to consider is how much the bands dedicated to cell phones are already saturated in dense urban environments. I don't see how a few thousands satellites would be able to scale if they were to replace our actual cell towers (some of them consisting of local cells on utility poles, etc.).
And also, satellites dedicated to search and rescue to locate emergency beacons already exist, and you don't need many of them to cover the whole planet.
> Another thing to consider is how much the bands dedicated to cell phones are already saturated in dense urban environments.
That's what 5G is supposed to be for. In dense areas, there are supposed to be a large number of tiny cells operating in the 5GHz-6GHz range. The main application for this is stadiums, so the fans can be getting video on their phone while watching, or not watching, the dame. Most of the NFL stadiums now have this.
Other parts of cities, not so much yet.
That's what 5G is supposed to be for. In dense areas, there are supposed to be a large number of tiny cells operating in the 5GHz-6GHz range. The main application for this is stadiums, so the fans can be getting video on their phone while watching, or not watching, the dame. Most of the NFL stadiums now have this.
Other parts of cities, not so much yet.
It’s hard to bet against human determination but on the face of it, it seems out of reach to put satellite voice calls in a package the size of an iPhone.
The power requirements and thus the bulky batteries of existing satellite phones could be reduced by switching to protocols which trade off bandwidth for higher error correction abilities through encoding and I don’t think existing satellite phones use the most bandwidth efficient encoding available so that could be another improvement.
There’s still the free space path loss between the surface of earth and a Globalstar or Starlink which my best guess estimate is in the order of 130db (can anyone more knowledgeable share a better estimate? I assumed bottom end of L-band, a height between Starlink and Globalstar, and used unverified dBi values for antennas at both ends).
Then there’s latency but I don’t think that’s a show stopper for many common use cases of voice and data.
The power requirements and thus the bulky batteries of existing satellite phones could be reduced by switching to protocols which trade off bandwidth for higher error correction abilities through encoding and I don’t think existing satellite phones use the most bandwidth efficient encoding available so that could be another improvement.
There’s still the free space path loss between the surface of earth and a Globalstar or Starlink which my best guess estimate is in the order of 130db (can anyone more knowledgeable share a better estimate? I assumed bottom end of L-band, a height between Starlink and Globalstar, and used unverified dBi values for antennas at both ends).
Then there’s latency but I don’t think that’s a show stopper for many common use cases of voice and data.
> The power requirements and thus the bulky batteries of existing satellite phones could be reduced by switching to protocols which trade off bandwidth for higher error correction abilities
No, you can’t trade bandwidth against error correction. What you can do is use channel coding/error correction to trade effective signal-to-noise strength against data rate (at constant power).
But since your data rate demand is fixed for voice, and the uplink transmit power is fixed too (by 4G/5G specs), you need to raise the received signal strength. The only thing that can help you there are more directional receive antennas on the satellites, which is what these new generations are doing.
No, you can’t trade bandwidth against error correction. What you can do is use channel coding/error correction to trade effective signal-to-noise strength against data rate (at constant power).
But since your data rate demand is fixed for voice, and the uplink transmit power is fixed too (by 4G/5G specs), you need to raise the received signal strength. The only thing that can help you there are more directional receive antennas on the satellites, which is what these new generations are doing.
To be clear, what's happening here is people are accustomed to using "bandwidth" to mean bits/second but bandwidth has a much more specific meaning in the RF world, akin to calling Ethernet "SSH".
Bandwidth is the actual number of kilo/mega/gigahertz the signal occupies on the spectrum and is largely a function of symbol rate, but the actual data rate has many more variables.
Bandwidth is the actual number of kilo/mega/gigahertz the signal occupies on the spectrum and is largely a function of symbol rate, but the actual data rate has many more variables.
I’m aware of the distinction and I’m using the terms accordingly.
More bandwidth does not help you get a better data rate if you’re power limited. In the case of satellite communications you basically always are, and bidirectionally so when it’s to mobile/battery-powered devices.
More bandwidth does not help you get a better data rate if you’re power limited. In the case of satellite communications you basically always are, and bidirectionally so when it’s to mobile/battery-powered devices.
That is in fact incorrect. Capacity scales as Blog2(1+SNR) so increasing bandwidth at the same power (which would decrease SNR linearly assuming AWGN) will result in increased capacity.
Although pratically you can do that only so far, because you're going to be limited by the bandwidth of your receiver.
Although pratically you can do that only so far, because you're going to be limited by the bandwidth of your receiver.
It’s only theoretically incorrect.
Practically, satellite communications are power-limited and accordingly will always be so close to the noise floor (i.e. S/N << 1) that the logarithm can be approximated with a constant and the bandwidth dependency is negligible and drops out of the equation.
It only matters in the bandwidth-limited regime, i.e. for S/N >> 1.
Practically, satellite communications are power-limited and accordingly will always be so close to the noise floor (i.e. S/N << 1) that the logarithm can be approximated with a constant and the bandwidth dependency is negligible and drops out of the equation.
It only matters in the bandwidth-limited regime, i.e. for S/N >> 1.
This thread is why I like HN. Thanks for sharing the insights both.
Please take all of this with a grain of salt! It's quite possible that the limiting factor here is already spectral efficiency and not power; I don't know the link budgets involved and am mainly basing this on the very low observed data rates of systems I'm familiar with.
I don't have the exact S/N numbers for these systems, and there might well be some potential gain that's not being exploited for reasons of spectral efficiency (after all, these systems want to serve multiple phones at least somewhat efficiently).
The spectrum is limited in any case, both by receiver capabilities and the fact that it's a very scarce resource in useful frequency ranges.
I don't have the exact S/N numbers for these systems, and there might well be some potential gain that's not being exploited for reasons of spectral efficiency (after all, these systems want to serve multiple phones at least somewhat efficiently).
The spectrum is limited in any case, both by receiver capabilities and the fact that it's a very scarce resource in useful frequency ranges.
Yeah, I posted to clarify for the person you replied to and other non-rf people. You obviously know what's going on but you used a lot of language I figured should be defined for anyone who comes across this.
Ah, sorry, I mixed you up with GP then and thought you were disagreeing with the "power-limited regime" statement!
You can talk to satellites over lora with a 5w transceiver (source: done it), which is on the order of magnitude of a cell phone transceiver. Opus goes down to .75kbps. Ham boomerisms don't cleanly apply to modern voice codecs and digital modulation techniques.
How do you do LoRa over a sat? I thought the chirping makes that difficult because you exceed the passband on the sat? Interesting! Which sat did you use?
I used tinygs on a lilygo esp32-based board with a semtech sx1262. Before its untimely demise I used SDSAT, which would rebroadcast messages. I'm not currently aware of any active sats that do that, but you can receive telemetry from tons of them as listed on tinygs.
Thanks! I'll look into it! I live in a busy city now near the ground floor so the hobby is kinda on hold as I can't get any antennas up :( But this might be portable enough to bring out on a hike.
I would be quite happy with texting or very slow internet tbh
I don't love this model. It feels so censorable and state-adjacent. All states need to do is convince whoever controls the satellites to accept their terms. It's such a small number of points of failure.
The mesh model, where every rooftop is a node routing encrypted traffic to neighbors, feels much more sustainable / forward-looking to me.
The mesh model, where every rooftop is a node routing encrypted traffic to neighbors, feels much more sustainable / forward-looking to me.
The mesh model is a nice idea, but does not work in low/no population areas, plus across long distances. Coincidentally that's exactly where satellites shine.
Something I have wondered about is how can a layman like me could communicate with a satellite? I would need an antenna of some sort I believe but then what's the protocol?
Depends entirely on what you want to do!
There are amateur radio satellites that you can legally communicate with using a technician’s license and equipment for around $100 (essentially a UHF/VHF FM walkie-talkie and an external antenna, i.e. just analog voice).
If you have a fairly modern iPhone, you can already share your location to a satellite out of the box.
And if unidirectional communication counts, you already do it every time you use GPS :)
There are amateur radio satellites that you can legally communicate with using a technician’s license and equipment for around $100 (essentially a UHF/VHF FM walkie-talkie and an external antenna, i.e. just analog voice).
If you have a fairly modern iPhone, you can already share your location to a satellite out of the box.
And if unidirectional communication counts, you already do it every time you use GPS :)
There are amateur radio satellites. You would need to get your amateur radio license, although you can listen without it. Then you need handheld radio. Two, or more expensive dual band, if want to transmit. It is possible to use the builtin antenna. But lots of people use directional Yagi antennas, you can build cheap one.
Most of satellites you don’t talk to, the satellite repeats signals. People talk to each other, mainly to make contacts, using the satellite.
It is also possible to talk to ISS.
Most of satellites you don’t talk to, the satellite repeats signals. People talk to each other, mainly to make contacts, using the satellite.
It is also possible to talk to ISS.
IIRC there are some open packet data protocol intended as cost saving measures, but nothing mandatory or ubiquitous as Ethernet or RS-232C in PCs. A primer/tutorial level for hobbyist satellite communication is weather satellite reception using RTL-SDR.
1: https://www.rtl-sdr.com/rtl-sdr-tutorial-receiving-noaa-weat...
1: https://www.rtl-sdr.com/rtl-sdr-tutorial-receiving-noaa-weat...
[deleted]
But a garmin inreach mini, pair your phone, and then start texting people via it’s app :)
Interesting Read! How will this change influence companies like American Tower? How fast will they need to adapt? 5 years, 10 years, 20 years?
I doubt Crown Castle and American Tower will be much affected, it might reduce some new rural deployments, but other contracts like Firstnet also increased requirements for rural buildout, so it's not going away. Indoors isn't going to be covered by satellite beams.
I certainly hope we don't rely only on satellites, in case of a solar flare that destroys all the satellites.
Satellite can't beat bandwidth or latency of a cell tower in neighborhood connected to fiber connected to edge node few km away.
Yeah, I think the market they're ultimately going for here is to stop having to roll out cell towers to areas where there's low population density, like rural areas, the mountain west, stuff like that. In cities, it'll always be more efficient for any given set of EM spectrum technologies to use small installed antennas within a few 100m of you than it'll be to push the same link over 500km.
No but theoretical round-trip times are getting pretty dang short as these sats are launched into lower and lower orbits.
The round-trip speed of light to a geosync orbit is 239ms, but some of these LEO sats are already sitting as close as a 4ms round-trip away, and there have been proposals for some even closer.
The round-trip speed of light to a geosync orbit is 239ms, but some of these LEO sats are already sitting as close as a 4ms round-trip away, and there have been proposals for some even closer.
Have worked on "closer", think on the order of half of that.
I really don't understand the first paragraph,
> Researchers in Switzerland have transmitted and received optical data at rates of more than 10 Tbit/s between an Alpine peak and an observatory at the University of Bern – a distance of 53 kilometres. This is more than five times further than would be needed to set up a satellite-to-ground communication link
Google says Starlink satellites are 550km in altitude... Is this to do with turbulence below 10km?
> Researchers in Switzerland have transmitted and received optical data at rates of more than 10 Tbit/s between an Alpine peak and an observatory at the University of Bern – a distance of 53 kilometres. This is more than five times further than would be needed to set up a satellite-to-ground communication link
Google says Starlink satellites are 550km in altitude... Is this to do with turbulence below 10km?
Not turbulence, air density. Oxygen molecules, dust/pollution, weather.... all of that attenuates light and RF.
Makes sense, thanks.
But most people don't know that. Not yet at least.
Having zero knowledge, I'm curious:
Would a Solar Flare wrap around the earth?
Or are Solar Flares so massive they would envelop the earth, like dunking a globe in cosmic lava?
Or do they go on long enough that the earth would rotate and all sides of the globe would be exposed?
Or do Satellites whizz around the earth fast enough that they would travel through the path of the Solar Flare?
Probably hilariously odd questions, but I have no idea! :-)
Would a Solar Flare wrap around the earth?
Or are Solar Flares so massive they would envelop the earth, like dunking a globe in cosmic lava?
Or do they go on long enough that the earth would rotate and all sides of the globe would be exposed?
Or do Satellites whizz around the earth fast enough that they would travel through the path of the Solar Flare?
Probably hilariously odd questions, but I have no idea! :-)
Larger antennas and better beamforming are routing calls through orbit
Calls have been routed through orbit from handheld devices for decades now. Ironically, Iridium used SpaceX to launch one of their recent LEO constellations.
This seems to be strictly about high data rate applications and the certainly soon to be extremely goofy world of "6G."
This seems to be strictly about high data rate applications and the certainly soon to be extremely goofy world of "6G."
Not yet. For now, "direct-to-cell" and its competitors are all about text/voice/low-data-rate applications in areas that so far haven't had any coverage at all, given the extremely low signal strength involved due to the extreme distances, low transmission powers, and omnidirectional device antennas.
Yes, I’ve used it myself :)
That’s the type of service these new services are going to be providing in their first phase, just (if all goes well) with unmodified mobile devices.
I’d guess we’re some time away from broadband data to unmodified phones, but in the end, it’s just a function of available power per square meter in the downlink, i.e. how many satellites can be launched and how tightly their beams can be focused, and of reflector size in the uplink (since the transmit power of 4G/5G devices is fixed at about 1-2% that of Iridium).
That’s the type of service these new services are going to be providing in their first phase, just (if all goes well) with unmodified mobile devices.
I’d guess we’re some time away from broadband data to unmodified phones, but in the end, it’s just a function of available power per square meter in the downlink, i.e. how many satellites can be launched and how tightly their beams can be focused, and of reflector size in the uplink (since the transmit power of 4G/5G devices is fixed at about 1-2% that of Iridium).
Supposedly ASTS SpaceMobile have achieved broadband data to unmodified phones months ago, although they've provided no evidence of such other than a few PR photos and some fairly light-weight tweets from their partners such as AT&T and Vodafone.
Sure, but not through a standard cellular phone, or with a standard cellular phone's small, hidden antenna, or with a standard cellular phone's battery.
hackernewds(3)
Likely won't work indoors where humans spend most of their time.
It certainly won't work inside my 100 year old townhouse where my WiFi router signal can't reach from one floor to the next!
> AST SpaceMobile’s first satellites had antennas with surface areas of 64 square meters
Pic- https://spacenews.com/ast-spacemobile-secures-communications...
Pic from earth - https://twitter.com/tzukran/status/1731409049004982558
Pic- https://spacenews.com/ast-spacemobile-secures-communications...
Pic from earth - https://twitter.com/tzukran/status/1731409049004982558
And their ambitions are even higher...
> For example, AST SpaceMobile’s first satellites had antennas with surface areas of 64 square meters, followed by second generation satellites with 128 m2 antennas, with plans for going up to 400 m2
I guess when the Starship rocket is available and if they have a reliable folding mechanism, this could happen. The question is probably whether they can keep the cost under control .
> For example, AST SpaceMobile’s first satellites had antennas with surface areas of 64 square meters, followed by second generation satellites with 128 m2 antennas, with plans for going up to 400 m2
I guess when the Starship rocket is available and if they have a reliable folding mechanism, this could happen. The question is probably whether they can keep the cost under control .
system2(1)
Edit: I didn't mean to focus on Starlink specifically. Eventually it won't just be Starlink up there, and likely our mobile devices will need less and less power to communicate with those satellites. So I'm less interested in the effects of Starlink and more on satellite communications generally.