[Starlink] Starlink filings for D-Band via Tonga

Alexandre Petrescu alexandre.petrescu at gmail.com
Thu Dec 21 07:43:59 EST 2023 

In another article[*] about this WRC event's discussion they mention 
more frequencies ; some seem to be on and around the 'ESSIAFI II 
frequencies, and even beyond D-band's upper limit of 170GHz (limit told 
by wikipedia).  It cites these frequencies by refering to document 
resolution COM6/17, document to which I have no access unfortunately.

     102-109.5 GHz
     151.5-164 GHz
     167-174.8 GHz
     209-226 GHz
     252-275 GHz

For comparison, I recall below the 'ESSIAFI II frequencies from 
https://www.itu.int/ITU-R/space/asreceived/Publication/DisplayPublication/53068 
:

- 123000 - 130000 MHz

- 158500 - 164000 MHz

- 167000 - 174500 MHz

Alex

PS: the article about WRC freqs discussions is from 
https://www.6gworld.com/exclusives/itu-defines-frequency-bands-for-6g-studies/ 
and says, among other things:

> The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) has defined several 
> frequency ranges in the sub-Terahertz band for future 6G network 
> studies. The 2023 World Radiocommunication Conference 
> <https://www.6gworld.com/a-look-ahead-to-wrc-23-what-to-look-for-why-its-important/> 
> (WRC-23) resolution COM6/17 establishes the following areas for the 
> development of the next generation of mobile communications:
>
>   * 102-109.5 GHz
>   * 151.5-164 GHz
>   * 167-174.8 GHz
>   * 209-226 GHz
>   * 252-275 GHz
>
> According to the resolution, the Radiocommunication Sector (ITU-R) 
> must complete the investigations in time for the WRC-31. The task has 
> already been added to the event’s preliminary agenda.
>
> The studies have to consider the technical and operational 
> characteristics of terrestrial 6G systems operating in these suggested 
> frequency bands, including the evolution of IMT through technological 
> advances and spectrally efficient techniques.
>
> The resolution goes on to say that ITU-R must take into account the 
> deployment scenarios envisaged for 6G systems and the requirements of 
> high data traffic, such as in dense urban areas and at peak times.
>
> The investigations also need to include the developing countries’ 
> demands and set up a timeframe in which spectrum would be required.
>

Le 21/12/2023 à 11:25, Alexandre Petrescu via Starlink a écrit :
> overlap: sorry! it is indeed MHz and not GHz, I overlooked that.
>
> But the 117-137 _MHz_ bands are already used from ground to planes; 
> the modernisations I have seen of it relate to automating the status 
> voice bulletins, and maybe the use of IP over airbands.  Putting that 
> on LEO sats, hmm, looks newer.  I am not an expert in that band.
>
> D-band better for airplanes above clouds: I agree with the theory.
>
> Alex
>
> Le 21/12/2023 à 10:45, David Fernández via Starlink a écrit :
>> There is no overlap between 117.975-137 MHz and 123 - 130GHz.
>>
>> D-Band will work much better for links on aircraft flying above
>> clouds, less attenuation.
>>
>>> Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2023 18:27:19 +0100
>>> From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu at gmail.com>
>>> To: starlink at lists.bufferbloat.net
>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Starlink filings for D-Band via Tonga
>>> Message-ID: <cd0f2602-9ce6-4b8e-94e4-481493e7a3c2 at gmail.com>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>>>
>>> Today I learn that 117.975-137 MHz is considered at ITU for aviation 
>>> and
>>> satellite [*].
>>>
>>> Note that range overlaps with 'ESSAFI's 123 - 130GHz.
>>>
>>> Maybe it is for that purpose - in-flight entertainment(?) that starlink
>>> requested the D-band frequencies, and not for sat-sat nor sat-gnd.
>>>
>>> Alex
>>>
>>> [*]
>>>
>>> "Allocation of new frequencies to the aviation industry for 
>>> aeronautical
>>> mobile satellite services (117.975-137 MHz). The new service will
>>> enhance bi-directional communication via non-GSO satellite systems for
>>> pilots and air traffic controllers everywhere, especially over oceanic
>>> and remote areas."
>>>
>>> text quote from this URL at ITU:
>>>
>>> https://www.itu.int/en/mediacentre/Pages/PR-2023-12-15-WRC23-closing-ceremony.aspx?utm_source=ITU+News+Newsletter&utm_campaign=c66517f297-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_19_12_2023_ITU-NEWSLETTER&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_-2f420cccc6-%5BLIST_EMAIL_ID%5D&ct=t(EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_19_12_2023_ITU-NEWSLETTER_INT)&mc_cid=c66517f297&mc_eid=3ca8d7193e 
>>>
>>>
>>> Le 06/12/2023 à 13:02, Alexandre Petrescu via Starlink a écrit :
>>>> In another context someone pointed me to spacex saying 'D-band' in
>>>> april 2023 in this "NTIA Docket No. 230308-0068 / Docket
>>>> NTIA-2023-0003"
>>>> https://www.ntia.gov/sites/default/files/publications/spacex.pdf
>>>>
>>>>  From that text, I understand it would, or could, be for sat-to-gnd.
>>>>
>>>> Le 23/11/2023 à 14:40, Alexandre Petrescu via Starlink a écrit :
>>>>> Le 17/11/2023 à 23:56, Ulrich Speidel via Starlink a écrit :
>>>>>> Right. Word from the Tongan government's MEIDECC is that it's D band
>>>>>> as per the filing and that the reports on W band are wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Can MEIDECC point me to the precise place at the ITU filing that says
>>>>> it's D band?  Thank you!
>>>>>
>>>>> I could not find the word 'D-band' or 'D band' in the 'ESIAFI
>>>>> application file  ("'ESIAFI II API-A(1).mdb"  at ITU
>>>>> https://www.itu.int/ITU-R/space/asreceived/Publication/DisplayPublication/53068) 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> People nominate bands in various ways.  As an example of a potential
>>>>> confusion, there is this other wikipedia image that shows the freqs
>>>>> in question (123-ish, 170-ish GHz) being called 'EHF' by ITU and 'W'
>>>>> by IEEE.  Further to the confusion, the diagram says that the EU,
>>>>> NATO and US ECM (not sure what  is ECM) call 'D' band something
>>>>> around 2 GHz or so, which is much lower than this 123-ish, 170-ish
>>>>> GHz.
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_spectrum#/media/File:Frq_Band_Comparison.png 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I will look later at maybe joining that ITU group to ask it there as
>>>>> well.
>>>>>
>>>>> Alex
>>>>>
>>>>>> Beyond that, they're not authorised to say anything except that yes,
>>>>>> it's a genuine filing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think Tonga is a likely launch base (no large tracts of land
>>>>>> to launch a rocket from, except as some locals would probably tell
>>>>>> you, from the driveway of a certain royal residence). Who knows.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd also say that SpaceX filings to the FCC at least have a track
>>>>>> history of being superseded by the next filing a few weeks later
>>>>>> with completely different parameters. Whether that's just rapid
>>>>>> prototyping at SpaceX or whether they're deliberately designed as a
>>>>>> groundhog version of April Fool's Day for the competition's lawyers
>>>>>> to keep them spend money on litigation while SpaceX spends on
>>>>>> innovation is anyone's guess. Similarly, having slept over it, the
>>>>>> Tongan story could be a SpaceX attempt at establishing a "flag of
>>>>>> convenience" operation, or it could simply be another of Elon's
>>>>>> pranks to whip us and the media all up into a frenzy to keep people
>>>>>> talking about his enterprises.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 17/11/2023 11:43 pm, Ulrich Speidel wrote:
>>>>>>> OK, so this seems to be related to a somewhat bigger development
>>>>>>> that Starlink is pushing through Tonga as the regulatory authority:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/175ttvz/spacex_files_29988satellite_wband_network_using/ 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.spaceintelreport.com/spacex-files-29988-satellite-w-band-network-using-kingdom-of-tonga-as-regulatory-home/ 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ESIAFI 1 was bought by Tonga - it was the old COMSTAR 4 satellite
>>>>>>> and named after their women's rugby team.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Quite why they've chosen Tonga as regulatory home - no idea. Maybe
>>>>>>> because they think Tonga owes them a favour. Currently trying to
>>>>>>> find out more - stay tuned.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 17/11/2023 6:29 am, David Fernández via Starlink wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi Alex,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "A person on twitter seems to be saying this filing is 
>>>>>>>> precisely the
>>>>>>>> filing that spacex did at FCC"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Would you mind linking to that tweet, if it is public?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> David
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2023 14:27:03 +0100
>>>>>>>>> From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> To: starlink at lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Starlink filings for D-Band via Tonga
>>>>>>>>> Message-ID: <805d52ce-b517-49b9-a053-8306cd20b8aa at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Towards clarification,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The .mdb file of the ITU filing can be read with Excel (tab 
>>>>>>>>> Data ->
>>>>>>>>> leftmost button 'Access'). The .mdb is on the web page of the ITU
>>>>>>>>> filing, at the bottom of the page.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.itu.int/ITU-R/space/asreceived/Publication/DisplayPublication/53068 
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It might be that this 'ESIAFI II' is just a name because of some
>>>>>>>> reason.
>>>>>>>>> There are some interesting dates like '06/03/2023', '13/03/2023'
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> '20/03/2023' and '6/10/2023'.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There is much data about orbits, powers, beams that I dont know
>>>>>>>> how to
>>>>>>>>> interpret. I would need the precise description of the database
>>>>>>>> format,
>>>>>>>>> but I dont know where to get it from.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The frequencies are listed, as I interpret these fields: 123 GHz
>>>>>>>> - 130
>>>>>>>>> GHz centered on 126.5 GHz, 158.5-164 c 161.25 and 167-174.5 c
>>>>>>>> 170.75.
>>>>>>>>> About D-band: I am not sure what is precisely a 'D band' and I
>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>> that discussion about bands is very complicated. I know there is
>>>>>>>>> wikipedia page about it, yes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A person on twitter seems to be saying this filing is 
>>>>>>>>> precisely the
>>>>>>>>> filing that spacex did at FCC; but comparing the numbers shows 
>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>> differences: total sats per plane differ at some altitudes like
>>>>>>>> at 525km
>>>>>>>>> altitude: ITU says 3600 sats whereas FCC says 3360 sats. There
>>>>>>>> can be
>>>>>>>>> speculations as to why they differ as there can be errors of
>>>>>>>> various
>>>>>>>>> people including myself.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The person on twitter tells that ITU filing is in this table,
>>>>>>>> but I dont
>>>>>>>>> know how he generated it. Not sure whether he made some syntax
>>>>>>>> error.
>>>>>>>>>> Altitude (km) Inclination (degrees) Satellites per Plane Planes
>>>>>>>>>> Total Satellites
>>>>>>>>>> 340 53 110 48 5280
>>>>>>>>>> 345 46 110 48 5280
>>>>>>>>>> 350 38 110 48 5280
>>>>>>>>>> 360 96.9 120 30 3600
>>>>>>>>>> 525 53 120 28 3600 [nota by me: FCC says 3360 and not 3600, see
>>>>>>>>>> table below]
>>>>>>>>>> 530 43 120 28 3600
>>>>>>>>>> 535 33 120 28 3600
>>>>>>>>>> 604 148 12 12 144
>>>>>>>>>> 614 115.7 18 18 324
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I found this earlier FCC document has this table at this URL
>>>>>>>>> https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-22-91A1.pdf (not sure
>>>>>>>>> whether it is the most authoritative, but at least the 
>>>>>>>>> mathematics
>>>>>>>>> 28*120 at altitude 525 does make sense to be 3360).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Altitude (km) Inclination (degrees) Orbital Planes sats/plane
>>>>>>>> Total sats
>>>>>>>>>> 340 53 48 110 5280
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 345 46 48 110 5280
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 350 38 48 110 5280
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 360 96.9 30 120 3600
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 525 53 28 120 3360 [nota by me:
>>>>>>>>>> 28*120 == 3360 indeed]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 530 43 28 120 3360
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 535 33 28 120 3360
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 604 148 12 12 144
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 614 115.7 18 18 324
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Alex
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Le 16/11/2023 à 10:30, Alexandre Petrescu via Starlink a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>> Le 15/11/2023 à 16:48, David Fernández via Starlink a écrit :
>>>>>>>>>>> I have got news about the recent filing by Starlink for the
>>>>>>>> use of
>>>>>>>>>>> frequencies in D-band:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.itu.int/ITU-R/space/asreceived/Publication/DisplayPublication/53068 
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This has been done via Tonga, not the USA, and is for both,
>>>>>>>> uplink and
>>>>>>>>>>> downlink frequencies, although only downlink seems to be
>>>>>>>> allocated now
>>>>>>>>>>> for satellite use.
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the pointer.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is the first time I hear about this 'ESIAFI II'
>>>>>>>> constellation. I
>>>>>>>>>> understand it is a different thing than the starlink existing
>>>>>>>>>> constellation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It adds to the list of plans of LEO Internet constellations
>>>>>>>> (starlink,
>>>>>>>>>> kuiper, oneweb etc.)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Alex
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> David
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Starlink mailing list
>>>>>>>> Starlink at lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>>>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>> ****************************************************************
>>>>>>> Dr. Ulrich Speidel
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> School of Computer Science
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Room 303S.594 (City Campus)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The University of Auckland
>>>>>>> u.speidel at auckland.ac.nz http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~ulrich/
>>>>>>> ****************************************************************
>> _______________________________________________
>> Starlink mailing list
>> Starlink at lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink at lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink

More information about the Starlink mailing list