From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from oxalide-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (oxalide-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.168.224.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 41A9B3CB40 for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2023 07:44:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by oxalide-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 3BLChxL2026309 for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2023 13:43:59 +0100 Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 61175206873 for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2023 13:43:59 +0100 (CET) Received: from muguet2-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr (muguet2-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.13]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59536200C96 for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2023 13:43:59 +0100 (CET) Received: from [10.8.32.70] (is156570.intra.cea.fr [10.8.32.70]) by muguet2-sys.intra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 3BLChxbv005725 for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2023 13:43:59 +0100 Message-ID: <32c5673c-c3dc-4ab4-a955-4a6ef1e7b4e2@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2023 13:43:59 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: fr To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net References: <24bd3828-253c-492c-9bbc-371823812862@gmail.com> From: Alexandre Petrescu In-Reply-To: <24bd3828-253c-492c-9bbc-371823812862@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-CEA-Virus: SOPHOS_SAVI_ERROR_OLD_VIRUS_DATA Subject: Re: [Starlink] Starlink filings for D-Band via Tonga X-BeenThere: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: "Starlink has bufferbloat. Bad." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2023 12:44:01 -0000 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 > > (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 >>> To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net >>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Starlink filings for D-Band via Tonga >>> Message-ID: >>> 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 >>>>>>>>> To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Starlink filings for D-Band via Tonga >>>>>>>>> Message-ID: <805d52ce-b517-49b9-a053-8306cd20b8aa@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@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@auckland.ac.nz http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~ulrich/ >>>>>>> **************************************************************** >> _______________________________________________ >> Starlink mailing list >> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink > _______________________________________________ > Starlink mailing list > Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink