[Starlink] Starlink direct-to-device in NZ

[Starlink] Starlink direct-to-device in NZ

[Ulrich Speidel]

For those of you watching the D2C (aka D2C etc.) aspect of Starlink 
(i.e., Starlink to mobile phones) , One NZ has been a Starlink partner 
here in NZ for a while.

There were signs early on that One NZ had perhaps bitten off a bit more 
than they could chew - the list of "eligible" phones was very short and 
grew only slowly, One NZ stores had rather homeopathic doses of very 
expensive stock of these available at the time, and you needed to commit 
to a rather expensive and long-term subscription to get satellite 
service. Which, given One NZ's rather impressive terrestrial coverage 
here probably wouldn't have been accessed by >99.9% of their local users 
in a day.

They'd started advertising well ahead of launch. The NZ Commerce 
Commission reckoned that this was a bit rich and asked them early on to 
stop: 
https://www.comcom.govt.nz/assets/pdf_file/0013/321124/Stop-Now-Letter-to-One-NZ-Group-Ltd-5-July-2023.pdf

Then the NZ Commerce Commission took One NZ to court, filing criminal 
charges for breaches of the Fair Trading Act. They didn't mince their 
words: 
https://www.comcom.govt.nz/news-and-media/news-and-events/2024/comcom-takes-legal-action-over-one-nzs-100-coverage-claims-for-spacex-service/

In April 2025, roughly half a year in, One NZ proudly emailed its 
customers and informed everyone that: "More than 70% of eligible 
customers have connected to the network so far, and over 10,000 TXTs are 
already being sent through space daily." I guess that was more of an 
indication of how few eligible customers there actually were, that 
nearly 30% of them hadn't managed to escape terrestrial coverage so far, 
and the 10k texts / day probably spoke for themselves in the context of 
a company that holds nearly 40% market share in a market of nearly 5 
million mobile users.

Alas, with SpaceX launching more satellites with cellular payload over 
time, capacity grew. As did the list of eligible phones on One NZ's 
website. Slowly but surely.

In July 2025, One NZ extended the service to phones on prepay plans, 
including the plan I'm on ... as long as I'd have an eligible phone. My 
phone isn't an "eligible" one however (model not on the list and not 
bought from One NZ or one of their resellers), and I wouldn't have 
considered spending hundreds on a model for the few minutes a year I 
spend outside normal mobile coverage here. But alas, I guess it would 
have caused a few more folk out there to use the service.

But maybe that was a step too far for them. Today's inbox yielded:

> From 1 Dec, One NZ Satellite TXT will no longer be included in your 
> plan at no extra cost. It's included on select Prepay Plus plans now 
> or a new Prepay Plus Add-On will be available soon, with an eligible 
> phone. See: one.nz/satprepay
The link takes me to a page saying they're working on getting prepay via 
satellite working. It'll be NZ$5 (about US$2.90) a month on top of one's 
normal prepay plan. Want it now? Well my current prepay plan is $20 a 
month and I'd need to up that to a $50/month. Or wait for them to get it 
working, at which point I could upgrade to a - wait there's a fishhook 
here - $22 / month plan to be eligible to pay the extra $5 for the 
satellite service.

They're also working on getting the data service working. Which will 
support a limited number of mostly messaging apps only by the looks of 
it. Different flavour of TXT I suppose.

But here's the caveat already:

> To ensure all One NZ customers with an eligible plan and phone are 
> able to access One NZ Satellite TXT, we may have to actively manage 
> the capacity that the One NZ SpaceX satellite network can currently 
> handle, and our Fair Use Policy 
> <https://one.nz/legal/policy/fair-use/?srsltid=AfmBOor_oP_opxEqzqjNFQzgdDo9LhrgxcFtH2fM53_BGE1K_9ScjYj5> 
> will apply to your use of this service.
Makes one wonder whether they'll ever see a return on their marketing 
campaign (especially in the context of their COMCOM case).

-- 
****************************************************************
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] Re: Starlink direct-to-device in NZ

[Ulrich Speidel]

On 30/10/2025 4:29 am, Michael Richardson wrote:
> Ulrich Speidel via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>      > In July 2025, One NZ extended the service to phones on prepay plans,
>      > including the plan I'm on ... as long as I'd have an eligible phone.
> Is your phone eligible because it lacks the right radios, or because it's not
> blessed?
I've no idea, but I suspect that a range of cheaper phones (mine does 
3G/4G/5G) have lower sensitivity radios than the higher end devices 
(read: elevated noise floors due to proximity to heat generating 
components in the phone, smaller antenna size, conductors carrying RF 
that aren't gold-plated, coarser signal processing, interference from 
processing chips in the phone etc.).
> My experience with NZ consists of changing planes in Auckland in 2024.
> (And that's my own time to the southern hemisphere).
That's how I first got here so you're in good company ;-)
> I don't know how much
> of NZ is unserved by 3G/4G.  It sounds to be that the One NZ terrestial
> network coverage is pretty good?

Basically, yes. The three mobile carriers here cover - at least to TXT 
quality - most places where people would normally be. Rural locations 
used to be an issue until the government knocked heads together and 
forced the three carriers to found a common subsidiary, the Rural 
Connectivity Group (RCG), to set up cell sites in rural areas on which 
the three carriers would be virtual tenants. The downside of this of 
course is that when these go down, so do all three networks, as we had 
ample opportunity to witness during Cyclone Gabrielle a couple of years 
ago. There is also pretty good coastal coverage for boaties from the 
terrestrial network, although the Starlink-based service reaches further 
out.

The remaining "uncovered" area still makes up around 40% of the land 
surface according to One NZ, but these are generally places where there 
are extremely few people. Much is bush / forest and where there is 
remote farmland, the locals usually have land mobile / CB radios to 
communicate.

>
> Canada has similiar concentrations of coverage, with most of the smaller
> operators having big-city-only coverage.  Many smaller towns can have
> effective single suppliers (Yes, there is a duopoly.  But some towns have
> very few towers from the "other")
Canada is similar in many respects but has a much larger land area and 
lower population density over much of it.
>
> What I'd want is a $4/day-pass for when I go hiking.  I don't think current
> emergency call support covers emergency txt.  Is there even spec for txt to
> 911, I don't know.  It would, I think be tolerant of much lower bandwidth.
> A day-pass could be "messaging" only, like the airlines "free" wifi level.
... which is pretty much what you'd get here (provided you subscribed to 
the more expensive basic prepay package).
>
>      > They're also working on getting the data service working. Which will support
>      > a limited number of mostly messaging apps only by the looks of it. Different
>      > flavour of TXT I suppose.
>
> I'm not sure why this is difficult; if I were asked to implement I'd just
> block a bunch of well-known streaming end-points on day one.  Yes, blocking
> youtube blocks all sorts of other google services.  I'd fix that day two
> as I got bandwidth based caps/throttling implemented.

This isn't a networking problem predominantly, but an RF engineering 
one. Essentially, your classical cellphone network works on the premise 
that you can serve more users by bringing the base stations closer to 
them, which allows (a) lower power use and (b) conserves their battery. 
The lower power use then allows you to re-use your frequencies further 
down the road.

This alone implies that when your "cell tower" is many hundred of km 
away, this goes against the grain of the cell system design philosophy. 
You now need more power (or larger antennas) and re-using your 
frequencies isn't all that easy anymore. You can't put large antennas on 
people's phones, so the only place to put them is in space.

But wait, it gets worse. Frequency matters.

Normal Starlink downlinks to DIshy users on Ku band frequencies. That's 
between 10,700 MHz and 12,700 MHz (note also that's a 2 GHz bandwidth). 
For the Starlink cell service, One NZ gets them to use 1800 MHz in what 
is now a 15 MHz bandwidth 
(https://www.linkedin.com/posts/richardhaas99_new-new-zealand-mobile-operator-one-has-activity-7358493392294580225-NVsr/). 
That's at least a factor of 6 in terms of frequency.

Consider an RF communication system with fixed physical dimensions 
(antenna sizes, distance between transmitter and receiver) and a fixed 
transmit power.  Assume for a moment that you can make this use any 
frequency you like (i.e., ignore antenna resonances, 
transmitter/receiver tuning etc.). The received power that you will then 
have available at your receiver is proportional to the square of the 
transmit frequency. This gives Ku band a 6*6=36 fold advantage over the 
cell band, and that's before you start looking at the bandwidth.

Moreover, the higher your frequency, the more directional your antennas 
become. That is, Starlink has a much easier time projecting a Ku band 
beam at a location than a cell signal. And it sure looks like they're 
struggling a bit with the former, even with Ku band cells much larger 
than your typical mobile phone cell. And that's with you pointing your 
Dishy at the sky as instructed rather than having it at the bottom of 
your gym bag. So your cell phone signal from space isn't exactly laser 
pointer material, and getting the tiny device in your pocket to hit just 
the satellite you're meant to communicate with is an uphill struggle at 
the best of times.

So, basically, fitting data in next to TXT isn't trivial.

For One NZ and their colleagues at T-Mobile etc. overseas, this means 
that once they earmark a cell phone frequency for satellite use, they 
can't really use it on the ground anymore because a satellite using it 
is now going to be "heard" all over the place and not just where the 
user is. Neither can they re-use that frequency in multiple locations 
all that easily. Read: Commit a frequency for satellite use in the 
northern North Island and you can't - in all probability - use it 
anywhere in Auckland. Engineering aside, they now face the extra problem 
that ... spectrum is expensive. In 2021, that cost NZ$720,000 per MHz 
(https://www.rsm.govt.nz/about/news-and-updates/renewal-of-management-rights-in-the-1800-mhz-and-2100-mhz-bands). 
So that 15 MHz band for D2C would have cost One NZ just upwards of US$6M.

So by running D2C, they're essentially throwing an expensive resource at 
an application with fairly limited earnings potential.

But hey, it's great if all you need is TXT on a hike.

>
-- 
****************************************************************
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] Re: Starlink direct-to-device in NZ

[Spencer Sevilla]

> So by running D2C, they're essentially throwing an expensive resource at an application with fairly limited earnings potential.
> 
> But hey, it's great if all you need is TXT on a hike.

I don’t know a ton about the business relationship between Starlink and OneNZ (or T-Mobile here in the States) but to be honest this is how I've always viewed any of the direct-to-mobile Starlink services. Can’t imagine it being worth the effort on its own, but makes more sense to me as a super-low-bandwidth supplement for texting/calling, especially in an emergency context.

Much more interesting, IMO, is targeted coverage of higher-density remote areas (e.g. small towns/villages/farms or highways) using Starlink to backhaul a cell tower. I assume some networks are doing that, but it’s hard to find good information online as the first case tends to crowd out the results.

> On Oct 29, 2025, at 13:28, Ulrich Speidel via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> 
> On 30/10/2025 4:29 am, Michael Richardson wrote:
>> Ulrich Speidel via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>     > In July 2025, One NZ extended the service to phones on prepay plans,
>>     > including the plan I'm on ... as long as I'd have an eligible phone.
>> Is your phone eligible because it lacks the right radios, or because it's not
>> blessed?
> I've no idea, but I suspect that a range of cheaper phones (mine does 3G/4G/5G) have lower sensitivity radios than the higher end devices (read: elevated noise floors due to proximity to heat generating components in the phone, smaller antenna size, conductors carrying RF that aren't gold-plated, coarser signal processing, interference from processing chips in the phone etc.).
>> My experience with NZ consists of changing planes in Auckland in 2024.
>> (And that's my own time to the southern hemisphere).
> That's how I first got here so you're in good company ;-)
>> I don't know how much
>> of NZ is unserved by 3G/4G.  It sounds to be that the One NZ terrestial
>> network coverage is pretty good?
> 
> Basically, yes. The three mobile carriers here cover - at least to TXT quality - most places where people would normally be. Rural locations used to be an issue until the government knocked heads together and forced the three carriers to found a common subsidiary, the Rural Connectivity Group (RCG), to set up cell sites in rural areas on which the three carriers would be virtual tenants. The downside of this of course is that when these go down, so do all three networks, as we had ample opportunity to witness during Cyclone Gabrielle a couple of years ago. There is also pretty good coastal coverage for boaties from the terrestrial network, although the Starlink-based service reaches further out.
> 
> The remaining "uncovered" area still makes up around 40% of the land surface according to One NZ, but these are generally places where there are extremely few people. Much is bush / forest and where there is remote farmland, the locals usually have land mobile / CB radios to communicate.
> 
>> 
>> Canada has similiar concentrations of coverage, with most of the smaller
>> operators having big-city-only coverage.  Many smaller towns can have
>> effective single suppliers (Yes, there is a duopoly.  But some towns have
>> very few towers from the "other")
> Canada is similar in many respects but has a much larger land area and lower population density over much of it.
>> 
>> What I'd want is a $4/day-pass for when I go hiking.  I don't think current
>> emergency call support covers emergency txt.  Is there even spec for txt to
>> 911, I don't know.  It would, I think be tolerant of much lower bandwidth.
>> A day-pass could be "messaging" only, like the airlines "free" wifi level.
> ... which is pretty much what you'd get here (provided you subscribed to the more expensive basic prepay package).
>> 
>>     > They're also working on getting the data service working. Which will support
>>     > a limited number of mostly messaging apps only by the looks of it. Different
>>     > flavour of TXT I suppose.
>> 
>> I'm not sure why this is difficult; if I were asked to implement I'd just
>> block a bunch of well-known streaming end-points on day one.  Yes, blocking
>> youtube blocks all sorts of other google services.  I'd fix that day two
>> as I got bandwidth based caps/throttling implemented.
> 
> This isn't a networking problem predominantly, but an RF engineering one. Essentially, your classical cellphone network works on the premise that you can serve more users by bringing the base stations closer to them, which allows (a) lower power use and (b) conserves their battery. The lower power use then allows you to re-use your frequencies further down the road.
> 
> This alone implies that when your "cell tower" is many hundred of km away, this goes against the grain of the cell system design philosophy. You now need more power (or larger antennas) and re-using your frequencies isn't all that easy anymore. You can't put large antennas on people's phones, so the only place to put them is in space.
> 
> But wait, it gets worse. Frequency matters.
> 
> Normal Starlink downlinks to DIshy users on Ku band frequencies. That's between 10,700 MHz and 12,700 MHz (note also that's a 2 GHz bandwidth). For the Starlink cell service, One NZ gets them to use 1800 MHz in what is now a 15 MHz bandwidth (https://www.linkedin.com/posts/richardhaas99_new-new-zealand-mobile-operator-one-has-activity-7358493392294580225-NVsr/). That's at least a factor of 6 in terms of frequency.
> 
> Consider an RF communication system with fixed physical dimensions (antenna sizes, distance between transmitter and receiver) and a fixed transmit power.  Assume for a moment that you can make this use any frequency you like (i.e., ignore antenna resonances, transmitter/receiver tuning etc.). The received power that you will then have available at your receiver is proportional to the square of the transmit frequency. This gives Ku band a 6*6=36 fold advantage over the cell band, and that's before you start looking at the bandwidth.
> 
> Moreover, the higher your frequency, the more directional your antennas become. That is, Starlink has a much easier time projecting a Ku band beam at a location than a cell signal. And it sure looks like they're struggling a bit with the former, even with Ku band cells much larger than your typical mobile phone cell. And that's with you pointing your Dishy at the sky as instructed rather than having it at the bottom of your gym bag. So your cell phone signal from space isn't exactly laser pointer material, and getting the tiny device in your pocket to hit just the satellite you're meant to communicate with is an uphill struggle at the best of times.
> 
> So, basically, fitting data in next to TXT isn't trivial.
> 
> For One NZ and their colleagues at T-Mobile etc. overseas, this means that once they earmark a cell phone frequency for satellite use, they can't really use it on the ground anymore because a satellite using it is now going to be "heard" all over the place and not just where the user is. Neither can they re-use that frequency in multiple locations all that easily. Read: Commit a frequency for satellite use in the northern North Island and you can't - in all probability - use it anywhere in Auckland. Engineering aside, they now face the extra problem that ... spectrum is expensive. In 2021, that cost NZ$720,000 per MHz (https://www.rsm.govt.nz/about/news-and-updates/renewal-of-management-rights-in-the-1800-mhz-and-2100-mhz-bands). So that 15 MHz band for D2C would have cost One NZ just upwards of US$6M.
> 
> 
> 
>> 
> -- 
> ****************************************************************
> 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
> To unsubscribe send an email to starlink-leave@lists.bufferbloat.net

[Starlink] Re: Starlink direct-to-device in NZ

[J Pan]

yes, kddi has been doing this (using starlink for cellular backhaul)
on remote islands in japan for a while
https://news.kddi.com/kddi/corporate/english/newsrelease/2022/12/01/6415.html
--
J Pan, UVic CSc, ECS566, 250-472-5796 (NO VM), Pan@UVic.CA, Web.UVic.CA/~pan

On Thu, Oct 30, 2025 at 12:31 PM Spencer Sevilla via Starlink
<starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>
> > So by running D2C, they're essentially throwing an expensive resource at an application with fairly limited earnings potential.
> >
> > But hey, it's great if all you need is TXT on a hike.
>
> I don’t know a ton about the business relationship between Starlink and OneNZ (or T-Mobile here in the States) but to be honest this is how I've always viewed any of the direct-to-mobile Starlink services. Can’t imagine it being worth the effort on its own, but makes more sense to me as a super-low-bandwidth supplement for texting/calling, especially in an emergency context.
>
> Much more interesting, IMO, is targeted coverage of higher-density remote areas (e.g. small towns/villages/farms or highways) using Starlink to backhaul a cell tower. I assume some networks are doing that, but it’s hard to find good information online as the first case tends to crowd out the results.
>
> > On Oct 29, 2025, at 13:28, Ulrich Speidel via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> >
> > On 30/10/2025 4:29 am, Michael Richardson wrote:
> >> Ulrich Speidel via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> >>     > In July 2025, One NZ extended the service to phones on prepay plans,
> >>     > including the plan I'm on ... as long as I'd have an eligible phone.
> >> Is your phone eligible because it lacks the right radios, or because it's not
> >> blessed?
> > I've no idea, but I suspect that a range of cheaper phones (mine does 3G/4G/5G) have lower sensitivity radios than the higher end devices (read: elevated noise floors due to proximity to heat generating components in the phone, smaller antenna size, conductors carrying RF that aren't gold-plated, coarser signal processing, interference from processing chips in the phone etc.).
> >> My experience with NZ consists of changing planes in Auckland in 2024.
> >> (And that's my own time to the southern hemisphere).
> > That's how I first got here so you're in good company ;-)
> >> I don't know how much
> >> of NZ is unserved by 3G/4G.  It sounds to be that the One NZ terrestial
> >> network coverage is pretty good?
> >
> > Basically, yes. The three mobile carriers here cover - at least to TXT quality - most places where people would normally be. Rural locations used to be an issue until the government knocked heads together and forced the three carriers to found a common subsidiary, the Rural Connectivity Group (RCG), to set up cell sites in rural areas on which the three carriers would be virtual tenants. The downside of this of course is that when these go down, so do all three networks, as we had ample opportunity to witness during Cyclone Gabrielle a couple of years ago. There is also pretty good coastal coverage for boaties from the terrestrial network, although the Starlink-based service reaches further out.
> >
> > The remaining "uncovered" area still makes up around 40% of the land surface according to One NZ, but these are generally places where there are extremely few people. Much is bush / forest and where there is remote farmland, the locals usually have land mobile / CB radios to communicate.
> >
> >>
> >> Canada has similiar concentrations of coverage, with most of the smaller
> >> operators having big-city-only coverage.  Many smaller towns can have
> >> effective single suppliers (Yes, there is a duopoly.  But some towns have
> >> very few towers from the "other")
> > Canada is similar in many respects but has a much larger land area and lower population density over much of it.
> >>
> >> What I'd want is a $4/day-pass for when I go hiking.  I don't think current
> >> emergency call support covers emergency txt.  Is there even spec for txt to
> >> 911, I don't know.  It would, I think be tolerant of much lower bandwidth.
> >> A day-pass could be "messaging" only, like the airlines "free" wifi level.
> > ... which is pretty much what you'd get here (provided you subscribed to the more expensive basic prepay package).
> >>
> >>     > They're also working on getting the data service working. Which will support
> >>     > a limited number of mostly messaging apps only by the looks of it. Different
> >>     > flavour of TXT I suppose.
> >>
> >> I'm not sure why this is difficult; if I were asked to implement I'd just
> >> block a bunch of well-known streaming end-points on day one.  Yes, blocking
> >> youtube blocks all sorts of other google services.  I'd fix that day two
> >> as I got bandwidth based caps/throttling implemented.
> >
> > This isn't a networking problem predominantly, but an RF engineering one. Essentially, your classical cellphone network works on the premise that you can serve more users by bringing the base stations closer to them, which allows (a) lower power use and (b) conserves their battery. The lower power use then allows you to re-use your frequencies further down the road.
> >
> > This alone implies that when your "cell tower" is many hundred of km away, this goes against the grain of the cell system design philosophy. You now need more power (or larger antennas) and re-using your frequencies isn't all that easy anymore. You can't put large antennas on people's phones, so the only place to put them is in space.
> >
> > But wait, it gets worse. Frequency matters.
> >
> > Normal Starlink downlinks to DIshy users on Ku band frequencies. That's between 10,700 MHz and 12,700 MHz (note also that's a 2 GHz bandwidth). For the Starlink cell service, One NZ gets them to use 1800 MHz in what is now a 15 MHz bandwidth (https://www.linkedin.com/posts/richardhaas99_new-new-zealand-mobile-operator-one-has-activity-7358493392294580225-NVsr/). That's at least a factor of 6 in terms of frequency.
> >
> > Consider an RF communication system with fixed physical dimensions (antenna sizes, distance between transmitter and receiver) and a fixed transmit power.  Assume for a moment that you can make this use any frequency you like (i.e., ignore antenna resonances, transmitter/receiver tuning etc.). The received power that you will then have available at your receiver is proportional to the square of the transmit frequency. This gives Ku band a 6*6=36 fold advantage over the cell band, and that's before you start looking at the bandwidth.
> >
> > Moreover, the higher your frequency, the more directional your antennas become. That is, Starlink has a much easier time projecting a Ku band beam at a location than a cell signal. And it sure looks like they're struggling a bit with the former, even with Ku band cells much larger than your typical mobile phone cell. And that's with you pointing your Dishy at the sky as instructed rather than having it at the bottom of your gym bag. So your cell phone signal from space isn't exactly laser pointer material, and getting the tiny device in your pocket to hit just the satellite you're meant to communicate with is an uphill struggle at the best of times.
> >
> > So, basically, fitting data in next to TXT isn't trivial.
> >
> > For One NZ and their colleagues at T-Mobile etc. overseas, this means that once they earmark a cell phone frequency for satellite use, they can't really use it on the ground anymore because a satellite using it is now going to be "heard" all over the place and not just where the user is. Neither can they re-use that frequency in multiple locations all that easily. Read: Commit a frequency for satellite use in the northern North Island and you can't - in all probability - use it anywhere in Auckland. Engineering aside, they now face the extra problem that ... spectrum is expensive. In 2021, that cost NZ$720,000 per MHz (https://www.rsm.govt.nz/about/news-and-updates/renewal-of-management-rights-in-the-1800-mhz-and-2100-mhz-bands). So that 15 MHz band for D2C would have cost One NZ just upwards of US$6M.
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> > --
> > ****************************************************************
> > 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
> > To unsubscribe send an email to starlink-leave@lists.bufferbloat.net
>
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list -- starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> To unsubscribe send an email to starlink-leave@lists.bufferbloat.net

[Starlink] Re: Starlink direct-to-device in NZ

[Inemesit Affia]

Africa Mobile Networks does this (backhaul) as a service in Africa. Used to
use Hughes Jupiter receivers presumably with Inmarsat/Intelsat.

Now they use Starlink.

Several providers like Airtel plan to use it for this purpose. And I'm sure
there's some undisclosed users especially in Alaska and Canada.

On Thu, Oct 30, 2025, 9:03 PM J Pan via Starlink <
starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:

> yes, kddi has been doing this (using starlink for cellular backhaul)
> on remote islands in japan for a while
>
> https://news.kddi.com/kddi/corporate/english/newsrelease/2022/12/01/6415.html
> --
> J Pan, UVic CSc, ECS566, 250-472-5796 (NO VM), Pan@UVic.CA,
> Web.UVic.CA/~pan
>
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2025 at 12:31 PM Spencer Sevilla via Starlink
> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> >
> > > So by running D2C, they're essentially throwing an expensive resource
> at an application with fairly limited earnings potential.
> > >
> > > But hey, it's great if all you need is TXT on a hike.
> >
> > I don’t know a ton about the business relationship between Starlink and
> OneNZ (or T-Mobile here in the States) but to be honest this is how I've
> always viewed any of the direct-to-mobile Starlink services. Can’t imagine
> it being worth the effort on its own, but makes more sense to me as a
> super-low-bandwidth supplement for texting/calling, especially in an
> emergency context.
> >
> > Much more interesting, IMO, is targeted coverage of higher-density
> remote areas (e.g. small towns/villages/farms or highways) using Starlink
> to backhaul a cell tower. I assume some networks are doing that, but it’s
> hard to find good information online as the first case tends to crowd out
> the results.
> >
> > > On Oct 29, 2025, at 13:28, Ulrich Speidel via Starlink <
> starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 30/10/2025 4:29 am, Michael Richardson wrote:
> > >> Ulrich Speidel via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> > >>     > In July 2025, One NZ extended the service to phones on prepay
> plans,
> > >>     > including the plan I'm on ... as long as I'd have an eligible
> phone.
> > >> Is your phone eligible because it lacks the right radios, or because
> it's not
> > >> blessed?
> > > I've no idea, but I suspect that a range of cheaper phones (mine does
> 3G/4G/5G) have lower sensitivity radios than the higher end devices (read:
> elevated noise floors due to proximity to heat generating components in the
> phone, smaller antenna size, conductors carrying RF that aren't
> gold-plated, coarser signal processing, interference from processing chips
> in the phone etc.).
> > >> My experience with NZ consists of changing planes in Auckland in 2024.
> > >> (And that's my own time to the southern hemisphere).
> > > That's how I first got here so you're in good company ;-)
> > >> I don't know how much
> > >> of NZ is unserved by 3G/4G.  It sounds to be that the One NZ
> terrestial
> > >> network coverage is pretty good?
> > >
> > > Basically, yes. The three mobile carriers here cover - at least to TXT
> quality - most places where people would normally be. Rural locations used
> to be an issue until the government knocked heads together and forced the
> three carriers to found a common subsidiary, the Rural Connectivity Group
> (RCG), to set up cell sites in rural areas on which the three carriers
> would be virtual tenants. The downside of this of course is that when these
> go down, so do all three networks, as we had ample opportunity to witness
> during Cyclone Gabrielle a couple of years ago. There is also pretty good
> coastal coverage for boaties from the terrestrial network, although the
> Starlink-based service reaches further out.
> > >
> > > The remaining "uncovered" area still makes up around 40% of the land
> surface according to One NZ, but these are generally places where there are
> extremely few people. Much is bush / forest and where there is remote
> farmland, the locals usually have land mobile / CB radios to communicate.
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Canada has similiar concentrations of coverage, with most of the
> smaller
> > >> operators having big-city-only coverage.  Many smaller towns can have
> > >> effective single suppliers (Yes, there is a duopoly.  But some towns
> have
> > >> very few towers from the "other")
> > > Canada is similar in many respects but has a much larger land area and
> lower population density over much of it.
> > >>
> > >> What I'd want is a $4/day-pass for when I go hiking.  I don't think
> current
> > >> emergency call support covers emergency txt.  Is there even spec for
> txt to
> > >> 911, I don't know.  It would, I think be tolerant of much lower
> bandwidth.
> > >> A day-pass could be "messaging" only, like the airlines "free" wifi
> level.
> > > ... which is pretty much what you'd get here (provided you subscribed
> to the more expensive basic prepay package).
> > >>
> > >>     > They're also working on getting the data service working. Which
> will support
> > >>     > a limited number of mostly messaging apps only by the looks of
> it. Different
> > >>     > flavour of TXT I suppose.
> > >>
> > >> I'm not sure why this is difficult; if I were asked to implement I'd
> just
> > >> block a bunch of well-known streaming end-points on day one.  Yes,
> blocking
> > >> youtube blocks all sorts of other google services.  I'd fix that day
> two
> > >> as I got bandwidth based caps/throttling implemented.
> > >
> > > This isn't a networking problem predominantly, but an RF engineering
> one. Essentially, your classical cellphone network works on the premise
> that you can serve more users by bringing the base stations closer to them,
> which allows (a) lower power use and (b) conserves their battery. The lower
> power use then allows you to re-use your frequencies further down the road.
> > >
> > > This alone implies that when your "cell tower" is many hundred of km
> away, this goes against the grain of the cell system design philosophy. You
> now need more power (or larger antennas) and re-using your frequencies
> isn't all that easy anymore. You can't put large antennas on people's
> phones, so the only place to put them is in space.
> > >
> > > But wait, it gets worse. Frequency matters.
> > >
> > > Normal Starlink downlinks to DIshy users on Ku band frequencies.
> That's between 10,700 MHz and 12,700 MHz (note also that's a 2 GHz
> bandwidth). For the Starlink cell service, One NZ gets them to use 1800 MHz
> in what is now a 15 MHz bandwidth (
> https://www.linkedin.com/posts/richardhaas99_new-new-zealand-mobile-operator-one-has-activity-7358493392294580225-NVsr/).
> That's at least a factor of 6 in terms of frequency.
> > >
> > > Consider an RF communication system with fixed physical dimensions
> (antenna sizes, distance between transmitter and receiver) and a fixed
> transmit power.  Assume for a moment that you can make this use any
> frequency you like (i.e., ignore antenna resonances, transmitter/receiver
> tuning etc.). The received power that you will then have available at your
> receiver is proportional to the square of the transmit frequency. This
> gives Ku band a 6*6=36 fold advantage over the cell band, and that's before
> you start looking at the bandwidth.
> > >
> > > Moreover, the higher your frequency, the more directional your
> antennas become. That is, Starlink has a much easier time projecting a Ku
> band beam at a location than a cell signal. And it sure looks like they're
> struggling a bit with the former, even with Ku band cells much larger than
> your typical mobile phone cell. And that's with you pointing your Dishy at
> the sky as instructed rather than having it at the bottom of your gym bag.
> So your cell phone signal from space isn't exactly laser pointer material,
> and getting the tiny device in your pocket to hit just the satellite you're
> meant to communicate with is an uphill struggle at the best of times.
> > >
> > > So, basically, fitting data in next to TXT isn't trivial.
> > >
> > > For One NZ and their colleagues at T-Mobile etc. overseas, this means
> that once they earmark a cell phone frequency for satellite use, they can't
> really use it on the ground anymore because a satellite using it is now
> going to be "heard" all over the place and not just where the user is.
> Neither can they re-use that frequency in multiple locations all that
> easily. Read: Commit a frequency for satellite use in the northern North
> Island and you can't - in all probability - use it anywhere in Auckland.
> Engineering aside, they now face the extra problem that ... spectrum is
> expensive. In 2021, that cost NZ$720,000 per MHz (
> https://www.rsm.govt.nz/about/news-and-updates/renewal-of-management-rights-in-the-1800-mhz-and-2100-mhz-bands).
> So that 15 MHz band for D2C would have cost One NZ just upwards of US$6M.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > > --
> > > ****************************************************************
> > > 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
> > > To unsubscribe send an email to starlink-leave@lists.bufferbloat.net
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Starlink mailing list -- starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> > To unsubscribe send an email to starlink-leave@lists.bufferbloat.net
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list -- starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> To unsubscribe send an email to starlink-leave@lists.bufferbloat.net
>