[Starlink] Starlink and Iran

[Starlink] Starlink and Iran

[Ulrich Speidel]

I guess you would have all been following the reporting on Iran & how 
Starlink is being used a communication backroute out of the country, but 
also how it's being jammed by the Iranian government. Today, I received 
a petition request from an NGO asking me to sign a petition to get Elon 
to turn on D2C (direct-to-cell) over Iran, and it's phrasing it in such 
a way that it'd "turn the lights on".

My 5 cents worth:

Jamming: Over every location in Iran, there are several dozen Starlink 
satellites visible at any one time that Dishys on the ground can in 
principle communicate with (read: 25 deg plus above the horizon and 
clear of the geostationary arc). There are purportedly tens of thousands 
of Dishys in the country. Each of those Dishys (when working) 
communicates with one of the satellites, and does so by pointing a beam 
at the satellite - which points a beam back. Even two Dishys in close 
vicinity of each other generally talk to different satellites.

To jam communication between a Dishy and a satellite you have to insert 
the jammer into the transmission path - either by pointing it at the 
satellite's receiver, or by pointing it at the Dishy. In either case, 
you want to do so ideally from the direction of the respective 
transmitter that the receiver is listening to, because there isn't all 
that much sensitivity if you're jamming off beam. Basically, because 
signal power drops of with the square of the distance, you need to be 
fairly close to a Dishy in order to out-shout the transmitter at the far 
end of the beam if you're trying to jam from outside the beam.

Jamming the main traffic channels to Dishy is an uphill task - for a 
total blackout, you'd have to cover a good part of the 2 GHz total in 
Ku with sufficient power in terms of spectral density to cause mischief. 
Not easy.

Likewise, pointing your jammer at the satellite(s) is mission impossible 
because there's every chance that the satellites will be listening to 
Dishys that are in a different direction from you.

There would I guess be some opportunity in terms of jamming management 
channels (e.g., access grant channel) but even this is complex with that 
number of satellites around.

Plus those babies move, so you need jammers that can track. And 15 
seconds after you're worked out what you need to point where, Starlink 
changes the game on you.

The Independent quotes "a specialist in digital repression and associate 
director of the Technology Threats and Opportunities Program at Witness" 
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-internet-blackout-protest-starlink-musk-b2900101.html 
saying that they think it's GPS jamming. For all I know Starlink doesn't 
need GPS - while Dishys have GPS receivers, Starlink's got its own 
positioning system, too. Also, GPS jamming is fairly common globally and 
it's not known to be impairing Starlink all that much.

D2C: Maybe someone should have asked the NZ Commerce Commission for 
advice first. They figured out a long time ago that D2C isn't quite 
there yet (and may never get fully there). It's only capable of 
supporting a comparatively small number of devices per unit area on the 
ground, and apart from a small number of premium phones, with text and 
perhaps RCS/MMS only. And that's with a telco on the ground that's 
actually cooperating and making frequencies available. One NZ, the New 
Zealand telco who partners with SpaceX on the D2C here, had its 
marketing department shouting the virtues from the rooftops until the 
Commerce Commission filed criminal charges. They're still in the game 
but when I bought a new mobile phone the other day, it took me several 
minutes to find the page that listed compatible phones. The service is 
now a little less prominent on their home page - you have to scroll a 
little to find it. Also, word doesn't seem to have gotten around that 
your mobile phone - even if satellite-capable - will connect to 
terrestrial networks with priority. So Iranians would have to go pretty 
far out into the desert just to TXT. Oh, and cellphones are a lot easier 
to jam than Dishys...

Of course, that's not the only consideration here. Using Starlink is 
illegal in Iran, and I guess getting caught with a Dishy is a bit risky 
there at the moment. But RF direction finding 50k+ Dishys that change 
transmit frequency a couple of times a minute isn't trivial: It requires 
specialised equipment and skill, both of which are likely to be in short 
supply at the moment. So I suppose visual identification of Dishys (from 
the air or high rise buildings) might be a more promising tactic. But of 
course they can be camouflaged to an extent as well as moved.

Also, Starlink tends to be more of a technology for underserved rural 
areas rather than cities in countries with high Internet penetration 
rates - which Iran is one of. So it's likely that many of the tens of 
thousands of Dishys are in rural locations where there haven't been any 
large protests.


-- 
****************************************************************
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 and Iran

[Inemesit Affia]

Wrt to DTC, you'll need SIM's, e-SIM or physical. Much easier to make and
ship than regular Starlink receiver. 4G requires mutual authentication.

There's more spectrum to use if the towers are switched off as opposed to
not terminating calls.

Maybe it can be delivered as an app store app?

On Thu, Jan 15, 2026, 10:51 AM Ulrich Speidel via Starlink <
starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:

> I guess you would have all been following the reporting on Iran & how
> Starlink is being used a communication backroute out of the country, but
> also how it's being jammed by the Iranian government. Today, I received
> a petition request from an NGO asking me to sign a petition to get Elon
> to turn on D2C (direct-to-cell) over Iran, and it's phrasing it in such
> a way that it'd "turn the lights on".
>
> My 5 cents worth:
>
> Jamming: Over every location in Iran, there are several dozen Starlink
> satellites visible at any one time that Dishys on the ground can in
> principle communicate with (read: 25 deg plus above the horizon and
> clear of the geostationary arc). There are purportedly tens of thousands
> of Dishys in the country. Each of those Dishys (when working)
> communicates with one of the satellites, and does so by pointing a beam
> at the satellite - which points a beam back. Even two Dishys in close
> vicinity of each other generally talk to different satellites.
>
> To jam communication between a Dishy and a satellite you have to insert
> the jammer into the transmission path - either by pointing it at the
> satellite's receiver, or by pointing it at the Dishy. In either case,
> you want to do so ideally from the direction of the respective
> transmitter that the receiver is listening to, because there isn't all
> that much sensitivity if you're jamming off beam. Basically, because
> signal power drops of with the square of the distance, you need to be
> fairly close to a Dishy in order to out-shout the transmitter at the far
> end of the beam if you're trying to jam from outside the beam.
>
> Jamming the main traffic channels to Dishy is an uphill task - for a
> total blackout, you'd have to cover a good part of the 2 GHz total in
> Ku with sufficient power in terms of spectral density to cause mischief.
> Not easy.
>
> Likewise, pointing your jammer at the satellite(s) is mission impossible
> because there's every chance that the satellites will be listening to
> Dishys that are in a different direction from you.
>
> There would I guess be some opportunity in terms of jamming management
> channels (e.g., access grant channel) but even this is complex with that
> number of satellites around.
>
> Plus those babies move, so you need jammers that can track. And 15
> seconds after you're worked out what you need to point where, Starlink
> changes the game on you.
>
> The Independent quotes "a specialist in digital repression and associate
> director of the Technology Threats and Opportunities Program at Witness"
>
> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-internet-blackout-protest-starlink-musk-b2900101.html
> saying that they think it's GPS jamming. For all I know Starlink doesn't
> need GPS - while Dishys have GPS receivers, Starlink's got its own
> positioning system, too. Also, GPS jamming is fairly common globally and
> it's not known to be impairing Starlink all that much.
>
> D2C: Maybe someone should have asked the NZ Commerce Commission for
> advice first. They figured out a long time ago that D2C isn't quite
> there yet (and may never get fully there). It's only capable of
> supporting a comparatively small number of devices per unit area on the
> ground, and apart from a small number of premium phones, with text and
> perhaps RCS/MMS only. And that's with a telco on the ground that's
> actually cooperating and making frequencies available. One NZ, the New
> Zealand telco who partners with SpaceX on the D2C here, had its
> marketing department shouting the virtues from the rooftops until the
> Commerce Commission filed criminal charges. They're still in the game
> but when I bought a new mobile phone the other day, it took me several
> minutes to find the page that listed compatible phones. The service is
> now a little less prominent on their home page - you have to scroll a
> little to find it. Also, word doesn't seem to have gotten around that
> your mobile phone - even if satellite-capable - will connect to
> terrestrial networks with priority. So Iranians would have to go pretty
> far out into the desert just to TXT. Oh, and cellphones are a lot easier
> to jam than Dishys...
>
> Of course, that's not the only consideration here. Using Starlink is
> illegal in Iran, and I guess getting caught with a Dishy is a bit risky
> there at the moment. But RF direction finding 50k+ Dishys that change
> transmit frequency a couple of times a minute isn't trivial: It requires
> specialised equipment and skill, both of which are likely to be in short
> supply at the moment. So I suppose visual identification of Dishys (from
> the air or high rise buildings) might be a more promising tactic. But of
> course they can be camouflaged to an extent as well as moved.
>
> Also, Starlink tends to be more of a technology for underserved rural
> areas rather than cities in countries with high Internet penetration
> rates - which Iran is one of. So it's likely that many of the tens of
> thousands of Dishys are in rural locations where there haven't been any
> large protests.
>
>
> --
> ****************************************************************
> 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 and Iran

[Ulrich Speidel]

On 15/01/2026 11:06 pm, Inemesit Affia wrote:
>
> 	
> You don't often get email from inemesitaffia@gmail.com. Learn why this 
> is important <https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>
> 	
>
> Wrt to DTC, you'll need SIM's, e-SIM or physical. Much easier to make 
> and ship than regular Starlink receiver. 4G requires mutual 
> authentication.

Indeed, but that doesn't address problems related to user density - you 
really can't support tens of thousands of people in a city that way. It 
really only works for a handful of folks in a larger area at a time. 
It's not an easily scalable solution.

One NZ currently handles perhaps a few thousand TXT messages (if that 
many) via satellite a day in a country about 1/6th of the area of Iran 
and are actively rationing the service by making it a premium product 
even though few people can actually physically use it because 
terrestrial coverage is so good. This simply doesn't scale to anywhere 
near the needs of 90M+ Iranians, let alone in a few weeks.

>
> There's more spectrum to use if the towers are switched off as opposed 
> to not terminating calls.
That's supposing someone will do SpaceX a favour and switch the local 
base stations off in large numbers. Not realistic.
>
> Maybe it can be delivered as an app store app?

Getting e-Sims in is the easy part, getting the rest to work is the hard 
bit. D2C for Iran is simply a non-starter - whatever is there in terms 
of Dishys already dwarfs it in terms of capacity by orders of magnitude.

Iranian Internet users do need hope, but a lot of what's circulating out 
there at the moment is hype and people's imagination having gone wild. A 
lot of that is giving false hope, and that's probably the last thing 
people need right now.

-- 
****************************************************************
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 and Iran

[Inemesit Affia]

Something more about d2c and other things.

In 4G the network can limit services to say SMS only. Or calls only. But once you give the phone access to IP, the phone is responsible for limiting itself. Hence satellite enabled apps. Without this we've seen people do speed tests on the DTC network.

More spectrum in use means more power or sometimes more equipment to do jamming. Only GPS and the Ku uplink seem to be jammed.

Expertise for RF work doesn't have to be local. Huawei is a world leader. And I'm sure you're familiar with expats.

As for underserved areas, Starlink may be advertised as a rural service, but in poorer countries, most users aren't just suburban but actually Urban

Jan 15, 2026 10:51:32 AM Ulrich Speidel via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>:

> I guess you would have all been following the reporting on Iran & how Starlink is being used a communication backroute out of the country, but also how it's being jammed by the Iranian government. Today, I received a petition request from an NGO asking me to sign a petition to get Elon to turn on D2C (direct-to-cell) over Iran, and it's phrasing it in such a way that it'd "turn the lights on".
> 
> My 5 cents worth:
> 
> Jamming: Over every location in Iran, there are several dozen Starlink satellites visible at any one time that Dishys on the ground can in principle communicate with (read: 25 deg plus above the horizon and clear of the geostationary arc). There are purportedly tens of thousands of Dishys in the country. Each of those Dishys (when working) communicates with one of the satellites, and does so by pointing a beam at the satellite - which points a beam back. Even two Dishys in close vicinity of each other generally talk to different satellites.
> 
> To jam communication between a Dishy and a satellite you have to insert the jammer into the transmission path - either by pointing it at the satellite's receiver, or by pointing it at the Dishy. In either case, you want to do so ideally from the direction of the respective transmitter that the receiver is listening to, because there isn't all that much sensitivity if you're jamming off beam. Basically, because signal power drops of with the square of the distance, you need to be fairly close to a Dishy in order to out-shout the transmitter at the far end of the beam if you're trying to jam from outside the beam.
> 
> Jamming the main traffic channels to Dishy is an uphill task - for a total blackout, you'd have to cover a good part of the 2 GHz total in Ku with sufficient power in terms of spectral density to cause mischief. Not easy.
> 
> Likewise, pointing your jammer at the satellite(s) is mission impossible because there's every chance that the satellites will be listening to Dishys that are in a different direction from you.
> 
> There would I guess be some opportunity in terms of jamming management channels (e.g., access grant channel) but even this is complex with that number of satellites around.
> 
> Plus those babies move, so you need jammers that can track. And 15 seconds after you're worked out what you need to point where, Starlink changes the game on you.
> 
> The Independent quotes "a specialist in digital repression and associate director of the Technology Threats and Opportunities Program at Witness" https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-internet-blackout-protest-starlink-musk-b2900101.html saying that they think it's GPS jamming. For all I know Starlink doesn't need GPS - while Dishys have GPS receivers, Starlink's got its own positioning system, too. Also, GPS jamming is fairly common globally and it's not known to be impairing Starlink all that much.
> 
> D2C: Maybe someone should have asked the NZ Commerce Commission for advice first. They figured out a long time ago that D2C isn't quite there yet (and may never get fully there). It's only capable of supporting a comparatively small number of devices per unit area on the ground, and apart from a small number of premium phones, with text and perhaps RCS/MMS only. And that's with a telco on the ground that's actually cooperating and making frequencies available. One NZ, the New Zealand telco who partners with SpaceX on the D2C here, had its marketing department shouting the virtues from the rooftops until the Commerce Commission filed criminal charges. They're still in the game but when I bought a new mobile phone the other day, it took me several minutes to find the page that listed compatible phones. The service is now a little less prominent on their home page - you have to scroll a little to find it. Also, word doesn't seem to have gotten around that your mobile phone - even if satellite-capable - will connect to terrestrial networks with priority. So Iranians would have to go pretty far out into the desert just to TXT. Oh, and cellphones are a lot easier to jam than Dishys...
> 
> Of course, that's not the only consideration here. Using Starlink is illegal in Iran, and I guess getting caught with a Dishy is a bit risky there at the moment. But RF direction finding 50k+ Dishys that change transmit frequency a couple of times a minute isn't trivial: It requires specialised equipment and skill, both of which are likely to be in short supply at the moment. So I suppose visual identification of Dishys (from the air or high rise buildings) might be a more promising tactic. But of course they can be camouflaged to an extent as well as moved.
> 
> Also, Starlink tends to be more of a technology for underserved rural areas rather than cities in countries with high Internet penetration rates - which Iran is one of. So it's likely that many of the tens of thousands of Dishys are in rural locations where there haven't been any large protests.
> 
> 
> -- 
> ****************************************************************
> 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 and Iran

[Inemesit Affia]

Jan 15, 2026 11:31:04 AM Ulrich Speidel <u.speidel@auckland.ac.nz>:

> On 15/01/2026 11:06 pm, Inemesit Affia wrote:
>> 
>> You don't often get email from inemesitaffia@gmail.com. Learn why this is important[https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification]
>> Wrt to DTC, you'll need SIM's, e-SIM or physical. Much easier to make and ship than regular Starlink receiver. 4G requires mutual authentication.
> 
> Indeed, but that doesn't address problems related to user density - you really can't support tens of thousands of people in a city that way. It really only works for a handful of folks in a larger area at a time. It's not an easily scalable solution.

You don't need to help everyone to be of help.


> 
> 
> One NZ currently handles perhaps a few thousand TXT messages (if that many) via satellite a day in a country about 1/6th of the area of Iran and are actively rationing the service by making it a premium product even though few people can actually physically use it because terrestrial coverage is so good. This simply doesn't scale to anywhere near the needs of 90M+ Iranians, let alone in a few weeks. 
> 
>> 
>> There's more spectrum to use if the towers are switched off as opposed to not terminating calls.
> That's supposing someone will do SpaceX a favour and switch the local base stations off in large numbers. Not realistic.  

I don't think cell providers will keep antennas on unless they are asked to. That's money for power gone. Maybe even fuel given the power outages going on.

I know they may have network slices or whitelists of government users they serve, but otherwise


> 
>> 
>> Maybe it can be delivered as an app store app?
> 
> Getting e-Sims in is the easy part, getting the rest to work is the hard bit. D2C for Iran is simply a non-starter - whatever is there in terms of Dishys already dwarfs it in terms of capacity by orders of magnitude.

There are particular benefits. That you haven't considered. Like the fact the channel is enough for texting and that's enough for the activists that want it. Doesn't have to serve everyone to help everyone.

Any channel that can be text only is enough for DTC.

And it seems you have no idea that T-Mobile has Twitter and WhatsApp working. Disable video with the co-operation of the app makers allowed of they are using a particular IP range and you have a working tool for the aforementioned goals.

But they should have planned this ages ago.
> 
> Iranian Internet users do need hope, but a lot of what's circulating out there at the moment is hype and people's imagination having gone wild. A lot of that is giving false hope, and that's probably the last thing people need right now.
> 
> -- 
> ****************************************************************
> 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 and Iran

[Ulrich Speidel]

On 15/01/2026 11:32 pm, Inemesit Affia wrote:
>
> 	
> You don't often get email from inemesitaffia@gmail.com. Learn why this 
> is important <https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>
> 	
>
> Something more about d2c and other things.
>
> In 4G the network can limit services to say SMS only. Or calls only. 
> But once you give the phone access to IP, the phone is responsible for 
> limiting itself. Hence satellite enabled apps. Without this we've seen 
> people do speed tests on the DTC network.
>
> More spectrum in use means more power or sometimes more equipment to 
> do jamming. Only GPS and the Ku uplink seem to be jammed.

Ku uplink would be the easier target but you'd have to have a lot of 
jammers (one per sat you want to jam), all with tracking antennas, and 
it'd pretty much work for a cell (or perhaps cell cluster) at a time - 
you'd need a separate set for each city I guess.

BTW I should have said "access request channel" not "access grant channel".

>
>
> Expertise for RF work doesn't have to be local. Huawei is a world 
> leader. And I'm sure you're familiar with expats.
I was referring to people who'd go track down Dishys locally by RF 
direction finding ... so having an expert in China doesn't really help 
here. That needs boots on the ground.
>
>
> As for underserved areas, Starlink may be advertised as a rural 
> service, but in poorer countries, most users aren't just suburban but 
> actually Urban

True - Manila is a great example for this, and there are others. But 
Iranian cities are not. Iran was targeting 20 million households and 
businesses on fibre by the end of last year, and of course there was 
mobile Internet on top of that.

I'm sure there would have been a segment of urban users also, 
specifically to get at otherwise firewalled content.


-- 
****************************************************************
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 and Iran

[Ulrich Speidel]

On 15/01/2026 11:44 pm, Inemesit Affia wrote:
>
> 	
> You don't often get email from inemesitaffia@gmail.com. Learn why this 
> is important <https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>
> 	
>
> Jan 15, 2026 11:31:04 AM Ulrich Speidel <u.speidel@auckland.ac.nz>:
>
>     On 15/01/2026 11:06 pm, Inemesit Affia wrote:
>
>
>         You don't often get email from inemesitaffia@gmail.com. Learn
>         why this is important
>         <https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>
>         Wrt to DTC, you'll need SIM's, e-SIM or physical. Much easier
>         to make and ship than regular Starlink receiver. 4G requires
>         mutual authentication.
>
>
>     Indeed, but that doesn't address problems related to user density
>     - you really can't support tens of thousands of people in a city
>     that way. It really only works for a handful of folks in a larger
>     area at a time. It's not an easily scalable solution.
>
>
> You don't need to help everyone to be of help.

Indeed. There may be the odd satellite TXT that could be sent, and it 
might be of help. But that's not what I'm talking about. It's language 
like the sample below that I read today from a well known NGO movement:

> This solution *leverages satellite technology that can connect 
> directly to ordinary mobile phones* – no dishes or internet needed, 
> enabling millions of Iranians to send urgent messages, even during 
> this blackout. *All that’s missing is the political green light to 
> switch it on.*
This is patently rubbish!

Even the Independent writes:

> There are other ways Musk’s company could provide connectivity to a 
> far larger number of people across Iran – but it would be costly, and 
> it is unclear how it would be funded. 
Now the context in which this paragraph stands makes it clear that the 
"far larger number" is that of the people who would be able to use D2C 
compared to the number using Dishys. That's equally rubbish.

>
>
>
>
>
>     One NZ currently handles perhaps a few thousand TXT messages (if
>     that many) via satellite a day in a country about 1/6th of the
>     area of Iran and are actively rationing the service by making it a
>     premium product even though few people can actually physically use
>     it because terrestrial coverage is so good. This simply doesn't
>     scale to anywhere near the needs of 90M+ Iranians, let alone in a
>     few weeks.
>
>
>         There's more spectrum to use if the towers are switched off as
>         opposed to not terminating calls.
>
>     That's supposing someone will do SpaceX a favour and switch the
>     local base stations off in large numbers. Not realistic.
>
>
> I don't think cell providers will keep antennas on unless they are 
> asked to. That's money for power gone. Maybe even fuel given the power 
> outages going on.
I think they might just be asked to do exactly that, precisely to ensure 
phones associate with their networks and that spectrum is taken. And 
fuel isn't in short supply in Iran.
>
>
> I know they may have network slices or whitelists of government users 
> they serve, but otherwise
Indeed.
>
>
>     Getting e-Sims in is the easy part, getting the rest to work is
>     the hard bit. D2C for Iran is simply a non-starter - whatever is
>     there in terms of Dishys already dwarfs it in terms of capacity by
>     orders of magnitude.
>
>
> There are particular benefits. That you haven't considered. Like the 
> fact the channel is enough for texting and that's enough for the 
> activists that want it. Doesn't have to serve everyone to help everyone.
The activists are mostly in town, where they'd be connecting / 
interfered with by the terrestrial networks. I suppose that hardy ones 
could travel for dozens of miles to zones outside terrestrial coverage 
to do their satellite text thing, but it's probably easier and faster to 
find someone with a Dishy in Tehran who can help dispatch a much larger 
message or video that way.
>
>
> And it seems you have no idea that T-Mobile has Twitter and WhatsApp 
> working. Disable video with the co-operation of the app makers allowed 
> of they are using a particular IP range and you have a working tool 
> for the aforementioned goals.

Actually I do ... they operate pretty much in lockstep with SpaceX's 
other mobile partners. Note I mentioned the few premium phones on which 
"data" also works. In NZ, these are, as of today:

  * Most iPhones from 13 mini upwards
  * Samsung Galaxy Z Fold7, Flip7, Flip 7FE

I'm not sure how many of these you'd find in Iran right now. But maybe 
it can be extended to other models there.

The apps you can use here are pretty much the same as for T-Mobile.

>
> But they should have planned this ages ago.
>
>
>     Iranian Internet users do need hope, but a lot of what's
>     circulating out there at the moment is hype and people's
>     imagination having gone wild. A lot of that is giving false hope,
>     and that's probably the last thing people need right now.
>
>     -- 
>     ****************************************************************
>     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/
>     ****************************************************************
>
>
>
-- 
****************************************************************
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 and Iran

[David Lang]

Authorized or not, starlink service has been turned on in Iran, I would assume 
that D2C is enabled as well.

D2C is not going to be good for livestreaming video, it will support text and 
voice communications

Jamming the D2C signal is far easier than jamming the dishys, all you need is 
to have the towers running with a stronger signal. (the phones will connect to 
the tower with the strongest signal). It's also easier to jam the D2C satellites 
(wider beamwidth and fewer that need to be jammed)

I don't think they would need to get new sims, esims, etc in place, they just 
need to instruct the satellites to accept any sim rather than only authorized 
sims.

creative use of aluminum foil should be able to shield your phone from the 
ground based towers, leaving them nothing other than the satellites for the 
phone to connect to (this will also block bluetooth, but wired connections to 
the phones will work)


In terms of tracking/jamming the dishys normal signal, I think it would be 
easier to track/jam their wifi signal, those default to SSID STARLINK and will 
be in a known MAC range. disabling wifi and only working with a wired connection 
is going to be much safer (admittedly, less convienient, but when they are 
threatening to kill you if you use a dishy, you should batch upload via a wired 
connection, not try to livestream the protests, at least, not unless you are 
truely mobile)

At the beginning of the invasion of Ukraine, Elon said that people needed to be 
careful, have a hill or other obstruction between the dishy and the bad guys, 
don't leave it running all the time, etc (basic signal security)

I have seen reports that SpaceX is in all-hands-on-deck mode to work to defeat 
the jammers. I expect that this will include things like pointing the beams at 
different dishy cells than they normally would use, etc.

I could see GPS jamming being a problem, if the dishy thinks it's somewhere 
other than where it really is, how successful will it be in connecting to the 
right satellites?? there are ways to work around this, and that may also be what 
starlink is working on.

David Lang



Ulrich Speidel wrote:

> Jamming: Over every location in Iran, there are several dozen Starlink 
> satellites visible at any one time that Dishys on the ground can in principle 
> communicate with (read: 25 deg plus above the horizon and clear of the 
> geostationary arc). There are purportedly tens of thousands of Dishys in the 
> country. Each of those Dishys (when working) communicates with one of the 
> satellites, and does so by pointing a beam at the satellite - which points a 
> beam back. Even two Dishys in close vicinity of each other generally talk to 
> different satellites.
>
> To jam communication between a Dishy and a satellite you have to insert the 
> jammer into the transmission path - either by pointing it at the satellite's 
> receiver, or by pointing it at the Dishy. In either case, you want to do so 
> ideally from the direction of the respective transmitter that the receiver is 
> listening to, because there isn't all that much sensitivity if you're jamming 
> off beam. Basically, because signal power drops of with the square of the 
> distance, you need to be fairly close to a Dishy in order to out-shout the 
> transmitter at the far end of the beam if you're trying to jam from outside 
> the beam.
>
> Jamming the main traffic channels to Dishy is an uphill task - for a total 
> blackout, you'd have to cover a good part of the 2 GHz total in Ku with 
> sufficient power in terms of spectral density to cause mischief. Not easy.
>
> Likewise, pointing your jammer at the satellite(s) is mission impossible 
> because there's every chance that the satellites will be listening to Dishys 
> that are in a different direction from you.
>
> There would I guess be some opportunity in terms of jamming management 
> channels (e.g., access grant channel) but even this is complex with that 
> number of satellites around.
>
> Plus those babies move, so you need jammers that can track. And 15 seconds 
> after you're worked out what you need to point where, Starlink changes the 
> game on you.
>
> The Independent quotes "a specialist in digital repression and associate 
> director of the Technology Threats and Opportunities Program at Witness" 
> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-internet-blackout-protest-starlink-musk-b2900101.html 
> saying that they think it's GPS jamming. For all I know Starlink doesn't need 
> GPS - while Dishys have GPS receivers, Starlink's got its own positioning 
> system, too. Also, GPS jamming is fairly common globally and it's not known 
> to be impairing Starlink all that much.
>
> D2C: Maybe someone should have asked the NZ Commerce Commission for advice 
> first. They figured out a long time ago that D2C isn't quite there yet (and 
> may never get fully there). It's only capable of supporting a comparatively 
> small number of devices per unit area on the ground, and apart from a small 
> number of premium phones, with text and perhaps RCS/MMS only. And that's with 
> a telco on the ground that's actually cooperating and making frequencies 
> available. One NZ, the New Zealand telco who partners with SpaceX on the D2C 
> here, had its marketing department shouting the virtues from the rooftops 
> until the Commerce Commission filed criminal charges. They're still in the 
> game but when I bought a new mobile phone the other day, it took me several 
> minutes to find the page that listed compatible phones. The service is now a 
> little less prominent on their home page - you have to scroll a little to 
> find it. Also, word doesn't seem to have gotten around that your mobile phone 
> - even if satellite-capable - will connect to terrestrial networks with 
> priority. So Iranians would have to go pretty far out into the desert just to 
> TXT. Oh, and cellphones are a lot easier to jam than Dishys...
>
> Of course, that's not the only consideration here. Using Starlink is illegal 
> in Iran, and I guess getting caught with a Dishy is a bit risky there at the 
> moment. But RF direction finding 50k+ Dishys that change transmit frequency a 
> couple of times a minute isn't trivial: It requires specialised equipment and 
> skill, both of which are likely to be in short supply at the moment. So I 
> suppose visual identification of Dishys (from the air or high rise buildings) 
> might be a more promising tactic. But of course they can be camouflaged to an 
> extent as well as moved.
>
> Also, Starlink tends to be more of a technology for underserved rural areas 
> rather than cities in countries with high Internet penetration rates - which 
> Iran is one of. So it's likely that many of the tens of thousands of Dishys 
> are in rural locations where there haven't been any large protests.
>
>
>

[Starlink] Re: Starlink and Iran

[Sauli Kiviranta]

"I have seen reports that SpaceX is in all-hands-on-deck mode to work to
defeat
the jammers. I expect that this will include things like pointing the beams
at
different dishy cells than they normally would use, etc."

Do we have any technical characteristics about the jamming how it is
visible to the application layer? I saw some X posts talk about 20% packet
loss, some said 80%.

Anyone from SpaceX can comment on what is the challenge "requirements" for
contributions?

Best regards,
Sauli

On Thu, Jan 15, 2026 at 1:17 PM David Lang via Starlink <
starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:

> Authorized or not, starlink service has been turned on in Iran, I would
> assume
> that D2C is enabled as well.
>
> D2C is not going to be good for livestreaming video, it will support text
> and
> voice communications
>
> Jamming the D2C signal is far easier than jamming the dishys, all you need
> is
> to have the towers running with a stronger signal. (the phones will
> connect to
> the tower with the strongest signal). It's also easier to jam the D2C
> satellites
> (wider beamwidth and fewer that need to be jammed)
>
> I don't think they would need to get new sims, esims, etc in place, they
> just
> need to instruct the satellites to accept any sim rather than only
> authorized
> sims.
>
> creative use of aluminum foil should be able to shield your phone from the
> ground based towers, leaving them nothing other than the satellites for
> the
> phone to connect to (this will also block bluetooth, but wired connections
> to
> the phones will work)
>
>
> In terms of tracking/jamming the dishys normal signal, I think it would be
> easier to track/jam their wifi signal, those default to SSID STARLINK and
> will
> be in a known MAC range. disabling wifi and only working with a wired
> connection
> is going to be much safer (admittedly, less convienient, but when they are
> threatening to kill you if you use a dishy, you should batch upload via a
> wired
> connection, not try to livestream the protests, at least, not unless you
> are
> truely mobile)
>
> At the beginning of the invasion of Ukraine, Elon said that people needed
> to be
> careful, have a hill or other obstruction between the dishy and the bad
> guys,
> don't leave it running all the time, etc (basic signal security)
>
> I have seen reports that SpaceX is in all-hands-on-deck mode to work to
> defeat
> the jammers. I expect that this will include things like pointing the
> beams at
> different dishy cells than they normally would use, etc.
>
> I could see GPS jamming being a problem, if the dishy thinks it's
> somewhere
> other than where it really is, how successful will it be in connecting to
> the
> right satellites?? there are ways to work around this, and that may also
> be what
> starlink is working on.
>
> David Lang
>
>
>
> Ulrich Speidel wrote:
>
> > Jamming: Over every location in Iran, there are several dozen Starlink
> > satellites visible at any one time that Dishys on the ground can in
> principle
> > communicate with (read: 25 deg plus above the horizon and clear of the
> > geostationary arc). There are purportedly tens of thousands of Dishys in
> the
> > country. Each of those Dishys (when working) communicates with one of
> the
> > satellites, and does so by pointing a beam at the satellite - which
> points a
> > beam back. Even two Dishys in close vicinity of each other generally
> talk to
> > different satellites.
> >
> > To jam communication between a Dishy and a satellite you have to insert
> the
> > jammer into the transmission path - either by pointing it at the
> satellite's
> > receiver, or by pointing it at the Dishy. In either case, you want to do
> so
> > ideally from the direction of the respective transmitter that the
> receiver is
> > listening to, because there isn't all that much sensitivity if you're
> jamming
> > off beam. Basically, because signal power drops of with the square of
> the
> > distance, you need to be fairly close to a Dishy in order to out-shout
> the
> > transmitter at the far end of the beam if you're trying to jam from
> outside
> > the beam.
> >
> > Jamming the main traffic channels to Dishy is an uphill task - for a
> total
> > blackout, you'd have to cover a good part of the 2 GHz total in Ku with
> > sufficient power in terms of spectral density to cause mischief. Not
> easy.
> >
> > Likewise, pointing your jammer at the satellite(s) is mission impossible
> > because there's every chance that the satellites will be listening to
> Dishys
> > that are in a different direction from you.
> >
> > There would I guess be some opportunity in terms of jamming management
> > channels (e.g., access grant channel) but even this is complex with that
> > number of satellites around.
> >
> > Plus those babies move, so you need jammers that can track. And 15
> seconds
> > after you're worked out what you need to point where, Starlink changes
> the
> > game on you.
> >
> > The Independent quotes "a specialist in digital repression and associate
> > director of the Technology Threats and Opportunities Program at Witness"
> >
> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-internet-blackout-protest-starlink-musk-b2900101.html
> > saying that they think it's GPS jamming. For all I know Starlink doesn't
> need
> > GPS - while Dishys have GPS receivers, Starlink's got its own
> positioning
> > system, too. Also, GPS jamming is fairly common globally and it's not
> known
> > to be impairing Starlink all that much.
> >
> > D2C: Maybe someone should have asked the NZ Commerce Commission for
> advice
> > first. They figured out a long time ago that D2C isn't quite there yet
> (and
> > may never get fully there). It's only capable of supporting a
> comparatively
> > small number of devices per unit area on the ground, and apart from a
> small
> > number of premium phones, with text and perhaps RCS/MMS only. And that's
> with
> > a telco on the ground that's actually cooperating and making frequencies
> > available. One NZ, the New Zealand telco who partners with SpaceX on the
> D2C
> > here, had its marketing department shouting the virtues from the
> rooftops
> > until the Commerce Commission filed criminal charges. They're still in
> the
> > game but when I bought a new mobile phone the other day, it took me
> several
> > minutes to find the page that listed compatible phones. The service is
> now a
> > little less prominent on their home page - you have to scroll a little
> to
> > find it. Also, word doesn't seem to have gotten around that your mobile
> phone
> > - even if satellite-capable - will connect to terrestrial networks with
> > priority. So Iranians would have to go pretty far out into the desert
> just to
> > TXT. Oh, and cellphones are a lot easier to jam than Dishys...
> >
> > Of course, that's not the only consideration here. Using Starlink is
> illegal
> > in Iran, and I guess getting caught with a Dishy is a bit risky there at
> the
> > moment. But RF direction finding 50k+ Dishys that change transmit
> frequency a
> > couple of times a minute isn't trivial: It requires specialised
> equipment and
> > skill, both of which are likely to be in short supply at the moment. So
> I
> > suppose visual identification of Dishys (from the air or high rise
> buildings)
> > might be a more promising tactic. But of course they can be camouflaged
> to an
> > extent as well as moved.
> >
> > Also, Starlink tends to be more of a technology for underserved rural
> areas
> > rather than cities in countries with high Internet penetration rates -
> which
> > Iran is one of. So it's likely that many of the tens of thousands of
> Dishys
> > are in rural locations where there haven't been any large protests.
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list -- starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> To unsubscribe send an email to starlink-leave@lists.bufferbloat.net
>

[Starlink] Re: Starlink and Iran

[David Lang]

Sauli Kiviranta wrote:

> "I have seen reports that SpaceX is in all-hands-on-deck mode to work to 
> defeat the jammers. I expect that this will include things like pointing the 
> beams at different dishy cells than they normally would use, etc."
>
> Do we have any technical characteristics about the jamming how it is
> visible to the application layer? I saw some X posts talk about 20% packet
> loss, some said 80%.
>
> Anyone from SpaceX can comment on what is the challenge "requirements" for
> contributions?

I would not expect this information to be made public. Finding out what SpaceX 
is trying (and even finding out how SpaceX categorizes the attacks as hard/easy 
to deal with) would be valuable information for those trying to block the 
signal.

David Lang

[Starlink] Re: Starlink and Iran

[Sauli Kiviranta]

X posts by Grok:

”Various sources report widely differing levels of packet loss affecting
Starlink connections in Iran during the January 2026 internet blackouts and
protests. Reported figures range from roughly 20% to more than 80%,
depending on location, timing, and source. This variability is most
plausibly explained by localized jamming and interference efforts, which
appear to impact specific neighborhoods or regions more severely than
others rather than producing uniform nationwide disruption. The claims
below are grouped by reported packet-loss ranges and are drawn from media
reports, technical analyses, and social media posts that explicitly
reference packet loss measurements or estimates, often based on user
reports, NetBlocks monitoring, or expert commentary.


Claims of 20–22% packet loss

Research cited by bne IntelliNews reports sustained packet loss of
approximately 20–22% over five-minute sampling windows in tested areas,
compared with Starlink’s typical baseline of under 1%. These losses were
attributed primarily to GPS spoofing attacks.

Claims of approximately 30% packet loss

Several outlets and analysts report packet loss around 30% in affected
areas. TechRadar describes degraded Starlink performance reaching roughly
this level due to jamming. Multiple X posts, including those by
@Intelligencer41 and @NuclearID68, cite figures near 30%, often attributing
the data to digital rights researcher Amir Rashidi or the Miaan Group.
These reports generally describe averages or moderate interference rather
than worst-case conditions.

Claims of 30–40% packet loss

Euronews reports packet loss of up to 40% in parts of Tehran, likely caused
by mobile jamming equipment deployed in urban areas.

Claims of 30–80% packet loss

A number of sources describe much wider ranges, with packet loss varying
between 30% and 80% depending on time and place. France 24 and Ars Technica
both report losses within this range, attributing them to state-sponsored
jamming technologies. Similar figures appear in user discussions on Reddit
and in reporting by Techflowpost, which notes averages around 30% on the
first day of the blackout but spikes up to 80% in some locations. Multiple
X posts echo this pattern, emphasizing strong geographic variability and
particularly severe impacts in dense urban neighborhoods.

Claims of 80% or higher packet loss

The highest figures appear in reports describing intensive or
military-grade jamming. Forbes, cited via social media, reports disruptions
affecting roughly 80–90% of Starlink traffic in some contexts. Other
claims, based largely on anonymous user reports or social media posts, also
suggest packet loss exceeding 80% during peak interference periods.

Broader context

NetBlocks, referenced across several reports and posts, confirms elevated
packet loss and unstable Starlink connectivity during the blackout period,
though it does not always provide precise percentages. Other cybersecurity
reporting notes sharp increases in packet loss linked to GPS and RF jamming
without quantifying exact levels. Several sources attribute the
interference technology to Russian- or Chinese-supplied systems, while
emphasizing that effectiveness varies substantially by region.


Overall, lower reported figures in the 20–30% range generally reflect
averages or less-affected areas, whereas higher figures, reaching 80–90%,
appear to correspond to localized hotspots, particularly in parts of
Tehran. The estimates rely on user-submitted measurements, network
monitoring tools such as Cloudflare Radar, and expert analysis.”

20% is not that bad, but 80% starts to be a bit 😅

- Sauli

On Thursday, January 15, 2026, David Lang <david@lang.hm> wrote:

> Sauli Kiviranta wrote:
>
> "I have seen reports that SpaceX is in all-hands-on-deck mode to work to
>> defeat the jammers. I expect that this will include things like pointing
>> the beams at different dishy cells than they normally would use, etc."
>>
>> Do we have any technical characteristics about the jamming how it is
>> visible to the application layer? I saw some X posts talk about 20% packet
>> loss, some said 80%.
>>
>> Anyone from SpaceX can comment on what is the challenge "requirements" for
>> contributions?
>>
>
> I would not expect this information to be made public. Finding out what
> SpaceX is trying (and even finding out how SpaceX categorizes the attacks
> as hard/easy to deal with) would be valuable information for those trying
> to block the signal.
>
> David Lang
>

[Starlink] Re: Starlink and Iran

[Inemesit Affia]

Sorry I've messed up the flow in my client

Jan 15, 2026 5:18:16 PM Inemesit Affia <inemesitaffia@gmail.com>:

> Jan 15, 2026 3:06:39 PM David Lang <david@lang.hm>:
> 
>> Inemesit Affia wrote:
>> 
>>> Jan 15, 2026 12:17:46 PM David Lang via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>:
>>> 
>>>> Authorized or not, starlink service has been turned on in Iran, I would assume that D2C is enabled as well.
>>> 
>>> If it was enabled these people asking for it aren't in the group.
>> 
>> It's been publicly reported that Starlink is active.
> 
> I'm talking about direct to cell. That's what the letter is about. Starlink broadband has been available in Iran since at least Q4 2022.
> 
> 
>> 
>>>> Jamming the D2C signal is far easier than jamming the dishys, all you need is to have the towers running with a stronger signal. (the phones will connect to the tower with the strongest signal). It's also easier to jam the D2C satellites (wider beamwidth and fewer that need to be jammed)
>>> 
>>> True. Hopefully there are free bands somewhere.
>> 
>> D2C only operates on a single band.
> 
> I don't believe this is true
> 
> PCS G Block LTE band 25(1910-1915 MHz & 1990-1995 MHz) is T-Mobile's implementation
> 
> VMO2 1710-1716 UL /MSS  2170-2200 DL (Band 66)
> 
> Softbank 1975-1980 UL / MSS  2170-2200 DL (Band 65)
> 
> DoCoMo 1940-1945 UL / MSS  2170-2200 DL (Band 65)
> 
> KDDI  1920-1925 UL /  MSS 2170-2200 DL (Band 65)
> 
> The tech is capable of 1.6 GHz to at least 2.2 GHz from examples given here. That spans multiple LTE bands. I don't know what else it's capable of. If service is switched off or there are unallocated bands, then there's hope for urban use.
> 
>> 
>> 
>>>> I don't think they would need to get new sims, esims, etc in place, they just need to instruct the satellites to accept any sim rather than only authorized sims.
>>> 
>>> I just don't think this will work. Authorization free 4G.
>> 
>> Why not? just hard code success for the authorization step.
> 
> From what I retained from seminars around the introduction of 4G, the SIM authenticates the network and the network authenticates the Sim using a key stored in the SIM's HSM.
> 
> 911/112 of course excepted
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>>> In terms of tracking/jamming the dishys normal signal, I think it would be easier to track/jam their wifi signal, those default to SSID STARLINK and will be in a known MAC range. disabling wifi and only working with a wired connection is going to be much safer (admittedly, less convienient, but when they are threatening to kill you if you use a dishy, you should batch upload via a wired connection, not try to livestream the protests, at least, not unless you are truely mobile)
>>> 
>>> I've suggested not using the Wi-Fi router at all. Any phone scanner would probably tell you it's a starlink. SpaceX should change the BSSID's too
>> 
>> The SSID can be set by the user, the MAC address is hard-coded
>> 
>> David Lang
> 
>> 
> MAC's can be changed in software. I've done it on Windows XP and 7 ages ago with smac. I'm sure it's doable on Linux. I remember doing similar with HOSTAPD. 
> 
> Remember how devices rotate MAC addresses for privacy? That requires a method for changing them. It's not like the ROM is overwritten. Once the device is reset, it will go back to default.
> 
> 
>>  

[Starlink] Re: Starlink and Iran

[J Pan]

easier to attack gps?
https://github.com/narimangharib/starlink-iran-gps-spoofing/blob/main/starlink-iran.md
although not all technically correct. "inhibitGps" is a user choice
through the mobile app ("Use Starlink positioning exclusively") not
system determination, but gps spoofing is indeed there. starlink could
be authorized to decode military-grade gps signals as well?
--
J Pan, UVic CSc, ECS566, 250-472-5796 (NO VM), Pan@UVic.CA, Web.UVic.CA/~pan


On Thu, Jan 15, 2026 at 1:51 AM Ulrich Speidel via Starlink
<starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>
> I guess you would have all been following the reporting on Iran & how
> Starlink is being used a communication backroute out of the country, but
> also how it's being jammed by the Iranian government. Today, I received
> a petition request from an NGO asking me to sign a petition to get Elon
> to turn on D2C (direct-to-cell) over Iran, and it's phrasing it in such
> a way that it'd "turn the lights on".
>
> My 5 cents worth:
>
> Jamming: Over every location in Iran, there are several dozen Starlink
> satellites visible at any one time that Dishys on the ground can in
> principle communicate with (read: 25 deg plus above the horizon and
> clear of the geostationary arc). There are purportedly tens of thousands
> of Dishys in the country. Each of those Dishys (when working)
> communicates with one of the satellites, and does so by pointing a beam
> at the satellite - which points a beam back. Even two Dishys in close
> vicinity of each other generally talk to different satellites.
>
> To jam communication between a Dishy and a satellite you have to insert
> the jammer into the transmission path - either by pointing it at the
> satellite's receiver, or by pointing it at the Dishy. In either case,
> you want to do so ideally from the direction of the respective
> transmitter that the receiver is listening to, because there isn't all
> that much sensitivity if you're jamming off beam. Basically, because
> signal power drops of with the square of the distance, you need to be
> fairly close to a Dishy in order to out-shout the transmitter at the far
> end of the beam if you're trying to jam from outside the beam.
>
> Jamming the main traffic channels to Dishy is an uphill task - for a
> total blackout, you'd have to cover a good part of the 2 GHz total in
> Ku with sufficient power in terms of spectral density to cause mischief.
> Not easy.
>
> Likewise, pointing your jammer at the satellite(s) is mission impossible
> because there's every chance that the satellites will be listening to
> Dishys that are in a different direction from you.
>
> There would I guess be some opportunity in terms of jamming management
> channels (e.g., access grant channel) but even this is complex with that
> number of satellites around.
>
> Plus those babies move, so you need jammers that can track. And 15
> seconds after you're worked out what you need to point where, Starlink
> changes the game on you.
>
> The Independent quotes "a specialist in digital repression and associate
> director of the Technology Threats and Opportunities Program at Witness"
> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-internet-blackout-protest-starlink-musk-b2900101.html
> saying that they think it's GPS jamming. For all I know Starlink doesn't
> need GPS - while Dishys have GPS receivers, Starlink's got its own
> positioning system, too. Also, GPS jamming is fairly common globally and
> it's not known to be impairing Starlink all that much.
>
> D2C: Maybe someone should have asked the NZ Commerce Commission for
> advice first. They figured out a long time ago that D2C isn't quite
> there yet (and may never get fully there). It's only capable of
> supporting a comparatively small number of devices per unit area on the
> ground, and apart from a small number of premium phones, with text and
> perhaps RCS/MMS only. And that's with a telco on the ground that's
> actually cooperating and making frequencies available. One NZ, the New
> Zealand telco who partners with SpaceX on the D2C here, had its
> marketing department shouting the virtues from the rooftops until the
> Commerce Commission filed criminal charges. They're still in the game
> but when I bought a new mobile phone the other day, it took me several
> minutes to find the page that listed compatible phones. The service is
> now a little less prominent on their home page - you have to scroll a
> little to find it. Also, word doesn't seem to have gotten around that
> your mobile phone - even if satellite-capable - will connect to
> terrestrial networks with priority. So Iranians would have to go pretty
> far out into the desert just to TXT. Oh, and cellphones are a lot easier
> to jam than Dishys...
>
> Of course, that's not the only consideration here. Using Starlink is
> illegal in Iran, and I guess getting caught with a Dishy is a bit risky
> there at the moment. But RF direction finding 50k+ Dishys that change
> transmit frequency a couple of times a minute isn't trivial: It requires
> specialised equipment and skill, both of which are likely to be in short
> supply at the moment. So I suppose visual identification of Dishys (from
> the air or high rise buildings) might be a more promising tactic. But of
> course they can be camouflaged to an extent as well as moved.
>
> Also, Starlink tends to be more of a technology for underserved rural
> areas rather than cities in countries with high Internet penetration
> rates - which Iran is one of. So it's likely that many of the tens of
> thousands of Dishys are in rural locations where there haven't been any
> large protests.
>
>
> --
> ****************************************************************
> 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 and Iran

[Ulrich Speidel]

Military-grade GPS kind of lost its exclusivity a long time ago when 
people came up with DGPS (differential GPS), where a local reference 
station with known position transmits a "delta" signal to the GPS signal 
received at that location. And then of course came GLONASS & Co., so 
there's currently about four GPS-like systems out there, and most modern 
receivers support all. That said - these signals can all be interfered 
with and spoofed.

For Starlink, precision location isn't actually required (it's enough 
for Dishy to know which cell it's in because that determines the 
beams).  But GPS receiver chips are cheap and extra position accuracy 
doesn't do any harm.

On 16/01/2026 6:10 am, J Pan wrote:
> easier to attack gps?
> https://github.com/narimangharib/starlink-iran-gps-spoofing/blob/main/starlink-iran.md
> although not all technically correct. "inhibitGps" is a user choice
> through the mobile app ("Use Starlink positioning exclusively") not
> system determination, but gps spoofing is indeed there. starlink could
> be authorized to decode military-grade gps signals as well?
> --
> J Pan, UVic CSc, ECS566, 250-472-5796 (NO VM), Pan@UVic.CA, Web.UVic.CA/~pan
>
-- 
****************************************************************
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 and Iran

[Ulrich Speidel]

On 16/01/2026 12:17 am, David Lang wrote:
>
> In terms of tracking/jamming the dishys normal signal, I think it 
> would be easier to track/jam their wifi signal, those default to SSID 
> STARLINK and will be in a known MAC range. disabling wifi and only 
> working with a wired connection is going to be much safer (admittedly, 
> less convienient, but when they are threatening to kill you if you use 
> a dishy, you should batch upload via a wired connection, not try to 
> livestream the protests, at least, not unless you are truely mobile)

That's a good point, but the SSID is easily changed of course and I 
guess the MAC range part could be addressed via an OTA update (which 
SpaceX know how to do).

That said, the router Wi-Fi signal is really quite limited in range. If 
one keeps it indoors and maybe wrapped in some aluminium foil, its range 
is metres at most. Enough to do uploading when you're home but not 
enough to do DF-ing from the outside.

-- 
****************************************************************
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 and Iran

[Oleg Kutkov]

Actually, a precise location is required to calculate the uplink beam.
For the downlink, it's not so critical (at least for the initial 
sky_search procedure), since the satellite beam covers the whole cell.
But the uplink beam is quite narrow, and the terminal needs to pinpoint 
the moving satellite.
 From my experiments, shifting the GPS data for more than 2km breaks the 
math and disrupts the connection. With an incorrect position, Starlink 
is stuck in NO_SCHEDULE mode.

On 1/15/26 22:07, Ulrich Speidel via Starlink wrote:
> Military-grade GPS kind of lost its exclusivity a long time ago when 
> people came up with DGPS (differential GPS), where a local reference 
> station with known position transmits a "delta" signal to the GPS 
> signal received at that location. And then of course came GLONASS & 
> Co., so there's currently about four GPS-like systems out there, and 
> most modern receivers support all. That said - these signals can all 
> be interfered with and spoofed.
>
> For Starlink, precision location isn't actually required (it's enough 
> for Dishy to know which cell it's in because that determines the 
> beams).  But GPS receiver chips are cheap and extra position accuracy 
> doesn't do any harm.
>
> On 16/01/2026 6:10 am, J Pan wrote:
>> easier to attack gps?
>> https://github.com/narimangharib/starlink-iran-gps-spoofing/blob/main/starlink-iran.md 
>>
>> although not all technically correct. "inhibitGps" is a user choice
>> through the mobile app ("Use Starlink positioning exclusively") not
>> system determination, but gps spoofing is indeed there. starlink could
>> be authorized to decode military-grade gps signals as well?
>> -- 
>> J Pan, UVic CSc, ECS566, 250-472-5796 (NO VM), Pan@UVic.CA, 
>> Web.UVic.CA/~pan
>>
-- 
Best regards,
Oleg Kutkov

[Starlink] Re: Starlink and Iran

[Ulrich Speidel]

I suspect (and may be wrong there) it's not that the uplink beam is 
narrow: That would be hard to do with an antenna that's size limited by 
the need to keep it a consumer device that the customer can be expected 
to handle and install. Rather, I suspect that it's the compute overhead 
involved at the ground end when it comes to recalculating the correct 
phases for tracking the fast-moving satellite. Basically, if you had 
unlimited compute power at the Dishy, you could recompute the beam 
frequently enough to always keep the satellite at the centre of the 
beam. Instead, if you position the beam such that the satellite moves 
across it, you can wait with recomputation until the satellite is about 
to leave the beam. This means less computation, cheaper chips, and less 
power use.

That all said, a 2 km deviation isn't what I had in mind with "precision 
location" - I was thinking more of the type of deviation seen when the 
US military still applied "selective availability" to the civilian 
signal, and positions tended to be a few dozen to maybe a couple of 
hundred metres out. The 2 km more than cover this - and your 
observations actually confirm that position accuracy down to a couple of 
metres isn't needed here.

On 16/01/2026 10:47 am, Oleg Kutkov via Starlink wrote:
> Actually, a precise location is required to calculate the uplink beam.
> For the downlink, it's not so critical (at least for the initial 
> sky_search procedure), since the satellite beam covers the whole cell.
> But the uplink beam is quite narrow, and the terminal needs to 
> pinpoint the moving satellite.
> From my experiments, shifting the GPS data for more than 2km breaks 
> the math and disrupts the connection. With an incorrect position, 
> Starlink is stuck in NO_SCHEDULE mode.
>
> On 1/15/26 22:07, Ulrich Speidel via Starlink wrote:
>> Military-grade GPS kind of lost its exclusivity a long time ago when 
>> people came up with DGPS (differential GPS), where a local reference 
>> station with known position transmits a "delta" signal to the GPS 
>> signal received at that location. And then of course came GLONASS & 
>> Co., so there's currently about four GPS-like systems out there, and 
>> most modern receivers support all. That said - these signals can all 
>> be interfered with and spoofed.
>>
>> For Starlink, precision location isn't actually required (it's enough 
>> for Dishy to know which cell it's in because that determines the 
>> beams).  But GPS receiver chips are cheap and extra position accuracy 
>> doesn't do any harm.
>>
>> On 16/01/2026 6:10 am, J Pan wrote:
>>> easier to attack gps?
>>> https://github.com/narimangharib/starlink-iran-gps-spoofing/blob/main/starlink-iran.md 
>>>
>>> although not all technically correct. "inhibitGps" is a user choice
>>> through the mobile app ("Use Starlink positioning exclusively") not
>>> system determination, but gps spoofing is indeed there. starlink could
>>> be authorized to decode military-grade gps signals as well?
>>> -- 
>>> J Pan, UVic CSc, ECS566, 250-472-5796 (NO VM), Pan@UVic.CA, 
>>> Web.UVic.CA/~pan
>>>
-- 
****************************************************************
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 and Iran

[Frantisek Borsik]

Starlink Terminal GPS Spoofing/Jamming Detection in Iran:

https://github.com/narimangharib/starlink-iran-gps-spoofing/blob/main/starlink-iran.md


Shared on Twitter:
https://x.com/narimangharib/status/2011426151999193513
<https://x.com/narimangharib/status/2011426151999193513?s=46&t=cDwZQ2vjNXB5mf76dxo5Hw>



All the best,

Frank
Frantisek (Frank) Borsik

In loving memory of Dave Täht: 1965-2025
https://libreqos.io/2025/04/01/in-loving-memory-of-dave/


https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik
Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714
iMessage, mobile: +420775230885
Skype: casioa5302ca
frantisek.borsik@gmail.com


On Fri, 16 Jan 2026 at 5:18 AM, Ulrich Speidel via Starlink <
starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:

> I suspect (and may be wrong there) it's not that the uplink beam is
> narrow: That would be hard to do with an antenna that's size limited by
> the need to keep it a consumer device that the customer can be expected
> to handle and install. Rather, I suspect that it's the compute overhead
> involved at the ground end when it comes to recalculating the correct
> phases for tracking the fast-moving satellite. Basically, if you had
> unlimited compute power at the Dishy, you could recompute the beam
> frequently enough to always keep the satellite at the centre of the
> beam. Instead, if you position the beam such that the satellite moves
> across it, you can wait with recomputation until the satellite is about
> to leave the beam. This means less computation, cheaper chips, and less
> power use.
>
> That all said, a 2 km deviation isn't what I had in mind with "precision
> location" - I was thinking more of the type of deviation seen when the
> US military still applied "selective availability" to the civilian
> signal, and positions tended to be a few dozen to maybe a couple of
> hundred metres out. The 2 km more than cover this - and your
> observations actually confirm that position accuracy down to a couple of
> metres isn't needed here.
>
> On 16/01/2026 10:47 am, Oleg Kutkov via Starlink wrote:
> > Actually, a precise location is required to calculate the uplink beam.
> > For the downlink, it's not so critical (at least for the initial
> > sky_search procedure), since the satellite beam covers the whole cell.
> > But the uplink beam is quite narrow, and the terminal needs to
> > pinpoint the moving satellite.
> > From my experiments, shifting the GPS data for more than 2km breaks
> > the math and disrupts the connection. With an incorrect position,
> > Starlink is stuck in NO_SCHEDULE mode.
> >
> > On 1/15/26 22:07, Ulrich Speidel via Starlink wrote:
> >> Military-grade GPS kind of lost its exclusivity a long time ago when
> >> people came up with DGPS (differential GPS), where a local reference
> >> station with known position transmits a "delta" signal to the GPS
> >> signal received at that location. And then of course came GLONASS &
> >> Co., so there's currently about four GPS-like systems out there, and
> >> most modern receivers support all. That said - these signals can all
> >> be interfered with and spoofed.
> >>
> >> For Starlink, precision location isn't actually required (it's enough
> >> for Dishy to know which cell it's in because that determines the
> >> beams).  But GPS receiver chips are cheap and extra position accuracy
> >> doesn't do any harm.
> >>
> >> On 16/01/2026 6:10 am, J Pan wrote:
> >>> easier to attack gps?
> >>>
> https://github.com/narimangharib/starlink-iran-gps-spoofing/blob/main/starlink-iran.md
> >>>
> >>> although not all technically correct. "inhibitGps" is a user choice
> >>> through the mobile app ("Use Starlink positioning exclusively") not
> >>> system determination, but gps spoofing is indeed there. starlink could
> >>> be authorized to decode military-grade gps signals as well?
> >>> --
> >>> J Pan, UVic CSc, ECS566, 250-472-5796 (NO VM), Pan@UVic.CA,
> >>> Web.UVic.CA/~pan
> >>>
> --
> ****************************************************************
> 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 and Iran

[Inemesit Affia]

Oleg has replied with some caveats

On Fri, Jan 16, 2026, 9:01 AM Frantisek Borsik via Starlink <
starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:

> Starlink Terminal GPS Spoofing/Jamming Detection in Iran:
>
>
> https://github.com/narimangharib/starlink-iran-gps-spoofing/blob/main/starlink-iran.md
>
>
> Shared on Twitter:
> https://x.com/narimangharib/status/2011426151999193513
> <
> https://x.com/narimangharib/status/2011426151999193513?s=46&t=cDwZQ2vjNXB5mf76dxo5Hw
> >
>
>
>
> All the best,
>
> Frank
> Frantisek (Frank) Borsik
>
> In loving memory of Dave Täht: 1965-2025
> https://libreqos.io/2025/04/01/in-loving-memory-of-dave/
>
>
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik
> Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714
> iMessage, mobile: +420775230885
> Skype: casioa5302ca
> frantisek.borsik@gmail.com
>
>
> On Fri, 16 Jan 2026 at 5:18 AM, Ulrich Speidel via Starlink <
> starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>
> > I suspect (and may be wrong there) it's not that the uplink beam is
> > narrow: That would be hard to do with an antenna that's size limited by
> > the need to keep it a consumer device that the customer can be expected
> > to handle and install. Rather, I suspect that it's the compute overhead
> > involved at the ground end when it comes to recalculating the correct
> > phases for tracking the fast-moving satellite. Basically, if you had
> > unlimited compute power at the Dishy, you could recompute the beam
> > frequently enough to always keep the satellite at the centre of the
> > beam. Instead, if you position the beam such that the satellite moves
> > across it, you can wait with recomputation until the satellite is about
> > to leave the beam. This means less computation, cheaper chips, and less
> > power use.
> >
> > That all said, a 2 km deviation isn't what I had in mind with "precision
> > location" - I was thinking more of the type of deviation seen when the
> > US military still applied "selective availability" to the civilian
> > signal, and positions tended to be a few dozen to maybe a couple of
> > hundred metres out. The 2 km more than cover this - and your
> > observations actually confirm that position accuracy down to a couple of
> > metres isn't needed here.
> >
> > On 16/01/2026 10:47 am, Oleg Kutkov via Starlink wrote:
> > > Actually, a precise location is required to calculate the uplink beam.
> > > For the downlink, it's not so critical (at least for the initial
> > > sky_search procedure), since the satellite beam covers the whole cell.
> > > But the uplink beam is quite narrow, and the terminal needs to
> > > pinpoint the moving satellite.
> > > From my experiments, shifting the GPS data for more than 2km breaks
> > > the math and disrupts the connection. With an incorrect position,
> > > Starlink is stuck in NO_SCHEDULE mode.
> > >
> > > On 1/15/26 22:07, Ulrich Speidel via Starlink wrote:
> > >> Military-grade GPS kind of lost its exclusivity a long time ago when
> > >> people came up with DGPS (differential GPS), where a local reference
> > >> station with known position transmits a "delta" signal to the GPS
> > >> signal received at that location. And then of course came GLONASS &
> > >> Co., so there's currently about four GPS-like systems out there, and
> > >> most modern receivers support all. That said - these signals can all
> > >> be interfered with and spoofed.
> > >>
> > >> For Starlink, precision location isn't actually required (it's enough
> > >> for Dishy to know which cell it's in because that determines the
> > >> beams).  But GPS receiver chips are cheap and extra position accuracy
> > >> doesn't do any harm.
> > >>
> > >> On 16/01/2026 6:10 am, J Pan wrote:
> > >>> easier to attack gps?
> > >>>
> >
> https://github.com/narimangharib/starlink-iran-gps-spoofing/blob/main/starlink-iran.md
> > >>>
> > >>> although not all technically correct. "inhibitGps" is a user choice
> > >>> through the mobile app ("Use Starlink positioning exclusively") not
> > >>> system determination, but gps spoofing is indeed there. starlink
> could
> > >>> be authorized to decode military-grade gps signals as well?
> > >>> --
> > >>> J Pan, UVic CSc, ECS566, 250-472-5796 (NO VM), Pan@UVic.CA,
> > >>> Web.UVic.CA/~pan
> > >>>
> > --
> > ****************************************************************
> > 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
>