From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: mail.toke.dk; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lang.hm; dkim=fail; arc=none (Message is not ARC signed); dmarc=none Received: from mail.lang.hm (wsip-70-167-213-146.ph.ph.cox.net [70.167.213.146]) by mail.toke.dk (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6076EBC30F5 for ; Sat, 17 Jan 2026 01:08:00 +0100 (CET) Received: from [10.2.2.53] (unknown [10.2.2.53]) by mail.lang.hm (Postfix) with ESMTP id 330842177ED; Fri, 16 Jan 2026 16:07:58 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2026 17:07:53 -0700 (MST) From: David Lang To: Ulrich Speidel cc: Michael Richardson , starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net In-Reply-To: <1412cd78-ec8e-487f-8086-6ea51b4301a5@auckland.ac.nz> Message-ID: <915noro0-sso2-6p29-oon5-3ss407p3957q@ynat.uz> References: <176851123059.1249.8585659892308012167@gauss> <5ea10a2c-4549-4d7f-9563-c5dc590857b0@auckland.ac.nz> <13187.1768590201@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <1412cd78-ec8e-487f-8086-6ea51b4301a5@auckland.ac.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-ID-Hash: QLRFCHBTFX6WPI2O2HRZLSFLLIIOR4C6 X-Message-ID-Hash: QLRFCHBTFX6WPI2O2HRZLSFLLIIOR4C6 X-MailFrom: david@lang.hm X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list Subject: [Starlink] Re: Starlink and Iran List-Id: "Starlink has bufferbloat. Bad." Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Ulrich Speidel wrote: > On 17/01/2026 8:03 am, Michael Richardson wrote: >> Ulrich Speidel via Starlink wrote: >> here. Why? Because there is a limit on the amount of power per square metre >> and MHz of bandwidth (EPFD) that systems such as Starlink may project onto >> the surface of the Earth. It's an ITU-imposed limit, so the FCC can't really >> do much about it. SpaceX are on public record for not being happy with it and >> with their v2's they're riding right up against that limit. >> 1. Who checks/enforces this ITU limit? > The licensing authorities in the respective countries (i.e., the FCC in the > US - and they're held to account by their competitors, of which SpaceX has a > few in the US). At an international level, if one country were to ignore > this, so would everyone else, which would make space-to-ground comms in these > bands pretty unworkable pretty quickly as there'd be a lot of "my output > power is bigger than yours" happening. One of the main reasons for having > this limit is to ensure GEO sats can get their signals through. Whether the > current level that the limit is set at and the way it's computed is > appropriate is another question, and SpaceX have certainly tried to litigate > that before the FCC. have you looked at what the latest changes allow? >> 2. Could the physically satellites go higher over some territory? How much >> higher? >> I assume it's software controlled. > A satellite has three types of energy that determine its orbital motion: > Potential energy from orbital height, kinetic energy from moving, and energy > stored in its thruster fuel. I think he's talking about the radio energy at the receiver, not satellite energy. David Lang