[Starlink] Starlink Roaming

[Starlink] Starlink Roaming

[Jonathan Bennett]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 399 bytes --]

A Reddit user seems to have observed Starlink doing true roaming today:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/ssj464/starlink_roaming_is_working/

It appears that there is now a system in place for Starlink to re-connect
even if you are outside your official service cell. For those of us who
want to use Starlink on vacations or other trips, this is quite the
development.

--Jonathan Bennett

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 563 bytes --]

Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming

[David Lang]

I asked starlink about temp service away from my registered location, they said 
I have two options

1. formally change the service location (if approved, guaranteed to work, but 
you aren't guaranteed to be able to change the service location back)

2. best effort, set it up and try it. Service may perfect, or may be worse (all 
the way to non-existant) depending on how many other dishes are in use in the 
area.

I've done some limited testing with my dish within about 15 miles of my 
registered location (in both cases with less than optimal sky views) and it's 
worked without a hitch. I plan to do a test further away this weekend (but in a 
less populated area, so I have high hopes)

David Lang

On Mon, 14 Feb 2022, Jonathan Bennett wrote:

> It appears that there is now a system in place for Starlink to re-connect
> even if you are outside your official service cell. For those of us who
> want to use Starlink on vacations or other trips, this is quite the
> development.
>
> --Jonathan Bennett
>

Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming

[Mike Puchol]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1835 bytes --]

About three weeks ago, I got word from Starlink that anything resembling “true roaming” was not in the short-terms books, as it presents many issues. You can move your service address, but you are not guaranteed to be able to “come back”, as your slot in the cell could then be filled by someone on the waiting list.

Otherwise, they would need to keep an amount of empty floating slots in every cell, which would be wasteful. I anticipate roaming to be a paid feature, at least for non-premium plans.

Best,

Mike
On Feb 14, 2022, 21:29 +0100, David Lang <david@lang.hm>, wrote:
> I asked starlink about temp service away from my registered location, they said
> I have two options
>
> 1. formally change the service location (if approved, guaranteed to work, but
> you aren't guaranteed to be able to change the service location back)
>
> 2. best effort, set it up and try it. Service may perfect, or may be worse (all
> the way to non-existant) depending on how many other dishes are in use in the
> area.
>
> I've done some limited testing with my dish within about 15 miles of my
> registered location (in both cases with less than optimal sky views) and it's
> worked without a hitch. I plan to do a test further away this weekend (but in a
> less populated area, so I have high hopes)
>
> David Lang
>
> On Mon, 14 Feb 2022, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
>
> > It appears that there is now a system in place for Starlink to re-connect
> > even if you are outside your official service cell. For those of us who
> > want to use Starlink on vacations or other trips, this is quite the
> > development.
> >
> > --Jonathan Bennett
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2435 bytes --]

Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming

[Jonathan Bennett]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2208 bytes --]

I thought it was further out, too. But, Tuck seems to be getting service
100 km away from his registered address. If there isn't more info available
in the next 24 hours, I plan to take a drive myself and see what happens
when I get outside my cell.

On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 3:44 PM Mike Puchol <mike@starlink.sx> wrote:

> About three weeks ago, I got word from Starlink that anything resembling
> “true roaming” was not in the short-terms books, as it presents many
> issues. You can move your service address, but you are not guaranteed to be
> able to “come back”, as your slot in the cell could then be filled by
> someone on the waiting list.
>
> Otherwise, they would need to keep an amount of empty floating slots in
> every cell, which would be wasteful. I anticipate roaming to be a paid
> feature, at least for non-premium plans.
>
> Best,
>
> Mike
> On Feb 14, 2022, 21:29 +0100, David Lang <david@lang.hm>, wrote:
>
> I asked starlink about temp service away from my registered location, they
> said
> I have two options
>
> 1. formally change the service location (if approved, guaranteed to work,
> but
> you aren't guaranteed to be able to change the service location back)
>
> 2. best effort, set it up and try it. Service may perfect, or may be worse
> (all
> the way to non-existant) depending on how many other dishes are in use in
> the
> area.
>
> I've done some limited testing with my dish within about 15 miles of my
> registered location (in both cases with less than optimal sky views) and
> it's
> worked without a hitch. I plan to do a test further away this weekend (but
> in a
> less populated area, so I have high hopes)
>
> David Lang
>
> On Mon, 14 Feb 2022, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
>
> It appears that there is now a system in place for Starlink to re-connect
> even if you are outside your official service cell. For those of us who
> want to use Starlink on vacations or other trips, this is quite the
> development.
>
> --Jonathan Bennett
>
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3039 bytes --]

Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming

[Mike Puchol]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2667 bytes --]

Great, let us know. On Thu/Fri I will receive a second UT for an address that is 150km away from me, if I turn it on here, and it works, we will have one more indication.

Best,

Mike
On Feb 14, 2022, 22:53 +0100, Jonathan Bennett <jonathanbennett@hackaday.com>, wrote:
> I thought it was further out, too. But, Tuck seems to be getting service 100 km away from his registered address. If there isn't more info available in the next 24 hours, I plan to take a drive myself and see what happens when I get outside my cell.
>
> > On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 3:44 PM Mike Puchol <mike@starlink.sx> wrote:
> > > About three weeks ago, I got word from Starlink that anything resembling “true roaming” was not in the short-terms books, as it presents many issues. You can move your service address, but you are not guaranteed to be able to “come back”, as your slot in the cell could then be filled by someone on the waiting list.
> > >
> > > Otherwise, they would need to keep an amount of empty floating slots in every cell, which would be wasteful. I anticipate roaming to be a paid feature, at least for non-premium plans.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > >
> > > Mike
> > > On Feb 14, 2022, 21:29 +0100, David Lang <david@lang.hm>, wrote:
> > > > I asked starlink about temp service away from my registered location, they said
> > > > I have two options
> > > >
> > > > 1. formally change the service location (if approved, guaranteed to work, but
> > > > you aren't guaranteed to be able to change the service location back)
> > > >
> > > > 2. best effort, set it up and try it. Service may perfect, or may be worse (all
> > > > the way to non-existant) depending on how many other dishes are in use in the
> > > > area.
> > > >
> > > > I've done some limited testing with my dish within about 15 miles of my
> > > > registered location (in both cases with less than optimal sky views) and it's
> > > > worked without a hitch. I plan to do a test further away this weekend (but in a
> > > > less populated area, so I have high hopes)
> > > >
> > > > David Lang
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 14 Feb 2022, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > It appears that there is now a system in place for Starlink to re-connect
> > > > > even if you are outside your official service cell. For those of us who
> > > > > want to use Starlink on vacations or other trips, this is quite the
> > > > > development.
> > > > >
> > > > > --Jonathan Bennett
> > > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Starlink mailing list
> > > > Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> > > > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3818 bytes --]

Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming

[Larry Press]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1984 bytes --]

David brought his dish to my location -- about fifty miles from his service loacation and in a different cell and it could not connect. We had a clear view of the entire sky. He speculated that that was because it was registered to use a specific ground station that was out of range at my place. Does that seem reasonable?

Larry Press
________________________________
From: Starlink <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> on behalf of David Lang <david@lang.hm>
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 12:29 PM
To: Jonathan Bennett <jonathanbennett@hackaday.com>
Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming

I asked starlink about temp service away from my registered location, they said
I have two options

1. formally change the service location (if approved, guaranteed to work, but
you aren't guaranteed to be able to change the service location back)

2. best effort, set it up and try it. Service may perfect, or may be worse (all
the way to non-existant) depending on how many other dishes are in use in the
area.

I've done some limited testing with my dish within about 15 miles of my
registered location (in both cases with less than optimal sky views) and it's
worked without a hitch. I plan to do a test further away this weekend (but in a
less populated area, so I have high hopes)

David Lang

On Mon, 14 Feb 2022, Jonathan Bennett wrote:

> It appears that there is now a system in place for Starlink to re-connect
> even if you are outside your official service cell. For those of us who
> want to use Starlink on vacations or other trips, this is quite the
> development.
>
> --Jonathan Bennett
>
_______________________________________________
Starlink mailing list
Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink__;!!P7nkOOY!txPxU76SxJ4JvYe2kDjl5OcuAgSIb7mkHWuCMgt3eSH3Tec--6vePH_RCs0NVt6n2TE6_9HsG20fOA$

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3276 bytes --]

Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming

[David Lang]

tonight I took it to a friends house about 25 miles away and within a couple min 
it gave me an error message saying that I wasn't at my assigned location.

David Lang

On Mon, 21 Feb 2022, Larry Press wrote:

> Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2022 07:22:44 +0000
> From: Larry Press <lpress@csudh.edu>
> To: David Lang <david@lang.hm>,
>     Jonathan Bennett <jonathanbennett@hackaday.com>
> Cc: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net" <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming
> 
> David brought his dish to my location -- about fifty miles from his service loacation and in a different cell and it could not connect. We had a clear view of the entire sky. He speculated that that was because it was registered to use a specific ground station that was out of range at my place. Does that seem reasonable?
>
> Larry Press
> ________________________________
> From: Starlink <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> on behalf of David Lang <david@lang.hm>
> Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 12:29 PM
> To: Jonathan Bennett <jonathanbennett@hackaday.com>
> Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming
>
> I asked starlink about temp service away from my registered location, they said
> I have two options
>
> 1. formally change the service location (if approved, guaranteed to work, but
> you aren't guaranteed to be able to change the service location back)
>
> 2. best effort, set it up and try it. Service may perfect, or may be worse (all
> the way to non-existant) depending on how many other dishes are in use in the
> area.
>
> I've done some limited testing with my dish within about 15 miles of my
> registered location (in both cases with less than optimal sky views) and it's
> worked without a hitch. I plan to do a test further away this weekend (but in a
> less populated area, so I have high hopes)
>
> David Lang
>
> On Mon, 14 Feb 2022, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
>
>> It appears that there is now a system in place for Starlink to re-connect
>> even if you are outside your official service cell. For those of us who
>> want to use Starlink on vacations or other trips, this is quite the
>> development.
>>
>> --Jonathan Bennett
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink__;!!P7nkOOY!txPxU76SxJ4JvYe2kDjl5OcuAgSIb7mkHWuCMgt3eSH3Tec--6vePH_RCs0NVt6n2TE6_9HsG20fOA$
>

Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming

[Dick Roy]

What does your contract say about the "where" you can expect service from
your dishy?  I suspect the system is capable of tracking all users at all
times they're in coverage which is how they could/would enforce a
contractual limitation/constraint.

RR

-----Original Message-----
From: Starlink [mailto:starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net] On Behalf Of
David Lang
Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2022 11:30 PM
To: Larry Press
Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
Subject: Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming

tonight I took it to a friends house about 25 miles away and within a couple
min 
it gave me an error message saying that I wasn't at my assigned location.

David Lang

On Mon, 21 Feb 2022, Larry Press wrote:

> Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2022 07:22:44 +0000
> From: Larry Press <lpress@csudh.edu>
> To: David Lang <david@lang.hm>,
>     Jonathan Bennett <jonathanbennett@hackaday.com>
> Cc: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net" <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming
> 
> David brought his dish to my location -- about fifty miles from his
service loacation and in a different cell and it could not connect. We had a
clear view of the entire sky. He speculated that that was because it was
registered to use a specific ground station that was out of range at my
place. Does that seem reasonable?
>
> Larry Press
> ________________________________
> From: Starlink <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> on behalf of David
Lang <david@lang.hm>
> Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 12:29 PM
> To: Jonathan Bennett <jonathanbennett@hackaday.com>
> Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming
>
> I asked starlink about temp service away from my registered location, they
said
> I have two options
>
> 1. formally change the service location (if approved, guaranteed to work,
but
> you aren't guaranteed to be able to change the service location back)
>
> 2. best effort, set it up and try it. Service may perfect, or may be worse
(all
> the way to non-existant) depending on how many other dishes are in use in
the
> area.
>
> I've done some limited testing with my dish within about 15 miles of my
> registered location (in both cases with less than optimal sky views) and
it's
> worked without a hitch. I plan to do a test further away this weekend (but
in a
> less populated area, so I have high hopes)
>
> David Lang
>
> On Mon, 14 Feb 2022, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
>
>> It appears that there is now a system in place for Starlink to re-connect
>> even if you are outside your official service cell. For those of us who
>> want to use Starlink on vacations or other trips, this is quite the
>> development.
>>
>> --Jonathan Bennett
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink_
_;!!P7nkOOY!txPxU76SxJ4JvYe2kDjl5OcuAgSIb7mkHWuCMgt3eSH3Tec--6vePH_RCs0NVt6n
2TE6_9HsG20fOA$
>
_______________________________________________
Starlink mailing list
Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink

Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming

[Mike Puchol]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4214 bytes --]

From what I have observed, there is a new “roaming” flag in terminal properties that determines roaming capability. Mine is false, and I could not get service if I set the service address too far.

The way the UT does it is, after startup, it moves to zero tilt, then searches and registers with any passing satellite, likely using a low-rate, omnidireccional beacon. The backend then informs the terminal if it is out of its service address, and if so, it will just sit there doing nothing (although it does periodically send stuff).

Best,

Mike
On Feb 21, 2022, 23:31 +0300, Dick Roy <dickroy@alum.mit.edu>, wrote:
> What does your contract say about the "where" you can expect service from
> your dishy? I suspect the system is capable of tracking all users at all
> times they're in coverage which is how they could/would enforce a
> contractual limitation/constraint.
>
> RR
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Starlink [mailto:starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net] On Behalf Of
> David Lang
> Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2022 11:30 PM
> To: Larry Press
> Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming
>
> tonight I took it to a friends house about 25 miles away and within a couple
> min
> it gave me an error message saying that I wasn't at my assigned location.
>
> David Lang
>
> On Mon, 21 Feb 2022, Larry Press wrote:
>
> > Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2022 07:22:44 +0000
> > From: Larry Press <lpress@csudh.edu>
> > To: David Lang <david@lang.hm>,
> > Jonathan Bennett <jonathanbennett@hackaday.com>
> > Cc: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net" <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> > Subject: Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming
> >
> > David brought his dish to my location -- about fifty miles from his
> service loacation and in a different cell and it could not connect. We had a
> clear view of the entire sky. He speculated that that was because it was
> registered to use a specific ground station that was out of range at my
> place. Does that seem reasonable?
> >
> > Larry Press
> > ________________________________
> > From: Starlink <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> on behalf of David
> Lang <david@lang.hm>
> > Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 12:29 PM
> > To: Jonathan Bennett <jonathanbennett@hackaday.com>
> > Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> > Subject: Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming
> >
> > I asked starlink about temp service away from my registered location, they
> said
> > I have two options
> >
> > 1. formally change the service location (if approved, guaranteed to work,
> but
> > you aren't guaranteed to be able to change the service location back)
> >
> > 2. best effort, set it up and try it. Service may perfect, or may be worse
> (all
> > the way to non-existant) depending on how many other dishes are in use in
> the
> > area.
> >
> > I've done some limited testing with my dish within about 15 miles of my
> > registered location (in both cases with less than optimal sky views) and
> it's
> > worked without a hitch. I plan to do a test further away this weekend (but
> in a
> > less populated area, so I have high hopes)
> >
> > David Lang
> >
> > On Mon, 14 Feb 2022, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
> >
> > > It appears that there is now a system in place for Starlink to re-connect
> > > even if you are outside your official service cell. For those of us who
> > > want to use Starlink on vacations or other trips, this is quite the
> > > development.
> > >
> > > --Jonathan Bennett
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Starlink mailing list
> > Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> >
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink_
> _;!!P7nkOOY!txPxU76SxJ4JvYe2kDjl5OcuAgSIb7mkHWuCMgt3eSH3Tec--6vePH_RCs0NVt6n
> 2TE6_9HsG20fOA$
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5404 bytes --]

Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming

[David Lang]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4994 bytes --]

that's what happened when I tried to use it ~60 miles away, but when I tried to 
use it ~25 miles away I got the attached error very quickly.

I've used it at a couple locations 5-10 miles away without a problem

I asked starlink support about roaming and it's currently not supported, you can 
change the registered location, and if a slot is available, they'll approve it 
and guarantee service (view of the sky permitting). But when you do that you 
give up the slot at your home location and are not guaranteed to be able to move 
it back.

They told me that I could try it, and it may work, may be degraded a bit, or may 
not work at all. They do plan to add roaming capabilities in the future (my 
guess is that the laser satellites will enable a lot more flexibility)

David Lang

On Mon, 21 Feb 2022, Mike Puchol wrote:

> From what I have observed, there is a new “roaming” flag in terminal properties that determines roaming capability. Mine is false, and I could not get service if I set the service address too far.
>
> The way the UT does it is, after startup, it moves to zero tilt, then searches and registers with any passing satellite, likely using a low-rate, omnidireccional beacon. The backend then informs the terminal if it is out of its service address, and if so, it will just sit there doing nothing (although it does periodically send stuff).
>
> Best,
>
> Mike
> On Feb 21, 2022, 23:31 +0300, Dick Roy <dickroy@alum.mit.edu>, wrote:
>> What does your contract say about the "where" you can expect service from
>> your dishy? I suspect the system is capable of tracking all users at all
>> times they're in coverage which is how they could/would enforce a
>> contractual limitation/constraint.
>>
>> RR
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Starlink [mailto:starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net] On Behalf Of
>> David Lang
>> Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2022 11:30 PM
>> To: Larry Press
>> Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming
>>
>> tonight I took it to a friends house about 25 miles away and within a couple
>> min
>> it gave me an error message saying that I wasn't at my assigned location.
>>
>> David Lang
>>
>> On Mon, 21 Feb 2022, Larry Press wrote:
>>
>>> Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2022 07:22:44 +0000
>>> From: Larry Press <lpress@csudh.edu>
>>> To: David Lang <david@lang.hm>,
>>> Jonathan Bennett <jonathanbennett@hackaday.com>
>>> Cc: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net" <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming
>>>
>>> David brought his dish to my location -- about fifty miles from his
>> service loacation and in a different cell and it could not connect. We had a
>> clear view of the entire sky. He speculated that that was because it was
>> registered to use a specific ground station that was out of range at my
>> place. Does that seem reasonable?
>>>
>>> Larry Press
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Starlink <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> on behalf of David
>> Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>> Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 12:29 PM
>>> To: Jonathan Bennett <jonathanbennett@hackaday.com>
>>> Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming
>>>
>>> I asked starlink about temp service away from my registered location, they
>> said
>>> I have two options
>>>
>>> 1. formally change the service location (if approved, guaranteed to work,
>> but
>>> you aren't guaranteed to be able to change the service location back)
>>>
>>> 2. best effort, set it up and try it. Service may perfect, or may be worse
>> (all
>>> the way to non-existant) depending on how many other dishes are in use in
>> the
>>> area.
>>>
>>> I've done some limited testing with my dish within about 15 miles of my
>>> registered location (in both cases with less than optimal sky views) and
>> it's
>>> worked without a hitch. I plan to do a test further away this weekend (but
>> in a
>>> less populated area, so I have high hopes)
>>>
>>> David Lang
>>>
>>> On Mon, 14 Feb 2022, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
>>>
>>>> It appears that there is now a system in place for Starlink to re-connect
>>>> even if you are outside your official service cell. For those of us who
>>>> want to use Starlink on vacations or other trips, this is quite the
>>>> development.
>>>>
>>>> --Jonathan Bennett
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Starlink mailing list
>>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink_
>> _;!!P7nkOOY!txPxU76SxJ4JvYe2kDjl5OcuAgSIb7mkHWuCMgt3eSH3Tec--6vePH_RCs0NVt6n
>> 2TE6_9HsG20fOA$
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Starlink mailing list
>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Starlink mailing list
>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: image/png, Size: 634326 bytes --]

Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming

[Dick Roy]

What is involved in "setting the service address"??

Do dishy's have IMUs (aka some means for determining attitude w.r.t. the
local gravitational vector and true or magnetic north) or GPS modules (or
both)???

I am somewhat skeptical that the system would be able to locate a UT just
based on zero tilt transmissions from the UT. I am guessing something a bit
more complex is transpiring, like some rudimentary form of SDMA (aka
spatio-temporal resource allocation).

RR

-----Original Message-----
From: David Lang [mailto:david@lang.hm] 
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2022 12:53 PM
To: Mike Puchol
Cc: 'David Lang'; 'Larry Press'; dickroy@alum.mit.edu;
starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
Subject: Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming

that's what happened when I tried to use it ~60 miles away, but when I tried
to 
use it ~25 miles away I got the attached error very quickly.

I've used it at a couple locations 5-10 miles away without a problem

I asked starlink support about roaming and it's currently not supported, you
can 
change the registered location, and if a slot is available, they'll approve
it 
and guarantee service (view of the sky permitting). But when you do that you

give up the slot at your home location and are not guaranteed to be able to
move 
it back.

They told me that I could try it, and it may work, may be degraded a bit, or
may 
not work at all. They do plan to add roaming capabilities in the future (my 
guess is that the laser satellites will enable a lot more flexibility)

David Lang

On Mon, 21 Feb 2022, Mike Puchol wrote:

> From what I have observed, there is a new "roaming" flag in terminal
properties that determines roaming capability. Mine is false, and I could
not get service if I set the service address too far.
>
> The way the UT does it is, after startup, it moves to zero tilt, then
searches and registers with any passing satellite, likely using a low-rate,
omnidireccional beacon. The backend then informs the terminal if it is out
of its service address, and if so, it will just sit there doing nothing
(although it does periodically send stuff).
>
> Best,
>
> Mike
> On Feb 21, 2022, 23:31 +0300, Dick Roy <dickroy@alum.mit.edu>, wrote:
>> What does your contract say about the "where" you can expect service from
>> your dishy? I suspect the system is capable of tracking all users at all
>> times they're in coverage which is how they could/would enforce a
>> contractual limitation/constraint.
>>
>> RR
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Starlink [mailto:starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net] On Behalf
Of
>> David Lang
>> Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2022 11:30 PM
>> To: Larry Press
>> Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming
>>
>> tonight I took it to a friends house about 25 miles away and within a
couple
>> min
>> it gave me an error message saying that I wasn't at my assigned location.
>>
>> David Lang
>>
>> On Mon, 21 Feb 2022, Larry Press wrote:
>>
>>> Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2022 07:22:44 +0000
>>> From: Larry Press <lpress@csudh.edu>
>>> To: David Lang <david@lang.hm>,
>>> Jonathan Bennett <jonathanbennett@hackaday.com>
>>> Cc: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net" <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming
>>>
>>> David brought his dish to my location -- about fifty miles from his
>> service loacation and in a different cell and it could not connect. We
had a
>> clear view of the entire sky. He speculated that that was because it was
>> registered to use a specific ground station that was out of range at my
>> place. Does that seem reasonable?
>>>
>>> Larry Press
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Starlink <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> on behalf of
David
>> Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>> Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 12:29 PM
>>> To: Jonathan Bennett <jonathanbennett@hackaday.com>
>>> Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming
>>>
>>> I asked starlink about temp service away from my registered location,
they
>> said
>>> I have two options
>>>
>>> 1. formally change the service location (if approved, guaranteed to
work,
>> but
>>> you aren't guaranteed to be able to change the service location back)
>>>
>>> 2. best effort, set it up and try it. Service may perfect, or may be
worse
>> (all
>>> the way to non-existant) depending on how many other dishes are in use
in
>> the
>>> area.
>>>
>>> I've done some limited testing with my dish within about 15 miles of my
>>> registered location (in both cases with less than optimal sky views) and
>> it's
>>> worked without a hitch. I plan to do a test further away this weekend
(but
>> in a
>>> less populated area, so I have high hopes)
>>>
>>> David Lang
>>>
>>> On Mon, 14 Feb 2022, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
>>>
>>>> It appears that there is now a system in place for Starlink to
re-connect
>>>> even if you are outside your official service cell. For those of us who
>>>> want to use Starlink on vacations or other trips, this is quite the
>>>> development.
>>>>
>>>> --Jonathan Bennett
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Starlink mailing list
>>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>
>>
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink_
>>
_;!!P7nkOOY!txPxU76SxJ4JvYe2kDjl5OcuAgSIb7mkHWuCMgt3eSH3Tec--6vePH_RCs0NVt6n
>> 2TE6_9HsG20fOA$
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Starlink mailing list
>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Starlink mailing list
>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>

Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming

[David Lang]

On Mon, 21 Feb 2022, Dick Roy wrote:

> What is involved in "setting the service address"??

fairly simple, enter it in the website or contact support

> Do dishy's have IMUs (aka some means for determining attitude w.r.t. the
> local gravitational vector and true or magnetic north) or GPS modules (or
> both)???

we know the first version has a gps module in it, and you really need a phone to 
set it up (and the phone app has access to your location)

David Lang

> I am somewhat skeptical that the system would be able to locate a UT just
> based on zero tilt transmissions from the UT. I am guessing something a bit
> more complex is transpiring, like some rudimentary form of SDMA (aka
> spatio-temporal resource allocation).
>
> RR
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Lang [mailto:david@lang.hm]
> Sent: Monday, February 21, 2022 12:53 PM
> To: Mike Puchol
> Cc: 'David Lang'; 'Larry Press'; dickroy@alum.mit.edu;
> starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming
>
> that's what happened when I tried to use it ~60 miles away, but when I tried
> to
> use it ~25 miles away I got the attached error very quickly.
>
> I've used it at a couple locations 5-10 miles away without a problem
>
> I asked starlink support about roaming and it's currently not supported, you
> can
> change the registered location, and if a slot is available, they'll approve
> it
> and guarantee service (view of the sky permitting). But when you do that you
>
> give up the slot at your home location and are not guaranteed to be able to
> move
> it back.
>
> They told me that I could try it, and it may work, may be degraded a bit, or
> may
> not work at all. They do plan to add roaming capabilities in the future (my
> guess is that the laser satellites will enable a lot more flexibility)
>
> David Lang
>
> On Mon, 21 Feb 2022, Mike Puchol wrote:
>
>> From what I have observed, there is a new "roaming" flag in terminal
> properties that determines roaming capability. Mine is false, and I could
> not get service if I set the service address too far.
>>
>> The way the UT does it is, after startup, it moves to zero tilt, then
> searches and registers with any passing satellite, likely using a low-rate,
> omnidireccional beacon. The backend then informs the terminal if it is out
> of its service address, and if so, it will just sit there doing nothing
> (although it does periodically send stuff).
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Mike
>> On Feb 21, 2022, 23:31 +0300, Dick Roy <dickroy@alum.mit.edu>, wrote:
>>> What does your contract say about the "where" you can expect service from
>>> your dishy? I suspect the system is capable of tracking all users at all
>>> times they're in coverage which is how they could/would enforce a
>>> contractual limitation/constraint.
>>>
>>> RR
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Starlink [mailto:starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net] On Behalf
> Of
>>> David Lang
>>> Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2022 11:30 PM
>>> To: Larry Press
>>> Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming
>>>
>>> tonight I took it to a friends house about 25 miles away and within a
> couple
>>> min
>>> it gave me an error message saying that I wasn't at my assigned location.
>>>
>>> David Lang
>>>
>>> On Mon, 21 Feb 2022, Larry Press wrote:
>>>
>>>> Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2022 07:22:44 +0000
>>>> From: Larry Press <lpress@csudh.edu>
>>>> To: David Lang <david@lang.hm>,
>>>> Jonathan Bennett <jonathanbennett@hackaday.com>
>>>> Cc: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net" <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming
>>>>
>>>> David brought his dish to my location -- about fifty miles from his
>>> service loacation and in a different cell and it could not connect. We
> had a
>>> clear view of the entire sky. He speculated that that was because it was
>>> registered to use a specific ground station that was out of range at my
>>> place. Does that seem reasonable?
>>>>
>>>> Larry Press
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> From: Starlink <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> on behalf of
> David
>>> Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>>> Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 12:29 PM
>>>> To: Jonathan Bennett <jonathanbennett@hackaday.com>
>>>> Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming
>>>>
>>>> I asked starlink about temp service away from my registered location,
> they
>>> said
>>>> I have two options
>>>>
>>>> 1. formally change the service location (if approved, guaranteed to
> work,
>>> but
>>>> you aren't guaranteed to be able to change the service location back)
>>>>
>>>> 2. best effort, set it up and try it. Service may perfect, or may be
> worse
>>> (all
>>>> the way to non-existant) depending on how many other dishes are in use
> in
>>> the
>>>> area.
>>>>
>>>> I've done some limited testing with my dish within about 15 miles of my
>>>> registered location (in both cases with less than optimal sky views) and
>>> it's
>>>> worked without a hitch. I plan to do a test further away this weekend
> (but
>>> in a
>>>> less populated area, so I have high hopes)
>>>>
>>>> David Lang
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 14 Feb 2022, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It appears that there is now a system in place for Starlink to
> re-connect
>>>>> even if you are outside your official service cell. For those of us who
>>>>> want to use Starlink on vacations or other trips, this is quite the
>>>>> development.
>>>>>
>>>>> --Jonathan Bennett
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Starlink mailing list
>>>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>>
>>>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink_
>>>
> _;!!P7nkOOY!txPxU76SxJ4JvYe2kDjl5OcuAgSIb7mkHWuCMgt3eSH3Tec--6vePH_RCs0NVt6n
>>> 2TE6_9HsG20fOA$
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Starlink mailing list
>>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Starlink mailing list
>>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>>
>
>

Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming

[Nathan Owens]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6888 bytes --]

Per the debug data, the dish has GPS, a Gyroscope, a Magnetometer, and an
Accelerometer.


On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 1:32 PM David Lang <david@lang.hm> wrote:

> On Mon, 21 Feb 2022, Dick Roy wrote:
>
> > What is involved in "setting the service address"??
>
> fairly simple, enter it in the website or contact support
>
> > Do dishy's have IMUs (aka some means for determining attitude w.r.t. the
> > local gravitational vector and true or magnetic north) or GPS modules (or
> > both)???
>
> we know the first version has a gps module in it, and you really need a
> phone to
> set it up (and the phone app has access to your location)
>
> David Lang
>
> > I am somewhat skeptical that the system would be able to locate a UT just
> > based on zero tilt transmissions from the UT. I am guessing something a
> bit
> > more complex is transpiring, like some rudimentary form of SDMA (aka
> > spatio-temporal resource allocation).
> >
> > RR
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Lang [mailto:david@lang.hm]
> > Sent: Monday, February 21, 2022 12:53 PM
> > To: Mike Puchol
> > Cc: 'David Lang'; 'Larry Press'; dickroy@alum.mit.edu;
> > starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> > Subject: Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming
> >
> > that's what happened when I tried to use it ~60 miles away, but when I
> tried
> > to
> > use it ~25 miles away I got the attached error very quickly.
> >
> > I've used it at a couple locations 5-10 miles away without a problem
> >
> > I asked starlink support about roaming and it's currently not supported,
> you
> > can
> > change the registered location, and if a slot is available, they'll
> approve
> > it
> > and guarantee service (view of the sky permitting). But when you do that
> you
> >
> > give up the slot at your home location and are not guaranteed to be able
> to
> > move
> > it back.
> >
> > They told me that I could try it, and it may work, may be degraded a
> bit, or
> > may
> > not work at all. They do plan to add roaming capabilities in the future
> (my
> > guess is that the laser satellites will enable a lot more flexibility)
> >
> > David Lang
> >
> > On Mon, 21 Feb 2022, Mike Puchol wrote:
> >
> >> From what I have observed, there is a new "roaming" flag in terminal
> > properties that determines roaming capability. Mine is false, and I could
> > not get service if I set the service address too far.
> >>
> >> The way the UT does it is, after startup, it moves to zero tilt, then
> > searches and registers with any passing satellite, likely using a
> low-rate,
> > omnidireccional beacon. The backend then informs the terminal if it is
> out
> > of its service address, and if so, it will just sit there doing nothing
> > (although it does periodically send stuff).
> >>
> >> Best,
> >>
> >> Mike
> >> On Feb 21, 2022, 23:31 +0300, Dick Roy <dickroy@alum.mit.edu>, wrote:
> >>> What does your contract say about the "where" you can expect service
> from
> >>> your dishy? I suspect the system is capable of tracking all users at
> all
> >>> times they're in coverage which is how they could/would enforce a
> >>> contractual limitation/constraint.
> >>>
> >>> RR
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Starlink [mailto:starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net] On
> Behalf
> > Of
> >>> David Lang
> >>> Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2022 11:30 PM
> >>> To: Larry Press
> >>> Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> >>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming
> >>>
> >>> tonight I took it to a friends house about 25 miles away and within a
> > couple
> >>> min
> >>> it gave me an error message saying that I wasn't at my assigned
> location.
> >>>
> >>> David Lang
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, 21 Feb 2022, Larry Press wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2022 07:22:44 +0000
> >>>> From: Larry Press <lpress@csudh.edu>
> >>>> To: David Lang <david@lang.hm>,
> >>>> Jonathan Bennett <jonathanbennett@hackaday.com>
> >>>> Cc: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net" <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> >>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming
> >>>>
> >>>> David brought his dish to my location -- about fifty miles from his
> >>> service loacation and in a different cell and it could not connect. We
> > had a
> >>> clear view of the entire sky. He speculated that that was because it
> was
> >>> registered to use a specific ground station that was out of range at my
> >>> place. Does that seem reasonable?
> >>>>
> >>>> Larry Press
> >>>> ________________________________
> >>>> From: Starlink <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> on behalf of
> > David
> >>> Lang <david@lang.hm>
> >>>> Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 12:29 PM
> >>>> To: Jonathan Bennett <jonathanbennett@hackaday.com>
> >>>> Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> >>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming
> >>>>
> >>>> I asked starlink about temp service away from my registered location,
> > they
> >>> said
> >>>> I have two options
> >>>>
> >>>> 1. formally change the service location (if approved, guaranteed to
> > work,
> >>> but
> >>>> you aren't guaranteed to be able to change the service location back)
> >>>>
> >>>> 2. best effort, set it up and try it. Service may perfect, or may be
> > worse
> >>> (all
> >>>> the way to non-existant) depending on how many other dishes are in use
> > in
> >>> the
> >>>> area.
> >>>>
> >>>> I've done some limited testing with my dish within about 15 miles of
> my
> >>>> registered location (in both cases with less than optimal sky views)
> and
> >>> it's
> >>>> worked without a hitch. I plan to do a test further away this weekend
> > (but
> >>> in a
> >>>> less populated area, so I have high hopes)
> >>>>
> >>>> David Lang
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, 14 Feb 2022, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> It appears that there is now a system in place for Starlink to
> > re-connect
> >>>>> even if you are outside your official service cell. For those of us
> who
> >>>>> want to use Starlink on vacations or other trips, this is quite the
> >>>>> development.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --Jonathan Bennett
> >>>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Starlink mailing list
> >>>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> >>>>
> >>>
> >
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink_
> >>>
> >
> _;!!P7nkOOY!txPxU76SxJ4JvYe2kDjl5OcuAgSIb7mkHWuCMgt3eSH3Tec--6vePH_RCs0NVt6n
> >>> 2TE6_9HsG20fOA$
> >>>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Starlink mailing list
> >>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> >>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Starlink mailing list
> >>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> >>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
> >>
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 10825 bytes --]

Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming

[Dick Roy]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6826 bytes --]

Thanks . very interesting and not surprising!

 

  _____  

From: Nathan Owens [mailto:nathan@nathan.io] 
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2022 1:59 PM
To: David Lang
Cc: Dick Roy; starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
Subject: Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming

 

Per the debug data, the dish has GPS, a Gyroscope, a Magnetometer, and an
Accelerometer. 

 

 

On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 1:32 PM David Lang <david@lang.hm> wrote:

On Mon, 21 Feb 2022, Dick Roy wrote:

> What is involved in "setting the service address"??

fairly simple, enter it in the website or contact support

> Do dishy's have IMUs (aka some means for determining attitude w.r.t. the
> local gravitational vector and true or magnetic north) or GPS modules (or
> both)???

we know the first version has a gps module in it, and you really need a
phone to 
set it up (and the phone app has access to your location)

David Lang

> I am somewhat skeptical that the system would be able to locate a UT just
> based on zero tilt transmissions from the UT. I am guessing something a
bit
> more complex is transpiring, like some rudimentary form of SDMA (aka
> spatio-temporal resource allocation).
>
> RR
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Lang [mailto:david@lang.hm]
> Sent: Monday, February 21, 2022 12:53 PM
> To: Mike Puchol
> Cc: 'David Lang'; 'Larry Press'; dickroy@alum.mit.edu;
> starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming
>
> that's what happened when I tried to use it ~60 miles away, but when I
tried
> to
> use it ~25 miles away I got the attached error very quickly.
>
> I've used it at a couple locations 5-10 miles away without a problem
>
> I asked starlink support about roaming and it's currently not supported,
you
> can
> change the registered location, and if a slot is available, they'll
approve
> it
> and guarantee service (view of the sky permitting). But when you do that
you
>
> give up the slot at your home location and are not guaranteed to be able
to
> move
> it back.
>
> They told me that I could try it, and it may work, may be degraded a bit,
or
> may
> not work at all. They do plan to add roaming capabilities in the future
(my
> guess is that the laser satellites will enable a lot more flexibility)
>
> David Lang
>
> On Mon, 21 Feb 2022, Mike Puchol wrote:
>
>> From what I have observed, there is a new "roaming" flag in terminal
> properties that determines roaming capability. Mine is false, and I could
> not get service if I set the service address too far.
>>
>> The way the UT does it is, after startup, it moves to zero tilt, then
> searches and registers with any passing satellite, likely using a
low-rate,
> omnidireccional beacon. The backend then informs the terminal if it is out
> of its service address, and if so, it will just sit there doing nothing
> (although it does periodically send stuff).
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Mike
>> On Feb 21, 2022, 23:31 +0300, Dick Roy <dickroy@alum.mit.edu>, wrote:
>>> What does your contract say about the "where" you can expect service
from
>>> your dishy? I suspect the system is capable of tracking all users at all
>>> times they're in coverage which is how they could/would enforce a
>>> contractual limitation/constraint.
>>>
>>> RR
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Starlink [mailto:starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net] On Behalf
> Of
>>> David Lang
>>> Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2022 11:30 PM
>>> To: Larry Press
>>> Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming
>>>
>>> tonight I took it to a friends house about 25 miles away and within a
> couple
>>> min
>>> it gave me an error message saying that I wasn't at my assigned
location.
>>>
>>> David Lang
>>>
>>> On Mon, 21 Feb 2022, Larry Press wrote:
>>>
>>>> Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2022 07:22:44 +0000
>>>> From: Larry Press <lpress@csudh.edu>
>>>> To: David Lang <david@lang.hm>,
>>>> Jonathan Bennett <jonathanbennett@hackaday.com>
>>>> Cc: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net" <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming
>>>>
>>>> David brought his dish to my location -- about fifty miles from his
>>> service loacation and in a different cell and it could not connect. We
> had a
>>> clear view of the entire sky. He speculated that that was because it was
>>> registered to use a specific ground station that was out of range at my
>>> place. Does that seem reasonable?
>>>>
>>>> Larry Press
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> From: Starlink <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> on behalf of
> David
>>> Lang <david@lang.hm>
>>>> Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 12:29 PM
>>>> To: Jonathan Bennett <jonathanbennett@hackaday.com>
>>>> Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming
>>>>
>>>> I asked starlink about temp service away from my registered location,
> they
>>> said
>>>> I have two options
>>>>
>>>> 1. formally change the service location (if approved, guaranteed to
> work,
>>> but
>>>> you aren't guaranteed to be able to change the service location back)
>>>>
>>>> 2. best effort, set it up and try it. Service may perfect, or may be
> worse
>>> (all
>>>> the way to non-existant) depending on how many other dishes are in use
> in
>>> the
>>>> area.
>>>>
>>>> I've done some limited testing with my dish within about 15 miles of my
>>>> registered location (in both cases with less than optimal sky views)
and
>>> it's
>>>> worked without a hitch. I plan to do a test further away this weekend
> (but
>>> in a
>>>> less populated area, so I have high hopes)
>>>>
>>>> David Lang
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 14 Feb 2022, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It appears that there is now a system in place for Starlink to
> re-connect
>>>>> even if you are outside your official service cell. For those of us
who
>>>>> want to use Starlink on vacations or other trips, this is quite the
>>>>> development.
>>>>>
>>>>> --Jonathan Bennett
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Starlink mailing list
>>>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>>
>>>
>
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink_
<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink_
> 
>>>
>
_;!!P7nkOOY!txPxU76SxJ4JvYe2kDjl5OcuAgSIb7mkHWuCMgt3eSH3Tec--6vePH_RCs0NVt6n
>>> 2TE6_9HsG20fOA$
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Starlink mailing list
>>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Starlink mailing list
>>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Starlink mailing list
Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 14129 bytes --]

Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming

[Steve Golson]

On 2/21/22 4:58 PM, Nathan Owens wrote:
> Per the debug data, the dish has GPS, a Gyroscope, a Magnetometer, and an Accelerometer.

Actually, the app is reporting the sensors that your phone has, not what the dish has.

The dish has GPS and accelerometer at least. Perhaps a magnetometer as well, but it can find north just using GPS.

-Steve

-- 
Steve Golson / Trilobyte Systems / +1.978.369.9669 / sgolson@trilobyte.com
Consulting in: Verilog, synthesis, patent analysis, reverse engineering

Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming

[Nathan Owens]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 843 bytes --]

Oh duh, yes, reading the wrong bit. It definitely has GPS, but beyond that,
not sure.

On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 3:08 PM Steve Golson <sgolson@trilobyte.com> wrote:

> On 2/21/22 4:58 PM, Nathan Owens wrote:
> > Per the debug data, the dish has GPS, a Gyroscope, a Magnetometer, and
> an Accelerometer.
>
> Actually, the app is reporting the sensors that your phone has, not what
> the dish has.
>
> The dish has GPS and accelerometer at least. Perhaps a magnetometer as
> well, but it can find north just using GPS.
>
> -Steve
>
> --
> Steve Golson / Trilobyte Systems / +1.978.369.9669 / sgolson@trilobyte.com
> Consulting in: Verilog, synthesis, patent analysis, reverse engineering
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1399 bytes --]

Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming

[Dick Roy]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1433 bytes --]

 

 

  _____  

From: Starlink [mailto:starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net] On Behalf Of
Nathan Owens
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2022 3:16 PM
To: Steve Golson
Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
Subject: Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming

 

Oh duh, yes, reading the wrong bit. It definitely has GPS, but beyond that,
not sure. 

 

On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 3:08 PM Steve Golson <sgolson@trilobyte.com> wrote:

On 2/21/22 4:58 PM, Nathan Owens wrote:
> Per the debug data, the dish has GPS, a Gyroscope, a Magnetometer, and an
Accelerometer.

Actually, the app is reporting the sensors that your phone has, not what the
dish has.

The dish has GPS and accelerometer at least. Perhaps a magnetometer as well,
but it can find north just using GPS.

[RR] I'd be interested in knowing how the dishy gets orientation from GPS.
Does it have three spatially diverse GPS antennas and receivers so it can
determine its orientation?  I suspect not. Also, a single accelerometer and
magnetometer are generally insufficient to uniquely determine orientation in
3-D space.  There's clearly a bit more to this to uncover:-)))  

 

RR



-Steve

-- 
Steve Golson / Trilobyte Systems / +1.978.369.9669 / sgolson@trilobyte.com
Consulting in: Verilog, synthesis, patent analysis, reverse engineering
_______________________________________________
Starlink mailing list
Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6229 bytes --]

Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming

[Daniel AJ Sokolov]

On 2022-02-21 at 13:52, David Lang wrote:
> 
> They told me that I could try it, and it may work, may be degraded a 
> bit, or may not work at all. They do plan to add roaming capabilities in 
> the future (my guess is that the laser satellites will enable a lot more 
> flexibility)

Isn't that a very optimistic assessment? :-)

Laser links are great for remote locations with very few users, but how 
could they relieve overbooking of Starlink in areas with too many users?

The laser links can reduce the required density of ground stations, but 
they don't add capacity to the network. Any ground station not built 
thanks to laser links adds load to other ground stations - and, maybe 
more importantly, adds load to the satellite that does eventually 
connect to a ground station.

Can laser links really help on a large scale, or are they just a small 
help here and there?

Cheers
Daniel

Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming

[David Lang]

On Mon, 21 Feb 2022, Daniel AJ Sokolov wrote:
> On 2022-02-21 at 13:52, David Lang wrote:
>> 
>> They told me that I could try it, and it may work, may be degraded a 
>> bit, or may not work at all. They do plan to add roaming capabilities in 
>> the future (my guess is that the laser satellites will enable a lot more 
>> flexibility)
>
> Isn't that a very optimistic assessment? :-)
>
> Laser links are great for remote locations with very few users, but how 
> could they relieve overbooking of Starlink in areas with too many users?
>
> The laser links can reduce the required density of ground stations, but 
> they don't add capacity to the network. Any ground station not built 
> thanks to laser links adds load to other ground stations - and, maybe 
> more importantly, adds load to the satellite that does eventually 
> connect to a ground station.
>
> Can laser links really help on a large scale, or are they just a small 
> help here and there?

My thinking is that the laser links will make it possible to route the traffic 
from wherever I am to the appropriate ground station that I'm registered with as 
opposed to the current bent-pipe approach where, if I move to far from my 
registered location, I need to talk to a different ground station.

Currently there are two limits in any area for coverage:

1. satellite bandwidth
2. ground station bandwidth

laser links will significantly reduce the effect of the second one.

We know that they can do mobile dishes (they are testing it currently on Elon's 
gulfstream, FAR more mobile that I will ever be :-) )

David Lang

Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming

[Mike Puchol]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2614 bytes --]

Actually, laser links would make gateway connectivity *worse*. If we take the scenario attached, one gateway is suddenly having to serve traffic from all UTs that were not previously under coverage.

A satellite under full load can saturate two gateway links by itself. If you load, say, 20 satellites in an orbital plane, onto a single gateway, over ISL, you effectively have 5% of each satellite’s capacity available (given an equal distribution of demand, of course there will be satellites with no UTs to cover etc.).

Eventually they will go for optical gateways, it’s the only way to get enough capacity to the constellation, specially the 30k satellite version.


Best,

Mike
On Feb 22, 2022, 05:17 +0300, David Lang <david@lang.hm>, wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Feb 2022, Daniel AJ Sokolov wrote:
> > On 2022-02-21 at 13:52, David Lang wrote:
> > >
> > > They told me that I could try it, and it may work, may be degraded a
> > > bit, or may not work at all. They do plan to add roaming capabilities in
> > > the future (my guess is that the laser satellites will enable a lot more
> > > flexibility)
> >
> > Isn't that a very optimistic assessment? :-)
> >
> > Laser links are great for remote locations with very few users, but how
> > could they relieve overbooking of Starlink in areas with too many users?
> >
> > The laser links can reduce the required density of ground stations, but
> > they don't add capacity to the network. Any ground station not built
> > thanks to laser links adds load to other ground stations - and, maybe
> > more importantly, adds load to the satellite that does eventually
> > connect to a ground station.
> >
> > Can laser links really help on a large scale, or are they just a small
> > help here and there?
>
> My thinking is that the laser links will make it possible to route the traffic
> from wherever I am to the appropriate ground station that I'm registered with as
> opposed to the current bent-pipe approach where, if I move to far from my
> registered location, I need to talk to a different ground station.
>
> Currently there are two limits in any area for coverage:
>
> 1. satellite bandwidth
> 2. ground station bandwidth
>
> laser links will significantly reduce the effect of the second one.
>
> We know that they can do mobile dishes (they are testing it currently on Elon's
> gulfstream, FAR more mobile that I will ever be :-) )
>
> David Lang
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 3296 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Image.jpeg --]
[-- Type: image/jpeg, Size: 18099 bytes --]

Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming

[Dick Roy]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3220 bytes --]

 

 

  _____  

From: Starlink [mailto:starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net] On Behalf Of
Mike Puchol
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2022 9:35 PM
To: Daniel AJ Sokolov; David Lang
Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
Subject: Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming

 

Actually, laser links would make gateway connectivity *worse*. If we take
the scenario attached, one gateway is suddenly having to serve traffic from
all UTs that were not previously under coverage. 

A satellite under full load can saturate two gateway links by itself. If you
load, say, 20 satellites in an orbital plane, onto a single gateway, over
ISL, you effectively have 5% of each satellite's capacity available (given
an equal distribution of demand, of course there will be satellites with no
UTs to cover etc.).

[RR] I think to do this analysis correctly; one needs to consider the larger
system and the time-varying loads on the components thereof. What you say is
true; just a bit over-simplified to be maximally useful. Routing through
complex congested networks is well-studied problem and hnts at possible
solutions can probably be found there:-))



Eventually they will go for optical gateways, it's the only way to get
enough capacity to the constellation, specially the 30k satellite version.

[RR] What do you mean by ""optical gateway"? An optical link from the
satellite to the ground station? That would be real expensive at least
power-wise and unreliable.


Best,

Mike

On Feb 22, 2022, 05:17 +0300, David Lang <david@lang.hm>, wrote:



On Mon, 21 Feb 2022, Daniel AJ Sokolov wrote:



On 2022-02-21 at 13:52, David Lang wrote:




They told me that I could try it, and it may work, may be degraded a
bit, or may not work at all. They do plan to add roaming capabilities in
the future (my guess is that the laser satellites will enable a lot more
flexibility)


Isn't that a very optimistic assessment? :-)

Laser links are great for remote locations with very few users, but how
could they relieve overbooking of Starlink in areas with too many users?

The laser links can reduce the required density of ground stations, but
they don't add capacity to the network. Any ground station not built
thanks to laser links adds load to other ground stations - and, maybe
more importantly, adds load to the satellite that does eventually
connect to a ground station.

Can laser links really help on a large scale, or are they just a small
help here and there?


My thinking is that the laser links will make it possible to route the
traffic
from wherever I am to the appropriate ground station that I'm registered
with as
opposed to the current bent-pipe approach where, if I move to far from my
registered location, I need to talk to a different ground station.

Currently there are two limits in any area for coverage:

1. satellite bandwidth
2. ground station bandwidth

laser links will significantly reduce the effect of the second one.

We know that they can do mobile dishes (they are testing it currently on
Elon's
gulfstream, FAR more mobile that I will ever be :-) )

David Lang
_______________________________________________
Starlink mailing list
Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 8393 bytes --]

Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming

[Mike Puchol]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4049 bytes --]

I did over-simplify so the point was better understood. On the optical gateways, these exist already: https://mynaric.com/products/ground-capabilities/

Once you have an optical mesh in orbit, the only practical way to provide it with massive capacity is optical links - there isn’t enough radio spectrum that would do it (without a massive ground gateway network with enough physical separation). You can create a network of optical gateways that guarantees a number of them will not be impared by cloud cover at any given time. Optical has the advantage of being license-free, too.

Best,

Mike
On Feb 22, 2022, 10:20 +0300, Dick Roy <dickroy@alum.mit.edu>, wrote:
>
>
> From: Starlink [mailto:starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net] On Behalf Of Mike Puchol
> Sent: Monday, February 21, 2022 9:35 PM
> To: Daniel AJ Sokolov; David Lang
> Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming
>
> Actually, laser links would make gateway connectivity *worse*. If we take the scenario attached, one gateway is suddenly having to serve traffic from all UTs that were not previously under coverage.
>
> A satellite under full load can saturate two gateway links by itself. If you load, say, 20 satellites in an orbital plane, onto a single gateway, over ISL, you effectively have 5% of each satellite’s capacity available (given an equal distribution of demand, of course there will be satellites with no UTs to cover etc.).
> [RR] I think to do this analysis correctly; one needs to consider the larger system and the time-varying loads on the components thereof. What you say is true; just a bit over-simplified to be maximally useful. Routing through complex congested networks is well-studied problem and hnts at possible solutions can probably be found thereJ)
>
>
> Eventually they will go for optical gateways, it’s the only way to get enough capacity to the constellation, specially the 30k satellite version.
> [RR] What do you mean by “”optical gateway”? An optical link from the satellite to the ground station? That would be real expensive at least power-wise and unreliable.
>
> Best,
>
> Mike
> On Feb 22, 2022, 05:17 +0300, David Lang <david@lang.hm>, wrote:
>
> On Mon, 21 Feb 2022, Daniel AJ Sokolov wrote:
>
> On 2022-02-21 at 13:52, David Lang wrote:
>
>
> They told me that I could try it, and it may work, may be degraded a
> bit, or may not work at all. They do plan to add roaming capabilities in
> the future (my guess is that the laser satellites will enable a lot more
> flexibility)
>
> Isn't that a very optimistic assessment? :-)
>
> Laser links are great for remote locations with very few users, but how
> could they relieve overbooking of Starlink in areas with too many users?
>
> The laser links can reduce the required density of ground stations, but
> they don't add capacity to the network. Any ground station not built
> thanks to laser links adds load to other ground stations - and, maybe
> more importantly, adds load to the satellite that does eventually
> connect to a ground station.
>
> Can laser links really help on a large scale, or are they just a small
> help here and there?
>
> My thinking is that the laser links will make it possible to route the traffic
> from wherever I am to the appropriate ground station that I'm registered with as
> opposed to the current bent-pipe approach where, if I move to far from my
> registered location, I need to talk to a different ground station.
>
> Currently there are two limits in any area for coverage:
>
> 1. satellite bandwidth
> 2. ground station bandwidth
>
> laser links will significantly reduce the effect of the second one.
>
> We know that they can do mobile dishes (they are testing it currently on Elon's
> gulfstream, FAR more mobile that I will ever be :-) )
>
> David Lang
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 8106 bytes --]

Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming

[Dick Roy]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4179 bytes --]

All excellent points and right on! Thanks!

 

RR

 

  _____  

From: Mike Puchol [mailto:mike@starlink.sx] 
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2022 11:42 PM
To: 'Daniel AJ Sokolov'; 'David Lang'; dickroy@alum.mit.edu
Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
Subject: RE: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming

 

I did over-simplify so the point was better understood. On the optical
gateways, these exist already:
https://mynaric.com/products/ground-capabilities/

Once you have an optical mesh in orbit, the only practical way to provide it
with massive capacity is optical links - there isn't enough radio spectrum
that would do it (without a massive ground gateway network with enough
physical separation). You can create a network of optical gateways that
guarantees a number of them will not be impared by cloud cover at any given
time. Optical has the advantage of being license-free, too.

 

Best,

Mike

On Feb 22, 2022, 10:20 +0300, Dick Roy <dickroy@alum.mit.edu>, wrote:



 

 

  _____  

From: Starlink [mailto:starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net] On Behalf Of
Mike Puchol
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2022 9:35 PM
To: Daniel AJ Sokolov; David Lang
Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
Subject: Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming

 

Actually, laser links would make gateway connectivity *worse*. If we take
the scenario attached, one gateway is suddenly having to serve traffic from
all UTs that were not previously under coverage. 

A satellite under full load can saturate two gateway links by itself. If you
load, say, 20 satellites in an orbital plane, onto a single gateway, over
ISL, you effectively have 5% of each satellite's capacity available (given
an equal distribution of demand, of course there will be satellites with no
UTs to cover etc.).

[RR] I think to do this analysis correctly; one needs to consider the larger
system and the time-varying loads on the components thereof. What you say is
true; just a bit over-simplified to be maximally useful. Routing through
complex congested networks is well-studied problem and hnts at possible
solutions can probably be found there:-))



Eventually they will go for optical gateways, it's the only way to get
enough capacity to the constellation, specially the 30k satellite version.

[RR] What do you mean by ""optical gateway"? An optical link from the
satellite to the ground station? That would be real expensive at least
power-wise and unreliable.


Best,

Mike

On Feb 22, 2022, 05:17 +0300, David Lang <david@lang.hm>, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Feb 2022, Daniel AJ Sokolov wrote:

On 2022-02-21 at 13:52, David Lang wrote:


They told me that I could try it, and it may work, may be degraded a
bit, or may not work at all. They do plan to add roaming capabilities in
the future (my guess is that the laser satellites will enable a lot more
flexibility)


Isn't that a very optimistic assessment? :-)

Laser links are great for remote locations with very few users, but how
could they relieve overbooking of Starlink in areas with too many users?

The laser links can reduce the required density of ground stations, but
they don't add capacity to the network. Any ground station not built
thanks to laser links adds load to other ground stations - and, maybe
more importantly, adds load to the satellite that does eventually
connect to a ground station.

Can laser links really help on a large scale, or are they just a small
help here and there?


My thinking is that the laser links will make it possible to route the
traffic
from wherever I am to the appropriate ground station that I'm registered
with as
opposed to the current bent-pipe approach where, if I move to far from my
registered location, I need to talk to a different ground station.

Currently there are two limits in any area for coverage:

1. satellite bandwidth
2. ground station bandwidth

laser links will significantly reduce the effect of the second one.

We know that they can do mobile dishes (they are testing it currently on
Elon's
gulfstream, FAR more mobile that I will ever be :-) )

David Lang
_______________________________________________
Starlink mailing list
Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 12068 bytes --]

Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming

[Sebastian Moeller]

Intersting!

Silly question, giving that there are already law suits for people pointing lasers at airplanes, how are these commercial laster terminals avoiding that issue?

Regards
	Sebastian




> On Feb 22, 2022, at 08:42, Mike Puchol <mike@starlink.sx> wrote:
> 
> I did over-simplify so the point was better understood. On the optical gateways, these exist already: https://mynaric.com/products/ground-capabilities/
> 
> Once you have an optical mesh in orbit, the only practical way to provide it with massive capacity is optical links - there isn’t enough radio spectrum that would do it (without a massive ground gateway network with enough physical separation). You can create a network of optical gateways that guarantees a number of them will not be impared by cloud cover at any given time. Optical has the advantage of being license-free, too.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Mike
> On Feb 22, 2022, 10:20 +0300, Dick Roy <dickroy@alum.mit.edu>, wrote:
>>  
>>  
>> From: Starlink [mailto:starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net] On Behalf Of Mike Puchol
>> Sent: Monday, February 21, 2022 9:35 PM
>> To: Daniel AJ Sokolov; David Lang
>> Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming
>> 
>>  
>> Actually, laser links would make gateway connectivity *worse*. If we take the scenario attached, one gateway is suddenly having to serve traffic from all UTs that were not previously under coverage. 
>> 
>> A satellite under full load can saturate two gateway links by itself. If you load, say, 20 satellites in an orbital plane, onto a single gateway, over ISL, you effectively have 5% of each satellite’s capacity available (given an equal distribution of demand, of course there will be satellites with no UTs to cover etc.).
>> 
>> [RR] I think to do this analysis correctly; one needs to consider the larger system and the time-varying loads on the components thereof. What you say is true; just a bit over-simplified to be maximally useful. Routing through complex congested networks is well-studied problem and hnts at possible solutions can probably be found thereJ)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Eventually they will go for optical gateways, it’s the only way to get enough capacity to the constellation, specially the 30k satellite version.
>> 
>> [RR] What do you mean by “”optical gateway”? An optical link from the satellite to the ground station? That would be real expensive at least power-wise and unreliable.
>> 
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Mike
>> 
>> On Feb 22, 2022, 05:17 +0300, David Lang <david@lang.hm>, wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Mon, 21 Feb 2022, Daniel AJ Sokolov wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 2022-02-21 at 13:52, David Lang wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> They told me that I could try it, and it may work, may be degraded a
>> bit, or may not work at all. They do plan to add roaming capabilities in
>> the future (my guess is that the laser satellites will enable a lot more
>> flexibility)
>> 
>> 
>> Isn't that a very optimistic assessment? :-)
>> 
>> Laser links are great for remote locations with very few users, but how
>> could they relieve overbooking of Starlink in areas with too many users?
>> 
>> The laser links can reduce the required density of ground stations, but
>> they don't add capacity to the network. Any ground station not built
>> thanks to laser links adds load to other ground stations - and, maybe
>> more importantly, adds load to the satellite that does eventually
>> connect to a ground station.
>> 
>> Can laser links really help on a large scale, or are they just a small
>> help here and there?
>> 
>> 
>> My thinking is that the laser links will make it possible to route the traffic
>> from wherever I am to the appropriate ground station that I'm registered with as
>> opposed to the current bent-pipe approach where, if I move to far from my
>> registered location, I need to talk to a different ground station.
>> 
>> Currently there are two limits in any area for coverage:
>> 
>> 1. satellite bandwidth
>> 2. ground station bandwidth
>> 
>> laser links will significantly reduce the effect of the second one.
>> 
>> We know that they can do mobile dishes (they are testing it currently on Elon's
>> gulfstream, FAR more mobile that I will ever be :-) )
>> 
>> David Lang
>> _______________________________________________
>> Starlink mailing list
>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink

Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming

[Mike Puchol]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5428 bytes --]

The optical links work in IR spectrum, so non-visible. They would not be a concern for aircraft the same way green lasers are.

On David’s comment "but if you can easily route traffic to a ground station that's further away and not currently saturated”, that is true as long as the path that is connected over ISL has visibility of that other ground station. I will add ISL to my tracker shortly so we can start simulating these things.

Best,

Mike
On Feb 22, 2022, 12:04 +0300, Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>, wrote:
> Intersting!
>
> Silly question, giving that there are already law suits for people pointing lasers at airplanes, how are these commercial laster terminals avoiding that issue?
>
> Regards
> Sebastian
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 22, 2022, at 08:42, Mike Puchol <mike@starlink.sx> wrote:
> >
> > I did over-simplify so the point was better understood. On the optical gateways, these exist already: https://mynaric.com/products/ground-capabilities/
> >
> > Once you have an optical mesh in orbit, the only practical way to provide it with massive capacity is optical links - there isn’t enough radio spectrum that would do it (without a massive ground gateway network with enough physical separation). You can create a network of optical gateways that guarantees a number of them will not be impared by cloud cover at any given time. Optical has the advantage of being license-free, too.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Mike
> > On Feb 22, 2022, 10:20 +0300, Dick Roy <dickroy@alum.mit.edu>, wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Starlink [mailto:starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net] On Behalf Of Mike Puchol
> > > Sent: Monday, February 21, 2022 9:35 PM
> > > To: Daniel AJ Sokolov; David Lang
> > > Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> > > Subject: Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming
> > >
> > >
> > > Actually, laser links would make gateway connectivity *worse*. If we take the scenario attached, one gateway is suddenly having to serve traffic from all UTs that were not previously under coverage.
> > >
> > > A satellite under full load can saturate two gateway links by itself. If you load, say, 20 satellites in an orbital plane, onto a single gateway, over ISL, you effectively have 5% of each satellite’s capacity available (given an equal distribution of demand, of course there will be satellites with no UTs to cover etc.).
> > >
> > > [RR] I think to do this analysis correctly; one needs to consider the larger system and the time-varying loads on the components thereof. What you say is true; just a bit over-simplified to be maximally useful. Routing through complex congested networks is well-studied problem and hnts at possible solutions can probably be found thereJ)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Eventually they will go for optical gateways, it’s the only way to get enough capacity to the constellation, specially the 30k satellite version.
> > >
> > > [RR] What do you mean by “”optical gateway”? An optical link from the satellite to the ground station? That would be real expensive at least power-wise and unreliable.
> > >
> > >
> > > Best,
> > >
> > > Mike
> > >
> > > On Feb 22, 2022, 05:17 +0300, David Lang <david@lang.hm>, wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, 21 Feb 2022, Daniel AJ Sokolov wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 2022-02-21 at 13:52, David Lang wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > They told me that I could try it, and it may work, may be degraded a
> > > bit, or may not work at all. They do plan to add roaming capabilities in
> > > the future (my guess is that the laser satellites will enable a lot more
> > > flexibility)
> > >
> > >
> > > Isn't that a very optimistic assessment? :-)
> > >
> > > Laser links are great for remote locations with very few users, but how
> > > could they relieve overbooking of Starlink in areas with too many users?
> > >
> > > The laser links can reduce the required density of ground stations, but
> > > they don't add capacity to the network. Any ground station not built
> > > thanks to laser links adds load to other ground stations - and, maybe
> > > more importantly, adds load to the satellite that does eventually
> > > connect to a ground station.
> > >
> > > Can laser links really help on a large scale, or are they just a small
> > > help here and there?
> > >
> > >
> > > My thinking is that the laser links will make it possible to route the traffic
> > > from wherever I am to the appropriate ground station that I'm registered with as
> > > opposed to the current bent-pipe approach where, if I move to far from my
> > > registered location, I need to talk to a different ground station.
> > >
> > > Currently there are two limits in any area for coverage:
> > >
> > > 1. satellite bandwidth
> > > 2. ground station bandwidth
> > >
> > > laser links will significantly reduce the effect of the second one.
> > >
> > > We know that they can do mobile dishes (they are testing it currently on Elon's
> > > gulfstream, FAR more mobile that I will ever be :-) )
> > >
> > > David Lang
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Starlink mailing list
> > > Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> > > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Starlink mailing list
> > Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6117 bytes --]

Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming

[Sebastian Moeller]

> On Feb 22, 2022, at 10:40, Mike Puchol <mike@starlink.sx> wrote:
> 
> The optical links work in IR spectrum, so non-visible. They would not be a concern for aircraft the same way green lasers are.

	Puzzled. IR lasers still wreck havoc when hitting the eye/retina, so why are these considered safer than visible spectrum lasers? In a lab context IR lasers are typically considered more dangerous as they are invisible and hence harder to see/avoid. I am happy to believe that there is a reason why they are safer, just trying ot reconcile that with my laser-safety seminar ;)


> On David’s comment "but if you can easily route traffic to a ground station that's further away and not currently saturated”, that is true as long as the path that is connected over ISL has visibility of that other ground station. I will add ISL to my tracker shortly so we can start simulating these things.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Mike
> On Feb 22, 2022, 12:04 +0300, Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>, wrote:
>> Intersting!
>> 
>> Silly question, giving that there are already law suits for people pointing lasers at airplanes, how are these commercial laster terminals avoiding that issue?
>> 
>> Regards
>> Sebastian
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Feb 22, 2022, at 08:42, Mike Puchol <mike@starlink.sx> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I did over-simplify so the point was better understood. On the optical gateways, these exist already: https://mynaric.com/products/ground-capabilities/
>>> 
>>> Once you have an optical mesh in orbit, the only practical way to provide it with massive capacity is optical links - there isn’t enough radio spectrum that would do it (without a massive ground gateway network with enough physical separation). You can create a network of optical gateways that guarantees a number of them will not be impared by cloud cover at any given time. Optical has the advantage of being license-free, too.
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> 
>>> Mike
>>> On Feb 22, 2022, 10:20 +0300, Dick Roy <dickroy@alum.mit.edu>, wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> From: Starlink [mailto:starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net] On Behalf Of Mike Puchol
>>>> Sent: Monday, February 21, 2022 9:35 PM
>>>> To: Daniel AJ Sokolov; David Lang
>>>> Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Actually, laser links would make gateway connectivity *worse*. If we take the scenario attached, one gateway is suddenly having to serve traffic from all UTs that were not previously under coverage.
>>>> 
>>>> A satellite under full load can saturate two gateway links by itself. If you load, say, 20 satellites in an orbital plane, onto a single gateway, over ISL, you effectively have 5% of each satellite’s capacity available (given an equal distribution of demand, of course there will be satellites with no UTs to cover etc.).
>>>> 
>>>> [RR] I think to do this analysis correctly; one needs to consider the larger system and the time-varying loads on the components thereof. What you say is true; just a bit over-simplified to be maximally useful. Routing through complex congested networks is well-studied problem and hnts at possible solutions can probably be found thereJ)
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Eventually they will go for optical gateways, it’s the only way to get enough capacity to the constellation, specially the 30k satellite version.
>>>> 
>>>> [RR] What do you mean by “”optical gateway”? An optical link from the satellite to the ground station? That would be real expensive at least power-wise and unreliable.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Best,
>>>> 
>>>> Mike
>>>> 
>>>> On Feb 22, 2022, 05:17 +0300, David Lang <david@lang.hm>, wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Mon, 21 Feb 2022, Daniel AJ Sokolov wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 2022-02-21 at 13:52, David Lang wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> They told me that I could try it, and it may work, may be degraded a
>>>> bit, or may not work at all. They do plan to add roaming capabilities in
>>>> the future (my guess is that the laser satellites will enable a lot more
>>>> flexibility)
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Isn't that a very optimistic assessment? :-)
>>>> 
>>>> Laser links are great for remote locations with very few users, but how
>>>> could they relieve overbooking of Starlink in areas with too many users?
>>>> 
>>>> The laser links can reduce the required density of ground stations, but
>>>> they don't add capacity to the network. Any ground station not built
>>>> thanks to laser links adds load to other ground stations - and, maybe
>>>> more importantly, adds load to the satellite that does eventually
>>>> connect to a ground station.
>>>> 
>>>> Can laser links really help on a large scale, or are they just a small
>>>> help here and there?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> My thinking is that the laser links will make it possible to route the traffic
>>>> from wherever I am to the appropriate ground station that I'm registered with as
>>>> opposed to the current bent-pipe approach where, if I move to far from my
>>>> registered location, I need to talk to a different ground station.
>>>> 
>>>> Currently there are two limits in any area for coverage:
>>>> 
>>>> 1. satellite bandwidth
>>>> 2. ground station bandwidth
>>>> 
>>>> laser links will significantly reduce the effect of the second one.
>>>> 
>>>> We know that they can do mobile dishes (they are testing it currently on Elon's
>>>> gulfstream, FAR more mobile that I will ever be :-) )
>>>> 
>>>> David Lang
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Starlink mailing list
>>>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Starlink mailing list
>>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>> 

Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming

[Mike Puchol]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6938 bytes --]

It all depends on the power. We operate FSOC terminals that can do 20 Gbps at 20km+, and are eye-safe (un-aided, if you look at one using binoculars, different story).

Power also depends on receiver sensitivity, if you can reconstruct a signal from less photons, your power requirements drop, and efficiency increases. There is a lot of research going on in this field, and there are many companies that are trying to get into the ground-to-air optical link game. Mynaric is one of the more visible ones.

Best,

Mike
On Feb 22, 2022, 12:46 +0300, Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>, wrote:
>
>
> > On Feb 22, 2022, at 10:40, Mike Puchol <mike@starlink.sx> wrote:
> >
> > The optical links work in IR spectrum, so non-visible. They would not be a concern for aircraft the same way green lasers are.
>
> Puzzled. IR lasers still wreck havoc when hitting the eye/retina, so why are these considered safer than visible spectrum lasers? In a lab context IR lasers are typically considered more dangerous as they are invisible and hence harder to see/avoid. I am happy to believe that there is a reason why they are safer, just trying ot reconcile that with my laser-safety seminar ;)
>
>
> > On David’s comment "but if you can easily route traffic to a ground station that's further away and not currently saturated”, that is true as long as the path that is connected over ISL has visibility of that other ground station. I will add ISL to my tracker shortly so we can start simulating these things.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Mike
> > On Feb 22, 2022, 12:04 +0300, Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>, wrote:
> > > Intersting!
> > >
> > > Silly question, giving that there are already law suits for people pointing lasers at airplanes, how are these commercial laster terminals avoiding that issue?
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Sebastian
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Feb 22, 2022, at 08:42, Mike Puchol <mike@starlink.sx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I did over-simplify so the point was better understood. On the optical gateways, these exist already: https://mynaric.com/products/ground-capabilities/
> > > >
> > > > Once you have an optical mesh in orbit, the only practical way to provide it with massive capacity is optical links - there isn’t enough radio spectrum that would do it (without a massive ground gateway network with enough physical separation). You can create a network of optical gateways that guarantees a number of them will not be impared by cloud cover at any given time. Optical has the advantage of being license-free, too.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > >
> > > > Mike
> > > > On Feb 22, 2022, 10:20 +0300, Dick Roy <dickroy@alum.mit.edu>, wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Starlink [mailto:starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net] On Behalf Of Mike Puchol
> > > > > Sent: Monday, February 21, 2022 9:35 PM
> > > > > To: Daniel AJ Sokolov; David Lang
> > > > > Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Actually, laser links would make gateway connectivity *worse*. If we take the scenario attached, one gateway is suddenly having to serve traffic from all UTs that were not previously under coverage.
> > > > >
> > > > > A satellite under full load can saturate two gateway links by itself. If you load, say, 20 satellites in an orbital plane, onto a single gateway, over ISL, you effectively have 5% of each satellite’s capacity available (given an equal distribution of demand, of course there will be satellites with no UTs to cover etc.).
> > > > >
> > > > > [RR] I think to do this analysis correctly; one needs to consider the larger system and the time-varying loads on the components thereof. What you say is true; just a bit over-simplified to be maximally useful. Routing through complex congested networks is well-studied problem and hnts at possible solutions can probably be found thereJ)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Eventually they will go for optical gateways, it’s the only way to get enough capacity to the constellation, specially the 30k satellite version.
> > > > >
> > > > > [RR] What do you mean by “”optical gateway”? An optical link from the satellite to the ground station? That would be real expensive at least power-wise and unreliable.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > >
> > > > > Mike
> > > > >
> > > > > On Feb 22, 2022, 05:17 +0300, David Lang <david@lang.hm>, wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, 21 Feb 2022, Daniel AJ Sokolov wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 2022-02-21 at 13:52, David Lang wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > They told me that I could try it, and it may work, may be degraded a
> > > > > bit, or may not work at all. They do plan to add roaming capabilities in
> > > > > the future (my guess is that the laser satellites will enable a lot more
> > > > > flexibility)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Isn't that a very optimistic assessment? :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > Laser links are great for remote locations with very few users, but how
> > > > > could they relieve overbooking of Starlink in areas with too many users?
> > > > >
> > > > > The laser links can reduce the required density of ground stations, but
> > > > > they don't add capacity to the network. Any ground station not built
> > > > > thanks to laser links adds load to other ground stations - and, maybe
> > > > > more importantly, adds load to the satellite that does eventually
> > > > > connect to a ground station.
> > > > >
> > > > > Can laser links really help on a large scale, or are they just a small
> > > > > help here and there?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > My thinking is that the laser links will make it possible to route the traffic
> > > > > from wherever I am to the appropriate ground station that I'm registered with as
> > > > > opposed to the current bent-pipe approach where, if I move to far from my
> > > > > registered location, I need to talk to a different ground station.
> > > > >
> > > > > Currently there are two limits in any area for coverage:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. satellite bandwidth
> > > > > 2. ground station bandwidth
> > > > >
> > > > > laser links will significantly reduce the effect of the second one.
> > > > >
> > > > > We know that they can do mobile dishes (they are testing it currently on Elon's
> > > > > gulfstream, FAR more mobile that I will ever be :-) )
> > > > >
> > > > > David Lang
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Starlink mailing list
> > > > > Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> > > > > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
> > > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Starlink mailing list
> > > > Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> > > > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
> > >
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 7395 bytes --]

Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming

[Vint Cerf]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6780 bytes --]

pun intended?
Mynaric is one of the more visible ones.

:-)

v



On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 5:01 AM Mike Puchol <mike@starlink.sx> wrote:

> It all depends on the power. We operate FSOC terminals that can do 20 Gbps
> at 20km+, and are eye-safe (un-aided, if you look at one using binoculars,
> different story).
>
> Power also depends on receiver sensitivity, if you can reconstruct a
> signal from less photons, your power requirements drop, and efficiency
> increases. There is a lot of research going on in this field, and there are
> many companies that are trying to get into the ground-to-air optical link
> game. Mynaric is one of the more visible ones.
>
> Best,
>
> Mike
> On Feb 22, 2022, 12:46 +0300, Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>, wrote:
>
>
>
> On Feb 22, 2022, at 10:40, Mike Puchol <mike@starlink.sx> wrote:
>
> The optical links work in IR spectrum, so non-visible. They would not be a
> concern for aircraft the same way green lasers are.
>
>
> Puzzled. IR lasers still wreck havoc when hitting the eye/retina, so why
> are these considered safer than visible spectrum lasers? In a lab context
> IR lasers are typically considered more dangerous as they are invisible and
> hence harder to see/avoid. I am happy to believe that there is a reason why
> they are safer, just trying ot reconcile that with my laser-safety seminar
> ;)
>
>
> On David’s comment "but if you can easily route traffic to a ground
> station that's further away and not currently saturated”, that is true as
> long as the path that is connected over ISL has visibility of that other
> ground station. I will add ISL to my tracker shortly so we can start
> simulating these things.
>
> Best,
>
> Mike
> On Feb 22, 2022, 12:04 +0300, Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>, wrote:
>
> Intersting!
>
> Silly question, giving that there are already law suits for people
> pointing lasers at airplanes, how are these commercial laster terminals
> avoiding that issue?
>
> Regards
> Sebastian
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 22, 2022, at 08:42, Mike Puchol <mike@starlink.sx> wrote:
>
> I did over-simplify so the point was better understood. On the optical
> gateways, these exist already:
> https://mynaric.com/products/ground-capabilities/
>
> Once you have an optical mesh in orbit, the only practical way to provide
> it with massive capacity is optical links - there isn’t enough radio
> spectrum that would do it (without a massive ground gateway network with
> enough physical separation). You can create a network of optical gateways
> that guarantees a number of them will not be impared by cloud cover at any
> given time. Optical has the advantage of being license-free, too.
>
> Best,
>
> Mike
> On Feb 22, 2022, 10:20 +0300, Dick Roy <dickroy@alum.mit.edu>, wrote:
>
>
>
> From: Starlink [mailto:starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net] On Behalf
> Of Mike Puchol
> Sent: Monday, February 21, 2022 9:35 PM
> To: Daniel AJ Sokolov; David Lang
> Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming
>
>
> Actually, laser links would make gateway connectivity *worse*. If we take
> the scenario attached, one gateway is suddenly having to serve traffic from
> all UTs that were not previously under coverage.
>
> A satellite under full load can saturate two gateway links by itself. If
> you load, say, 20 satellites in an orbital plane, onto a single gateway,
> over ISL, you effectively have 5% of each satellite’s capacity available
> (given an equal distribution of demand, of course there will be satellites
> with no UTs to cover etc.).
>
> [RR] I think to do this analysis correctly; one needs to consider the
> larger system and the time-varying loads on the components thereof. What
> you say is true; just a bit over-simplified to be maximally useful. Routing
> through complex congested networks is well-studied problem and hnts at
> possible solutions can probably be found thereJ)
>
>
>
> Eventually they will go for optical gateways, it’s the only way to get
> enough capacity to the constellation, specially the 30k satellite version.
>
> [RR] What do you mean by “”optical gateway”? An optical link from the
> satellite to the ground station? That would be real expensive at least
> power-wise and unreliable.
>
>
> Best,
>
> Mike
>
> On Feb 22, 2022, 05:17 +0300, David Lang <david@lang.hm>, wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 21 Feb 2022, Daniel AJ Sokolov wrote:
>
>
> On 2022-02-21 at 13:52, David Lang wrote:
>
>
>
> They told me that I could try it, and it may work, may be degraded a
> bit, or may not work at all. They do plan to add roaming capabilities in
> the future (my guess is that the laser satellites will enable a lot more
> flexibility)
>
>
> Isn't that a very optimistic assessment? :-)
>
> Laser links are great for remote locations with very few users, but how
> could they relieve overbooking of Starlink in areas with too many users?
>
> The laser links can reduce the required density of ground stations, but
> they don't add capacity to the network. Any ground station not built
> thanks to laser links adds load to other ground stations - and, maybe
> more importantly, adds load to the satellite that does eventually
> connect to a ground station.
>
> Can laser links really help on a large scale, or are they just a small
> help here and there?
>
>
> My thinking is that the laser links will make it possible to route the
> traffic
> from wherever I am to the appropriate ground station that I'm registered
> with as
> opposed to the current bent-pipe approach where, if I move to far from my
> registered location, I need to talk to a different ground station.
>
> Currently there are two limits in any area for coverage:
>
> 1. satellite bandwidth
> 2. ground station bandwidth
>
> laser links will significantly reduce the effect of the second one.
>
> We know that they can do mobile dishes (they are testing it currently on
> Elon's
> gulfstream, FAR more mobile that I will ever be :-) )
>
> David Lang
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>


-- 
Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to:
Vint Cerf
1435 Woodhurst Blvd
McLean, VA 22102
703-448-0965

until further notice

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 9046 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 3992 bytes --]

Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming

[Mike Puchol]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 8348 bytes --]

Thank you for noticing the totally unintended pun! :-)

Best,

Mike
On Feb 22, 2022, 13:37 +0300, Vint Cerf <vint@google.com>, wrote:
> pun intended?
> Mynaric is one of the more visible ones.
>
> :-)
>
> v
>
>
>
> > On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 5:01 AM Mike Puchol <mike@starlink.sx> wrote:
> > > It all depends on the power. We operate FSOC terminals that can do 20 Gbps at 20km+, and are eye-safe (un-aided, if you look at one using binoculars, different story).
> > >
> > > Power also depends on receiver sensitivity, if you can reconstruct a signal from less photons, your power requirements drop, and efficiency increases. There is a lot of research going on in this field, and there are many companies that are trying to get into the ground-to-air optical link game. Mynaric is one of the more visible ones.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > >
> > > Mike
> > > On Feb 22, 2022, 12:46 +0300, Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>, wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > On Feb 22, 2022, at 10:40, Mike Puchol <mike@starlink.sx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The optical links work in IR spectrum, so non-visible. They would not be a concern for aircraft the same way green lasers are.
> > > >
> > > > Puzzled. IR lasers still wreck havoc when hitting the eye/retina, so why are these considered safer than visible spectrum lasers? In a lab context IR lasers are typically considered more dangerous as they are invisible and hence harder to see/avoid. I am happy to believe that there is a reason why they are safer, just trying ot reconcile that with my laser-safety seminar ;)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > On David’s comment "but if you can easily route traffic to a ground station that's further away and not currently saturated”, that is true as long as the path that is connected over ISL has visibility of that other ground station. I will add ISL to my tracker shortly so we can start simulating these things.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > >
> > > > > Mike
> > > > > On Feb 22, 2022, 12:04 +0300, Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>, wrote:
> > > > > > Intersting!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Silly question, giving that there are already law suits for people pointing lasers at airplanes, how are these commercial laster terminals avoiding that issue?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards
> > > > > > Sebastian
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Feb 22, 2022, at 08:42, Mike Puchol <mike@starlink.sx> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I did over-simplify so the point was better understood. On the optical gateways, these exist already: https://mynaric.com/products/ground-capabilities/
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Once you have an optical mesh in orbit, the only practical way to provide it with massive capacity is optical links - there isn’t enough radio spectrum that would do it (without a massive ground gateway network with enough physical separation). You can create a network of optical gateways that guarantees a number of them will not be impared by cloud cover at any given time. Optical has the advantage of being license-free, too.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Mike
> > > > > > > On Feb 22, 2022, 10:20 +0300, Dick Roy <dickroy@alum.mit.edu>, wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > From: Starlink [mailto:starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net] On Behalf Of Mike Puchol
> > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, February 21, 2022 9:35 PM
> > > > > > > > To: Daniel AJ Sokolov; David Lang
> > > > > > > > Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Actually, laser links would make gateway connectivity *worse*. If we take the scenario attached, one gateway is suddenly having to serve traffic from all UTs that were not previously under coverage.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > A satellite under full load can saturate two gateway links by itself. If you load, say, 20 satellites in an orbital plane, onto a single gateway, over ISL, you effectively have 5% of each satellite’s capacity available (given an equal distribution of demand, of course there will be satellites with no UTs to cover etc.).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [RR] I think to do this analysis correctly; one needs to consider the larger system and the time-varying loads on the components thereof. What you say is true; just a bit over-simplified to be maximally useful. Routing through complex congested networks is well-studied problem and hnts at possible solutions can probably be found thereJ)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Eventually they will go for optical gateways, it’s the only way to get enough capacity to the constellation, specially the 30k satellite version.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [RR] What do you mean by “”optical gateway”? An optical link from the satellite to the ground station? That would be real expensive at least power-wise and unreliable.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Mike
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 2022, 05:17 +0300, David Lang <david@lang.hm>, wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Mon, 21 Feb 2022, Daniel AJ Sokolov wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 2022-02-21 at 13:52, David Lang wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > They told me that I could try it, and it may work, may be degraded a
> > > > > > > > bit, or may not work at all. They do plan to add roaming capabilities in
> > > > > > > > the future (my guess is that the laser satellites will enable a lot more
> > > > > > > > flexibility)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Isn't that a very optimistic assessment? :-)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Laser links are great for remote locations with very few users, but how
> > > > > > > > could they relieve overbooking of Starlink in areas with too many users?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The laser links can reduce the required density of ground stations, but
> > > > > > > > they don't add capacity to the network. Any ground station not built
> > > > > > > > thanks to laser links adds load to other ground stations - and, maybe
> > > > > > > > more importantly, adds load to the satellite that does eventually
> > > > > > > > connect to a ground station.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Can laser links really help on a large scale, or are they just a small
> > > > > > > > help here and there?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > My thinking is that the laser links will make it possible to route the traffic
> > > > > > > > from wherever I am to the appropriate ground station that I'm registered with as
> > > > > > > > opposed to the current bent-pipe approach where, if I move to far from my
> > > > > > > > registered location, I need to talk to a different ground station.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Currently there are two limits in any area for coverage:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 1. satellite bandwidth
> > > > > > > > 2. ground station bandwidth
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > laser links will significantly reduce the effect of the second one.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > We know that they can do mobile dishes (they are testing it currently on Elon's
> > > > > > > > gulfstream, FAR more mobile that I will ever be :-) )
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > David Lang
> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > Starlink mailing list
> > > > > > > > Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> > > > > > > > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Starlink mailing list
> > > > > > > Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> > > > > > > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Starlink mailing list
> > > Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> > > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>
>
> --
> Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to:
> Vint Cerf
> 1435 Woodhurst Blvd
> McLean, VA 22102
> 703-448-0965
>
> until further notice
>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 9972 bytes --]

Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming

[Ulrich Speidel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6549 bytes --]

Perhaps worth remembering that they don't have to engineer the final 
system right now. Consider that:

- Building ground station gateways costs money, but as the number of 
subscribers grows, so does the income stream that allows for ground 
station construction.
- Gateway ground stations, if generally kept close to users, at least 
where there are lots of users, don't have the problem that there's no 
land to put them on as there aren't normally lots of users in the middle 
of the sea.
- Where there are more than 10k users, someone will generally put a 
fibre optic cable there or at least think hard about how they can get 
that done. We've seen this widely in the Pacific, where such islands now 
generally have fibre (with some notable exceptions). Once you have 
fibre, there's no reason why you can't have a LEO ground station there. 
So you can generally always build more
- Constellations that are short of capacity can be added to 
incrementally. Remember Starlink is at a very early stage of what 
they're planning.
- Satellite capacity depends on a lot of things, from on-board 
processing capacity to the bandwidth of the uplinks and downlinks and 
the received signal levels on those. Current Starlink gateway antennas 
are tiny by satellite infrastructure standards, but that doesn't 
preclude bigger antennas and more gateways for the future, which allows 
more satellites to be provided with direct gateway links.

In some ways, this evolution mirrors that of mobile networks. In the 
early stage of mobile network evolution, the providers aimed at getting 
coverage with the least number of base stations from the highest hills 
and buildings available. These never had the potential to provide the 
capacity that today's networks have, so as the networks evolved, they 
moved down from the lofty heights to the bottom of the valleys, cashing 
in on improved frequency re-use potential (you could re-use the same 
frequency a valley over, you see, because the ridge between yours and 
theirs meant that signals wouldn't interfere). It also meant less path 
loss to the end users (so more battery life for them). Not to mention 
fewer lawsuits from people who were worried about large towers 
irradiating their kids. The cost of those lawsuits, by the way, was seen 
simply as something to factor in when making engineering decisions.

On 22/02/2022 8:20 pm, Dick Roy wrote:
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:*Starlink [mailto:starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net] *On 
> Behalf Of *Mike Puchol
> *Sent:* Monday, February 21, 2022 9:35 PM
> *To:* Daniel AJ Sokolov; David Lang
> *Cc:* starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> *Subject:* Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming
>
> Actually, laser links would make gateway connectivity *worse*. If we 
> take the scenario attached, one gateway is suddenly having to serve 
> traffic from all UTs that were not previously under coverage.
>
> A satellite under full load can saturate two gateway links by itself. 
> If you load, say, 20 satellites in an orbital plane, onto a single 
> gateway, over ISL, you effectively have 5% of each satellite’s 
> capacity available (given an equal distribution of demand, of course 
> there will be satellites with no UTs to cover etc.).
>
> */[RR] I think to do this analysis correctly; one needs to consider 
> the larger system and the time-varying loads on the components 
> thereof. What you say is true; just a bit over-simplified to be 
> maximally useful. Routing through complex congested networks is 
> well-studied problem and hnts at possible solutions can probably be 
> found there/**/J/**/)/*
>
>
>
> Eventually they will go for optical gateways, it’s the only way to get 
> enough capacity to the constellation, specially the 30k satellite version.
>
> */[RR] What do you mean by “”optical gateway”? An optical link from 
> the satellite to the ground station? That would be real expensive at 
> least power-wise and unreliable./*
>
>
> Best,
>
> Mike
>
> On Feb 22, 2022, 05:17 +0300, David Lang <david@lang.hm>, wrote:
>
> On Mon, 21 Feb 2022, Daniel AJ Sokolov wrote:
>
> On 2022-02-21 at 13:52, David Lang wrote:
>
>
> They told me that I could try it, and it may work, may be degraded a
> bit, or may not work at all. They do plan to add roaming capabilities in
> the future (my guess is that the laser satellites will enable a lot more
> flexibility)
>
>
> Isn't that a very optimistic assessment? :-)
>
> Laser links are great for remote locations with very few users, but how
> could they relieve overbooking of Starlink in areas with too many users?
>
> The laser links can reduce the required density of ground stations, but
> they don't add capacity to the network. Any ground station not built
> thanks to laser links adds load to other ground stations - and, maybe
> more importantly, adds load to the satellite that does eventually
> connect to a ground station.
>
> Can laser links really help on a large scale, or are they just a small
> help here and there?
>
>
> My thinking is that the laser links will make it possible to route the 
> traffic
> from wherever I am to the appropriate ground station that I'm 
> registered with as
> opposed to the current bent-pipe approach where, if I move to far from my
> registered location, I need to talk to a different ground station.
>
> Currently there are two limits in any area for coverage:
>
> 1. satellite bandwidth
> 2. ground station bandwidth
>
> laser links will significantly reduce the effect of the second one.
>
> We know that they can do mobile dishes (they are testing it currently 
> on Elon's
> gulfstream, FAR more mobile that I will ever be :-) )
>
> David Lang
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink 
> <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>
-- 
****************************************************************
Dr. Ulrich Speidel

School of Computer Science

Room 303S.594 (City Campus)

The University of Auckland
u.speidel@auckland.ac.nz  
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~ulrich/
****************************************************************



[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 14763 bytes --]

Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming

[David Lang]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2596 bytes --]

On Tue, 22 Feb 2022, Mike Puchol wrote:

> Actually, laser links would make gateway connectivity *worse*. If we take the scenario attached, one gateway is suddenly having to serve traffic from all UTs that were not previously under coverage.

but if you can easily route traffic to a ground station that's further away and 
not currently saturated...

> Eventually they will go for optical gateways, it’s the only way to get enough capacity to the constellation, specially the 30k satellite version.

optical is much more affected by weather than RF, so it's a trade-off (but with 
laser satellites, they can route around some weather to more distant ground 
stations

David Lang

>
>
> Best,
>
> Mike
> On Feb 22, 2022, 05:17 +0300, David Lang <david@lang.hm>, wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Feb 2022, Daniel AJ Sokolov wrote:
>>> On 2022-02-21 at 13:52, David Lang wrote:
>>>>
>>>> They told me that I could try it, and it may work, may be degraded a
>>>> bit, or may not work at all. They do plan to add roaming capabilities in
>>>> the future (my guess is that the laser satellites will enable a lot more
>>>> flexibility)
>>>
>>> Isn't that a very optimistic assessment? :-)
>>>
>>> Laser links are great for remote locations with very few users, but how
>>> could they relieve overbooking of Starlink in areas with too many users?
>>>
>>> The laser links can reduce the required density of ground stations, but
>>> they don't add capacity to the network. Any ground station not built
>>> thanks to laser links adds load to other ground stations - and, maybe
>>> more importantly, adds load to the satellite that does eventually
>>> connect to a ground station.
>>>
>>> Can laser links really help on a large scale, or are they just a small
>>> help here and there?
>>
>> My thinking is that the laser links will make it possible to route the traffic
>> from wherever I am to the appropriate ground station that I'm registered with as
>> opposed to the current bent-pipe approach where, if I move to far from my
>> registered location, I need to talk to a different ground station.
>>
>> Currently there are two limits in any area for coverage:
>>
>> 1. satellite bandwidth
>> 2. ground station bandwidth
>>
>> laser links will significantly reduce the effect of the second one.
>>
>> We know that they can do mobile dishes (they are testing it currently on Elon's
>> gulfstream, FAR more mobile that I will ever be :-) )
>>
>> David Lang
>> _______________________________________________
>> Starlink mailing list
>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: image/jpeg, Size: 18099 bytes --]

Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming

[Dick Roy]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2866 bytes --]

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Starlink [mailto:starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net] On Behalf Of
David Lang

Sent: Monday, February 21, 2022 6:18 PM

To: Daniel AJ Sokolov

Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net

Subject: Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming

 

On Mon, 21 Feb 2022, Daniel AJ Sokolov wrote:

> On 2022-02-21 at 13:52, David Lang wrote:

>> 

>> They told me that I could try it, and it may work, may be degraded a 

>> bit, or may not work at all. They do plan to add roaming capabilities in 

>> the future (my guess is that the laser satellites will enable a lot more 

>> flexibility)

> 

> Isn't that a very optimistic assessment? :-)

> 

> Laser links are great for remote locations with very few users, but how 

> could they relieve overbooking of Starlink in areas with too many users?

> 

> The laser links can reduce the required density of ground stations, but 

> they don't add capacity to the network. Any ground station not built 

> thanks to laser links adds load to other ground stations - and, maybe 

> more importantly, adds load to the satellite that does eventually 

> connect to a ground station.

> 

> Can laser links really help on a large scale, or are they just a small 

> help here and there?

 

My thinking is that the laser links will make it possible to route the
traffic 

from wherever I am to the appropriate ground station that I'm registered
with as 

opposed to the current bent-pipe approach where, if I move to far from my 

registered location, I need to talk to a different ground station.

 

[RR] It is important to remember there is no need to go through a particular
ground station.  What is necessary is to authenticate the dishy to the
network. Authentication servers will probably be distributed so that it can
happen quickly and the resulting flows and paths can be configured
independently.

 

Currently there are two limits in any area for coverage:

 

1. satellite bandwidth                                             i

2. ground station bandwidth

[RR] It is probably a bit more complicated than this. Since the dishy and
the satellites have antenna arrays apparently, lots of smart things can be
done (aka SDMA). Whether or not they are being done is the question ;^)))))

 

laser links will significantly reduce the effect of the second one.

 

[RR] Ground stations have "two bandwidths", incoming and outgoing. If one is
wired and the other wireless, often the wired (optical fiber) bandwidth far
exceeds the wireless just because it can preparing for the future! 

 

We know that they can do mobile dishes (they are testing it currently on
Elon's 

gulfstream, FAR more mobile that I will ever be :-) )

 

David Lang

_______________________________________________

Starlink mailing list

Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net

https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 11150 bytes --]

Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming

[David Lang]

On Mon, 21 Feb 2022, Dick Roy wrote:

> My thinking is that the laser links will make it possible to route the
> traffic
>> from wherever I am to the appropriate ground station that I'm registered
> with as opposed to the current bent-pipe approach where, if I move to far from 
> my registered location, I need to talk to a different ground station.
>
>
>
> [RR] It is important to remember there is no need to go through a particular
> ground station.  What is necessary is to authenticate the dishy to the
> network. Authentication servers will probably be distributed so that it can
> happen quickly and the resulting flows and paths can be configured
> independently.

long term you are correct, short term I expect that dishes are assigned a 
specific ground station. It's a choice that would get them up and running 
faster, and with a fixed bent-pipe arrangement, doesn't really hurt that much 
(again, short term)

David Lang

Re: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming

[Dick Roy]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1333 bytes --]

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: David Lang [mailto:david@lang.hm] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2022 12:55 AM
To: Dick Roy
Cc: 'David Lang'; 'Daniel AJ Sokolov'; starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
Subject: RE: [Starlink] Starlink Roaming

 

On Mon, 21 Feb 2022, Dick Roy wrote:

 

> My thinking is that the laser links will make it possible to route the

> traffic

>> from wherever I am to the appropriate ground station that I'm registered

> with as opposed to the current bent-pipe approach where, if I move to far
from 

> my registered location, I need to talk to a different ground station.

> 

> 

> 

> [RR] It is important to remember there is no need to go through a
particular

> ground station.  What is necessary is to authenticate the dishy to the

> network. Authentication servers will probably be distributed so that it
can

> happen quickly and the resulting flows and paths can be configured

> independently.

 

long term you are correct, short term I expect that dishes are assigned a 

specific ground station. It's a choice that would get them up and running 

faster, and with a fixed bent-pipe arrangement, doesn't really hurt that
much 

(again, short term)

[RR] Agreed! Many of these early decisions on system architecture will
likely change going forward with no problems.

 

RR 

 

David Lang


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6334 bytes --]