[Starlink] Starlink in Northern Europe: A New Look at Stationary and In-motion Performance

[Starlink] Starlink in Northern Europe: A New Look at Stationary and In-motion Performance

[Hesham ElBakoury]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1079 bytes --]

This paper [1] This paper evaluates the Flat High Performance (FHP)
terminal's performance in Finland, Northern Europe.

*Abstract*
"Starlink has introduced the Flat High Performance (FHP) terminal,
specifically designed to support the vehicles and the vessels in motion as
well as the high-demand stationary users. The research on FHP terminal
throughput analysis remains limited, only a few existing studies evaluate
FHP, focusing on the limited parameters and scenarios. This paper evaluates
the FHP terminal's performance in Finland, Northern Europe. We examine
round-trip time (RTT), uplink, and downlink throughput for both stationary
and in-motion use. We measure network efficiency across six geographically
diverse servers and get insights of network routing strategies. Our results
show that Starlink provides high-speed, low-RTT connectivity, however, the
throughput experiences fluctuations with slight degradation when in motion.
Additionally, we compare Starlink and terrestrial network RTT and possible
routing paths."

Hesham
[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.15552

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1318 bytes --]

Re: [Starlink] Starlink in Northern Europe: A New Look at Stationary and In-motion Performance

[Sascha Meinrath]

Hi Hesham,

I've downloaded your paper to read when I get a moment; but could you provide 
the topline results for those of us who are interested to hear what you found?

--Sascha

On 2/27/25 00:00, Hesham ElBakoury via Starlink wrote:
> This paper [1] This paper evaluates the Flat High Performance (FHP) terminal's 
> performance in Finland, Northern Europe.
> 
> *_Abstract_*
> "Starlink has introduced the Flat High Performance (FHP) terminal, specifically 
> designed to support the vehicles and the vessels in motion as well as the high- 
> demand stationary users. The research on FHP terminal throughput analysis 
> remains limited, only a few existing studies evaluate FHP, focusing on the 
> limited parameters and scenarios. This paper evaluates the FHP terminal's 
> performance in Finland, Northern Europe. We examine round-trip time (RTT), 
> uplink, and downlink throughput for both stationary and in-motion use. We 
> measure network efficiency across six geographically diverse servers and get 
> insights of network routing strategies. Our results show that Starlink provides 
> high-speed, low-RTT connectivity, however, the throughput experiences 
> fluctuations with slight degradation when in motion. Additionally, we compare 
> Starlink and terrestrial network RTT and possible routing paths."
> 
> Hesham
> [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.15552 <https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.15552>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink

-- 
Sascha Meinrath
Director, X-Lab
Palmer Chair in Telecommunications
Penn State University

Re: [Starlink] Starlink in Northern Europe: A New Look at Stationary and In-motion Performance

[Craig Polk]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1873 bytes --]

Hesham,

Is this your paper? Are you submitting it for the WG to review as a
possible INGR Topic article?

Best regards,
Craig

----
Craig Polk, MSEE, MBA
Program Manager
Future Networks Tech Community | futurenetworks.ieee.org
3 Park Avenue, 17th Floor, New York, NY 10016
Office: +1 212-705-8926 | Mobile: +1 908-255-6568
Email: c.polk@comsoc.org
Future Networks World Forum | https://fnwf.ieee.org/
Connecting the Unconnected | https://ctu.ieee.org/

On Thu, Feb 27, 2025, 12:01 AM Hesham ElBakoury <helbakoury@gmail.com>
wrote:

> This paper [1] This paper evaluates the Flat High Performance (FHP)
> terminal's performance in Finland, Northern Europe.
>
> *Abstract*
> "Starlink has introduced the Flat High Performance (FHP) terminal,
> specifically designed to support the vehicles and the vessels in motion as
> well as the high-demand stationary users. The research on FHP terminal
> throughput analysis remains limited, only a few existing studies evaluate
> FHP, focusing on the limited parameters and scenarios. This paper evaluates
> the FHP terminal's performance in Finland, Northern Europe. We examine
> round-trip time (RTT), uplink, and downlink throughput for both stationary
> and in-motion use. We measure network efficiency across six geographically
> diverse servers and get insights of network routing strategies. Our results
> show that Starlink provides high-speed, low-RTT connectivity, however, the
> throughput experiences fluctuations with slight degradation when in motion.
> Additionally, we compare Starlink and terrestrial network RTT and possible
> routing paths."
>
> Hesham
> [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.15552
> ------------------------------
>
> To unsubscribe from the 5GRM-SATELLITE list, click the following link:
> https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=5GRM-SATELLITE&A=1
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2749 bytes --]

Re: [Starlink] Starlink in Northern Europe: A New Look at Stationary and In-motion Performance

[Hesham ElBakoury]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2401 bytes --]

Hi Craig,
No it is not my paper.
It has interesting results that I would like others to see and provide
feedback on.

Hesham

On Thu, Feb 27, 2025, 6:36 AM Craig Polk <c.polk@comsoc.org> wrote:

> Hesham,
>
> Is this your paper? Are you submitting it for the WG to review as a
> possible INGR Topic article?
>
> Best regards,
> Craig
>
> ----
> Craig Polk, MSEE, MBA
> Program Manager
> Future Networks Tech Community | futurenetworks.ieee.org
> 3 Park Avenue, 17th Floor, New York, NY 10016
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/3+Park+Avenue,+17th+Floor,+New+York,+NY+10016%C2%A0++Office:+%2B1?entry=gmail&source=g>
> Office: +1
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/3+Park+Avenue,+17th+Floor,+New+York,+NY+10016%C2%A0++Office:+%2B1?entry=gmail&source=g>
> 212-705-8926 | Mobile: +1 908-255-6568
> Email: c.polk@comsoc.org
> Future Networks World Forum | https://fnwf.ieee.org/
> Connecting the Unconnected | https://ctu.ieee.org/
>
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2025, 12:01 AM Hesham ElBakoury <helbakoury@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> This paper [1] This paper evaluates the Flat High Performance (FHP)
>> terminal's performance in Finland, Northern Europe.
>>
>> *Abstract*
>> "Starlink has introduced the Flat High Performance (FHP) terminal,
>> specifically designed to support the vehicles and the vessels in motion as
>> well as the high-demand stationary users. The research on FHP terminal
>> throughput analysis remains limited, only a few existing studies evaluate
>> FHP, focusing on the limited parameters and scenarios. This paper evaluates
>> the FHP terminal's performance in Finland, Northern Europe. We examine
>> round-trip time (RTT), uplink, and downlink throughput for both stationary
>> and in-motion use. We measure network efficiency across six geographically
>> diverse servers and get insights of network routing strategies. Our results
>> show that Starlink provides high-speed, low-RTT connectivity, however, the
>> throughput experiences fluctuations with slight degradation when in motion.
>> Additionally, we compare Starlink and terrestrial network RTT and possible
>> routing paths."
>>
>> Hesham
>> [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.15552
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the 5GRM-SATELLITE list, click the following link:
>> https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=5GRM-SATELLITE&A=1
>>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3761 bytes --]

Re: [Starlink] Starlink in Northern Europe: A New Look at Stationary and In-motion Performance

[Ulrich Speidel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5608 bytes --]

I had a quick look.

The most important bit of information I was looking for is on page 7, 
and it's not explicitly mentioned despite its importance - rather it's 
delivered on the side of the figures: the latitude of the measurements. 
Ballpark 65 deg north. That puts the measurements beyond the range of 
the bulk of the Starlink shells at 43, 53, and 53.2 degrees inclination, 
leaving only the 70 and 97.6 deg inclination shells within view.

Why does this matter? Two reasons:

 1. A location at 65 deg north sees on average around 8 qualifying
    satellites at any time - those are satellites that are at least 25
    deg above the horizon (so their beams don't get into terrestrial
    microwave link receivers). That compares to over 40 qualifying
    satellites should you find yourself luck to live between 40 and 45
    deg north, and over 20 at the Equator (even keeping GSO protection
    into account).
 2. The qualifying satellites you see north of about 60 deg are still
     >90% version 1.5's. They have lasers for backhaul but a
    comparatively small number of Ku band beams for downlink to Dishy.
    South of 40 degrees, almost half the qualifying satellites you're
    going to encounter are from the version 2 series, which have a lot
    more beams. These beams are also higher capacity ones.

Why does the number of qualifying satellites and beams matter? 
Basically, if you add up all beams on all satellites within view, you 
get the pool of beams that Starlink can pick from to serve your Dishy. 
More beams in total = more options = bigger cake = bigger slice of 
capacity for your Dishy.

Now how big a slice of the cake you can get depends not only on the 
satellite mix in view, but also on how many other user terminals in your 
immediate (cell) and wider (nearby cells) in your neighbourhood want to 
access that capacity cake. This depends a lot on population density and 
on what the competing terrestrial connectivity options are. In a place 
with low population density, fibre to almost everywhere and a good 4G 
and 5G coverage, all at good prices, there won't be a lot of competing 
users for the cake. The Oulu area in Finland, where they took the 
measurements, appears to be in that category, mostly. The paper doesn't 
discuss these determinants of performance, however.

On 28/02/2025 4:04 am, Hesham ElBakoury via Starlink wrote:
> Hi Craig,
> No it is not my paper.
> It has interesting results that I would like others to see and provide 
> feedback on.
>
> Hesham
>
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2025, 6:36 AM Craig Polk <c.polk@comsoc.org> wrote:
>
>     Hesham,
>
>     Is this your paper? Are you submitting it for the WG to review as
>     a possible INGR Topic article?
>
>     Best regards,
>     Craig
>
>     ----
>     Craig Polk, MSEE, MBA
>     Program Manager
>     Future Networks Tech Community | futurenetworks.ieee.org
>     <http://futurenetworks.ieee.org>
>     3 Park Avenue, 17th Floor, New York, NY 10016
>     <https://www.google.com/maps/search/3+Park+Avenue,+17th+Floor,+New+York,+NY+10016%C2%A0++Office:+%2B1?entry=gmail&source=g>
>     Office: +1
>     <https://www.google.com/maps/search/3+Park+Avenue,+17th+Floor,+New+York,+NY+10016%C2%A0++Office:+%2B1?entry=gmail&source=g>
>     212-705-8926 | Mobile: +1 908-255-6568
>     Email: c.polk@comsoc.org
>     Future Networks World Forum | https://fnwf.ieee.org/
>     Connecting the Unconnected | https://ctu.ieee.org/
>
>     On Thu, Feb 27, 2025, 12:01 AM Hesham ElBakoury
>     <helbakoury@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>         This paper [1] This paper evaluates the Flat High Performance
>         (FHP) terminal's performance in Finland, Northern Europe.
>
>         *_Abstract_*
>         "Starlink has introduced the Flat High Performance (FHP)
>         terminal, specifically designed to support the vehicles and
>         the vessels in motion as well as the high-demand stationary
>         users. The research on FHP terminal throughput analysis
>         remains limited, only a few existing studies evaluate FHP,
>         focusing on the limited parameters and scenarios. This paper
>         evaluates the FHP terminal's performance in Finland, Northern
>         Europe. We examine round-trip time (RTT), uplink, and downlink
>         throughput for both stationary and in-motion use. We measure
>         network efficiency across six geographically diverse servers
>         and get insights of network routing strategies. Our results
>         show that Starlink provides high-speed, low-RTT connectivity,
>         however, the throughput experiences fluctuations with slight
>         degradation when in motion. Additionally, we compare Starlink
>         and terrestrial network RTT and possible routing paths."
>
>         Hesham
>         [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.15552
>         ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>         To unsubscribe from the 5GRM-SATELLITE list, click the
>         following link:
>         https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=5GRM-SATELLITE&A=1
>         <https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=5GRM-SATELLITE&A=1>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: 9312 bytes --]

Re: [Starlink] Starlink in Northern Europe: A New Look at Stationary and In-motion Performance

[Daniel AJ Sokolov]

I live North of 60, in Whitehorse in the Yukon. With about 35,000 
inhabitants, We are the largest Canadian city in the North.

Here, we could get Starlink for a while. But last year, they introduced 
a waiting list. There is no more capacity to go around.

I assume this will remain so for a couple more years, until we get new 
satellites.

In other parts of the Yukon, I am not aware of waiting lists.

Cheers
Daniel AJ



On 2025-02-27 at 14:02, Ulrich Speidel via Starlink wrote:
> I had a quick look.
> 
> The most important bit of information I was looking for is on page 7, 
> and it's not explicitly mentioned despite its importance - rather it's 
> delivered on the side of the figures: the latitude of the measurements. 
> Ballpark 65 deg north. That puts the measurements beyond the range of 
> the bulk of the Starlink shells at 43, 53, and 53.2 degrees inclination, 
> leaving only the 70 and 97.6 deg inclination shells within view.
> 
> Why does this matter? Two reasons:
> 
> 1. A location at 65 deg north sees on average around 8 qualifying
>     satellites at any time - those are satellites that are at least 25
>     deg above the horizon (so their beams don't get into terrestrial
>     microwave link receivers). That compares to over 40 qualifying
>     satellites should you find yourself luck to live between 40 and 45
>     deg north, and over 20 at the Equator (even keeping GSO protection
>     into account).
> 2. The qualifying satellites you see north of about 60 deg are still
>      >90% version 1.5's. They have lasers for backhaul but a
>     comparatively small number of Ku band beams for downlink to Dishy.
>     South of 40 degrees, almost half the qualifying satellites you're
>     going to encounter are from the version 2 series, which have a lot
>     more beams. These beams are also higher capacity ones.
> 
> Why does the number of qualifying satellites and beams matter? 
> Basically, if you add up all beams on all satellites within view, you 
> get the pool of beams that Starlink can pick from to serve your Dishy. 
> More beams in total = more options = bigger cake = bigger slice of 
> capacity for your Dishy.
> 
> Now how big a slice of the cake you can get depends not only on the 
> satellite mix in view, but also on how many other user terminals in your 
> immediate (cell) and wider (nearby cells) in your neighbourhood want to 
> access that capacity cake. This depends a lot on population density and 
> on what the competing terrestrial connectivity options are. In a place 
> with low population density, fibre to almost everywhere and a good 4G 
> and 5G coverage, all at good prices, there won't be a lot of competing 
> users for the cake. The Oulu area in Finland, where they took the 
> measurements, appears to be in that category, mostly. The paper doesn't 
> discuss these determinants of performance, however.
> 
> On 28/02/2025 4:04 am, Hesham ElBakoury via Starlink wrote:
>> Hi Craig,
>> No it is not my paper.
>> It has interesting results that I would like others to see and provide 
>> feedback on.
>>
>> Hesham
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 27, 2025, 6:36 AM Craig Polk <c.polk@comsoc.org> wrote:
>>
>>     Hesham,
>>
>>     Is this your paper? Are you submitting it for the WG to review as
>>     a possible INGR Topic article?
>>
>>     Best regards,
>>     Craig
>>
>>     ----
>>     Craig Polk, MSEE, MBA
>>     Program Manager
>>     Future Networks Tech Community | futurenetworks.ieee.org
>>     <http://futurenetworks.ieee.org>
>>     3 Park Avenue, 17th Floor, New York, NY 10016
>>     <https://www.google.com/maps/search/3+Park+Avenue,+17th+Floor, 
>> +New+York,+NY+10016%C2%A0++Office:+%2B1?entry=gmail&source=g>
>>     Office: +1
>>     <https://www.google.com/maps/search/3+Park+Avenue,+17th+Floor, 
>> +New+York,+NY+10016%C2%A0++Office:+%2B1?entry=gmail&source=g>
>>     212-705-8926 | Mobile: +1 908-255-6568
>>     Email: c.polk@comsoc.org
>>     Future Networks World Forum | https://fnwf.ieee.org/
>>     Connecting the Unconnected | https://ctu.ieee.org/
>>
>>     On Thu, Feb 27, 2025, 12:01 AM Hesham ElBakoury
>>     <helbakoury@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>         This paper [1] This paper evaluates the Flat High Performance
>>         (FHP) terminal's performance in Finland, Northern Europe.
>>
>>         *_Abstract_*
>>         "Starlink has introduced the Flat High Performance (FHP)
>>         terminal, specifically designed to support the vehicles and
>>         the vessels in motion as well as the high-demand stationary
>>         users. The research on FHP terminal throughput analysis
>>         remains limited, only a few existing studies evaluate FHP,
>>         focusing on the limited parameters and scenarios. This paper
>>         evaluates the FHP terminal's performance in Finland, Northern
>>         Europe. We examine round-trip time (RTT), uplink, and downlink
>>         throughput for both stationary and in-motion use. We measure
>>         network efficiency across six geographically diverse servers
>>         and get insights of network routing strategies. Our results
>>         show that Starlink provides high-speed, low-RTT connectivity,
>>         however, the throughput experiences fluctuations with slight
>>         degradation when in motion. Additionally, we compare Starlink
>>         and terrestrial network RTT and possible routing paths."
>>
>>         Hesham
>>         [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.15552
>>         
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>         To unsubscribe from the 5GRM-SATELLITE list, click the
>>         following link:
>>         https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=5GRM-SATELLITE&A=1
>>         <https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=5GRM-SATELLITE&A=1>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 in Northern Europe: A New Look at Stationary and In-motion Performance

[Ulrich Speidel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 9911 bytes --]

I noticed this some time ago but it seems to come up as "available" again.

There are two ways in which Starlink can run out of capacity:

 1. Lack of beams. This is fixable by having more sats in orbit in your
    neighbourhood (or sats with more beams).
 2. Lack of spectrum. That's when you have enough satellites with beams
    available but you can't use the extra beams because they'd collide
    at the receiver with another beam on the same frequency. This isn't
    really fixable with more beams or sats if you've used up all
    available spectrum. They don't really make any more of that ;-) What
    you can in principle do there is make beams narrower (=cells
    smaller), but that's a matter of flying appropriate hardware in
    order to increase frequency re-use.

Some time late last year, a lot of areas around the globe started 
popping up as "sold out" on Starlink's availability. These areas have 
since increased, especially in the Americas. For all I could tell, most 
of these areas have the following in common: significant population 
density and severe lack of terrestrial broadband infrastructure. A lot 
of that looks like they're running out of spectrum, especially since 
there's been relatively little in terms of areas coming back on-stream 
for sales. Note that when you get away from the "crowded" target area 
("other parts of the Yukon"), that problem goes away.

Note that given Starlink's roaming plans, they have to throttle back on 
selling fixed units in an area well before they hit spectral capacity 
there. That's so they can accommodate roaming units that come into the 
area. This may have been the case last year with a lot of RVs coming up 
to Whitehorse over summer, with pressure now relenting over winter, 
offering a breather (and perhaps reworked roaming rules for next 
summer's roaming units). However that isn't really a perfect solution: 
Locals desperate for a domestic connection can bring in roaming units 
and use them in a de-facto fixed location, even if they're more 
expensive to run than the fixed unit that their neighbour bought 
earlier. This has also been the case in places where Starlink offers 
roaming service but isn't locally licensed to offer fixed service 
(Kiribati comes to mind).

SpaceX seem to have been addressing this by roaming price increases, 
attempting to justify this with the fact that you can now take your RV 
with the unit offshore for a few miles and still get service under 
maritime coverage. Now I'm not sure that this is what a lot of people do 
given that most RVs don't float all that well. SpaceX have also tried to 
restrict the amount of time that you can operate a roaming unit in the 
same place (and have sent comms to users exceeding that time requesting 
them to move the units - or else). I guess there's probably a business 
plan in renting out roaming units on a rotating basis for a few weeks at 
a time ;-)

On 28/02/2025 4:40 pm, Daniel AJ Sokolov via Starlink wrote:
> I live North of 60, in Whitehorse in the Yukon. With about 35,000 
> inhabitants, We are the largest Canadian city in the North.
>
> Here, we could get Starlink for a while. But last year, they 
> introduced a waiting list. There is no more capacity to go around.
>
> I assume this will remain so for a couple more years, until we get new 
> satellites.
>
> In other parts of the Yukon, I am not aware of waiting lists.
>
> Cheers
> Daniel AJ
>
>
>
> On 2025-02-27 at 14:02, Ulrich Speidel via Starlink wrote:
>> I had a quick look.
>>
>> The most important bit of information I was looking for is on page 7, 
>> and it's not explicitly mentioned despite its importance - rather 
>> it's delivered on the side of the figures: the latitude of the 
>> measurements. Ballpark 65 deg north. That puts the measurements 
>> beyond the range of the bulk of the Starlink shells at 43, 53, and 
>> 53.2 degrees inclination, leaving only the 70 and 97.6 deg 
>> inclination shells within view.
>>
>> Why does this matter? Two reasons:
>>
>> 1. A location at 65 deg north sees on average around 8 qualifying
>>     satellites at any time - those are satellites that are at least 25
>>     deg above the horizon (so their beams don't get into terrestrial
>>     microwave link receivers). That compares to over 40 qualifying
>>     satellites should you find yourself luck to live between 40 and 45
>>     deg north, and over 20 at the Equator (even keeping GSO protection
>>     into account).
>> 2. The qualifying satellites you see north of about 60 deg are still
>>      >90% version 1.5's. They have lasers for backhaul but a
>>     comparatively small number of Ku band beams for downlink to Dishy.
>>     South of 40 degrees, almost half the qualifying satellites you're
>>     going to encounter are from the version 2 series, which have a lot
>>     more beams. These beams are also higher capacity ones.
>>
>> Why does the number of qualifying satellites and beams matter? 
>> Basically, if you add up all beams on all satellites within view, you 
>> get the pool of beams that Starlink can pick from to serve your 
>> Dishy. More beams in total = more options = bigger cake = bigger 
>> slice of capacity for your Dishy.
>>
>> Now how big a slice of the cake you can get depends not only on the 
>> satellite mix in view, but also on how many other user terminals in 
>> your immediate (cell) and wider (nearby cells) in your neighbourhood 
>> want to access that capacity cake. This depends a lot on population 
>> density and on what the competing terrestrial connectivity options 
>> are. In a place with low population density, fibre to almost 
>> everywhere and a good 4G and 5G coverage, all at good prices, there 
>> won't be a lot of competing users for the cake. The Oulu area in 
>> Finland, where they took the measurements, appears to be in that 
>> category, mostly. The paper doesn't discuss these determinants of 
>> performance, however.
>>
>> On 28/02/2025 4:04 am, Hesham ElBakoury via Starlink wrote:
>>> Hi Craig,
>>> No it is not my paper.
>>> It has interesting results that I would like others to see and 
>>> provide feedback on.
>>>
>>> Hesham
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 27, 2025, 6:36 AM Craig Polk <c.polk@comsoc.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>     Hesham,
>>>
>>>     Is this your paper? Are you submitting it for the WG to review as
>>>     a possible INGR Topic article?
>>>
>>>     Best regards,
>>>     Craig
>>>
>>>     ----
>>>     Craig Polk, MSEE, MBA
>>>     Program Manager
>>>     Future Networks Tech Community | futurenetworks.ieee.org
>>> <http://futurenetworks.ieee.org>
>>>     3 Park Avenue, 17th Floor, New York, NY 10016
>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/3+Park+Avenue,+17th+Floor, 
>>> +New+York,+NY+10016%C2%A0++Office:+%2B1?entry=gmail&source=g>
>>>     Office: +1
>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/3+Park+Avenue,+17th+Floor, 
>>> +New+York,+NY+10016%C2%A0++Office:+%2B1?entry=gmail&source=g>
>>>     212-705-8926 | Mobile: +1 908-255-6568
>>>     Email: c.polk@comsoc.org
>>>     Future Networks World Forum | https://fnwf.ieee.org/
>>>     Connecting the Unconnected | https://ctu.ieee.org/
>>>
>>>     On Thu, Feb 27, 2025, 12:01 AM Hesham ElBakoury
>>> <helbakoury@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>         This paper [1] This paper evaluates the Flat High Performance
>>>         (FHP) terminal's performance in Finland, Northern Europe.
>>>
>>>         *_Abstract_*
>>>         "Starlink has introduced the Flat High Performance (FHP)
>>>         terminal, specifically designed to support the vehicles and
>>>         the vessels in motion as well as the high-demand stationary
>>>         users. The research on FHP terminal throughput analysis
>>>         remains limited, only a few existing studies evaluate FHP,
>>>         focusing on the limited parameters and scenarios. This paper
>>>         evaluates the FHP terminal's performance in Finland, Northern
>>>         Europe. We examine round-trip time (RTT), uplink, and downlink
>>>         throughput for both stationary and in-motion use. We measure
>>>         network efficiency across six geographically diverse servers
>>>         and get insights of network routing strategies. Our results
>>>         show that Starlink provides high-speed, low-RTT connectivity,
>>>         however, the throughput experiences fluctuations with slight
>>>         degradation when in motion. Additionally, we compare Starlink
>>>         and terrestrial network RTT and possible routing paths."
>>>
>>>         Hesham
>>>         [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.15552
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
>>>
>>>
>>>         To unsubscribe from the 5GRM-SATELLITE list, click the
>>>         following link:
>>> https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=5GRM-SATELLITE&A=1
>>> <https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=5GRM-SATELLITE&A=1>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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

-- 
****************************************************************
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: 16076 bytes --]

Re: [Starlink] Starlink in Northern Europe: A New Look at Stationary and In-motion Performance

[Daniel AJ Sokolov]

On 2025-02-27 at 21:22, Ulrich Speidel via Starlink wrote:
> Some time late last year, a lot of areas around the globe started 
> popping up as "sold out" on Starlink's availability. These areas have 
> since increased, especially in the Americas. For all I could tell, most 
> of these areas have the following in common: significant population 
> density and severe lack of terrestrial broadband infrastructure.

In Whitehorse itself it is mostly a question of price. We have broadband 
over coaxial cable, up to 750 MBit/s down and 35 MBit/s up. But it is 
not cheap.

Residential Starlink is CAD 140/month and includes a WiFi functionality.

The local ISP, Northwestel, enjoys a monopoly. In reaction to Starlink, 
they have lowered the price for the least expensive unlimited plan to 
CAD 135 (incl. a Wifi modem), but that is only 50/10 Mbit/s, and not 
available to businesses. Businesses have to pay at least CAD 300 for an 
unlimited plan (also 50/10).

So Starlink is simply cheaper, especially for businesses. If you have 
access to a roof. I look out the window and I see two Starlink units 
used residentially, right next to one another.

We also have 5G coverage, but again it is too expensive to replace a 
household's coaxial cable with all its data volume.

Having said that, there are areas outside the core of the city where you 
can not reasonably get terrestrial service (nor 5G). We have a housing 
crisis, so there are plenty of people living in tiny homes on wheels, 
yurts, wooden cabins without running water nor electricity, RVs, etc. 
Yes, even at -40° C/F. For them it, is Starlink, potentially powered by 
a solar pane and a generator for the Winter months.

If anyone is interested in our local prices, check
https://nwtel.ca/business/internet/business-internet-plans
https://nwtel.ca/internet-plans
after choosing "Whitehorse Central" is the Community.

Myself, I just use a 20/3 MBit/s line for CAD 80. I have my own Wifi 
device (Turris Omnia). However, should I exceed 300 GB in a month, 
overage fees would be onerous. at CAD 2/GByte.

I am sure this is not unlike many islands in Oceania. In many respects, 
Whitehorse is like an island.

Cheers
Daniel

PS: The Yukon's settlements outside Whitehorse have FTTH (all but the 
fly-in community of Old Crow). Prices are like Whitehorse, but they can 
get more symmetric bandwidth up to 750 MBit/s. Still some people use 
Starlink, again mostly for cost reasons. Also, the local ISP hasn't done 
a good job in endearing the locals to the company.