[Starlink] Re: Starlink and Iran

Frantisek Borsik
2026-01-15T23:13:11Z

Shared with me by one of the silent members of the list. We are not sure
about the accuracy of it, but here you are:

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2026/01/iran-jamming-of-starlink-and-ways-to-overcome-jamming.html

All the best,

Frank

Frantisek (Frank) Borsik

*In loving memory of Dave Täht: *1965-2025

https://libreqos.io/2025/04/01/in-loving-memory-of-dave/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik

Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714

iMessage, mobile: +420775230885

Skype: casioa5302ca

frantisek.borsik@gmail.com

On Thu, Jan 15, 2026 at 10:49 PM Colin_Higbie via Starlink <
starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:

> Ulrich, thanks. That's a great description and you're right that I had not
> appreciated how much more directional these are today (in fact, in the
> early military applications, before it was available in cell phones, the
> lack of directionality was important to protect our teams from being
> located, even as they were transmitting from close to an enemy location).
>
> However, this creates a follow-up question: working as you describe, which
> I accept as correct, why the big concern from Jeff Bezos and others about
> the sky coverage of the Starlink LEO constellation making it tough for
> them? If the signal is as hyperdirectional as you've described (also saw
> your laser pointer example in response to Hayden Simon), I would think that
> means very low risk of significant interference between two nearby layers
> of satellites. Even with thousands zipping around the Earth, I would think
> the probability is quite low of any two of them being on the same line to a
> home dish. What kind of interference are Starlink's competitors complaining
> about? Is it that while it's tight beam, it's still not *that* tight, so if
> they're within a few miles of each other, that's enough to trigger
> interference?
>
> Thanks,
> Colin
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ulrich Speidel via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> Sent: Friday, 16 January 2026 9:27 am
> To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> Subject: [Starlink] Re: Starlink and Iran
>
> On 16/01/2026 6:42 am, Colin_Higbie via Starlink wrote:
> > Can't the traditional approach of just flooding the air with noise
> reduce the SNR to the point that most packets are indecipherable? I don't
> believe this requires a digital or technically advanced approach nor a
> focus on GPS or anything else so specific, just sufficient power and
> ability to broadcast fully across the same spectrum bands to drown out the
> valid signals. Starlink, like cellular technology, uses excellent methods
> to operate amidst a lot of noise and find its packets, but it's still not
> immune to noise.
> >
> > Iran is a large area, and probably the government lacks the ability to
> block the entire nation simultaneously, but I would think they could drown
> out the signal in specific geographic regions, effectively jamming the
> signal entirely or almost entirely in those areas.
> >
> > Perhaps some of the cellular or satcom experts here can expand on or
> correct me if I'm mistaken. My physics knowledge on this has not updated
> much since the original spread spectrum work decades ago.
>
> The original spread spectrum work concerned much much lower frequencies
> (in the MHz rather than the GHz) and the physics that goes with lower
> frequencies (not just spread spectrum) is that at the time, jamming was
> mostly used against receivers with fairly omnidirectional antennas.
> Read: It doesn't really matter where you transmit your interfering signal
> from - the receiver will hear it. It also helps that the (free
> space) path loss of RF signals is proportional to the square of the
> frequency, so low frequency means you can hit a receiver over a substantial
> distance with relatively little power.
>
> Starlink is a different ballgame: It operates in Ku-band above 10 GHz.
> This means highly directional antennas - so you literally need to transmit
> into the receive beam from the beam's preferred direction to be able to jam
> at all. Plus having to invest more power to bridge the distance means that
> flooding just isn't an option here.
>
> --
> ****************************************************************
> Dr. Ulrich Speidel
>
> School of Computer Science
>
> Room 303S.594 (City Campus)
>
> The University of Auckland
> u.speidel@auckland.ac.nz
> http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~ulrich/
> ****************************************************************
>
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list -- starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> To unsubscribe send an email to starlink-leave@lists.bufferbloat.net
>