From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.lang.hm (syn-045-059-245-186.biz.spectrum.com [45.59.245.186]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 867AD3CB37 for ; Mon, 3 Jun 2024 20:54:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dlang-mobile (unknown [10.2.3.133]) by mail.lang.hm (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C4CB1D3A8A; Mon, 3 Jun 2024 17:54:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2024 17:54:26 -0700 (PDT) From: David Lang To: Eugene Y Chang cc: David Lang , Frantisek Borsik , Dave Taht via Starlink In-Reply-To: <3F548B50-D476-4E54-B18E-3418978105CE@ieee.org> Message-ID: References: <32AD770E-336E-4CF4-8B1B-8AE7353981CC@ieee.org> <030p06nr-4169-9341-nn73-4n06nprp9863@ynat.uz> <3F548B50-D476-4E54-B18E-3418978105CE@ieee.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="228850167-2011651431-1717462466=:4640" Subject: Re: [Starlink] SpaceX/Starlink says it's ready for a fall satellite-to-cell service with T-Mobile X-BeenThere: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: "Starlink has bufferbloat. Bad." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2024 00:54:27 -0000 This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --228850167-2011651431-1717462466=:4640 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Eugene Y Chang wrote: >> On Jun 3, 2024, at 12:41 PM, David Lang wrote: >> >> Eugene Y Chang wrote: >> >>> I expect low data rate because the distance will fall back to a lower coding rate. >> >> I think it's going to be more a matter of very large cells, so many people sharing the available bandwidth >> >>> I observe a difference in my phone’s batter life between urban and rural usage. I expect the battery life to be significantly reduced with Starlink. >>> And yes… if the phone isn’t communicating then the battery life isn’t drawn down much… >> >> In my experience, a phone that's trying to find a tower uses more power than one that has a tower, but is otherwise idle > > When the phone is searching for a tower, it is transmitting at maximum power. > Then, the phone adjusts the transmit power according to the distance to the tower, > In an urban environment, the distance to the tower is usually less (i.e. smaller cells due to subscriber density). > In a rural environment, there is more distance to the tower, and the phone is transmitting at higher power (i.e., towers are farther apart for larger cells due to fewer subscribers per tower, up to the max tower separation.) > When you are mobile, the power is proportionate to the mean distance to the tower during your operations. and for direct-to-satellite, it's going to be a max power situation, similar to rural. But when a phone is not connected, how frequent are it's searches for towers (especially if it has multiple bands to check) compared to the 'keepalive' pings when it is connected? if it's doing more transmissions for it's search and attempts to connect than it does while connected and just confirming the connection, that could eat more power. David Lang --228850167-2011651431-1717462466=:4640--