The present architecture is logically a bent pipe, where a moving satellite (preferably more than one, for make before break handoff function) needs to be simultaneously in view of a starlink earth station and the CPE.

In the long term this may not be an absolute. Ten beta test satellites that were launched into a near polar orbit a few months back have test equipment on them for inter-satellite laser links. 

Satellite to Satellite relay by Ka-band for low bandwidth stuff has been demonstrated and in production for a long time. For quite a while the only two Iridium earth stations existed in Arizona and Hawaii. A handheld phone call or SMS from an Iridium terminal anywhere in the world would make its way through the satellite network to those locations. Statements by Musk indicate that they have a strong desire for a long term ability to do something like that, but optically and with much higher throughput. I would also be surprised if Kuiper does not have similar intentions.



On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 9:05 PM <blakangel@gmail.com> wrote:
This is a fascinating discussion.

Also keep in mind that starlink satellites need many earth stations to
downlink customer packets and provide internet transit. There are over
50 satellite earth stations in the US already.

Here is a great google map of the current ground stations based on FCC
license data:
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.6554578,-111.9151229,4.5z/data=!4m2!6m1!1s1H1x8jZs8vfjy60TvKgpbYs_grargieVw

-Keith

Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote on 3/28/2021 6:58 PM:

> No need for all that fancy RF tools.
> Moreover, detecting >10Ghz transmission is not such an easy task.
> The beam is most likely narrow enough to be difficult to detect.
>
> But, (for example) it's enough to visit from foreign IPs some local
> website,
> to have cookie set: SATELLITE_USER=xyz
> Then when person use local connection and visit same website, this cookie
> will send law enforcement hint.
> And there are many more automated, software-based ways to detect that a
> device has been connected via satellite in past.
>
> Not to mention the fact that any attempt to provide services illegally
> is pandora box.
> At least it may end up with the fact that the country will start
> jamming uplink
> frequencies, which will affect the service in whole region.
> And in the worst case, it will give reason to use anti-satellite weapons.
>
>
> On 2021-03-29 03:23, Eric Kuhnke wrote:
>> I would also concur that the likelihood of Starlink (or a Oneweb, or
>> Kuiper) terminal being used successfully to bypass the GFW or similar
>> serious Internet censorship, in an authoritarian environment, is
>> probably low. This is because:
>>
>> a) It has to transmit in known bands.
>>
>> b) It has to be located in a location with a very good, clear view of
>> the sky in all directions (even a single tree obstruction in one
>> section of the sky, relative to where the antenna is mounted will
>> cause packet loss/periodic issues on a starlink beta terminal right
>> now). Visually identifying the terminal would not be hard.
>>
>> c) Portable spectrum analyzers capable of up to 30 GHz are not nearly
>> as expensive as they used to be. They also have much better GUIs and
>> visualization tools than what was available 6-10 years ago.
>>
>> d) You could successfully train local law enforcement to use these
>> sort of portable spectrum analyzers in a one-day, 8-hour training
>> course.
>>
>> e) The equipment would have to be smuggled into the country
>>
>> f) Many people such as in a location like Iran may lack access to a
>> standard payment system for the services (the percentage of Iranians
>> with access to buy things online with visa/mastercard/american express
>> or similar is quite low).
>>
>> There are already plenty of places in the world where if you set up a
>> 1.2, 1.8 or 2.4 meter C, Ku or Ka band VSAT terminal using some sort
>> of geostationary based services, without appropriate government
>> "licenses", men with guns will come to dismantle it and arrest you.
>>
>> I am not saying it is an impossible problem to solve, but any system
>> intended for that sort of purpose would have to be designed for
>> circumvention, and not a consumer/COTS adaptation of an off the shelf
>> starlink terminal.
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 8:31 PM nanog@jima.us <nanog@jima.us> wrote:
>>
>>> Please don't forget that RF sources can be tracked down by even
>>> minimally-well-equipped adversaries.
>>>
>>> - Jima
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+nanog=jima.us@nanog.org> On Behalf Of
>>> scott
>>> Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2021 19:36
>>> To: nanog@nanog.org
>>> Subject: Re: 10 years from now... (was: internet futures)
>>>
>>> On 3/26/2021 9:42 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
>>>> LEO internet providers will be coming online which might make a
>>>> difference in the corners of the world where it's hard to get
>>> access,
>>>> but will it allow internet access to parachute in behind the Great
>>>
>>>> Firewall?
>>> ............
>>>> How do the Chinas of the world intend to deal with the Great
>>> Firewall
>>>> implications?
>>>
>>> This is what I hope will change in the next 10 years.  "Turning off
>>> the
>>> internet" will be harder and harder for folks suppressing others,
>>> many
>>> times violently, and hiding it from everyone else.  A small-ish
>>> antenna
>>> easily hidden would be necessary.
>>>
>>> scott