[est31]

It will shift a lot of power from the countries where the internet users are located to the countries where the space internet companies operate from. Both in the free countries like the EU, and in non-free countries like Belarus. That being said, the user's country still has some level of control:

* the companies want to be paid by their users somehow, and local governments usually have control over money flows inside their own banking systems

* the country can ban receiving/sending equipment. It's not small and thus easier to spot but people will likely get creative and build their own equipment instead of importing it

* the country can also install jammers but those cost money to set up and maintain and while you can put jammers close to the users, you can't put jammers close to the satellites. I'm not sure what that means about ability to jam both directions, as directional receivers on the ground should still be able to receive a signal, but maybe ground jammers can just send at larger strengths.

[gpm]

* International treaties and national laws prohibit sending radio signals into the country if the countries government doesn't give you permission. Space ISPs are very unlikely to do so without permission except at the behest of their home government.

[jasonwatkinspdx]

Yeah, I continue to be baffled by this argument that starlink et all are going to somehow crack open totalitarian states. There's not a chance in the world of any of these companies risking their licensing and relationship with the ITU. No one is going to be smuggling in ground terminals, let alone macgyvering their own, because the network isn't gonna talk back.

[skissane]

> There's not a chance in the world of any of these companies risking their licensing and relationship with the ITU

SpaceX doesn't have to worry about the ITU. All they have to worry about is (1) keeping the US government happy (2) avoiding conflict with powerful foreign countries like Russia, China, etc

So long as they obey US laws and keep the US government happy, and avoid making unnecessary enemies of powerful foreign countries, SpaceX can completely ignore the ITU

(Belarus is a complex situation because it is right next to Russia. If SpaceX was helping the US install a pro-US regime in Belarus, that is going to offend Russia, and it would be dangerous for SpaceX to offend Russia. But if we were talking about some other country which was not immediately bordering a major world power, that consideration would not apply.)

[low_common]

Why would it be dangerous for SpaceX to offend Russia?

[manquer]

in a small enough country , location could be spoofed perhaps ? Or in the border regions it could be harder to block ?

[qmarchi]

The trick is that a Sat must know where it is, and the fact that Starlink operate at LEO, they only have a solid visibility of a few hundred square km.

[enkid]

Can you point to a specific treaty? Radio Free Europe has been doing it for decades. Photons don't stop at national borders, and the footprint of a satellite is likely going to mean that Belarus will have transmissions from satellites, even if no one wants that to happen.

[gpm]

Article 18.1 or the ITU Radio Regulations (a binding treaty) states that

> No transmitting station may be established or operated by a private person or by any enterprise without a licence issued in an appropriate form and in conformity with the provisions of these Regulations by or on behalf of the government of the country to which the station in question is subject (however, see Nos. 18.2, 18.8 and 18.11).

SpaceX cannot help establish, or help operate, these ground stations. Technically could they sell them in another country? Maybe, I don't think the ITU would accept that considering that have to have control over the software for routing purposes, and that they know exactly where the ground station is because of beam forming.

The Outer Space Treaty article 3 also states that

> States Parties to the Treaty shall carry on activities in the exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, in accordance with international law, including the Charter of the United Nations, in the interest of maintaining international peace and security and promoting international co- operation and understanding.

(Later incorporated against private entities in a different article).

It would not be much of a stretch to consider this a violation of this article as well.

It is slightly less clear cut than I remember though.

[iknowstuff]

While the first iteration of Starlink requires a ground station somewhat close (hundreds of kilometers) to the user, once they deploy intersatellite links, the only ground station required will be close to the destination IP, far away from the censoring country.

While radio licenses will probably prevent them from operating in geographically large countries like Russia, information can seep in through regions several hundred kilometers away from the border.

Take a look at this map representing current coverage: https://satellitemap.space/

Belarus is covered by a single satellite.

[gpm]

Ah, I meant "user terminal" when I said ground station in this context.

[gpm]

Will try to find the relevant treaty again tonight if no one else does first. It might have been space specific/it might have a cutout for the government (either would explain radio free europe).

SpaceX uses phased array antennas, so they know where they are sending their service.

[betterunix2]

Serious question: how would a satellite ISP know where a user is located? Moreover, how can a satellite ISP ensure that its signals are not entering a particular country, especially a geographically small country?

[gpm]

If you just took a standard antenna that approximately speaking broadcast evenly in every direction, you couldn't (or at least you would have to bother triangulating the signal). If you did that though you wouldn't be able to offer high speed internet because you would be incredibly bandwidth constrained.

Instead, what these satellites are doing is using something called a phased array antenna, that let's them narrowly select what area they are broadcasting to and receiving from at any point in time with some fancy electronics controlling an array of many little antennas that constructively/destructively interfere. As a result, they have to know where the base stations are reasonably precisely.

I'm not actually sure how they discover where base stations are, my guess would be GPS on the base stations and omni-directional signalling to find them, in which case they know to within meters where a base station is. If that guess is wrong, you might be able to be a small amount over a border and have SpaceX not know it, but not substantially.

[kube-system]

These new generations of satellite constellations also are proposed to operate at MUCH lower altitudes and in much greater numbers than something in geosynchronous orbit. We're talking distances closer than the ISS, which is this far away: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ISS-42_Florida_in_th...

Doesn't seem like it would be that hard of a task at that proximity.

[gpm]

> Doesn't seem like it would be that hard of a task at that proximity.

What is the task you are talking about?

[kube-system]

Aiming a directional antenna, having a geographically limited broadcast area, or aiming a phased array, etc.

[petre]

Yeah, like that stopped Radio Free Europe delivering real news into the Eastern block.

They can imprison people with terminals but they can't radio shield their airspace.

[dan-robertson]

Indeed Radio free Europe recently (in the last few days) turned on their medium wave broadcasts in Belorussian. I don’t know when they last sent them out.

[YarickR2]

Now we're calling state-sponsored propaganda outlet "real news"

[petre]

You haven't lived in a communist country to get the feel of real propaganda my friend. Radio Free Europe was a breath of fresh air compared to official news. You should probably see the Goodbye Lenin movie.

[Bendingo]

Like Radio Free Europe is "real news"

[jbay808]

Yes; can't they just declare that Starlink's particular transmission bands are reserved for Belarussian military use, and then fine them for broadcasting on military bands?

[petre]

How would a state extract fines out of an external entity who does not operate in that state? International court? Those only deal with human rights, resources and border disputes.

[steve_musk]

Shoot down the satellites?

[liability]

For a constellation as large as starlink, that would probably require a lot of missiles, even accounting for Kessler effects.

Also, doings such a thing to an American corporation that's only one or two degrees of separation from the USDoD may prove to be a costly mistake. I think Belarus would need to depend on the strength of their relationship with Russia to avoid retaliation. That hasn't protected Syria though, so maybe Belarus [Lukashenko] should think twice before attempting some hotheaded shit like that.

[gpm]

I doubt Belarus has the infrastructure to shoot them down, them asking Russia to and giving Russia the excuse that the US violated the Outer Space Treaty first might do the trick though. Depends on how much of a war monger Russia wants to be at the relevant point in time.

They are spread out with many satellites over a small number of orbits, pretty ideal for Kessler, or pretty ideal for another satellite to pass by a whole line of them and stick a bullet (small detachable impactor) in each.

[Causality1]

That's much harder to do under the table though. Most of these I ternet blocking orders do their best to avoid leaving a paper trail of responsibility.