Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 8 minor 33 references

Unveiling TCP BBR Dominance in Starlink Internet: Experimental Insights and Analysis

T0 review · 4 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-07-09 · glm-5.2

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read BBR-v3 Wins on Balance, Not Aggression, Over Starlink

desk verdict First comprehensive real-world BBR-v3 evaluation over operational Starlink, but 'global' claims rest on a single terminal in Melbourne read the letter →

arxiv 2607.07133 v1 pith:CBWB2XC5 submitted 2026-07-08 cs.NI

Rakshitha De Silva , Shiva Raj Pokhrel , Jonathan Kua This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.NI
keywords BBR-v3StarlinkLEOsatellitenetworkscongestioncontrolTCPfairnessqueuinganalysisfluidmodel
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper runs a six-city, five-continent testbed to evaluate how nine different TCP congestion control algorithms behave over SpaceX's Starlink satellite internet. The central finding is that BBR-v3, Google's newest model-based congestion controller, does not dominate by grabbing the most bandwidth. Instead, it wins by striking the best balance: it keeps throughput high while holding retransmission counts, queue buildup, and latency inflation lower than more aggressive alternatives like LeoCC, PCC, and BBR-v1. The paper pairs these measurements with a mathematical model of Starlink's end-to-end link failure probability, a fluid model of BBR-v3's inflight dynamics, and an M/G/1 queuing analysis, arguing that BBR-v3's probing and pacing strategy is well-matched to the non-stationary capacity, handover, and latency dynamics of low-Earth-orbit satellite networks.

What carries the argument

The paper builds three coupled analytical tools: (1) an end-to-end packet-drop probability model that multiplies failure probabilities across the Starlink user link, inter-satellite laser links, and feeder link, incorporating atmospheric attenuation, handover drops, and capacity limitations; (2) a fluid model of BBR-v3's inflight dynamics that tracks phase transitions between probing, cruising, and draining states using indicator variables triggered when inflight exceeds 5/4 of the estimated bandwidth-delay product or when packet-drop probability exceeds 2%; and (3) an M/G/1 queuing approximation that derives arrival rates from observed service rates and queue-occupancy indicators, showing B

What would settle it

If a second Starlink terminal at a different latitude or with different gateway routing showed BBR-v3 falling below the fair-share line or incurring retransmission penalties comparable to BBR-v1 under concurrent contention, the balanced-trade-off claim would weaken. Similarly, if a Starlink-specific adaptive-gain controller built on the paper's fluid model failed to outperform default BBR-v3 parameters in trace-driven validation, the argument for the model's predictive utility would be undermined.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

BBR-v3's advantage over Starlink is a balanced trade-off between throughput, fairness, loss, and delay, not aggressive bandwidth capture. When nine congestion controllers compete simultaneously over the same Starlink path, BBR-v3 operates near the fair-share line with moderate RTT inflation and substantially lower retransmissions per gigabyte than LeoCC, PCC, and BBR-v1, which capture more bandwidth but at a higher loss cost. In dedicated single-flow tests, BBR-v3 achieves consistently high median throughput across all six geographic paths while maintaining a more controlled congestion-window profile than its predecessors.

Load-bearing premise

All measurements originate from a single Starlink user terminal in Melbourne, Australia. The six-city testbed varies the far endpoint in the cloud, not the satellite terminal itself, so the global claims about BBR-v3 behavior depend on that one terminal being representative of Starlink performance worldwide, even though satellite visibility, gateway routing, and atmospheric conditions vary significantly by latitude and region.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Satellite internet providers could adopt BBR-v3 as a default congestion controller for user terminals, reducing retransmission overhead and latency without sacrificing throughput, provided the default parameters are tuned for non-stationary satellite links.
  • The fluid model and link-failure probability framework could serve as a design template for new satellite-specific congestion controllers that explicitly account for handover timing, ISL routing, and ACM-driven capacity variation.
  • Network operators running mixed CCA traffic over shared Starlink paths can use the fairness benchmarks to predict which algorithms will starve under contention and which will coexist, informing traffic engineering decisions for enterprise or government satellite uplinks.
  • The finding that fixed BBR-v3 pacing gains underutilize or over-aggress in Starlink's variable capacity suggests adaptive gain control tied to RTT variance or handover events as a concrete next step for transport-layer optimization.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the single-terminal limitation were addressed by deploying matching testbeds at different latitudes, the fairness and queuing results might shift significantly in regions with different satellite visibility geometry, gateway density, or weather patterns, potentially weakening or strengthening the BBR-v3 balance claim depending on local conditions.
  • The observation that BBR-v3's 2% loss tolerance prevents catastrophic rate collapse suggests it could also perform well over other non-stationary wireless links beyond LEO satellite, such as high-mobility 5G mmWave or airborne mesh networks, though this is untested here.
  • The staggered-flow experiment showing that earlier BBR-v3 flows retain a measurable throughput advantage over later joiners implies that flow-arrival ordering matters for fairness in satellite networks, which could affect applications like multipath TCP or content-distribution prefetching that initiate staggered connections.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 8 minor

Summary. This paper presents an experimental evaluation of Google's BBR-v3 congestion control algorithm over SpaceX's Starlink LEO satellite network. The authors deploy a testbed consisting of a single Starlink terminal in Melbourne, Australia, and six AWS EC2 endpoints across five continents. They benchmark BBR-v3 against eight other CCAs (Cubic, Hybla, Vegas, LeoCC, Copa, PCC, BBR-v1, BBR-v2) under dedicated and concurrent flow conditions. The central finding is that BBR-v3's advantage over Starlink is not aggressive bandwidth capture, but a more balanced trade-off between fairness, loss, and delay. The paper also presents a fluid model of BBR-v3, an M/G/1 queuing analysis, an end-to-end link failure probability model, and a fairness evaluation.

Significance. The paper addresses a timely and practically important problem: the interaction of modern model-based congestion control (BBR-v3) with the highly dynamic environment of LEO satellite networks (Starlink). The systematic comparison against eight CCAs under both dedicated and concurrent conditions provides useful empirical data. The development of a fluid model and queuing analysis to explain the experimental observations adds analytical depth. The finding that BBR-v3 offers a balanced trade-off rather than sheer dominance is a nuanced and valuable insight for the networking community. The inclusion of a sensitivity analysis (Appendix C) exploring Starlink-specific parameter tuning is also a strength.

major comments (4)
  1. The title, abstract, and introduction claim a 'global assessment' based on a 'six-city testbed across five continents.' However, §III.A reveals that all measurements originate from a single Starlink user terminal (UTA-232) located in Melbourne, Australia. The six AWS EC2 instances serve as remote endpoints, varying the Internet path but not the Starlink access link. Since Starlink's capacity, satellite visibility, gateway routing, and atmospheric conditions vary significantly by geographic location and latitude, the 'global' framing is not supported by the experimental design. The central claim that BBR-v3 provides a balanced trade-off 'over the Starlink Internet' is drawn entirely from one terminal's perspective. The authors should explicitly acknowledge this limitation, reframe the 'global' claims to accurately reflect path diversity from a single terminal, and discuss how a single v6.
  2. The fluid model presented in §IV.A (Eq. 12) is validated against the same Sydney downlink trace (Fig. 11) that was used to derive its parameters (measured delivery rate and RTT). This constitutes a circular validation. The model's ability to 'reproduce' the transitions in the Sydney trace is expected since it was calibrated on that data. To demonstrate predictive power, the model should be validated against an independent trace (e.g., a different city or a different time period) that was not used in parameterization. Without such out-of-sample validation, the model's generalizability to other Starlink paths or conditions remains unproven.
  3. The M/G/1 queuing analysis in §IV.C relies on an approximation for the arrival rate (Eq. 15): λ_i = μ_i * X̄_i, where X̄_i is the queue occupancy fraction. This assumes that arrivals occur at the service rate during busy periods. This is a strong assumption that may not hold for TCP traffic, which is bursty and self-clocking. The authors should justify this assumption more rigorously or discuss its potential impact on the queue size estimates. The saturation of the queue at approximately 100 packets (Fig. 13) emerges 'implicitly' from the M/G/1 formulation through the bounded utilization constraint (ρ_max = 0.995), which is an imposed parameter rather than an emergent property of the system. The authors should clarify the sensitivity of the queue size estimates to the choice of ρ_max.
  4. The end-to-end link failure probability model (Eq. 2) combines several impairment terms (p_cap, p_at, p_ho, p_isl). However, the model is not empirically validated against measured packet loss rates in the paper. The authors state that the model 'encapsulates' these factors, but they do not demonstrate that the model's predictions match the observed retransmission rates or throughput drops in the experimental data. The connection between the analytical model (Eq. 2) and the experimental observations (e.g., the retransmission bursts in Fig. 12) is stated qualitatively but not quantitatively. The authors should either validate the model against measured loss rates or explicitly state that it is a conceptual framework for interpretation rather than a predictive tool.
minor comments (8)
  1. The paper uses the term 'dominance' in the title, but the results and conclusion explicitly state that BBR-v3's advantage is 'not aggressive bandwidth capture' and that it does not 'consistently dominate.' The title should be revised to better reflect the nuanced findings, perhaps replacing 'Dominance' with 'Performance' or 'Behavior'.
  2. In §III.A, the authors state that the default free-tier settings were used for AWS EC2 instances. Free-tier instances often have network performance limitations. The authors should specify the instance type used and confirm that the AWS network was not a bottleneck. Appendix B (Fig. 23) partially addresses this, but the main text should clarify this point.
  3. The paper mentions '10,408 active Starlink satellites' and '2.7 million subscribers' as of May 2026. Given the rapid evolution of the Starlink constellation, the authors should ensure these figures are up-to-date at the time of publication and cite the source clearly.
  4. In §IV.A, Eq. (3) defines the time interval between ProbeBW events. The notation '2 + i/N' is unclear. Is this 2 seconds plus i/N seconds? The authors should clarify the units and meaning of this term.
  5. Figures 5-8 are dense and difficult to read. The y-axis scales vary across subplots, making comparisons challenging. Consider using consistent scales where appropriate or adding clearer labels to highlight key differences.
  6. The paper uses both 'BBR-v3' and 'BBRv3' (e.g., in §IV.A). The notation should be consistent throughout.
  7. In §IV.D, the α=0 throughput-maximization share is defined, but the meaning of α=0 is not explained. The authors should briefly clarify what α=0 represents in this context.
  8. The paper would benefit from a brief discussion of the potential impact of Starlink's network evolution (e.g., the introduction of V2-DTC satellites and laser ISLs) on the generalizability of the results.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity found; fluid model validation reuses calibration traces but model has independent structural content

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain does not exhibit circularity in the strict sense. The BBR-v3 fluid model (§IV.A) encodes the protocol's known state machine (ProbeBW states, pacing rules, inflight bounds) and is validated against Sydney traces that also supply path parameters — a methodological weakness (no held-out validation data) but not circularity, since the model's predicted inflight dynamics are not equal to its inputs by construction. The link failure probability model (Eq. 2) is built from ITU recommendations and Poisson assumptions, not from the paper's own measurements. The M/G/1 queuing analysis uses standard formulas with empirically estimated parameters. The sensitivity analysis (Appendix C) is explicitly a parameter sweep, not a prediction. No load-bearing self-citations were found. The single-terminal limitation is an external validity concern, not a circularity issue. Score 1 reflects the minor reuse of calibration traces for model validation without independent confirmation, which is a methodological gap but does not reduce the model's output to its inputs by definition.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities or forces are introduced. The models use existing network quantities (SNR, capacity, queue size, RTT) and standard ITU atmospheric models.

free parameters (5)
  • λ (relaxation rate) = not specified numerically
    First-order relaxation rate in Eq 12; controls how fast inflight converges to target. Value not stated.
  • β (queue draining margin) = 0.15
    Safety headroom parameter in §IV.A, stated as 0.15 without derivation from data.
  • ρ_max (utilization bound) = 0.995
    Imposed upper bound on utilization in M/G/1 analysis (§IV.C); directly produces the ~100 packet queue saturation observed in Fig 13.
  • c²s (squared coefficient of variation) = 1
    Assumed for exponential service times in M/G/1 analysis (§IV.C); no empirical justification provided.
  • σ(t) (heaviside step function) = N/A
    Used in Eqs 6-8 as switching function; standard but the specific threshold values (5/4 BDP, 0.02 loss) are BBR-v3 design constants from [5].
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption BBR-v3 ProbeBW state machine and pacing rules as specified in IETF draft [5]
    The fluid model (Eqs 3-12) directly encodes BBR-v3's documented behavior; if the implementation differs from the draft, the model is invalid.
  • domain assumption Starlink link failures are independent across legs (user, ISL, feeder, gateway)
    Eq 2 multiplies (1-p_i) terms assuming independence; correlated failures (e.g., atmospheric events affecting multiple legs) would invalidate the model.
  • domain assumption ISL failure and recovery are Poisson processes
    Eq 41 assumes exponential inter-arrival times for ISL failures; cited from [27] but not validated for Starlink specifically.
  • ad hoc to paper Packet arrivals during busy periods occur at service rate
    §IV.C: 'This assumes arrivals occur at the service rate during busy periods' — an approximation to make λ estimable from observable quantities.
  • domain assumption AWS EC2 instances provide consistent network connections
    §III.A explicitly states this assumption; if AWS bandwidth varies, cross-location comparisons are confounded.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Unveiling TCP BBR Dominance in Starlink Internet: Experimental Insights and Analysis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CBWB2XC5

@misc{pith2026260707133,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Unveiling TCP BBR Dominance in Starlink Internet: Experimental Insights and Analysis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CBWB2XC5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.07133}
}
read the original abstract

This experimental study delivers a global assessment of Google's Bottleneck Bandwidth and Round-trip propagation time-version 3 (BBR-v3) Congestion Control Algorithm (CCA) over SpaceX's Starlink network. Leveraging a strategically deployed six-city testbed across five continents, we systematically benchmark BBR-v3 against eight CCAs: Cubic, Hybla, Vegas, LeoCC, Copa, PCC, BBR-v1, and BBR-v2 under both dedicated and concurrent conditions. Our results demonstrate that BBR-v3's advantage is not aggressive bandwidth capture, but a more balanced fairness, loss, and delay trade-off over the Starlink Internet. We develop pragmatic mathematical models that capture Starlink's complex network dynamics and characterize BBR-v3 behavior to better explain the experimental observations. Our extensive evaluation of queue buildup and fairness further demonstrates BBR-v3's capability to maximize throughput in high-latency, variable satellite environments, while maintaining a balance between aggressiveness and fairness. The findings establish BBR-v3 as a compelling CCA for Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellite networks and provide a principled analytical foundation for next generation satellite Internet transport design.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.07133 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A simplified illustration of our global experimental [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Traffic flow through “bent-pipes” in the Starlink net￾work. (17.8-19.3 GHz), while uplinks employ eight 500 MHz chan￾nels (27.5-30.0 GHz) [18]. User terminals (“Dishy”) employ Ku-band transmission, connecting to LEOs visible above 25◦ elevation angle. Through multi-beam antenna technology, a single satellite can simultaneously service multiple users. As illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Globally distributed server locations A. Testbed Setup As illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (19 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Summarized downlink observations over Starlink with dedicated CCAs for globally distributed locations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Summarized downlink observations over Starlink with concurrent CCAs for globally distributed locations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Summarized uplink observations over Starlink with dedicated CCAs for globally distributed locations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Summarized downlink observations over Starlink with concurrent CCAs for globally distributed locations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Throughput vs RTT inflation of dedicated transmissions. D. TCP CCA Operating Regimes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Visualization of BBR fluid model inflight limits x(t)RTT(t), encapsulating a measurement-based estimate of inflight, where x(t) is the measured delivery rate. To obtain a tractable model, we approximate the dynamics using a first￾order relaxation: dvmodel(t) dt = λ (v…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Measurement validation through dedicated downlink and uplink BBR-v3 transmission streams. The RTT variation due to satellite motion, inter-satellite routing, and queue accumulation, and can be expressed as: RT T(t) = 2ds(t) c + ∑ i d I i (t) c + q(t) C(t) (13) where d…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Normalized TCP fairness indexes of the evaluated CCAs over the Starlink Internet. Both dedicated and concurrent BBR-v3 flows show frequent transitions between ρ → 1 and average queue buildup of around 7 packets, as depicted in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_14.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Queue buildup in dedicated and concurrent downlink BBR streams for different server locations over the Starlink network This assumes arrivals occur at the service rate during busy periods and proportionally less during idle periods, consistent with the utilization rel…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Throughput realized by BBR-v3 connections (a) Si￾multaneous flows (b) Staggered flows. Si , were calculated for each CCA under this evaluation. These metrics allow BBR-v3 to be assessed not only by its throughput share, but also by how closely it approaches equal shar…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: ISLs between different orbits. respectively. The free space path loss of the optical ISL link between Si and Sj can be defined as: L I fs(t) = ( 4πdI (t) λ ) 2 (36) where d I is the signal traveling distance. d I (t) = √ r 2 i + r 2 j − 2rirj cos β(t) (37) β = arccos …
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Receiver advertised window and RTT variance of CCAs in dedicated downlink. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Receiver advertised window and RTT variance of CCAs in concurrent downlink. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Receiver advertised window and RTT variance of CCAs in dedicated uplink. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Receiver advertised window and RTT variance of CCAs in concurrent uplink. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_20.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Median downlink performance of CCAs across 10 experimental runs under individual and concurrent conditions. Each marker corresponds to a single experimental run across 10 repetitions. Circles indicate individual flows and stars indicate concurrent flows. the recovery …
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Median uplink performance of CCAs across 10 experimental runs under individual and concurrent conditions. Each marker corresponds to a single experimental run across 10 repetitions. Circles indicate individual flows and stars indicate concurrent flows. in order to com…
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: Dedicated downlink and uplink performance over terrestrial network for the globally distributed server locations with different CCAs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_23.png]
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: Trace-Driven BBR-v3 gain sensitivity analysis for Starlink Internet while the down-transition risk is approximated by the fraction of samples where the modeled inflight exceeds the probing threshold or where the estimated queue becomes large: Rdwn(gp, gc) = 1 T ∑ t I(…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Starlink Updates,

    S. Starlink, “Starlink Updates,” May 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.starlink.com

    work page 2026

  2. [2]

    Find starlink,

    Satellite Map, “Find starlink,” https://satellitemap.space/constellation/ starlink, 2026, accessed: May 2026

    work page 2026

  3. [3]

    Model-based insights on the performance, fairness, and stability of bbr,

    S. Scherrer, M. Legner, A. Perrig, and S. Schmid, “Model-based insights on the performance, fairness, and stability of bbr,” inProceedings of the 22nd ACM Internet Measurement Conference, 2022, pp. 519–537

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Bbr congestion control algorithms: Evolution, challenges and future directions,

    A. Abrol, P. Murali Mohan, T. Truong-Huu, and M. Gurusamy, “Bbr congestion control algorithms: Evolution, challenges and future directions,”ACM Comput. Surv., vol. 58, no. 9, Feb. 2026. [Online]. Available: https://doi-org.ezproxy-f.deakin.edu.au/10.1145/3793537

    work page doi:10.1145/3793537 2026

  5. [5]

    Bbr congestion control,

    N. Cardwell, I. Swett, and J. Beshay, “Bbr congestion control,” IETF Congestion Control Working Group (CCWG), Internet-Draft draft-ietf-ccwg-bbr-03, Oct 2024, expires 19 April 2025. [Online]. Available: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ccwg-bbr-03

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    A comparative evaluation of tcp congestion control schemes over low-earth-orbit (leo) satellite networks,

    G. Barbosa, S. Theeranantachai, B. Zhang, and L. Zhang, “A comparative evaluation of tcp congestion control schemes over low-earth-orbit (leo) satellite networks,” inProceedings of the 18th Asian Internet Engineering Conference, 2023, pp. 105–112

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Comparison of tcp congestion control performance over a satellite network,

    S. Claypool, J. Chung, and M. Claypool, “Comparison of tcp congestion control performance over a satellite network,” inInternational Conference on Passive and Active Network Measurement. Springer, 2021, pp. 499– 512

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Mobility-aware congestion control for multipath quic in integrated terrestrial satellite networks,

    W. Yang, L. Cai, S. Shu, and J. Pan, “Mobility-aware congestion control for multipath quic in integrated terrestrial satellite networks,”IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    A multifaceted look at starlink performance,

    N. Mohanet al., “A multifaceted look at starlink performance,” in Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2024, 2024, pp. 2723–2734

    2024

  2. [10]

    A global perspective on the past, present, and future of video streaming over starlink,

    L. Izhikevich, R. Enghardt, T.-Y . Huang, and R. Teixeira, “A global perspective on the past, present, and future of video streaming over starlink,”Proceedings of the ACM on Measurement and Analysis of Computing Systems, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 1–22, 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    CUBIC for Fast Long-Distance Networks,

    I. Rhee, L. Xu, S. Ha, A. Zimmermann, L. Eggert, and R. Scheffenegger, “CUBIC for Fast Long-Distance Networks,” RFC 8312, Feb. 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8312

    2018

  4. [12]

    Understanding tcp vegas: a duality model,

    S. H. Low, L. L. Peterson, and L. Wang, “Understanding tcp vegas: a duality model,”Journal of the ACM (JACM), vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 207– 235, 2002

    2002

  5. [13]

    Tcp hybla: a tcp enhancement for heteroge- neous networks,

    C. Caini and R. Firrincieli, “Tcp hybla: a tcp enhancement for heteroge- neous networks,”International journal of satellite communications and networking, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 547–566, 2004

    2004

  6. [14]

    Leocc: Making internet congestion control robust to leo satellite dynamics,

    Z. Lai, Z. Li, Q. Wu, H. Li, J. Li, X. Xie, Y . Li, J. Liu, and J. Wu, “Leocc: Making internet congestion control robust to leo satellite dynamics,” in Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM 2025 Conference, 2025, pp. 129– 146

    2025

  7. [15]

    Copa: Practical{Delay-Based}congestion control for the internet,

    V . Arun and H. Balakrishnan, “Copa: Practical{Delay-Based}congestion control for the internet,” in15th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI 18), 2018, pp. 329–342

    2018

  8. [16]

    {PCC}: Re- architecting congestion control for consistent high performance,

    M. Dong, Q. Li, D. Zarchy, P. B. Godfrey, and M. Schapira, “{PCC}: Re- architecting congestion control for consistent high performance,” in12th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI 15), 2015, pp. 395–408

    2015

  9. [17]

    An updated comparison of four low earth orbit satellite constellation systems to provide global broadband,

    N. Pachler, I. Del Portillo, E. F. Crawley, and B. G. Cameron, “An updated comparison of four low earth orbit satellite constellation systems to provide global broadband,” in2021 IEEE ICC workshops. IEEE, 2021, pp. 1–7

    2021

  10. [18]

    A technical com- parison of three low earth orbit satellite constellation systems to provide global broadband,

    I. Del Portillo, B. G. Cameron, and E. F. Crawley, “A technical com- parison of three low earth orbit satellite constellation systems to provide global broadband,”Acta astronautica, vol. 159, pp. 123–135, 2019

    2019

  11. [19]

    Analysis and design of starlink- like satellite constellation,

    T. Jing-shi, Q. Ying-ying, and W. Qi, “Analysis and design of starlink- like satellite constellation,”Chinese Astronomy and Astrophysics, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 161–189, 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    Alcs: An adaptive latency compensation scheduler for multipath tcp in satellite-terrestrial integrated networks,

    L. Wang, Z. Wang, Z. Deng, J. Zhang, and Y . Gao, “Alcs: An adaptive latency compensation scheduler for multipath tcp in satellite-terrestrial integrated networks,”IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, 2025

    2025

  13. [21]

    Update to Foreign Space Objects Determination,

    ACMA, “Update to Foreign Space Objects Determination,” Oct. 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.acma.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-10/ Consultation%20paper%20-%20Update%20to%20Foreign%20Space% 20Objects%20Determination%20docx.docx

    2019

  14. [22]

    Signal structure of the starlink ku-band downlink,

    T. E. Humphreys, P. A. Iannucci, Z. M. Komodromos, and A. M. Graff, “Signal structure of the starlink ku-band downlink,”IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. 59, no. 5, pp. 6016–6030, 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    Petition of Starlink Services, LLC for Designa- tion as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier,

    Starlink Services, LLC, “Petition of Starlink Services, LLC for Designa- tion as an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier,” FCC, WC Docket No. 09-197, Feb. 2021

    2021

  16. [24]

    Deep learning forecasting and statistical modeling for q/v-band leo satellite channels,

    B. Al Homssiet al., “Deep learning forecasting and statistical modeling for q/v-band leo satellite channels,”IEEE Transactions on Machine Learning in Communications and Networking, vol. 1, pp. 78–89, 2023

    2023

  17. [25]

    Rate splitting multiple access for cognitive radio GEO-LEO co-existing satellite networks,

    W. U. Khanet al., “Rate splitting multiple access for cognitive radio GEO-LEO co-existing satellite networks,” inGLOBECOM 2022. IEEE, 2022, pp. 5165–5170

    2022

  18. [26]

    Optimising beam size in multibeam leo satellite networks: Addressing interbeam interference, doppler shift, and frequency reuse,

    K. Weththasinghe, Q. T. Ngo, Y . He, and B. Jayawickrama, “Optimising beam size in multibeam leo satellite networks: Addressing interbeam interference, doppler shift, and frequency reuse,”IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

    Analysis of link failure performance in low earth orbit satellite networks,

    Z. Song, Y . Liu, L. Xi, B. Ma, and X. Ma, “Analysis of link failure performance in low earth orbit satellite networks,” in2024 IEEE/CIC International Conference on Communications in China (ICCC). IEEE, 2024, pp. 705–710

    2024

  20. [28]

    Latency versus reliability in leo mega-constellations: Terrestrial, aerial, or space relay?

    G. Pan, J. Ye, J. An, and M.-S. Alouini, “Latency versus reliability in leo mega-constellations: Terrestrial, aerial, or space relay?”IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, vol. 22, 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    ITU-R Recommendations for Atmospheric Attenuation Models: P.676-12, P.840-8, and P.838-3,

    International Telecommunication Union, “ITU-R Recommendations for Atmospheric Attenuation Models: P.676-12, P.840-8, and P.838-3,” ITU- R, Geneva, Switzerland, Recommendations, 2005–2019

    2005

  22. [30]

    Attenuation by atmospheric gases and related effects – recommen- dation,

    ITU, “Attenuation by atmospheric gases and related effects – recommen- dation,” ITU-R, Recommendation P.676-13, Aug 2022

    2022

  23. [31]

    Synchronization for satellite system,

    W. Hrehaet al., “Synchronization for satellite system,” U.S. Patent US10411362B2, Sep. 2019, assignee: Space Systems/Loral, LLC. [Online]. Available: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10411362B2

    2019

  24. [32]

    Laser inter-satellite link visibility and topology optimization for mega constellation,

    Q. Zhu, H. Tao, Y . Cao, and X. Li, “Laser inter-satellite link visibility and topology optimization for mega constellation,”Electronics, vol. 11, no. 14, p. 2232, 2022. 13

    2022

  25. [33]

    Propagation data and prediction methods required for the design of earth-space telecommunication systems,

    ITU, “Propagation data and prediction methods required for the design of earth-space telecommunication systems,” ITU-R, Recommendation P.618-14, Aug 2023. APPENDIXA LINKFAILURE ANDPACKETDROPPROBABILITY IN STARLINKTRANSMISSION A. Starlink Channel Model We model the Starlink com...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed July 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.