this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2026
280 points (96.4% liked)
Technology
79064 readers
3954 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Good article. Very interesting.
TL;DR: Starlink recievers use methods to make it so they don't have to be directly positioned at satellites; this in turn leaves them vulnerable to "side lobe jamming" and GPS spoofing. The suggestion is to point them directly and cover them i.e. in a pit or in a cavity of some such so that the jamming / spoofing doesn't reach it.
Thanks for actually discussing the article instead of feeding the trolls
It sounds like the downside here would be that you loose reliability in your connection. Probably fine for most things.
Seems like they’ve already lost the reliability anyway due to the jamming
Yeah, you lose reliability. If you put the antenna in a pit it will be limited in its beamforming capability. This restricts the number of visible satellites, leading to situations where no satellites are visible.