From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-vc0-x22a.google.com (mail-vc0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c03::22a]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A826E21F3DD for ; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 23:47:23 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-vc0-f170.google.com with SMTP id hq12so5547194vcb.1 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 23:47:22 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=EvlEip4GCUNk3VMpTnehY8Qv4CvOADLreQnekQ5jb0w=; b=ezAkaoQlXXF6mHOIIAvWXLdLGxhxS1gWVBzQXn1F170ogWgKW2vqRI1s/b+aQmZW38 s0k1uE4lc5dZ2qBTwlTpKD/HFSR4gIE0/Hoy4cdTr7HxRa30VQQ0uQArACAIQ4LVyQbZ OcjmaM/JxdDuqw01sZjuo8zgF0QOH4LC5mFxLYJPqLl4SbhhyzGQAhNtWYB6BE9BNbGY nBbKon745+VpZpsQMBfBxj0bNoHpITqkWyi1CwOhahXjBIFXDq5Ua+s+If7BjA9kCnUv bADWWGPl7O5Dk5P3lWRCaNDWGBKTq2sm/6LEnrgZ1l4zRat2PR9Qvnk0UJKg7iAT68vY piJg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.103.10 with SMTP id fs10mr194452vdb.58.1423813642023; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 23:47:22 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.52.24.79 with HTTP; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 23:47:21 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.52.24.79 with HTTP; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 23:47:21 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <2C2DEAF6C7544779A9D7B24D403A8083@srichardlxp2> References: <2C2DEAF6C7544779A9D7B24D403A8083@srichardlxp2> Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 09:47:21 +0200 Message-ID: From: Jonathan Morton To: Richard Scheffenegger Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b8748d45bf92b050ef372f9 Cc: bloat Subject: Re: [Bloat] We are having it all upside down... X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 07:47:52 -0000 --047d7b8748d45bf92b050ef372f9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable More of that quote: > Dankberg and ViaSat disagree and point to Exede in the Air, the company= =E2=80=99s broadband service for commercial airlines, as an example of a geostationary satellite system being given higher marks by consumers than systems using air-to-ground terrestrial technologies, which offer reduced latency. > > =E2=80=9CThere is a common misperception that latency is a dominant techn= ical measure of performance for broadband,=E2=80=9D Dankberg said. =E2=80=9CYes,= latency is important, but for the vast majority of Internet traffic, speed and bandwidth are what=E2=80=99s decisive. This captures our technology strateg= y in a nutshell.=E2=80=9D I think he's managing to confuse coverage and reliability with speed. That's a really serious blind spot. A system based only on ground stations is going to have a lot of dead spots on it, even at 30000ft where line of sight is much further than at ground level; most notably all those pesky oceans where passengers have nothing to look out of the window at. So of course they're going to be more satisfied with a system that works anywhere than one that drops out seemingly at random - even if it does add a full second of round trip latency. A system that manages to work anywhere, reliably, AND with lower latency is going to be preferred over that. I did note Dave's ping trace from GoGo, with its interplanetary-scale latencies. I can't believe that anyone on board would have a functioning service under such conditions - I hope they weren't paying for it! - Jonathan Morton --047d7b8748d45bf92b050ef372f9 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

More of that quote:

> Dankberg and ViaSat disagree and point to Exede in the = Air, the company=E2=80=99s broadband service for commercial airlines, as an= example of a geostationary satellite system being given higher marks by co= nsumers than systems using air-to-ground terrestrial technologies, which of= fer reduced latency.
>
> =E2=80=9CThere is a common misperception that latency is a dominant te= chnical measure of performance for broadband,=E2=80=9D Dankberg said. =E2= =80=9CYes, latency is important, but for the vast majority of Internet traf= fic, speed and bandwidth are what=E2=80=99s decisive. This captures our tec= hnology strategy in a nutshell.=E2=80=9D

I think he's managing to confuse coverage and reliabilit= y with speed. That's a really serious blind spot. A system based only o= n ground stations is going to have a lot of dead spots on it, even at 30000= ft where line of sight is much further than at ground level; most notably a= ll those pesky oceans where passengers have nothing to look out of the wind= ow at.

So of course they're going to be more satisfied with a s= ystem that works anywhere than one that drops out seemingly at random - eve= n if it does add a full second of round trip latency. A system that manages= to work anywhere, reliably, AND with lower latency is going to be preferre= d over that.

I did note Dave's ping trace from GoGo, with its interpl= anetary-scale latencies. I can't believe that anyone on board would hav= e a functioning service under such conditions - I hope they weren't pay= ing for it!

- Jonathan Morton

--047d7b8748d45bf92b050ef372f9--