From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 451653CB39; Fri, 15 Dec 2023 08:40:54 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.de; s=s31663417; t=1702647652; x=1703252452; i=moeller0@gmx.de; bh=2st/GrW/JOaL9HejvTbbkQWrLSDvkgjXvseTiMQANhk=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References: To; b=Gi93paChnER74HXJcUJnJx/6WllBKNbD/zmKlP2axOh8Gp7QsrvcSOFRxfrrlzza FBxVHoA3dANj28v9rB8tU+pYsz7oeu1+ZlpTUn5JgO23sLM6TRQlUSGmewU1B2k3p FF5+sLAylfcn9+KxeI/6po9O4UsiINqnMGN5belLKbZUSwuNsKSzME+17/W24GB37 koS0o/ct/CDPm4coutTMWuWkAiYVwtGiHAWRJPck4uR81IRlBraMKP4BjxyNnZ8Oc y7nPykzv4GegX9NwU0yQMqO3NkZCVE8kkNwER0LH0Ddu1BEOoMtKYKT8QLNqPco8h 5ftwFFbJiVlFy/TTwA== X-UI-Sender-Class: 724b4f7f-cbec-4199-ad4e-598c01a50d3a Received: from smtpclient.apple ([134.76.241.253]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx005 [212.227.17.190]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MtOKi-1rT3UI0TUM-00upaM; Fri, 15 Dec 2023 14:40:52 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.120.41.1.4\)) From: Sebastian Moeller In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2023 14:40:51 +0100 Cc: Alexandre Petrescu , starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net, Frantisek Borsik Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <18A40E71-F636-41A9-A8A7-0F4F69E3C99F@gmx.de> References: <55037f9a-bc2c-4bbb-a4bb-47ad30f16190@rjmcmahon.com> <02cc2879-ef99-4388-bc1e-335a4aaff6aa@gmail.com> To: =?utf-8?Q?Network_Neutrality_is_back!_Let=C2=B4s_make_the_technical_as?= =?utf-8?Q?pects_heard_this_time!?= X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.120.41.1.4) X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:ow/nznK9qYIzPmx37Q/OzkPh51xDpX8LkcdSj9o4DcrtYVFWTtE Zq1PRxHNWLg7vdwNQPR5gRwUYzx8qAWVPEwoRo/EJHF7Zuuzxu0pWprVbKnZBolB0jzoDuu 1E7MZyxsNngwOHJNY5Nvl0RBE/2h+dLiayuScSpl/DmZUXb+oAJTT2NZ/r2MO+v9o1ABhlG 3xPL/dTIgPPCCqEmgbk4w== X-Spam-Flag: NO UI-OutboundReport: notjunk:1;M01:P0:Qrngn6pREt4=;wqWFSQEcd8sQHElwHrI5pKGAMMx FulIpQ7O9I1NprnQ/pm1a8THzXgaYH6W4i93ARvJsrvi1YtqBbIcpX90DRgBfnQRevc8oE0yj eqqHLJdPMOX0Kp7Dx5jhybwimF+4txPoN5nqdk4GDpNkD/ULBpM4hKR4zZ4giY5vP6PEWsJlr E7V57hmjrBe+gNRkO/3TEMpgypJBoM6IfjQYiJnD0bzVvRM0Dd2V6EH8qlf0vjbeYUhjaHFbP Satk39WERbXn1c85Iac+JpFYqa0cg3+y3KY7GNGe9VM3PKCeFbNuwbixHSQMyiC5skMFYWmIU r+n8SheqMiDdorOc36MFJJbkBxNmHPb1yYijkLwKBdvaTY1bHV/OckR+WddWIbs5ADTByCyzg F8sqGR5Ana+ZFHE+SIczteR5WzkdCoryAqQ/Be1ZN6xTzwS3wPS51w69REFNPw8acH81pm4yQ m3+1JpRO6Nv0jMI6ctLm23aGbjl2TG98IL0fhsvTj24PB1JQGRdcybAxQun1kgt9IfZhtmFKf IFdJr0MAv929KfBxAxAi8aCDwqECHY55lItkYux/drPxFR9YbvaVrXF4Pw5SlaKq9clNIR5HN IcqYwEyI44Z/5+KfhZYuhJSONdJ7xfRrSTOQNxJL3xYNpo5F+zqN0hdFwQ4EELOGU12/i5YDu sQuvkOlx6zqMUS5kIaZgegHyqOpeVodTRFu9UzHUmK0TmEypRT4TvUHaPtj+3cT9Pt3CKhCyw lVNsVJU3H1mxzT1pAt62Ii+bBMelqoH/9Bf9QWu766GjbsCcOeYaX9bgDaatTT6a4rbXdxanP 8Y8uhhGm2OIvK8uCEPPpxgkzUaK/mYFvPmnKMw3/hsxboefpngp27yB3XkYSlCI4SEetV3CHu IhrjxGh1/+fepE7S6WA9f/FUI7phrjKeEddxSickK/fW5ZAjqeAaKJnQLYYDhV43tTzvRhaxv ByZgXmVeCu4EB3zLF6SaFgVG6NA= Subject: Re: [NNagain] [Starlink] FCC Upholds Denial of Starlink's RDOF Application X-BeenThere: nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: =?utf-8?q?Network_Neutrality_is_back!_Let=C2=B4s_make_the_technical_aspects_heard_this_time!?= List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2023 13:40:54 -0000 Hi Frantisek, > On Dec 15, 2023, at 13:46, Frantisek Borsik via Nnagain = wrote: >=20 > Thus, technically speaking, one would like the advantages of satcom = such=20 > as starlink, to be at least 5gbit/s in 10 years time, to overcome the=20= > 'tangled fiber' problem. >=20 > No, not really. Starlink was about to address the issue of digital = divide - I beg to differ. Starlink is a commercial enterprise with the = goal to make a profit by offering (usable) internet access essentially = everywhere; it is not as far as I can tell an attempt at specifically = reducing the digital divide (were often an important factor is not = necessarily location but financial means). > delivering internet to those 640k locations, where there is literally = none today. Fiber will NEVER get there. And it will get there, it will = be like 10 years down the road. This is IHO the wrong approach to take. The goal needs to be a = universal FTTH access network (with the exception of extreme locations, = no need to pull fiber up to the highest Bivouac shelter on Mt. Whitney). = And f that takes a decade or two, so be it, this is infrastructure that = will keep on helping for many decades once rolled-out. However given = that time frame one should consider work-arounds for the interim period. = I would have naively thought starlink would qualify for that from a = technical perspective, but then the FCC documents actually discussion = requirements and how they were or were not met/promised by starlink was = mostly redacted.=20 > The same is true for missing/loosing support for FWA in the = grand/funding schemes: all the arguments thrown around by fiber = cheerleaders are based on bandwidth (at best) or "speed" (in most cases) = or some theorethical future-proofness (I mean, we don't know what will = happen in next hour, little less we know what will happen in next 10 = years).=20 I am mo cheerleader (built like a ton, nobody would like to see = me with pompoms), yet I consider a (reasonably) universal fiber network = exactly the right political goal. Yet, I accept that reaching that goal = will not be instantaneous, so we should find a way of making those = currently effectively disconnected participate more in the digital = society even before the fiber truck reach their homes... > HOWEVER, the real issue at hand is either absolutely missing = connectivity in many places. Literally ANY service (even 3/1 Mbps) will = be a welcome improvement on the current state of thing, let alone = Starlink with all its pros and cons.=20 Yes I tend to agree, at least from the far away this looks like = a reasonable way to bridge the period until a better network reaches = those places. >=20 > Total reliance on fiber will lead mostly to overbuilding at locations = with some service, not to the overall improvements everywhere. Typical = "good intentions, bad consequences" type of situations.=20 No, that would just be a case of bad regulation, if the goal is = an universal FTTH network, neither planning or implementing that is = "rocket science" unless people "cheat". > Also, when we want to close the digital divide aka "get internet = connectivity everywhere" - it means to do it ASAP, even thought it would = not mean a "state of the art" type of the internet of some blessed hype = place on the West or East coast, with so many competing ISPs.=20 Yes, that would appear so. However the FCC process has to be = reasonably fair to all, and given the redactions in the official I can = not realistically tell whether the FCC is unreasonably hard here (and if = so why) or whether starlink was trying to under-deliver on the = requirements. Given that I will likely never get the un-redacted = information and am living far away from where the FCC has anything to = say, I can accept that ambiguity quite easily. > Last but not least, we should care also about the price of closing = that digital divide. Do we need to have "big fat pipes" just because we = as a industry were building and optimising everything within the = Internet infrastructure for bandwidth, we taught our customers that = "faster speed package" is the solution to all their problems and so on? = It's about time to fix that absolute BS narrative we have felt for over = time.=20 Yes, we need a universal FTTH network.. let's build this now for = the next 100 years, instead of keeping tinkering with small updates here = and there... Light in fiber has multiple desirable advantages, a higher = theoretical (and practical) capacity ceiling is only one of those = (although the one that makes an FTTH network conceptually more future = proof). This is IMHO fact, not BS. Other advantages of fiber are e.g. massively higher robustness = against RF-interference (compared to DSL, DOCSIS, and wireless access = techniques). This has an immediate latency consequence. If we look at = DSL we see essentially a 4 KHz clock that hence has a potential access = latency floor on the order of of ~250=C2=B5s (while e.g. GPON uses 125s = chunks, but with dynamic bandwidth allocation and hence request/grant = traffic it is not faster than DSL) both FTTH and DSL have signal = propagation speeds on the order of 2/3 the speed of light in vacuum.=20 Most DSL users however see access latencies in the dozens of = milliseconds simple because their links are configured to use deep = interleaving to make bit-error-rates acceptable in the light of RF = noise; compare that to fiber where access delay will be in the low = single digit milliseconds for PON or even lower for AON access.=20 Also the length between active components with fiber can be in = the dozens of miles without having to fall back to capacities in the = Kbps range as DSL, fiber is hence far better suited for wiring up the = rural underserved areas... (and let's be clear, the cost argument for = deploying fiber to these places today would have applied to all other = infrastructure in the past, like power, water, roads, telephony, and yet = these typically have been deployed). Regards Sebastian > This was the step in the right direction and let's hope that FCC (and = others) will used it wisely: = https://circleid.com/posts/20231211-its-the-latency-fcc >=20 >=20 > All the best, >=20 > Frank >=20 > Frantisek (Frank) Borsik >=20 > =20 >=20 > https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik >=20 > Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714=20 >=20 > iMessage, mobile: +420775230885 >=20 > Skype: casioa5302ca >=20 > frantisek.borsik@gmail.com >=20 >=20 >=20 > On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 1:44=E2=80=AFPM Gert Doering via Starlink = wrote: > Hi, >=20 > On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 01:43:25PM +0100, Alexandre Petrescu wrote: > > So, a requirement to a competitive satcom would be like 25 Gbit/s. = I think it > > is not impossible to make, if many intermediate layers (HAPS, drones = etc) > > are used, and larger band widths. >=20 > As was noted upthread, raw bandwith is not the only relevant criteria > here (and nobody really *needs* 25 Gbit/s at home, though I'd *love* = to > have it). >=20 > gert > --=20 > have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? >=20 > SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, = Michael Emmer > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. = Grundner-Culemann > D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) > Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 > _______________________________________________ > Starlink mailing list > Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink > _______________________________________________ > Nnagain mailing list > Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain