[Starlink] The "reasons" that bufferbloat isn't a problem

[Sebastian Moeller]

Hi Roland,

Thanks!

> On 5. Jun 2024, at 17:21, Bless, Roland (TM) via Starlink <starlink at lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On 05.06.24 at 17:16 David Fernández via Starlink wrote:
>> " Our local regulator thinks that 150 ms access network OWD (so 300msRTT) is acceptable"
>> Your local regulator is following ITU-T advice in Recommendation G.114, where it is said that up to 150 ms one-way delay is acceptable for telephony.
> 
> That is actually mouth-to-ear delay IIRC, so network delay is only a part of it. One has to consider play-buffering delay and codec delay
> as well. Interactive gaming usually requires smaller delays for a good
> QoE.

[SM] Yes, however Gaming is not in the enumerated list of use-cases the regulator cares about (in the context of the minimal internet quality end users are guaranteed).

> 
> Regards,
> Roland
> 
>> Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 17:10:26 +0200
>> From: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0 at gmx.de <mailto:moeller0 at gmx.de>>
>> To: David Lang <david at lang.hm <mailto:david at lang.hm>>
>> Cc: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu at gmail.com <mailto:alexandre.petrescu at gmail.com>>, Dave Taht via
>>         Starlink <starlink at lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:starlink at lists.bufferbloat.net>>
>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] The "reasons" that bufferbloat isn't a problem
>> Message-ID: <C1BCE67C-E4D3-4626-B9FB-1AD35C8D93CD at gmx.de <mailto:C1BCE67C-E4D3-4626-B9FB-1AD35C8D93CD at gmx.de>>
>> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset=utf-8
>> Hi David,
>> > On 5. Jun 2024, at 16:16, David Lang via Starlink <starlink at lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:starlink at lists.bufferbloat.net>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
>> >
>> >> Le 05/06/2024 à 15:40, Gert Doering a écrit :
>> >>> Hi,
>> >>>
>> >>> On Wed, Jun 05, 2024 at 03:28:45PM +0200, Alexandre Petrescu via Starlink
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>> well, ok.  One day the satcom latency will be so low that we will not have
>> >>>> enough requirements for its use :-)
>> >>> Your disbelief in physics keeps amazing me :-)
>> >>
>> >> sorry :-)  Rather than simply 'satcom' I should have said satcom-haps-planes-drones.  I dont have a name for that.
>> >
>> > you would be better off with plans that don't require beating the speed of light. Yes, quantum entanglement may be a path to beat the speed of light, but you still need the electronics to handle it, and have the speed of sound at temperatures and pressures that humans can live at as a restriction.
>> >
>> > by comparison to your 1ms latency goals, extensive AT&T phone testing decades ago showed that 100ms was the threshold where people could start to detect a delay.
>> Would you have any pointer for that study/those studies? Our local regulator thinks that 150 ms access network OWD (so 300msRTT) is acceptable and I am trying to find studies that can shed a light on what acceptable delay is for different kind of interactive tasks. (Spoiler alert, I am not convinced that 300ms RTT is a great idea, I forced my self to remote desktop with artificial 300ms delay and it was not fun, but not totaly unusable either, but then human can adapt and steer high inertia vehicles like loaded container ships...)
>> Sorry for the tangent...
>> Regards
>>         Sebastian
>> P.S.: Dave occasionally reminds us how 'slow' in comparison the speed of sound is ~343 m/second (depending on conditions) or 343/1000 = 0.343 m/millisecond that is even at a distance of 1 meter delay will be at a 3 ms... and when talking to folks 10m away it is not the delay that is annoying, but the fact that you have to raise your voice considerably...
>> >
>> > David Lang_______________________________________________
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink at lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink