[Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC

[Colin_Higbie]

David,

I'm not thinking about an urban rollout. My default perspective is rural. The closest house to my farm is about a half mile away, only 330 people in our whole town, which is geographically large. This is what drove my need for Starlink in the first place – I had previously been paying $330/mo for a bunch of DSL lines and 2 T-1s aggregated via an SD-WAN solution. Starlink gave me much more download bandwidth and a hair more on upload, lower latency, vastly improved reliability, and cut my costs by almost 3/4 (72.7%). 

Then, in a surprise move, our power company rolled out a fiber network to its rural customers, which is even better on bandwidth at 1Gbps both up and down and provides comparable latency. I can say as a user that at comparable latency, the UX boost with 1Gbps U and D compared with Starlink's connection is dramatic for work. Large file uploads and downloads are nearly instant, significantly increasing productivity. I can also now video conference without worrying about disruption on the sending signal due to family members being on the Internet at the same time. I have also changed the settings on family gaming and PC systems so they can watch YouTube at full resolution, where with Starlink, to avoid congestion on bandwidth (not bufferbloat) if everyone happened to be using the Internet at the same time, I had locked everyone else down to 480p or 720p streams.

My goal in saying that it's better to do a slower rollout if needed to provide at least 25Mbps is to maximize end user experience and be efficient with constructions costs. This is my perspective because it's the perspective ISPs will have and therefore the necessary mindset to influence them. It's the perspective I have, and everyone who runs a business has, when people approach us telling us how to run our businesses. When you charge them waving data like an academic, an approach you appear to use in many of these emails (though to be fair, maybe you're different with this mailing list than you would be during a pitch to government or industry), you only alienate the audience and reduce the likelihood of anything getting done.

In rural areas in the U.S., the long term harm to rushing out low-bandwidth solutions is significant. It would be better for them to have nothing new for another year or two and then get a 25+ Mbps connection that get a 10Mbps connection now, then get no upgrades for another 10-15 years, which is the likely outcome for many. Keep in mind that in the U.S., nearly all residents already have at least dial-up access for email and other trickle-in connections and most have some form of DSL, even if sub-1Mbps. Of course, now there is also Starlink, though w/Starlink, cost can be a barrier for some.

However, and perhaps this is what you meant, I am admittedly thinking about this as a U.S. citizen. I would acknowledge that in other parts of the world where it's a not a matter of just waiting an extra couple of years to get an upgrade from dial-up or DSL, the situation may be different. Infrastructure costs at 25Mbps could be prohibitive in those markets, where a single feed to a village could be a significant upgrade from their current state of no Internet access for dozens or hundreds of miles. I accept my pushing for a recognition of 25Mbps floor for the top speed offered refers to 1st world markets where we have the luxury of being able to do it right in the first place to save money in the long run.

 - Colin



-----Original Message-----
From: David Lang <david at lang.hm> 
Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2024 3:41 AM
To: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1 at Higbie.name>
Cc: David Lang <david at lang.hm>; starlink at lists.bufferbloat.net
Subject: RE: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC

you are thinking about an urban area buildout, and in the situation your describe, I would agree with you.

I'm thinking of rural areas where houses are well separated (low single digit houses per mile, or going to miles per house). Although now that Starlink is an option, it may not be as bad to not have other options.

David Lang

On Wed, 1 May 2024, Colin_Higbie wrote:

> David,
>
> Yes, sure, if there's a choice between Internet access at 10Mbps and no Internet at all forever, 10Mbps is clearly better than nothing. But that's unlikely to be a realistic choice. A more realistic version of that is: budgeting lets us roll out at a rate of 1,000 homes per week at 25Mbps capacity or 1,500 homes per week if we can drop to 10Mbps. In that scenario, I would say that the slower rollout at the higher bandwidth is better, even though that delays some people getting access to Internet, because of the longer-term effect of having an immediately obsolete max connection speed.
>
> I have no objection to oversubscribing, providing it is done based an actual statistical analysis of usage and provided on a good-faith basis (i.e., a belief based on the data that the total capacity will support all users at some significant % of the expected bandwidth at something like 99% or 99.9% of the time). In my opinion, it is not reasonable to require an ISP to provide 100% of its users the full bandwidth they pay for 100% of the time if all users were to max out at the same time (something that never happens in the real world). That drives up costs with negligible benefit.
>
> I apologize if I've not been sufficiently clear on the 25Mbps minimum. I believe I have, but perhaps I'm mistaken. I'm arguing that any ISP building new capabilities to provision new users or enhancing its existing services for existing users should establish a 25Mbps minimum top speed. It's fine if they also offer cheaper slower speeds (not every user will care about getting 25Mbps or want to pay for it). So, every user in this market should be able to get at least 25Mbps, but it's fine that not all will. The important facet to this is that the cabling and infrastructure be able to support at least 25Mbps connections for those users willing to pay for it.
>
> I don't have the same requirement on latency (because optimal latencies are usually good enough and implementing cake for latency under load is generally a low-cost or no-cost solution), but I would support if experts from this group did have a similar max latency target and would support that this max be measured under load.
>
> Apologies for adding yet another metaphor, but I view these requirements as similar to codes on minimum of 15amp or 20amp in-wall wiring in all new and upgrade work performed by electricians. This doesn't affect existing wiring, which is grandfathered, but it ensures no new construction is already obsolete as it's being done.
>
> Cheers,
> Colin
>