<div dir="ltr"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Thus, technically speaking, one would like the advantages of satcom such<span class="gmail-Apple-converted-space"> <br></span>as starlink, to be at least 5gbit/s in 10 years time, to overcome the<span class="gmail-Apple-converted-space"> <br></span>'tangled fiber' problem.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>No, not really. Starlink was about to address the issue of digital divide - 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.</div><div><br></div><div>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). </div><div><br></div><div>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. </div><div><br></div><div>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. </div><div><br></div><div>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. </div><div><br></div><div>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. </div><div><br></div><div>This was the step in the right direction and let's hope that FCC (and others) will used it wisely: <a href="https://circleid.com/posts/20231211-its-the-latency-fcc">https://circleid.com/posts/20231211-its-the-latency-fcc</a></div><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>All the best,</div><div><br></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(34,34,34)">Frank<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(34,34,34)"><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(34,34,34)">Frantisek (Frank) Borsik<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(34,34,34)"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(34,34,34)"><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik" style="color:rgb(17,85,204)" target="_blank">https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik</a><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(34,34,34)">Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714 <u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(34,34,34)">iMessage, mobile: +420775230885<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(34,34,34)">Skype: casioa5302ca<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(34,34,34)"><a href="mailto:frantisek.borsik@gmail.com" style="color:rgb(17,85,204)" target="_blank">frantisek.borsik@gmail.com</a></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 1:44 PM Gert Doering via Starlink <<a href="mailto:starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net">starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Hi,<br>
<br>
On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 01:43:25PM +0100, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:<br>
> So, a requirement to a competitive satcom would be like 25 Gbit/s. I think it<br>
> is not impossible to make, if many intermediate layers (HAPS, drones etc)<br>
> are used, and larger band widths.<br>
<br>
As was noted upthread, raw bandwith is not the only relevant criteria<br>
here (and nobody really *needs* 25 Gbit/s at home, though I'd *love* to<br>
have it).<br>
<br>
gert<br>
-- <br>
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?<br>
<br>
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer<br>
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann<br>
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)<br>
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Starlink mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net" target="_blank">Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink</a><br>
</blockquote></div>