<div dir="ltr"><div>Hi Sebastian,</div><div><br></div><div></div><div>You are welcome! Your ISP seems to take the maximum limit also for RTT for RDP recommended by Microsoft users (300 ms RTT):</div><div><a href="https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/archive/msdn-technet-forums/165af0fb-b3f0-469f-bc67-548fa26da266">https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/archive/msdn-technet-forums/165af0fb-b3f0-469f-bc67-548fa26da266</a></div><div>The good quality threshold for Remote Desktop could be 150 ms RTT.
</div><div><div><br></div><div>I find it risky to work so much close to the threshold of quality becoming bad for services, but they may have money based reasons to do that. </div><div>There is also no point on going better than the threshold of it being good, as mentioned here (it is wasteful):</div><div><a href="https://www.rohde-schwarz.com/fi/solutions/test-and-measurement/mobile-network-testing/network-performance-score/network-performance-score_250678.html#video-rs-636544">https://www.rohde-schwarz.com/fi/solutions/test-and-measurement/mobile-network-testing/network-performance-score/network-performance-score_250678.html#video-rs-636544</a></div><div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div><br></div><div>David F.<br></div><div></div></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 at 18:23, Sebastian Moeller <<a href="mailto:moeller0@gmx.de">moeller0@gmx.de</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Hi David,<br>
<br>
Thanks!<br>
<br>
> On 5. Jun 2024, at 17:16, David Fernández via Starlink <<a href="mailto:starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net" target="_blank">starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net</a>> wrote:<br>
> <br>
> Hi Sebastian,<br>
> <br>
> " Our local regulator thinks that 150 ms access network OWD (so 300msRTT) is acceptable"<br>
> <br>
> 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.<br>
<br>
[SM] Yes that is one of their sources for VoIP, and I already started to find the original studies as I am not convinced the interpretation in 114 is the only possible or even best, after all Telcos had a clear use-case transatlantic phone calls that they did want to survive as possible in good quality...<br>
<br>
But the regulator also argues the same 300ms RTT for remote desktop applications... any data showing what latency is acceptable for specific use cases is appreciated. (And I am open for the option that my hunch that 300ms is too much might be wrong).<br>
<br>
Regards<br>
Sebastian<br>
<br>
> <br>
> Regards,<br>
> <br>
> David F.<br>
> <br>
> Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 17:10:26 +0200<br>
> From: Sebastian Moeller <<a href="mailto:moeller0@gmx.de" target="_blank">moeller0@gmx.de</a>><br>
> To: David Lang <<a href="mailto:david@lang.hm" target="_blank">david@lang.hm</a>><br>
> Cc: Alexandre Petrescu <<a href="mailto:alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com" target="_blank">alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com</a>>, Dave Taht via<br>
> Starlink <<a href="mailto:starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net" target="_blank">starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net</a>><br>
> Subject: Re: [Starlink] The "reasons" that bufferbloat isn't a problem<br>
> Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:C1BCE67C-E4D3-4626-B9FB-1AD35C8D93CD@gmx.de" target="_blank">C1BCE67C-E4D3-4626-B9FB-1AD35C8D93CD@gmx.de</a>><br>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8<br>
> <br>
> Hi David,<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> > On 5. Jun 2024, at 16:16, David Lang via Starlink <<a href="mailto:starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net" target="_blank">starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net</a>> wrote:<br>
> > <br>
> > Alexandre Petrescu wrote:<br>
> > <br>
> >> Le 05/06/2024 à 15:40, Gert Doering a écrit :<br>
> >>> Hi,<br>
> >>> <br>
> >>> On Wed, Jun 05, 2024 at 03:28:45PM +0200, Alexandre Petrescu via Starlink<br>
> >> wrote:<br>
> >>>> well, ok. One day the satcom latency will be so low that we will not have<br>
> >>>> enough requirements for its use :-)<br>
> >>> Your disbelief in physics keeps amazing me :-)<br>
> >> <br>
> >> sorry :-) Rather than simply 'satcom' I should have said satcom-haps-planes-drones. I dont have a name for that.<br>
> > <br>
> > 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.<br>
> > <br>
> > 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.<br>
> <br>
> 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...)<br>
> <br>
> Sorry for the tangent...<br>
> <br>
> Regards<br>
> Sebastian<br>
> <br>
> 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...<br>
> <br>
> > <br>
> > David Lang_______________________________________________<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>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div>