From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from bosmailout05.eigbox.net (bosmailout05.eigbox.net [66.96.190.5]) (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 BBF2B3CB39 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 13:27:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from bosmailscan09.eigbox.net ([10.20.15.9]) by bosmailout05.eigbox.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1m8nKt-00056p-BX for starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 13:27:15 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=alum.mit.edu; s=dkim; h=Sender:Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Date: Subject:In-Reply-To:References:To:From:Reply-To:Cc:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=J0NncUEenHiqk2oNbozYvo/+3lldj/94FiADPIS2OFQ=; b=i3VJ8+3aJA7JfUhgjmSi9jRm1j EZ8CLwnze8Z+z9mJi0GdE2dqAW7lK5tvxg5jnauj0+G+4N046UGeNMwlnZMTLMnjcHxSfjJVORQzA 1RPMuAcCQ0HL39AF/jpv1Vf2M6prI++m+ahp+vpE8Q3HYjIVQlLLBEk+281skJKhL9uIozdkgWnCD VPkLrO3ntnRQvUQpDUlepsEWl1yQfzicN/+NVSTYSwU4xdSg8vy5w4tbL2ha+vJlgb530w2z3Fob5 OTqysEomUOr/jmzmTKS+zJMvqNnHehwpxFoQN3fH7ypNb+B0xHnkidWgNjzBsEpTWVs2iu2xHsmzi lmOMb/ww==; Received: from [10.115.3.33] (helo=bosimpout13) by bosmailscan09.eigbox.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1m8nKt-0005Hr-25 for starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 13:27:15 -0400 Received: from bosauthsmtp19.yourhostingaccount.com ([10.20.18.19]) by bosimpout13 with id ahTB250070QhFXN01hTEpY; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 13:27:15 -0400 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.3 cv=RNUo47q+ c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=9UqFsMnAB6EOkiq4MrOclQ==:117 a=x+7tlP9+fMpTIVJEmcsKvw==:17 a=e_q4qTt1xDgA:10 a=Wo7qeYC63mUA:10 a=r77TgQKjGQsHNAKrUKIA:9 a=kurRqvosAAAA:8 a=-5p-JMlAAAAA:8 a=RZm8LbSkAAAA:8 a=REHR94Ra4XPbhQN7gGgA:9 a=xKHEdULorycUo4U4:21 a=xvY77ximLqp2lkgR:21 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=SSmOFEACAAAA:8 a=HnDU4OFUXBiWEGZsIzEA:9 a=9iu4BYcgc9G18Jnh:21 a=gKO2Hq4RSVkA:10 a=UiCQ7L4-1S4A:10 a=hTZeC7Yk6K0A:10 a=frz4AuCg-hUA:10 a=kbxRQ_lfPIoQnHsAj2-A:22 a=B2z_dEed8JbEwBmmRFYp:22 a=LEeQQ6U83W6FqU-epN5T:22 Received: from c-73-222-32-85.hsd1.ca.comcast.net ([73.222.32.85]:65398 helo=SRA6) by bosauthsmtp19.eigbox.net with esmtpa (Exim) id 1m8nKo-0001te-N7; Wed, 28 Jul 2021 13:27:10 -0400 Reply-To: From: "Dick Roy" To: "'Mike Puchol'" , "'Karl Auerbach'" , References: <1F663310964B4D00AC1C914363EA90DB@SRA6> In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2021 10:27:06 -0700 Organization: SRA Message-ID: <0962ABD56A8F43ACBC31AF029BC9032E@SRA6> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_05EF_01D7839B.1FE24110" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: AdeDiN3Cf0vnLWwmR9movPGVVS9tXwASM9mw X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE X-EN-UserInfo: f809475445fb8041985048e338e1a001:931c98230c6409dcc37fa7e93b490c27 X-EN-AuthUser: dickroy@intellicommunications.com Sender: "Dick Roy" X-EN-OrigIP: 73.222.32.85 X-EN-OrigHost: c-73-222-32-85.hsd1.ca.comcast.net Subject: Re: [Starlink] Intro and a question X-BeenThere: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: "Starlink has bufferbloat. Bad." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2021 17:27:15 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_05EF_01D7839B.1FE24110 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit _____ From: Mike Puchol [mailto:mike@starlink.sx] Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2021 1:16 AM To: 'Karl Auerbach'; starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net; dickroy@alum.mit.edu Subject: Re: [Starlink] Intro and a question I won't pound on the dead donkey too much, Dick is way above my pay grade on this one, but I'll just add that multiple polarization schemes were explored in the LTE world when they wanted to move from 2x2 MIMO (achieved with cross-polarized antennas) to 4x4 and higher orders. They just couldn't make it work, so efforts were abandoned - it's too hard to achieve the physical separation the "invention" claims through any practical means, which is where Carlos goes into ". and I'll need a big pocketed investor to prove this works". Billions have been spent on research for CDMA, LTE and 5G, and nothing in the polarization space has ever been marginally achieved. [RR] The reason is once again the laws of physics! Polarization is a two-dimensional subspace of three-dimensional space . think Pointing Vector = E x B, and you will rapidly realize claims of infinite capacity from an infinite number of polarizations is nonsense. As for not being able to make 4x4 work, it's because the people implementing it really do not understand space-time signal processing applied to wireless telecommunications and real antennas (and the same may be true of Starlink .. not enough available info to tell yet:^((() And when you add to that confusing signal spaces with physical 3-D space as Carlos does in his rant, you get BS on BS, or BS-squared. All that aside, what we really want, Dave, is the name of the guy who invests in Carlos' scheme . he/she obviously has money to burn! Then, considering you only have a single path between a satellite and a ground station, any claims of higher-order MIMO through physical separation are void. [RR] See above highlighted text! And just know that you are thinking that physical separation has to mean "of the antennas at a single receiving or transmitting unit" and there are "other physical separations that are definitely relevant". "Higher-order MMO" does NOT require large physical separations however, just smart signal processing. Do it right and, under the appropriate conditions/assumptions, the capacity of a channel of bandwidth W between the satellite with M antennas and ground station with N antennas) goes up by W*log2(M^2 * N^2) over that of a single antenna at each end. For example, if M = 16 and N = 4, the increase is 12W! Point is: MIMO does not necessarily mean multiple spatial streams, it means multiple inputs and multiple outputs. The two are NOT the same! He physical channel between the inputs and outputs really matters. RR Best, Mike On Jul 28, 2021, 02:00 +0200, Dick Roy , wrote: Even better, this guy's BS goes back to the late 80's when Qualcomm was promising 1000 times AMPS in cellular capacity with their new CDMA technology! Fast forward, CDMA has disappeared from planet earth as a cellular technology ... and 3 major telecommunications manufacturers are out of business!! RR -----Original Message----- From: Starlink [mailto:starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net] On Behalf Of Karl Auerbach Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 4:09 PM To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net Subject: Re: [Starlink] Intro and a question On 7/26/21 8:51 PM, Larry Press wrote: https://spacenews.com/tech-breakthrough-morphs-gigabit-wifi-into-terabit-sat ellite-internet/ Wow! I got massive deja vu and thought had to check whether I was reading a 1970's copy of the JC Whitney Catalog! (Or my own CaveBear Catalog - of hyperbolic bogus network stuff: "If we have it, you don't need it"), most particularly: - Our Press Release from one of the Interop shows, people actually believed this!! Gaga Net: https://www.cavebear.com/cb_catalog/techno/gaganet/ ) - The Maximum Momentum Router: https://www.cavebear.com/cb_catalog/current/maxmoment/ (For those who don't remember, the JC Whitnet catalog was filled with things for your car that would improve gas milage by a zillion percent or bump horsepower by 200hp. With that catalog one could turn an old 1200cc VW bug into a flame breathing monster, or so one would if one accepted the hyperbole.) OK, let's accept this guy's claims as true. Do they make an end-to-end difference? Perhaps if the satellite part of the end-to-end path is truly a bit synchronous "bent-pipe". But Starlink seems to be evolving far past that simple bit-clocked-circuit model into something more resembling a space internet with routers, or at least a switched network that could have issues such as choice of route, multiple inputs feeding into one output (in other words, potential congestion). BTW, I did like the article's phrase "High Definition Internet" - It immediately called to mind "Brawndo - it's got electrolytes" (from the movie Idiocracy. --karl-- _______________________________________________ Starlink mailing list Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink _______________________________________________ Starlink mailing list Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink ------=_NextPart_000_05EF_01D7839B.1FE24110 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

 

 

From: Mike = Puchol [mailto:mike@starlink.sx]
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, = 2021 1:16 AM
To: 'Karl Auerbach'; starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net; dickroy@alum.mit.edu
Subject: Re: [Starlink] = Intro and a question

 

I won’t pound on the dead donkey too much, Dick is way = above my pay grade on this one, but I’ll just add that multiple = polarization schemes were explored in the LTE world when they wanted to move from 2x2 = MIMO (achieved with cross-polarized antennas) to 4x4 and higher orders. They = just couldn’t make it work, so efforts were abandoned - it’s too = hard to achieve the physical separation the “invention” claims = through any practical means, which is where Carlos goes into “… and = I’ll need a big pocketed investor to prove this works”. Billions have = been spent on research for CDMA, LTE and 5G, and nothing in the polarization = space has ever been marginally achieved.

[RR] The reason is once again the laws of physics! =  Polarization is a two-dimensional subspace of three-dimensional space … think = Pointing Vector =3D E x B, and you will rapidly realize claims of infinite = capacity from an infinite number of polarizations is nonsense.  As for not being = able to make 4x4 work, it’s because the = people implementing it really do not understand space-time signal processing = applied to wireless telecommunications and real antennas (and the same = may be true of Starlink .. not enough available info to tell yet:^((() And when = you add to that confusing signal spaces with  physical 3-D space as Carlos = does in his rant, you get BS on BS, or BS-squared.  All that aside, what we = really want, Dave, is the name of the guy who invests in Carlos’ scheme = …  he/she obviously has money to burn!



Then, considering you only have a single path between a satellite and a = ground station, any claims of higher-order MIMO through physical separation are = void.

[RR] See above highlighted text! And just know that = you are thinking that physical separation has to mean “of the antennas at = a single receiving or transmitting unit” and there are “other physical separations that are definitely relevant”. =  “Higher-order MMO” does NOT require large physical separations however, just = smart signal processing. Do it right and, under the appropriate = conditions/assumptions, the capacity of a channel of bandwidth W between the satellite with M = antennas and ground station with N antennas) goes up by W*log2(M^2 * N^2) over that = of a single antenna at each end.   For example, if M =3D 16 and N = =3D 4, the increase is 12W!  Point is: MIMO does not necessarily mean multiple spatial streams, it means multiple inputs and multiple outputs.  The two = are NOT the same! He physical channel between the inputs and outputs really = matters.

 

RR

 

Best,

Mike

On Jul 28, 2021, 02:00 +0200, Dick Roy <dickroy@alum.mit.edu>, wrote:

Even better, this guy's BS goes back to the late 80's when = Qualcomm was
promising 1000 times AMPS in cellular capacity with their new CDMA
technology! Fast forward, CDMA has disappeared from planet earth as = a
cellular technology ... and 3 major telecommunications manufacturers are = out
of business!!

RR

-----Original Message-----
From: Starlink [mailto:starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net] On Behalf = Of
Karl Auerbach
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 4:09 PM
To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
Subject: Re: [Starlink] Intro and a question


On 7/26/21 8:51 PM, Larry Press wrote:


 

https://spacenews.com/tech-breakthrough-morphs-gigabit-wifi-into-= terabit-sat
ellite-internet/

 

<https://spacenews.com/tech-breakthrough-morphs-gigabit-wifi-i= nto-terabit-sa
tellite-internet/>

Wow! I got massive deja vu and thought had to check whether I was
reading a 1970's copy of the JC Whitney Catalog!

(Or my own CaveBear Catalog - of hyperbolic bogus network stuff: = "If we
have it, you don't need it"), most particularly:

- Our Press Release from one of the Interop shows, people actually
believed this!! Gaga Net:
https://www.cavebear.com/cb_catalog/techno/gaganet/ )

- The Maximum Momentum Router:
https://www.cavebear.com/cb_catalog/current/maxmoment/

(For those who don't remember, the JC Whitnet catalog was filled = with
things for your car that would improve gas milage by a zillion = percent
or bump horsepower by 200hp. With that catalog one could turn an old
1200cc VW bug into a flame breathing monster, or so one would if one
accepted the hyperbole.)

OK, let's accept this guy's claims as true. Do they make an = end-to-end
difference?

Perhaps if the satellite part of the end-to-end path is truly a bit
synchronous "bent-pipe". But Starlink seems to be evolving far = past
that simple bit-clocked-circuit model into something more resembling = a
space internet with routers, or at least a switched network that = could
have issues such as choice of route, multiple inputs feeding into = one
output (in other words, potential congestion).

BTW, I did like the article's phrase "High Definition = Internet" - It
immediately called to mind "Brawndo - it's got electrolytes" = (from the
movie Idiocracy.

--karl--
_______________________________________________
Starlink mailing list
Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink

_______________________________________________
Starlink mailing list
Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink<= /p>

------=_NextPart_000_05EF_01D7839B.1FE24110--