From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.18]) (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 6CAAD3CBC5 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2023 17:38:06 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.de; s=s31663417; t=1678916284; i=moeller0@gmx.de; bh=gSxLLUCWFEyWKU8jHd8A9nQsALnFVGyMumxNeiPJ02g=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=qLYtfHoAo8WGQP0tZOrN83NnQ6eXFqXXe+GpNI/rik9e6Ll5jhs5KMi+Y6DKn/SPw /o5jc2fJWw5PQbWeklOEBbGrGq5H+79aFSmtCG0VJaZnA/NBzRhtYs8mIDGNXQW5zU V8RJIS+gNAOQgthp0BgkgSPTUsSB4Bd4RGzX9ZC9QqhHamDZE/OsoUAfzEJT7iBzOn 9maVd8tv7aZL8QSYJf3ArN0g4jgJgVCdjXfUfBMpOSA9F8v1312pemnWUuffU0WYwN 1lT+5+iAOV01YyOOy0ON+1jLlUDHCVHbCj7Qakr6FHnDBzOcZMgpcA6X0t3EpACoJR BmCe7FRVls7rw== X-UI-Sender-Class: 724b4f7f-cbec-4199-ad4e-598c01a50d3a Received: from smtpclient.apple ([77.8.125.95]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx004 [212.227.17.190]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MVvPD-1q4NEP2Ewn-00Rtw7; Wed, 15 Mar 2023 22:38:04 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.120.41.1.2\)) From: Sebastian Moeller In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2023 22:38:01 +0100 Cc: starlink Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <1A8C26C3-990A-4DEA-9F9F-BD1F4504C1F3@gmx.de> References: <49102316-A4EC-4045-AD84-F58CFAA66A56@gmx.de> To: =?utf-8?Q?David_Fern=C3=A1ndez?= X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.120.41.1.2) X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:JBzC20cRMn7updJp7AuOhAi+bGIP7x235rrNaI6mhWtkr7X/9vM oZGvoPGkgvr8xo8JrfJ6d6TwoSgJiq+JCVwf1gQyW+Rz0tcqmqUYK3iB4K5806DiSNb1Ej5 1e3HjMeTJM1kNVHC0GD1nrczKA0lO1Y3TfCQUGtnYwXoXV860ZOLBpJrNeyVzZoMaCosFPD 804MQyZ2NIFuszpD/hzTA== X-Spam-Flag: NO UI-OutboundReport: notjunk:1;M01:P0:4Pl4R/3EofA=;FMI66Hi4X7pIR3J359mqOpkKllu Lux60ytnyUwb616paUK8yT517EdKxtie0JUXm9jqM1MUssporbhpifwvwNxXD5IsG0Su7Jy5K tJ6id/wO9l9OhuL40h6oU3iTNYMkoQ8F5txdbQoOmLBepYvlIjELw3sfj0Qn8KDNNThYJ4vSV qB1gMmNWv3CBaVnsqcumZ+OMLlERKpSKbo1L4E7IV+JPpGPPREPeqK3x6kwj3UALeixKlughj hXxQ/Oshp2FzHeZ8IjoVrpOLYPDm7DA9yWeefZVc1GDJa0edfSxIwAZq1xR0Azmf9i4urE1ye XBfn6iwCtljskdYAPNb5XUlR9LrkdoRepirNCqoBBCyDcPHt4jIFnBWROrVYpR+Utiy4OxOn1 4McWqWdBIp9rtiIKai62jJqiyh+h4KIYtwDjpUr6T0LxrlWQ6br7OhN0nmixdbQwgn1N04KE2 AKPjkvekBiBLkTEf0Zlj5VzeZXf7xumSz5WhWwbVdH7WeBtNnjgUcPoaGdM2XlXEAh0qLPzcA ZUxrxwbkseIx+1T/PRnIRAowzKPUUO5cLSHiGzJTrJLD8cnBu89SW0XGSVfa7Ov2a8aSG58cf XOoPC+62OhJhUpu9n6zsao+ok8vERbGKgEqWLBX3BQoKYIyh5Sc7Uqdllnd10sv7li1YMH3CU pJU9aHfcJbKc0TSZDZLU4OugOaCKGePmqPcT/olVGymEHm09jGXb8m2ArQCmsktf7/8JYbh60 rjYmkeJdY+OzBIGJ6KIaDBoh+Ac8AwG3MvzW1gEx1LPv269lPbl4TICTR0K6k5FRt2jViJGui MvesZnX/JCpaoLLZryLYPk8INGhkb4OIO9H0eFAVSQcEZa0DLJYU808iVql3eF64TEOwOi123 I6mGX665q2lyMybYYmsaHvtlMskUhSvDt6O5v1VP8SDqrnwbSXT0aIE2osure5ZTEYzCZXo6/ yKQZ2GTJx//Je5T40agwN2SaFfE= Subject: Re: [Starlink] On FiWi 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, 15 Mar 2023 21:38:06 -0000 Hi David, > On Mar 15, 2023, at 22:07, David Fern=C3=A1ndez via Starlink = wrote: >=20 > Well, if you live in a house from 1918 and you want to pass coaxial > cables I don't... coaxial cable is not my cup of tea ;) > or Ethernet or fiber, unless they are visible, it is going to > cost you a lot of money and maybe you will not be able to alter the > facade with cables passing visible from the street. The house (where we live in an apartment in) is not on the = street, and both the DOSIS and the telephony cabling enters via the = basement. And yes putting cables in the walls is hard and dirty (brick = walls). This being rented property I kept the wall engineering to a = minimum. >=20 > Of course, old buildings can be refurbished, And routinely are, neither the fresh and waste water, heating = nor the electricity systems in the house are the respective first = versions. However I admit that change still is slow. > but most of people just > avoid it as much as possible, because of money and aesthetics. So, > making laws asking for minimum infrastructure for telecommunication > installations on buildings, like having common areas and spaces for > antennas in the rooftop and for distributing communication cables are > a good idea, that will save money to the building owner. It is also > making it easier to people renting that houses to get some services. Yes and no, it externalizes some cost and moves around who pays = for it. Which is fine with me, I accept that infrastructure is something = where the community can be expected to chip in... (although I prefer the = access network in public hands, where "chip" in can be easily organized = and who generally are used to running infrastructure; then have the free = market organize the services using that infrastructure) >=20 > I don't want to imagine the discussions and major works that I would > need, for example, to put a Starlink antenna on the rooftop of any > building of apartments, and passing cables, installing switches, to > share the access with neighbours or not. Of course, anything can be > done, but it cost a lot, and not only money. >=20 > I understand that PLC can be worse than Wi-Fi mesh for VDSL, because > of the interferences of PLC on VDSL. Where I tried, the house with > multiple floors, the access was HFC. Yepp, HFC/DOCSIS and FTTH, even LTE/5G are relative immune to = PLC, however PLC often does not cross from apartment t apartment here = due to how internal wiring is done, but inside a single unit electric = grid it is supposed to work... my apartment is small enough not to need = that, and I rather use an ethernet cable anyway. But I hread of users = happy with PLC, after putting a cake shaper on both sides to reign in = the original vendor firmware's tendency for high jitter. > But well, Internet access is getting more and more personal and done > mainly though mobile devices. That is one direction, the other direction is that it is going = to be switched over to fiber. And these are not mutually exclusive. But = looking at the LTE/5G offers over here most have clear warts when judged = as a way to organize internet access for a family. As you say carriers = prefer that each individual get their own access via a phone. However = that is incompatible with some important use cases... > In the future, maybe the phone company > will put a femtocell on each house and you will just connect to it and > pay a mobile subscription. Who knows. Maybe, hopefully not. I will not be looking forward to that = future. Telcos and mobile carriers do not have the kind of business = acumen that endears them to me. Case in point, the big ex-monopoly = telco's in Europe are lobbying the EU to make big content providers pay = for he privilege of causing the traffic that end-users consume... While = my heart does not go out for the "poor" big 5 tech quasi-monopolies = either, I am long enough in the game that I know that they will claw = back that cost from their customers. Call me old-fashioned, but I do not = want to pay twice for my internet access, once directly to the Telco and = once infdirectly through higher costs for content. That said, I am not = unhappy with my ISP and my mobile carrier, but I do not want to tempt = them ;) > That makes me think how is > people with Starlink managing to get SMS for 2FA or regular phone > calls on their mobiles, Honestly mobile phones are terrible 2FA devices... SMS is not = secure (for little money you can organize to use SS& whith which you can = route accessof SMS where ever you want, and mobile phone have a pretty = gross update story, looking at you Android (that also affects Google = itself, updates and especially security updates are stopped way = typically well before the devices have stopped being useful). > when they only have the Dishy and no mobile > coverage, e.g. going somewhere remote with an RV. You switch to a non SMS based 2FA method, on the same phone that = while for different reasons has a similarly sketchy security offering as = SMS... >=20 > Regards, >=20 > David >=20 > 2023-03-15 17:09 GMT+01:00, Sebastian Moeller : >> Hi David, >>=20 >>> On Mar 15, 2023, at 16:24, David Fern=C3=A1ndez via Starlink >>> wrote: >>>=20 >>> Hi David, >>>=20 >>> That's true: "any communications infrastructure that you mandate get >>> built into new buildings is going to be obsolete long before the >>> building is" >>=20 >> There is some truth to that, I live in a house from 1918... >>=20 >>>=20 >>> I am afraid this is also true: any communications infrastructure = that >>> you do not mandate to get built into new buildings will never make = it >>> into them afterwards. >>=20 >> However the internal infrastructure was not last touched 1918... = so updates >> are possible ;) >>=20 >>>=20 >>> So, we end up having things like IAB (Integrated Access and = Backhaul) >>> defined to extend 5G coverage to downtown areas, where buildings >>> cannot be touched for historical/artistic reasons (extreme case). >>>=20 >>> Some time ago I tried to install coaxial in a flat that had only >>> copper wiring. It was impossible. Coaxial was too thick to pass >>> through the hole reserved for copper telephone cable (even removing >>> old cables), so I stayed with DSL. It is important that architects >>> consider the cabling needs of homes, not only for electricity. >>=20 >> Especially as power lines are often placed inside walls in = "plaster" over >> here. However even for power it has long been clear that the option = with >> long term usability is to not put the actual cables in plaster, but = some >> flexible tubes, wide enough to allow a few parallel cables. However = for >> telecommunication wiring things are often a bit special... like = DSL-wires is >> best not placed cloae and parallel to power lines, fiber and things = like >> cat8 cables have different minimal turning radii that power cables, = ... all >> things that make it preferable to design two distribution tube = systems, one >> for power one for comms. >>=20 >>=20 >>> I have >>> used PLC (Power Line Comms) to extend Wi-Fi coverage at multiple = floor >>> homes, but it is not perfect solution. >>=20 >> +1; not ideal especially for VDSL (profile 35b is quite = sensitive to MIMO >> PLC adapter which do carnage to the upper frequency sub carriers. >>=20 >>> I would not recommend it. >>> Wireless mesh repeaters are worst, to my experience. >>=20 >> Funny, over here we are still mainly VDSL based (FTTH is coming, = just not >> very fast ;) ) and here PLC is typically less desirable than meshes = of any >> kind. >>=20 >> Regards >> Sebastian >>=20 >>>=20 >>> Regards, >>>=20 >>> David >>>=20 >>>> Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2023 11:37:21 -0700 (PDT) >>>> From: David Lang >>>> To: David Fern=C3=A1ndez >>>> Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net >>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] On FiWi >>>> Message-ID: <8qq0r5n2-s836-1080-3362-2o8nr3qn1044@ynat.uz> >>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"utf-8"; Format=3D"flowed" >>>>=20 >>>> any communications infrastructure that you mandate get built into = new >>>> buildings >>>> is going to be obsolete long before the building is (especially = radio >>>> equipment) >>>>=20 >>>> I am a big fan of using wire (or fiber) directly to equipment when = you >>>> can. >>>> wifi >>>> is sexy and 'easy' to setup, but there is only so much airtime >>>> available, >>>> and >>>> your radio footprint where you produce intereference to other = equipment >>>> is >>>> much >>>> larger than the usable footprint (let alone what your requirements = are), >>>> so >>>> it >>>> is far more work to share reasonably. You also are sending a lot of >>>> power >>>> places >>>> where it's not useful, so you are wasting energy compared to having >>>> somethign >>>> hard-wired. >>>>=20 >>>> There are times when you need the mobility that radio gives you, = and >>>> times >>>> where >>>> it's advantages outweigh the disadvantages, but please don't fall = into >>>> the >>>> trap >>>> of thinking that wires are obsolete and should be discouraged, it's >>>> exactly >>>> the >>>> opposite, the more we can hard-wire, the better the mobile devices = that >>>> can't be >>>> hard wired can perform. >>>>=20 >>>> David Lang >>>>=20 >>>> On Tue, 14 Mar 2023, David Fern=C3=A1ndez via Starlink wrote: >>>>=20 >>>>> Hi Bob, >>>>>=20 >>>>> If you want that FiWi infrastructure on buildings, I am afraid = that >>>>> you only get it (in the long term) with a law that makes it = mandatory >>>>> to make new buildings with that infrastructure for communications. >>>>>=20 >>>>> In Spain, it should be added to this: >>>>> = https://avancedigital.mineco.gob.es/Infraestructuras/Paginas/Index.aspx >>>>>=20 >>>>> Regards, >>>>>=20 >>>>> David >>>>>=20 >>>>>> Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2023 21:27:23 -0700 >>>>>> From: rjmcmahon >>>>>> To: Sebastian Moeller >>>>>> Cc: dan , Jeremy Austin , = Rpm >>>>>> , libreqos >>>>>> , Dave Taht via Starlink >>>>>> , bloat = >>>>>> Subject: [Starlink] On FiWi >>>>>> Message-ID: >>>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3DUTF-8; format=3Dflowed >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> To change the topic - curious to thoughts on FiWi. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Imagine a world with no copper cable called FiWi = (Fiber,VCSEL/CMOS >>>>>> Radios, Antennas) and which is point to point inside a building >>>>>> connected to virtualized APs fiber hops away. Each remote radio = head >>>>>> (RRH) would consume 5W or less and only when active. No need for >>>>>> things >>>>>> like zigbee, or meshes, or threads as each radio has a fiber >>>>>> connection >>>>>> via Corning's actifi or equivalent. Eliminate the AP/Client power >>>>>> imbalance. Plastics also can house smoke or other sensors. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Some reminders from Paul Baran in 1994 (and from David Reed) >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> o) Shorter range rf transceivers connected to fiber could produce = a >>>>>> significant improvement - - tremendous improvement, really. >>>>>> o) a mixture of terrestrial links plus shorter range radio links = has >>>>>> the >>>>>> effect of increasing by orders and orders of magnitude the amount = of >>>>>> frequency spectrum that can be made available. >>>>>> o) By authorizing high power to support a few users to reach = slightly >>>>>> longer distances we deprive ourselves of the opportunity to serve = the >>>>>> many. >>>>>> o) Communications systems can be built with 10dB ratio >>>>>> o) Digital transmission when properly done allows a small signal = to >>>>>> noise ratio to be used successfully to retrieve an error free = signal. >>>>>> o) And, never forget, any transmission capacity not used is = wasted >>>>>> forever, like water over the dam. Not using such techniques = represent >>>>>> lost opportunity. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> And on waveguides: >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> o) "Fiber transmission loss is ~0.5dB/km for single mode fiber, >>>>>> independent of modulation" >>>>>> o) =E2=80=9CCopper cables and PCB traces are very frequency = dependent. At >>>>>> 100Gb/s, the loss is in dB/inch." >>>>>> o) "Free space: the power density of the radio waves decreases = with >>>>>> the >>>>>> square of distance from the transmitting antenna due to spreading = of >>>>>> the >>>>>> electromagnetic energy in space according to the inverse square = law" >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> The sunk costs & long-lived parts of FiWi are the fiber and the = CPE >>>>>> plastics & antennas, as CMOS radios+ & fiber/laser, e.g. VCSEL = could >>>>>> be >>>>>> pluggable, allowing for field upgrades. Just like swapping out = SFP in >>>>>> a >>>>>> data center. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> This approach basically drives out WiFi latency by eliminating = shared >>>>>> queues and increases capacity by orders of magnitude by = leveraging >>>>>> 10dB >>>>>> in the spatial dimension, all of which is achieved by a physical >>>>>> design. >>>>>> Just place enough RRHs as needed (similar to a pop up sprinkler = in an >>>>>> irrigation system.) >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Start and build this for an MDU and the value of the building >>>>>> improves. >>>>>> Sadly, there seems no way to capture that value other than over = long >>>>>> term use. It doesn't matter whether the leader of the HOA tries = to >>>>>> capture the value or if a last mile provider tries. The value = remains >>>>>> sunk or hidden with nothing on the asset side of the balance = sheet. >>>>>> We've got a CAPEX spend that has to be made up via "OPEX returns" = over >>>>>> years. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> But the asset is there. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> How do we do this? >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Bob >>>>>>=20 >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Starlink mailing list >>>>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net >>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink >>>>=20 >>>> ------------------------------ >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Starlink mailing list >>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net >>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink >>=20 >>=20 > _______________________________________________ > Starlink mailing list > Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink