From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Cc: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>, starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
Subject: Re: [Starlink] The "reasons" that bufferbloat isn't a problem
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 07:16:16 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1r928s39-s5o3-q44n-804n-11ro432210s8@ynat.uz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1f5b183c-5308-430d-8208-d6063c76ab2c@gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 948 bytes --]
Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
> Le 05/06/2024 à 15:40, Gert Doering a écrit :
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 05, 2024 at 03:28:45PM +0200, Alexandre Petrescu via Starlink
> wrote:
>>> well, ok. One day the satcom latency will be so low that we will not have
>>> enough requirements for its use :-)
>> Your disbelief in physics keeps amazing me :-)
>
> sorry :-) Rather than simply 'satcom' I should have said
> satcom-haps-planes-drones. I dont have a name for that.
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.
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.
David Lang
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-06-05 14:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 80+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <mailman.2773.1714488060.1074.starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
2024-04-30 18:05 ` [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC Colin_Higbie
2024-04-30 19:04 ` Eugene Y Chang
2024-05-01 0:36 ` David Lang
2024-05-01 1:30 ` [Starlink] Itʼs " Eugene Y Chang
2024-05-01 1:52 ` Jim Forster
2024-05-01 3:59 ` Eugene Y Chang
2024-05-01 4:12 ` David Lang
2024-05-01 10:15 ` Frantisek Borsik
2024-05-01 18:51 ` Eugene Y Chang
2024-05-01 19:18 ` David Lang
2024-05-01 21:11 ` Frantisek Borsik
2024-05-01 22:10 ` Eugene Y Chang
2024-05-01 21:12 ` Eugene Y Chang
2024-05-01 21:27 ` Sebastian Moeller
2024-05-01 22:19 ` Eugene Y Chang
2024-05-06 11:25 ` [Starlink] The "reasons" that bufferbloat isn't a problem Rich Brown
2024-05-06 12:11 ` Dave Collier-Brown
2024-05-07 0:43 ` Eugene Y Chang
2024-05-07 12:05 ` Dave Collier-Brown
[not found] ` <CAJUtOOhH3oPDCyo=mk=kwzm5DiFp7OZPiFu+0MzajTQqps==_g@mail.gmail.com>
2024-05-06 19:47 ` Rich Brown
2024-05-07 0:38 ` Eugene Y Chang
2024-05-07 10:50 ` Rich Brown
2024-05-08 1:48 ` Dave Taht
2024-05-08 7:58 ` Frantisek Borsik
2024-05-08 8:01 ` Frantisek Borsik
2024-05-08 18:29 ` Eugene Y Chang
2024-06-04 18:19 ` Stuart Cheshire
2024-06-04 20:06 ` Sauli Kiviranta
2024-06-04 20:58 ` Eugene Y Chang
2024-06-05 11:36 ` Alexandre Petrescu
2024-06-05 13:08 ` Aidan Van Dyk
2024-06-05 13:28 ` Alexandre Petrescu
2024-06-05 13:40 ` Gert Doering
2024-06-05 13:43 ` Alexandre Petrescu
2024-06-05 14:16 ` David Lang [this message]
2024-06-05 15:10 ` Sebastian Moeller
2024-06-05 16:21 ` Alexandre Petrescu
2024-06-05 19:17 ` Eugene Y Chang
2024-06-04 23:03 ` Rich Brown
2024-06-04 23:36 ` [Starlink] Consumer Reportes (was: The "reasons" that bufferbloat isn't a problem) David Collier-Brown
2024-06-06 17:51 ` [Starlink] The "reasons" that bufferbloat isn't a problem Stuart Cheshire
2024-06-07 2:28 ` Dave Taht
2024-06-07 5:36 ` Sebastian Moeller
2024-06-07 7:51 ` Gert Doering
2024-05-02 19:17 ` [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC Michael Richardson
2024-05-02 9:09 ` [Starlink] It’s " Alexandre Petrescu
2024-05-02 9:28 ` Ulrich Speidel
2024-04-30 20:05 ` Sebastian Moeller
2024-05-02 9:21 ` Alexandre Petrescu
2024-05-07 12:13 [Starlink] The "reasons" that bufferbloat isn't a problem David Fernández
2024-05-07 12:46 ` Dave Collier-Brown
2024-05-07 19:09 ` Eugene Y Chang
2024-05-07 19:11 ` Dave Taht
2024-05-07 19:14 ` Jeremy Austin
2024-05-07 19:46 ` Dave Taht
2024-05-07 20:03 ` Eugene Y Chang
2024-05-07 20:05 ` Frantisek Borsik
2024-05-07 20:25 ` Eugene Y Chang
2024-05-08 9:31 David Fernández
2024-06-05 14:46 David Fernández
2024-06-05 14:57 ` Vint Cerf
2024-06-06 17:12 ` Michael Richardson
2024-06-06 10:18 ` Alexandre Petrescu
2024-06-06 10:37 ` Aidan Van Dyk
2024-06-06 10:33 ` Alexandre Petrescu
2024-06-05 15:16 David Fernández
2024-06-05 15:21 ` Bless, Roland (TM)
2024-06-05 15:32 ` David Fernández
2024-06-05 16:24 ` Sebastian Moeller
2024-06-06 23:10 ` Michael Richardson
2024-06-07 1:39 ` David Lang
2024-06-07 6:20 ` Sebastian Moeller
2024-06-07 17:41 ` Eugene Y Chang
2024-06-07 17:51 ` David Lang
2024-06-07 20:09 ` Eugene Y Chang
2024-06-08 1:53 ` David Lang
2024-06-05 16:23 ` Sebastian Moeller
2024-06-06 7:07 ` David Fernández
2024-06-06 7:41 ` Sebastian Moeller
2024-06-07 7:36 David Fernández
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://lists.bufferbloat.net/postorius/lists/starlink.lists.bufferbloat.net/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1r928s39-s5o3-q44n-804n-11ro432210s8@ynat.uz \
--to=david@lang.hm \
--cc=alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com \
--cc=gert@space.net \
--cc=starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox