From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <david@lang.hm>
Received: from mail.lang.hm (syn-045-059-245-186.biz.spectrum.com
 [45.59.245.186])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 14CBD3B2A4
 for <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>; Wed,  5 Jun 2024 10:16:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from dlang-mobile (unknown [10.2.3.133])
 by mail.lang.hm (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9C171D3E7C;
 Wed,  5 Jun 2024 07:16:16 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 07:16:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
cc: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>, starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
In-Reply-To: <1f5b183c-5308-430d-8208-d6063c76ab2c@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1r928s39-s5o3-q44n-804n-11ro432210s8@ynat.uz>
References: <3FF32F52-4A93-496B-85FF-00020FA4A48B@gmx.de>
 <08F6942E-CC08-4956-B92E-CBEC091D86E4@ieee.org>
 <E9B5BCFB-395D-42C2-B83D-E5583A555143@gmail.com>
 <CAA93jw6Xv24eOPHgoNd5A6vrUpT-BFW=ZZu1kcTUuVazDTCz8g@mail.gmail.com>
 <2F510BD5-2D7E-4A6A-A3DE-C529D14F6FBC@apple.com>
 <CAJbqEYBRT93+wXm8VASGLkN0czfq9=T1AtGKMCFXZ7mE=OGQOQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <1078E544-F61B-4289-BCA1-BCDD9FA77481@ieee.org>
 <97d6e6f0-d153-42fd-b6c1-b64fb429dfca@gmail.com>
 <CAC_2qU_uy5ELjE=pAJY3mDMMUxdEPaTO5Xa=NQ0eU_jmj8iPnQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <4008eb08-871b-4c1b-9cf3-025ba454cbc6@gmail.com> <ZmBq3hzk8xJ_wzUJ@Space.Net>
 <1f5b183c-5308-430d-8208-d6063c76ab2c@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="228850167-1385530100-1717596976=:4640"
Subject: Re: [Starlink] The "reasons" that bufferbloat isn't a problem
X-BeenThere: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Starlink has bufferbloat. Bad." <starlink.lists.bufferbloat.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/options/starlink>,
 <mailto:starlink-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/starlink>
List-Post: <mailto:starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
List-Help: <mailto:starlink-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink>,
 <mailto:starlink-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2024 14:16:18 -0000

  This message is in MIME format.  The first part should be readable text,
  while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.

--228850167-1385530100-1717596976=:4640
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT

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
--228850167-1385530100-1717596976=:4640--