From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.22]) (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 9F9DA3CB38 for ; Sat, 16 Dec 2023 06:14:40 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.de; s=s31663417; t=1702725278; x=1703330078; i=moeller0@gmx.de; bh=Ixg7L1bOupJvLJyxW4Lco3paqiywpKvVXEeOBc+18TY=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References: To; b=sCD+GEKRkv0GzGIb50/ZSKgdnrMZxDjGxKScHZ48fGl42kF21ZP3AzorY+IlZxoM XiZFeUdETwh1OqbuThxhA64ReTXY+eBqwmBk+cMy1TW5uivvDWwNJR3BASfFLbmIQ Z2RggAc1UHx+157exa/pSbt/d8+8eP4DhfZkpgsjDmnXDziTe+9Jj83KTRUeYrSTy FjVYl74C6solltpM7CKkzGM+t0L/kOhzKV1w1+EuNaEh39dESP1eWdP6T1PwVuhcu ltbWw+FaTh7hjl2Ix/FSDrxuzZ59QcsV0dwJYQ3eEnP0cAcJ6n0R5PtlZa+2WuG8J K9QtgjSqUj4eHdLziA== X-UI-Sender-Class: 724b4f7f-cbec-4199-ad4e-598c01a50d3a Received: from smtpclient.apple ([77.0.231.220]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx104 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MbAci-1rlKT80ILg-00bXp3; Sat, 16 Dec 2023 12:14:38 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.120.41.1.4\)) From: Sebastian Moeller In-Reply-To: <7ac63b2a-ac7e-4d53-8dff-04a6d7c662c6@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2023 12:14:37 +0100 Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <6A222696-7E15-45B8-A9F8-991871BBEF9F@gmx.de> References: <55037f9a-bc2c-4bbb-a4bb-47ad30f16190@rjmcmahon.com> <7ac63b2a-ac7e-4d53-8dff-04a6d7c662c6@gmail.com> To: Alexandre Petrescu X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.120.41.1.4) X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:ZlQYoistqD2cVrmxmec+hOzCzk8L2LTHBXXMD4a+2A69MtPB9ag 3jyPSuT0xzkh8P1m7QZdAMZmVH4FZawSEzHnngXVjQhznStcE1tEeGV5dH/ZRNlhuItDmvF nwiuCusdaHFmfYi0ibLpKTVtmp9Cf1cx6gapThblYh2kIQzSmt3RgeCABbmC2fw2X9sOa2w ZZCn7yE7GLfyfpjfdwQcA== X-Spam-Flag: NO UI-OutboundReport: notjunk:1;M01:P0:rTX1uTRxVOc=;0bzzelFa2pV/kCouMYpv2onndCb AAuBG2GbtQScJISke/DaFgwFhWWMUDsLMWUBWhXdRaRyqxYVBXmYTEEuBMaw9R7tBAgBMMG7Y pgxbiNA61X9fR//kGUEm/JYOd9G4/uyrLT6GumfeBpGp51HdltyicYh4GqMlU3DJ2AgtHcl+G kF5L3vh4U5JpNOdrO/2IcYbvTtVIfag0Uu43qppwuGwHwdW2UmBBaGKH99A/ZhnjLu9jdW4Xo r1nbFQ8e2VW7MpEW53iedbSuH8JBQv7gyxH0FZwKvS36RLJXxGFeugS847PmSSr2Ty8ZHsxxM cMT9axdYtgd7NcDPuhGSI3YVCo34WZ5PyNSrZo19hMVdVhCCj/MNBLXzrOhftXbEbVN9y8CLG R/tpfOQkUILUsiNNTDBMRwKbaDErd07M+n9wZ4iLZLY2XnVT1ggKTtZr6j2PSbLYQiTzmzS+S kNtJsJ04iJNYcTj0hQYQZM3HzVKJHozHOo46qlNLxD1pSMoPPQsTAUXglv9p4LFUBz4vPSePy H02xUIs7IZpehj04mN+DeBXvSJ3lc34G/3WcokxJgaWpf2Bsn86DHTJkmv3E9tgD2bbyhuhCq oRWTULhNa7BHDkgrzqUosiJHlzbuv5U9SqtiuSs8B3mwYPDIaFH4IJvbLgKOIJ3JUh99JpIU9 AngDmDXYKfkX0X1rseI9fIdq9rxchuoQ8+APrmi9mOVQUe7+/kCvANGeaZ0px9NfYiUUWMo1g 3iqBdZbx/zI2jFYSDtfK5fkY8AJMgFKhhbI/5ZILlp1t2Q/VFwJDjucPHy83got8GcNYg5i8V op/PnQvXUsYQfY5b8dr7vfATaFerSUXwP3XKcG3PPGWx4+UPOfYNvie1ZKxBNHA/fmBEtmpqX jS3earA+JSLpn0V90BFi+Pd1HXeLrZRn1yXNPF4177BUCDIRB1LUWXemGwAW/HP893Ucsqn2Z gjspgQ== Subject: Re: [Starlink] [NNagain] FCC Upholds Denial of Starlink's RDOF Application 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: Sat, 16 Dec 2023 11:14:41 -0000 Hi Alexandre, > On Dec 16, 2023, at 09:09, Alexandre Petrescu = wrote: >=20 > Hi, Sebastien, >=20 > Le 15/12/2023 =C3=A0 14:06, Sebastian Moeller a =C3=A9crit : >> Hi Alexandre, >>=20 >>=20 >>> On Dec 15, 2023, at 13:07, Alexandre Petrescu via Starlink = wrote: >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> Le 14/12/2023 =C3=A0 19:51, Nathan Simington via Starlink a =C3=A9crit= : >>>> Hi folks, >>>>=20 >>>> (Apologies in advance to non-Americans or anyone who doesn't care = about American home broadband policy! Please feel free to immediately = delete!) >>>>=20 >>>> I don't want to get overly political on this mailing list, but my = statement on this topic is a matter of public record: = https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-105A3.pdf. As this item = is now closed, there is no risk of any impermissible side-barring ("ex = partes" that would have to be filed on the record, in regulatory jargon) = if anyone wants to discuss this. >>>>=20 >>>> The FCC is funded through regulatory fees which, traditionally, = fell predominantly on broadcasters and monopoly-era AT&T. This = mechanism, or at least how we calculate it, is increasingly inapposite = for a world in which so much video and voice traffic takes place via = unregulated services. That's one reason the agency is shrinking even as = the communications industry is growing. Another is that many of our = necessary functions, such as RF emissions enforcement, are on a non-fee = basis and thus short-term painless to cut (even if that means that we're = abandoning oversight of a rising noise floor, or of a device world where = post-licensure quality fade on emissions control is normal business = practice.) >>>>=20 >>>> I'm on the record as saying that the FCC should reallocate = resources and seek additional money with the goal of hiring 500 more = engineers and field enforcement staff. That number is probably too = small, but it would be a good start ;-) I was horrified to learn = recently, while researching my Title II statement, that the FCC = essentially has no internal experts left on peering and transit. How in = blazes was this allowed to happen? (I hired one of the handful left as = my chief of staff, but that just makes her unavailable to the career = staff, so...) >>>>=20 >>>> On this specific issue, I think a reasonable person could look at = current federal broadband programs and see a significant bias in favor = of fiber to the home. Someone drawing that conclusion might point, in = addition to StarLink's situation, to the specific exclusion of = unlicensed-frequency fixed wireless from the BEAD program, in defiance = of the current tech trends. Anyone finding bias there might further note = that the federal government talks incessantly about line speed but never = about traffic management or router firmware and conclude that = technically shallow federal politicians have no better ideas than to = resort to the same metric that ISPs use in their advertising. >>>>=20 >>>> I don't always see eye to eye with TechFreedom, which is why I so = appreciated their filing on the same NOI that some in this group were = involved with filing on. Their filing noted that line speed is a = misleading and inappropriate proxy for customer experience quality, = though not in the detail of the engineering filers, and also pointed out = (among other points) that selling broadband to the public on the basis = of telehealth and education is belied by the traffic numbers, which show = that entertainment uses predominate. Not that I have anything against = entertainment, but the feds haven't been candid (and perhaps the public = has allowed itself to be deceived as well) about the reality of how its = enormous fiber infrastructure subsidy commitments will be used in = practice. >>>>=20 >>>> If we can provide good service to people without the huge lift of a = universal fiber to the home build, then the United States is headed in = the wrong direction and will be wasting a lot of public money. And, = unlike StarLink, we still won't have connected Dave's boat :-) >>>>=20 >>>> All best, >>>> Nathan >>>>=20 >>>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 12:49=E2=80=AFPM David Bray, PhD via = Nnagain wrote: >>>>=20 >>>> FCC's staff continues to shrink. 1420-or-so employees in 2022, >>>> 1755-or-so in 2012, 1952-or-so in 2004. So about a 25% reduction >>>> over the last twenty years. There are several good people there >>>> among the staff, however they also face an increasing number of >>>> tasks and demands with less resources. Public service depends on >>>> folks being willing to step up and be of service. >>>>=20 >>>> Also, ultimately it is the decision of the Commissioners. Staff >>>> can brief the Commissioners and present evidence, the >>>> Commissioners are there to make the policy decisions. Remember >>>> Commissioners are Presidentially-appointed, Senate-confirmed = which >>>> selects for certain things in keeping with our Constitution. For >>>> the staff, this means accepting that politics may supersede even >>>> the best technical briefing. >>>>=20 >>>> Such is how representative governments work. And if you circle >>>> back to Plato's The Republic, the conclusion is such is how >>>> humanity wants it - we don't want a perfectly wise, benevolent, >>>> philosopher king. Each of us wants compromises - the difference >>>> being those specific compromises. Plato (through the voice of >>>> Socrates) also concludes humanity would probably kill a = perfectly >>>> wise, benevolent, philosopher king if we were to ever have one - >>>> again because despite everyone saying they want this, they = really >>>> only want such a person if that person agrees with them fully. = Or >>>> as Tears for Fears aptly put it: "Everybody Wants to Rule the >>>> World" =3D https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DawoFZaSuko4 >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 1:00=E2=80=AFAM Frantisek Borsik via = Nnagain >>>> wrote: >>>>=20 >>>> Thanks, Robert. Exactly what I meant. Therefore I added NN >>>> list, because Nathan was engaging with us there, and with = Dave >>>> (me and some others, to my knowledge) either directly or via >>>> his staffers and he really wanted to catch up on tech things >>>> that are the culprits of Net Neutrality (bufferbloat.) >>>>=20 >>>> So instead of assuming that Nathan Simington and Brendan = Carr >>>> are =E2=80=9Cbought=E2=80=9D as someone did, I can the FCC = itself as an entity >>>> can be understaffed at worse. >>>>=20 >>>> But still, I appreciate efforts to learn about what=E2=80=99s = going in >>>> here and getting it right. >>>>=20 >>>> All the best, >>>>=20 >>>> Frank >>>> Frantisek (Frank) Borsik >>>>=20 >>>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik >>>> Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714 >>>> iMessage, mobile: +420775230885 >>>> Skype: casioa5302ca >>>> frantisek.borsik@gmail.com >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 at 3:46 AM, Robert McMahon >>>> wrote: >>>>=20 >>>> I think this common in that appointment of commissioners >>>> go through a political process. The FCC has a technology >>>> group, too. When I worked with them about 8 years ago, >>>> they had skilled researchers on staff and a highly = skilled >>>> director. They asked good questions about engineering >>>> decisions, like what is limiting the number of mimo >>>> streams on devices. >>>>=20 >>>> Their physical facility is a bit dated, and they don't = get >>>> stock grants. I respect the engineers I worked with for >>>> what they did. >>>>=20 >>>> Bob >>>> On Dec 13, 2023, at 2:38 PM, Frantisek Borsik via = Nnagain >>>> wrote: >>>>=20 >>>> I would love for Nathan to be here with us, and >>>> comment on that :-) so I will add NN list as well. >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> All the best, >>>>=20 >>>> Frank >>>> Frantisek (Frank) Borsik >>>>=20 >>>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik >>>> Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714 >>>> iMessage, mobile: +420775230885 >>>> Skype: casioa5302ca >>>> frantisek.borsik@gmail.com >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 at 11:21 PM, Richard Roy >>>> wrote: >>>>=20 >>>> = ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>=20 >>>> *From:*Starlink >>>> [mailto:starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net] >>>> *On Behalf Of *Frantisek Borsik via Starlink >>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 13, 2023 1:26 PM >>>> *To:* Dave Taht via Starlink >>>> *Subject:* [Starlink] FCC Upholds Denial of >>>> Starlink=E2=80=99s RDOF Application >>>>=20 >>>> =E2=80=9C*Elon Musk*=E2=80=99s Starlink was not = the only major >>>> company to inflate its capabilities >>>> = in >>>> RDOF bids. Nearly 100 bidders have defaulted = since >>>> the auction, leaving in limbo an estimated $2.8 >>>> billion >>>> = of >>>> the $9.2 billion originally awarded. >>>>=20 >>>> The FCCupheld another denial >>>> = on >>>> Monday in the case of LTD Broadband, which >>>> appealed the commission=E2=80=99s finding that = it could >>>> not reasonably serve the more than 500,000 >>>> locations to which it had committed. The >>>> commission also hit LTD with a $21.7 million = fine >>>> for its default. >>>>=20 >>>> The commission=E2=80=99s two Republicans = dissented to >>>> Starlink=E2=80=99s denial, claiming they saw a = path for >>>> the company to improve its speeds before the = first >>>> deployment deadline in 2025.=E2=80=9D >>>>=20 >>>> */[RR] The reason two lawyers =E2=80=9Csaw a = path=E2=80=9D is >>>> because they were bribed/conned into to see it. = In >>>> my nearly 50years of experience dealing with the >>>> FCC, extremely rarely are the people at the top = in >>>> the commission tech savvy. In general, they = have >>>> NO CLUE when it comes to technology =E2=80=A6 = period! /**/JJ/* >>>>=20 >>>> = https://broadbandbreakfast.com/2023/12/fcc-upholds-denial-of-starlinks-rdo= f-application/ >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> All the best, >>>>=20 >>>> Frank >>>> Frantisek (Frank) Borsik >>>>=20 >>>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik >>>> Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714 >>>> iMessage, mobile: +420775230885 >>>> Skype: casioa5302ca >>>> frantisek.borsik@gmail.com >>>>=20 >>>> = ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>=20 >>>> Nnagain mailing list >>>> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net >>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain >>>>=20 >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Nnagain mailing list >>>> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net >>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain >>>>=20 >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Nnagain mailing list >>>> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net >>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> --=20 >>>> Nathan Simington >>>> cell: 305-793-6899 >>>>=20 >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Starlink mailing list >>>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net >>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink >>>=20 >>> For non-US country (France). The issue here about the fiber = deployment is the too numerous disconnections, because they keep adding = new connections, by third parties contracted by the real operators (its' = not the operators who install). In a growing tele-work era that impacts = a lot the economy. >>>=20 >>> That continuous disconnection is a growing issue since some months = if not years now. It is a public matter, with action from local = regulatory body (ARCEP) imposed on operators. >>>=20 >>> The reason of fiber disconnection is, I suspect, the 'tangled fiber' = - they dont really know which fiber belongs to whom. When they install = a new fiber, they often impact, or outright disconnect, an existing = fiber. Re-installing takes time. >>>=20 >>> (this 'tangled wires' is not particular to just fiber, it can be = witnessed in other cables for public use;) >>>=20 >>> On the positive side, the fiber installations they make (I saw it = here) are somehow future proof. The bring not just one fiber, but 4 or = 5 to a same subscriber ; they light only one, equalling 1gbit/s. It = means that they could scale it up later to 4 or 5 gbit/s, without = additional installation. At the current rate of growth, it might mean = 10 years, if it does not accelerate. >>>=20 >>> Thus, technically speaking, one would like the advantages of satcom = such as starlink, to be at least 5gbit/s in 10 years time, to overcome = the 'tangled fiber' problem. >> Today er can push to hundreds of Gbps over a single strand of fiber, >=20 > Thanks, I did not know that. >=20 > I would like to clarify. >=20 > I am not sure what do you mean by 'strand'? I know that at home there = is a black 5mm-diameter cable which contains 4 or 5 transparent = hair-like fibers; each is maybe 1mm or less in diameter. Some people = call a fiber that 5mm black cable, or call 'fiber' just one of these = hairs. Each of these hair-like fiber can be cut but before connecting = it to another hair it must be aligned by a special handheld machine; it = appears to me to be an electronic microscope. In that way the fiber can = be extended with least loss, rather than IP routing. >=20 > Is a 'strand' that 'hair'? [SM] Yes, with strand I wanted to tackle the same issue, that = fiber cables typically contain more separate wave-guiding fibers, but = comparing multiple fibers with a single satellite would have seemed = obviously unhelpful. > I suspect that it is that hair-like fiber that can carry 1gbit/s, = because that's what I get at home. [SM] Multiple hundred Gbps actually... most european fiber ISPs = seem to use passive optical networks (where multiple end users share the = same fiber trunk from an optical splitter to the central office, there = is an individual fiber fr each enduser conedcted to the splitter, but = the traffic all needs to share the "trunk" fiber [I am sure this is not = the correct nomenclature I am using, but I hope you understand]). These = trunk fibers have capacities ranging from 2.5/1.25 Gbps (Down/Up) for = GPON, over 10/10 Gbps for XGSPON (actually more like 8.5/8.5 when FEC is = used), up rto 25/25 with 25GSPON or (still work in progress) 50/25 with = 50GPON... Just as the downstream from a satelite is shared between = starlink users in the same cell, so is the aggregate capacity in PONs. > It can also be, that it is on that same hair-like fiber that it can be = pushed even higher than 1gbit/s (you say hundreds of Gbps, [SM] Yes, that depends a bit on the exact fiber specifications, = but I think you can buy optical tramsceuvers for single fibers (aka = hairs) that allow 800 Gbps (at least that is what a quick look at fs.com = revealed). > and Gert said Fiber7.ch delivers 25 gbit/s; [SM] In Switzerland they opted for an active optical network = (AON) and Init7 gets hence a darf fiber per customer and can light this = up any way they want. They figured out that offering 25 instead of 10 is = viable for them, so they went and did that. (I do note though that Init7 = is not primarily and end user ISP, and offering really fast symmetric = end-user links might positively affect their traffic mix, potentially = opening up more opportunities for cheaper peerings due to more equal = ingress/egress ratio, but that is pure speculation). > a little bit like on copper lines they went from 2.4kbit/s up to = 20mbit/s). =20 [SM] I think the limit on telephony copper is around 200-300 = Mbps (and that is an economic limit, there are techniques for short = reached like G.fast that reach up to 1000 Mbps that are just not = deployable en masse due ot cable length being too long). > Or maybe the fiber hundreds of gbit/s can be obtained from multiple = such hairs, or maybe even multiple 5mm black cables. [SM] Yes, you can always add more waveguides to increase the = throughput linearly, but for end-user links that is rather unlikely, = there typically will be a fixed number of fibers... > I also heard of 'hollow' fibers talked about in the sat-int email list = at ietf. I never saw it in practice but many people talk about it and = its potential. [SM] The promise of hollow fibers is that they allow faster = signal propagation than the typical 2/3 of the speed of light inside = glass fibers. I am not sure whether these are actually viable for PONs = and even if, if they make much sense, after all the largest access delay = in PONs comes from the typical request grant cycle and not from signal = propagation/serialisation delay. > =46rom another analsys I concluded that by year 2031 the optical lines = (fiber) might feature up to 1 petabit/s. (from a presentation titled = 'optical cables roadmap' of January 2023). [SM] I think such numbers are mostly relevant for backbone = networks and especially sub-sea cables, for home links I do not expect = these to show up in the 2030s ;) >> that is completely unrealistic to match from space. >=20 > Well, indeed it might appear so. One might hardly think of an = individual wireless radio link to an end user at 1 petabit/s in year = 2031 from a constellation of sats. >=20 > But, I would like to clarify. >=20 > One is the electronics advancements, leading to transistors working ok = at hundreds of GHz spectrum, or even more. This translates in these = channel widths in the order of tens of GHz at this 140GHz range. >=20 > Another clarification is that of access: the fiber used to access (end = user link) should be compared to the end user links of sats. The fiber = used for 'metro'(politan) links should be compared to sat-to-sat links. = The year should be specified. >=20 > The evolution of power of computers and their energy efficiency = (onboard sats) as well as of the efficiency of energy sources, should be = considered as well. >=20 > Given that, I think it can still be imagined that a satcom access link = to be required to deliver same fiber access link bandwidth at a same = year. Maybe that year is not in the immediate. [SM] I see this only happen if the fiber side stops any further = development while the satellite side continues, and even then... for = single links free space laser lins between base statin and satelliltes = might approach fiber like speeds, but that does not sound like a = desirable outcome... >=20 >> If the problem is wiring and cable organisation, that seems = considerably easier and economic to fix than pushing all traffic via = satellites. >=20 > It is a good consideration. >=20 > I think the wiring is not as easy to fix. [SM] Not easier to fix than setting up a LEO space program where = satellites have to be replaces continuously? I am pretty sure this is = not a matter of capabilities and more of priorities ;) > There are many organisational problems. Even a regulator cant impose = that fixing, it does not work. They gave us now an URL to tell the = regulator whenever we have another fiber disconnection (click on an URL = when no connection, hmm...). I dont bother calling the regulator. I do = bother calling the ISP to fix it, once again. I dont know for how long = will I still bother calling them about this. >=20 > I would say that it is as easy to fix these fiber wires as it is easy = to fix the decomissioning of sats, or the organisation of space overall. [SM] I am less optimistic here... it seems rather simple to hand = over all access fibers to a single entity and have these to one thing = and do it well, deploy and maintain fibers in the access network, that = should solve the disconnect problem relatively efficiently. And I am = sure the french state would have zero problems managing something like = that. >=20 >> Don't get me wrong networking via LEO satellites is pretty cool and = in some situations extremely valuable, but not a reasonable alternative = for a FTTH network for most cases. >=20 > I do agree in large part. It is common sense. >=20 > It might be that my views wont happen. It's just forecasting. [SM] Fair enough, let's see how things develop, after all users = typically are fine with "enough" capacity, and maybe LEO will end up = delivering exactly that enough capacity so people stop caring. ATM we = lack "killer-application" for high capacity links already (that is = desirable applications that strictly require high capacity links to work = at all), no wonder even the access network industry started looking at = latency as the next thing to address that might be valuable enough for = users to invest into. (Wich also happens to be where LEO clearly beats = GEO, delivering base latencies that make special case PePs avoidable). Regards Sebastian >=20 > Alex >=20 >>=20 >> Regards >> Sebastian >>=20 >>=20 >>> Alex >>>=20 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Starlink mailing list >>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net >>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink