Re: [Starlink] The "reasons" that bufferbloat isn't a problem

["David Fernández" <davidfdzp@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2819 bytes --]

Hi Sebastian,

" Our local regulator thinks that 150 ms access network OWD (so 300msRTT)
is acceptable"

Your local regulator is following ITU-T advice in Recommendation G.114,
where it is said that up to 150 ms one-way delay is acceptable for
telephony.

Regards,

David F.

Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 17:10:26 +0200
From: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
To: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
Cc: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>, Dave Taht via
        Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Re: [Starlink] The "reasons" that bufferbloat isn't a problem
Message-ID: <C1BCE67C-E4D3-4626-B9FB-1AD35C8D93CD@gmx.de>
Content-Type: text/plain;       charset=utf-8

Hi David,


> On 5. Jun 2024, at 16:16, David Lang via Starlink <
starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>
> 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.

Would you have any pointer for that study/those studies? Our local
regulator thinks that 150 ms access network OWD (so 300msRTT) is acceptable
and I am trying to find studies that can shed a light on what acceptable
delay is for different kind of interactive tasks. (Spoiler alert, I am not
convinced that 300ms RTT is a great idea, I forced my self to remote
desktop with artificial 300ms delay and it was not fun, but not totaly
unusable either, but then human can adapt and steer high inertia vehicles
like loaded container ships...)

Sorry for the tangent...

Regards
        Sebastian

P.S.: Dave occasionally reminds us how 'slow' in comparison the speed of
sound is ~343 m/second (depending on conditions) or 343/1000 = 0.343
m/millisecond that is even at a distance of 1 meter delay will be at a 3
ms... and when talking to folks 10m away it is not the delay that is
annoying, but the fact that you have to raise your voice considerably...

>
> David Lang_______________________________________________

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3753 bytes --]