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

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

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2015 bytes --]

"quantum entanglement may be a path to beat the speed of light"

It seems that is not going anywhere. Maybe better warp drives.

Faster than light comms as a target for 7G mentioned here:
https://imageio.forbes.com/specials-images/imageserve/653fee7b042dc92df0919930/MnM-Trends-Wheel/960x0.jpg?format=jpg&width=1440

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarwantsingh/2023/10/30/the-mega-trends-that-will-shape-our-future-world

So, maybe that means that 6G will be the last G, after all, as faster than
light comms seem to be impossible, because paradoxes could be created.

The end of comms engineering could be in the horizon of our lifetime.


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
Subject: Re: [Starlink] The "reasons" that bufferbloat isn't a problem
Message-ID: <1r928s39-s5o3-q44n-804n-11ro432210s8@ynat.uz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"

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

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3075 bytes --]