Re: [Starlink] It's the Latency, FCC

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

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5160 bytes --]

I always find this list interesting to get updated on what is happening
with policies for Internet access deployments in the U.S. and elsewhere,
and what role is Starlink getting.

Starlink was conceived for having Internet access fast in remote areas, for
leisure, surprisingly fast for SATCOM standards, even compared to 4G/5G
mobile networks and DSL, almost like having FTTH. Then, it has become a
tactical communications network, with military applications that cannot be
ignored, triggering the development of IRIS2 in Europe (as OneWeb was
already owned by the UK, not in the EU nowadays).

In Spain, telco operators are switching off the copper network, no more
dial-up or DSL possible, moving exclusively to FTTH, 5G NSA and then there
is GEO satellite Internet access (subsidized by Government) for rural
areas, now at 200 Mbit/s. I think that there is no fixed Internet access
below 100 Mbit/s in the market, nowadays in Spain.

Latest movement I have seen is a drastic price reduction in Spain for the
Starlink Basic option, becoming cheaper than the Government subsidized GEO
Internet access (via Hispasat): 29 euro/month vs. 35 euro/month.
https://www.starlink.com/es/service-plans

Regards,

David F.

Date: Wed, 1 May 2024 15:13:14 +0000
From: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
To: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
Cc: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net" <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Re: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
Message-ID:
        <
MN2PR16MB3391FCBE610E11DF886FE0A6F1192@MN2PR16MB3391.namprd16.prod.outlook.com
>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

David,

I'm not thinking about an urban rollout. My default perspective is rural.
The closest house to my farm is about a half mile away, only 330 people in
our whole town, which is geographically large. This is what drove my need
for Starlink in the first place – I had previously been paying $330/mo for
a bunch of DSL lines and 2 T-1s aggregated via an SD-WAN solution. Starlink
gave me much more download bandwidth and a hair more on upload, lower
latency, vastly improved reliability, and cut my costs by almost 3/4
(72.7%).

Then, in a surprise move, our power company rolled out a fiber network to
its rural customers, which is even better on bandwidth at 1Gbps both up and
down and provides comparable latency. I can say as a user that at
comparable latency, the UX boost with 1Gbps U and D compared with
Starlink's connection is dramatic for work. Large file uploads and
downloads are nearly instant, significantly increasing productivity. I can
also now video conference without worrying about disruption on the sending
signal due to family members being on the Internet at the same time. I have
also changed the settings on family gaming and PC systems so they can watch
YouTube at full resolution, where with Starlink, to avoid congestion on
bandwidth (not bufferbloat) if everyone happened to be using the Internet
at the same time, I had locked everyone else down to 480p or 720p streams.

My goal in saying that it's better to do a slower rollout if needed to
provide at least 25Mbps is to maximize end user experience and be efficient
with constructions costs. This is my perspective because it's the
perspective ISPs will have and therefore the necessary mindset to influence
them. It's the perspective I have, and everyone who runs a business has,
when people approach us telling us how to run our businesses. When you
charge them waving data like an academic, an approach you appear to use in
many of these emails (though to be fair, maybe you're different with this
mailing list than you would be during a pitch to government or industry),
you only alienate the audience and reduce the likelihood of anything
getting done.

In rural areas in the U.S., the long term harm to rushing out low-bandwidth
solutions is significant. It would be better for them to have nothing new
for another year or two and then get a 25+ Mbps connection that get a
10Mbps connection now, then get no upgrades for another 10-15 years, which
is the likely outcome for many. Keep in mind that in the U.S., nearly all
residents already have at least dial-up access for email and other
trickle-in connections and most have some form of DSL, even if sub-1Mbps.
Of course, now there is also Starlink, though w/Starlink, cost can be a
barrier for some.

However, and perhaps this is what you meant, I am admittedly thinking about
this as a U.S. citizen. I would acknowledge that in other parts of the
world where it's a not a matter of just waiting an extra couple of years to
get an upgrade from dial-up or DSL, the situation may be different.
Infrastructure costs at 25Mbps could be prohibitive in those markets, where
a single feed to a village could be a significant upgrade from their
current state of no Internet access for dozens or hundreds of miles. I
accept my pushing for a recognition of 25Mbps floor for the top speed
offered refers to 1st world markets where we have the luxury of being able
to do it right in the first place to save money in the long run.

 - Colin

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5928 bytes --]