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

[Vint Cerf <vint@google.com>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2671 bytes --]

I hope you all realize that quantum entanglement does NOT facilitate  FTL
communication.

v


On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 10:46 AM David Fernández via Starlink <
starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:

> "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
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>


-- 
Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to:
Vint Cerf
Google, LLC
1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor
Reston, VA 20190
+1 (571) 213 1346


until further notice

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 4465 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 4006 bytes --]