From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qt1-x82c.google.com (mail-qt1-x82c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::82c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A631C3CB39; Fri, 15 Dec 2023 07:46:43 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-qt1-x82c.google.com with SMTP id d75a77b69052e-4259c7dfb63so4123871cf.1; Fri, 15 Dec 2023 04:46:43 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1702644403; x=1703249203; darn=lists.bufferbloat.net; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=auqCYBnR9WfKhz7psGQ0goVU72XI4Hnb5d1tOUfqYi8=; b=lMTcPtp3eR50Zawzs5pQ+A9+x7arM7TPy4bq5pmElkn+E4FnmUEPg/tXqdP5Txw6lj wfs1rvbo9/9Cl9m3Aj5/olEH5zjKooaQVORPdvvZPZ4VujMPeblSIBqFT5A3roxWtMVm BJL8RehI1pLmvr0ew8NKX2Y+TtZCw/J41sIW6vAixWToOf5ziDOGdxDKMlWS47LWPOI7 DH7tvvyfY4dxLuzG9qrejABlsf0LZ1q2BV/LEqpO5kj+Qe3k0X/P63Nf9GCMECVOUOZX +eIi0BhLqsvlgkNdrXLFORlljYHuFOVeAgk87vU6a13zRhWi7A2wliZkTIeRVHQzphkV I/XA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1702644403; x=1703249203; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=auqCYBnR9WfKhz7psGQ0goVU72XI4Hnb5d1tOUfqYi8=; b=aKqCP7dXkri3aW2ZpjYPbGkbJX6cwK9+nCoQkiRJBCMIo0OlwEq0JWt30gRT4dZq3b TsM5ihhrsLPlSanfoU8hZvFu4Al3Iminpl66pIxX0maF/50BO8YMtAkIjSAwcc6B+XOR VcT3UekzWIW6oAotmAQfhuVfMet/UjxnqFgYAhplmFPKL1L1O8P/RBEvRGyfn16+C9uL +uXGrHS/wTWCiZIsoWlgsphZmF+fpU5ZrwiT+MvG4dWBB9pK4ioUV99TrqZlKf1STBK/ 5onXeHq1LNejSCuva7F35r+d6SORcUsq9AVJ9gNmnlSoh9SDKLtSqvvBdAlEM9CqR7Pe B8JA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyuTK54eMa8zhNz+0Nq8XHKPw1mpOteBm44Qseos4CUyGecyM3j 15Io0bXtPkBPTQeR0/7f8//8WMXEwMYMRXvikj+J7pi7kgE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFNF0Zwca1jQSffSHp4lcqoxrbd0qT5cflY9F4C47flaviZiQfJZg2i4QOuRxmA7vbKYThTbkcC0eriTeFw8U0= X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:341:b0:425:99b5:6119 with SMTP id r1-20020a05622a034100b0042599b56119mr14662301qtw.89.1702644402791; Fri, 15 Dec 2023 04:46:42 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <55037f9a-bc2c-4bbb-a4bb-47ad30f16190@rjmcmahon.com> <02cc2879-ef99-4388-bc1e-335a4aaff6aa@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Frantisek Borsik Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2023 13:46:06 +0100 Message-ID: To: Alexandre Petrescu , starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Network_Neutrality_is_back=21_Let=C2=B4s_make_the_technical_asp?= =?UTF-8?Q?ects_heard_this_time=21?= Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000cea909060c8bca1d" 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: Fri, 15 Dec 2023 12:46:43 -0000 --000000000000cea909060c8bca1d Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > 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. No, not really. Starlink was about to address the issue of digital divide - delivering internet to those 640k locations, where there is literally none today. Fiber will NEVER get there. And it will get there, it will be like 10 years down the road. The same is true for missing/loosing support for FWA in the grand/funding schemes: all the arguments thrown around by fiber cheerleaders are based on bandwidth (at best) or "speed" (in most cases) or some theorethical future-proofness (I mean, we don't know what will happen in next hour, little less we know what will happen in next 10 years). HOWEVER, the real issue at hand is either absolutely missing connectivity in many places. Literally ANY service (even 3/1 Mbps) will be a welcome improvement on the current state of thing, let alone Starlink with all its pros and cons. Total reliance on fiber will lead mostly to overbuilding at locations with some service, not to the overall improvements everywhere. Typical "good intentions, bad consequences" type of situations. Also, when we want to close the digital divide aka "get internet connectivity everywhere" - it means to do it ASAP, even thought it would not mean a "state of the art" type of the internet of some blessed hype place on the West or East coast, with so many competing ISPs. Last but not least, we should care also about the price of closing that digital divide. Do we need to have "big fat pipes" just because we as a industry were building and optimising everything within the Internet infrastructure for bandwidth, we taught our customers that "faster speed package" is the solution to all their problems and so on? It's about time to fix that absolute BS narrative we have felt for over time. This was the step in the right direction and let's hope that FCC (and others) will used it wisely: https://circleid.com/posts/20231211-its-the-latency-fcc All the best, Frank Frantisek (Frank) Borsik https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714 iMessage, mobile: +420775230885 Skype: casioa5302ca frantisek.borsik@gmail.com On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 1:44=E2=80=AFPM Gert Doering via Starlink < starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 01:43:25PM +0100, Alexandre Petrescu wrote: > > So, a requirement to a competitive satcom would be like 25 Gbit/s. I > think it > > is not impossible to make, if many intermediate layers (HAPS, drones et= c) > > are used, and larger band widths. > > As was noted upthread, raw bandwith is not the only relevant criteria > here (and nobody really *needs* 25 Gbit/s at home, though I'd *love* to > have it). > > gert > -- > have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? > > SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael > Emmer > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann > D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) > Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 > _______________________________________________ > Starlink mailing list > Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink > --000000000000cea909060c8bca1d Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thus, technically speaking, one would lik= e the advantages of satcom such= =C2=A0
as starlink, to be at least 5gbit/s in 10 years time, to o= vercome the=C2=A0
= 9;tangled fiber' problem.

No, not reall= y. Starlink was about to address the issue of digital divide - delivering i= nternet to those 640k locations, where there is literally none today. Fiber= will NEVER get there. And it will get there, it will be like 10 years down= the road.

The same is true for missing/loosing su= pport for FWA in the grand/funding schemes: =C2=A0all the arguments thrown = around by fiber cheerleaders are based on bandwidth (at best) or "spee= d" (in most cases) or some theorethical future-proofness (I mean, we d= on't know what will happen in next hour, little less we know what will = happen in next 10 years).=C2=A0

HOWEVER, the real = issue at hand is either absolutely missing connectivity in many places. Lit= erally ANY service (even 3/1 Mbps) will be a welcome improvement on the cur= rent state of thing, let alone Starlink with all its pros and cons.=C2=A0

Total reliance on fiber will lead mostly to overbui= lding at locations with some service, not to the overall improvements every= where. Typical "good intentions, bad consequences" type of situat= ions.=C2=A0

Also, when we want to close the digita= l divide aka "get internet connectivity everywhere" - it means to= do it ASAP, even thought it would not mean a "state of the art" = type of the internet of some blessed hype place on the West or East coast, = with so many competing ISPs.=C2=A0

Last but not le= ast, we should care also about the price of closing that digital divide. Do= we need to have "big fat pipes" just because we as a industry we= re building and optimising everything within the Internet infrastructure fo= r bandwidth, we taught our customers that "faster speed package" = is the solution to all their problems and so on? It's about time to fix= that absolute BS narrative we have felt for over time.=C2=A0
This was the step in the right direction and let's hope tha= t FCC (and others) will used it wisely:=C2=A0https://circleid.com/posts/20231211-i= ts-the-latency-fcc
=


All the = best,

Frank

Frantisek (Frank) Borsik

=C2=A0

https://www.linke= din.com/in/frantisekborsik

Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714=C2=A0

iMessa= ge, mobile: +420775230885

Skype: casioa5302ca

frantisek.borsik@gm= ail.com

=


On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 1:44=E2=80=AFPM Gert Doering = via Starlink <starlink= @lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
Hi,

On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 01:43:25PM +0100, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
> So, a requirement to a competitive satcom would be like 25 Gbit/s.=C2= =A0 I think it
> is not impossible to make, if many intermediate layers (HAPS, drones e= tc)
> are used, and larger band widths.

As was noted upthread, raw bandwith is not the only relevant criteria
here (and nobody really *needs* 25 Gbit/s at home, though I'd *love* to=
have it).

gert
--
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A.= Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2= =A0HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0USt-IdNr.: DE8131= 85279
_______________________________________________
Starlink mailing list
Starlin= k@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
--000000000000cea909060c8bca1d--