From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F02493CB39 for ; Thu, 7 Dec 2023 07:25:58 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.de; s=s31663417; t=1701951957; x=1702556757; i=moeller0@gmx.de; bh=OEshPefYqEAESlF9iiQdDJ37O5n7e5BFQG9vkLsAes0=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References: To; b=h9KuGDyE/coIXkOgM7o3qt3v2bOQz2QoM2hrcPDmz8LhRVhtTkHH/SjtGi9jWq8q WPQvgZhoabx+4+qv0eQ+N/QGKzabMOxUlJsaG6kBVzqxdoklfS+t6LBLCldslhLjo MAZtdQ51xe2IKhdSermHvi+XVbYAu8PdeW8A+UDCU25FpYnSqk5Q02mv602yyHw6R L/J5BL0HgVHm9rEhKf1Ew36wAZpWc8iMBc1w2LPRVjzVJvPPybFdA5IJg4I8ELYvD N6R6C7pTNAhBEqVjBcJoOqpR8hS+DGZfdneG5vLC8RLIdQkZEeLweQAQFFGNHuvLu jbj67FUPOWzUxPv0zw== X-UI-Sender-Class: 724b4f7f-cbec-4199-ad4e-598c01a50d3a Received: from smtpclient.apple ([78.50.55.3]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx004 [212.227.17.190]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MgeoI-1rj9ce3Q1E-00h87L; Thu, 07 Dec 2023 13:25:56 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.120.41.1.4\)) From: Sebastian Moeller In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2023 13:25:56 +0100 Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: To: Alexandre Petrescu X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.120.41.1.4) X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:i0ndbhSNoEs+dacvGmyAxsFI6YJodMQxN/RDcPzY/e4yyDUQaud GIbpgtQWCjSeM2TtD3qm5Z2IIbx6hrFv9oh82YmeNdFRpFgIMSryhsOzSzsVVhTfjQbL8zv CuLc3AEXRqHrwKjk81ssH8V/0JF8ideKWkkhkPXlaV1iYO8T3FODy65QvJcOWF7Qc2xS1Gz zt+ifI57thY7r9pF/mpcQ== X-Spam-Flag: NO UI-OutboundReport: notjunk:1;M01:P0:PR9jepQwChI=;UJ+46IjJ3vUDUDMHzSLLo5HlxEY SGVgHFgwux3v5A1DrBZMNLmuARhdGR7cwUUqftkDN8FvqMjVECMBMwo5IicTEwBkdSErxalfP 6YVlQMMv30dOmk8dOecHpRDY0+W7SmhHZP0LzKkdgOErcjBYBv+bbZv83HOo3nWpGaVzvmPId 0mGkdnX4Fx7VgULYHoYR14aR+wJj8O/f7Egq6tzAVYE7QYk1ZKsM5Gf8P1KgbjBuqfhnpBxaJ fL8zC8S2cDGbAoW8jJLfsIybJrpbt11nSH7vgk2l+8Am2DWvFaY+f/P0ieUE/ihbhCjf2qAYk amql4DCz8gbjFZ/zXn/MyfnnjHuUSMAphR4dJ9gbQpuZx2afAnKXSODpAWeYFlUb5D+9J58i6 aaQwVZlRTw6wRaXhMkCS0VOO5S9sqDL7b8EG2UlJdoRJEJvWwhN2TwKPQ0frQTaYEA2dCDNB2 4TmboEdNFHoUkxf3GEsJDiiXKE2zVJCaGhxqSRgKE6Qkt+BQFFCBMQJ7b8xygLit/ZGa4NTgo /bLVv69TCff3X14RMea+cunl48s26lFIEocKFuPDg7t2gkfMZlZORltEtqqcD6gXxdWFDZub8 /LlVUKYhlIIcgrPRfItCEBIRqkMXEmjvSjOcSAFko3F8JBnkKoI3gmwpOVvwJDpVbjEomgbQk PQuHJQXU1zQLHSq9aBqcbe7xaY+n26w598KJoRnhYGvwJdelQBcfeCsFl7b/xBSUIdQrIX9Q7 cnRVLVp8wymq0Uuoj5DEhaEV+XlfHwu1TCC8LEMGTQP8o0APS51wq1DxlMFR+3KT1OVCHNY/k hJ2StqMBO7Kpo87STphOsDbZ0aJjwG8B0mOveKD61uPFGuSveSvydOxdWPcMlCh9a6eZRlPQa xPikXcGKM/pRWDm68Inq6JnFw+uuIkrC9FD3jh7LvlLCo7d34PSaP7FjQ22zLyg1EEch2qLDe 9cHKtQ== Subject: Re: [Starlink] fcc NOI response due Dec 1 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: Thu, 07 Dec 2023 12:25:59 -0000 Hi Alexandre, > On Dec 7, 2023, at 12:49, Alexandre Petrescu via Starlink = wrote: >=20 > Thank you for having prepared this response. >=20 > It is a US-centric context, but it might apply everywhere else where = fiber and satcom access are considered in competition. Besides, the = latency reduction priming over bandwidth increase, might be discussed in = a 6G context as well, be that with NTN or without. >=20 > Now that the we are past the deadline, I would like to mention two = other aspects: >=20 > - all access kinds in recent years have witnessed combined improvement = of bandwidhts and latencies. Within a same access kind (e.g. within = WiFi, within Ethernet, within cellular) each increase of bandwidth was = accompanied by a decrease of latency. As such, it might look surprising = to argue in favor of latency decrease at the expense of a constant = bandwidth. It might not happen, because traditionnaly they are = combined. [SM] Except where they are not... looking at access networks = sure coming from acoustic couplers in double/triple digit Baud range = over analog modems in the 56Kbps range and ISDN and DSL access latency = generally decreased, but DSL already allows sub-millisecond access = networks to be built (typically that was not done as interleaving = resulted in considerably more robust networks). And with the roll ouf of = G.INP retransmissions noticeable interleaving essentially was removed, = but this resulted in downstream access speeds ranging from (to cite = local numbers) 16, over 100 and 250 Mbps all operating with the same = access latency (based on DSL's 4KHz "clock")... Similarly DOCSIS = networks have been ramping up from single digit Mbps numbers to well = beyond 1000 Mbps all with similar ~2-4ms request-grant latencies (I = might be wrong here and this might only apply for DOCSIS >=3D 3.0, I am = sure we have real experts on list that will correct anf misconception). = And IMHO the same holds for GPON/XGSPON where the 8KHz request-grant = clocking results in similar ~2ms access delays (in upload direction). So if looking from far above, sure in the course of the last = 30-40 years both throughput increased and latency decreased, but once we = look closer there does not really seem to be an automatic inverse = proportionality between these two measures... To give an example loading = a semi-trailer in NYC to the bring with harddisks and drving these to = say LA will have atrocious latency but the throughput will still be = decent... > - a strong argument could be made in favor of satcom over fiber in = remote areas: satcom avoids the tangled fibers and satcom might pollute = less than fiber; but at two conditions: satcom should have a sat exit = strategy (more than just burning upon re-entry, maybe more recover and = reuse, less visual pollution with maybe more paintings) and (2) satcom = should aim at a same kind of... latency (yes, that!) that fiber aims at. = The 10ms that starlink aims at is way too high compared to what fiber = access latency aims at. IT is possible to aim at lower. [SM] End-user fiber access is typically implemented as shared = passive optical network (PON) for cost/profitability reasons and these = are not orders of magnitude better than 10ms, so at 10ms satellite = based-internet access will well be competitive. However personally I = think we should strive for all fiber everywhere and use things like = satellite internet as bridge technologies and/or emergency systems or = mobile access in remote areas. Not because going via space is not = inherently impressive (and might I say cool?) but more because I assume = the internet is here to stay and we are talkning about infrastructure = that will be in use hopefully for decades. Regards Sebastian >=20 > Alex >=20 > Le 27/11/2023 =C3=A0 16:53, Dave Taht via Starlink a =C3=A9crit : >> We started work on a response to the FCC NOI requesting feedback as = to >> future broadband bandwidth requirements for the USA early this >> morning. >>=20 >> I am unfamiliar with the processes by which Starlink was disqualified >> from the RDOF?, and a little out of date as to current performance. = It >> is very clear they are aiming for 100/20 speedtest performance and >> frequently achieving it. >>=20 >> A drafty draft is here, and some of the language is being toned down >> by popular request. (the pre-readers were lucky! I cut the cuss-words >> out) There is only one joke in the whole thing. I'm slipping!. >>=20 >> = https://docs.google.com/document/d/19ADByjakzQXCj9Re_pUvrb5Qe5OK-QmhlYRLMB= Y4vH4/edit?usp=3Dsharing >>=20 >> I have some starlink info contained in appendix B so far, but I would >> prefer not to cite my own long term plot as I did, and also cite >> others that have a good latency measurement, I like the 15s irtt = plots >> I have seen gone by. If you have research about starlink you would >> like me to cite in this context, please comment on the link above! >>=20 >> The NOI is the first link, and it helpe me, actually, to start with >> the FCC commissioners' comments at the end, rather than read through >> the whole thing. Not that I would not welcome more folk submitting >> themselves to that... >>=20 >>=20 > _______________________________________________ > Starlink mailing list > Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink