From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sainfoin-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (sainfoin-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.228]) (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 D34BA3B2A4 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2024 06:33:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from e-emp-b0.extra.cea.fr (e-emp-b0.extra.cea.fr [132.167.198.36]) by sainfoin-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 456AXaDF056003 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2024 12:33:36 +0200 Received: from pps.filterd (e-emp-b0.extra.cea.fr [127.0.0.1]) by e-emp-b0.extra.cea.fr (8.18.1.2/8.18.1.2) with ESMTP id 4569QdD6011356 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2024 12:33:36 +0200 Received: from muguet2-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr (muguet2-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.13]) by e-emp-b0.extra.cea.fr (PPS) with ESMTP id 3yjsg8mfxe-1 for ; Thu, 06 Jun 2024 12:33:36 +0200 (MEST) Received: from [10.8.32.70] (is156570.intra.cea.fr [10.8.32.70]) by muguet2-sys.intra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 456AXaje021299 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2024 12:33:36 +0200 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2024 12:33:36 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net References: Content-Language: fr From: Alexandre Petrescu In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Proofpoint-GUID: SRqxh-QUQyjhox2P5r3hfqa_HXG9b4NG X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: SRqxh-QUQyjhox2P5r3hfqa_HXG9b4NG Subject: Re: [Starlink] The "reasons" that bufferbloat isn't a problem 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, 06 Jun 2024 10:33:38 -0000 Le 05/06/2024 à 16:46, David Fernández via Starlink a écrit : > "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 > That is a physics limitations - faster than light comms. But it does not mean that because some people claim breaking physics barriers that the same effects can not be achieved differently. It is possible to achieve ever lower latencies and higher bandwidths with talking about faster-than-light. > > https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarwantsingh/2023/10/30/the-mega-trends-that-will-shape-our-future-world Thanks for the paper. It claims that in year 2040 people use 6G, but I doubt so.  6G will be nearing to disappear (as 3G is today), 7G largely deployed and research happening on 8G and 9G. 6G will be deployed before year 2030 for all. A G has a typical lifetime of less than 10 years, from research to deployment.  The initial Gs had a longer lifetime and recent Gs have a shorter lifetime. Alex > > 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 > To: Alexandre Petrescu > Cc: Gert Doering , 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