Hi Frantisek,
> On Dec 15, 2023, at 13:46, Frantisek Borsik via Nnagain
> <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>
> 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 -
I beg to differ. Starlink is a commercial enterprise with the goal to
make a profit by offering (usable) internet access essentially everywhere; it
is not as far as I can tell an attempt at specifically reducing the digital
divide (were often an important factor is not necessarily location but
financial means).
> 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.
This is IHO the wrong approach to take. The goal needs to be a
universal FTTH access network (with the exception of extreme locations, no need
to pull fiber up to the highest Bivouac shelter on Mt. Whitney). And f that
takes a decade or two, so be it, this is infrastructure that will keep on
helping for many decades once rolled-out. However given that time frame one
should consider work-arounds for the interim period. I would have naively
thought starlink would qualify for that from a technical perspective, but then
the FCC documents actually discussion requirements and how they were or were
not met/promised by starlink was mostly redacted.
> 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).
I am mo cheerleader (built like a ton, nobody would like to see me with
pompoms), yet I consider a (reasonably) universal fiber network exactly the
right political goal. Yet, I accept that reaching that goal will not be
instantaneous, so we should find a way of making those currently effectively
disconnected participate more in the digital society even before the fiber
truck reach their homes...
> 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.
Yes I tend to agree, at least from the far away this looks like a
reasonable way to bridge the period until a better network reaches those places.
>
> 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.
No, that would just be a case of bad regulation, if the goal is an
universal FTTH network, neither planning or implementing that is "rocket
science" unless people "cheat".
> 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.
Yes, that would appear so. However the FCC process has to be reasonably
fair to all, and given the redactions in the official I can not realistically
tell whether the FCC is unreasonably hard here (and if so why) or whether
starlink was trying to under-deliver on the requirements. Given that I will
likely never get the un-redacted information and am living far away from where
the FCC has anything to say, I can accept that ambiguity quite easily.
> 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.
Yes, we need a universal FTTH network.. let's build this now for the
next 100 years, instead of keeping tinkering with small updates here and
there... Light in fiber has multiple desirable advantages, a higher theoretical
(and practical) capacity ceiling is only one of those (although the one that
makes an FTTH network conceptually more future proof). This is IMHO fact, not
BS.
Other advantages of fiber are e.g. massively higher robustness against
RF-interference (compared to DSL, DOCSIS, and wireless access techniques). This
has an immediate latency consequence. If we look at DSL we see essentially a 4
KHz clock that hence has a potential access latency floor on the order of of
~250µs (while e.g. GPON uses 125s chunks, but with dynamic bandwidth allocation
and hence request/grant traffic it is not faster than DSL) both FTTH and DSL
have signal propagation speeds on the order of 2/3 the speed of light in
vacuum.
Most DSL users however see access latencies in the dozens of
milliseconds simple because their links are configured to use deep interleaving
to make bit-error-rates acceptable in the light of RF noise; compare that to
fiber where access delay will be in the low single digit milliseconds for PON
or even lower for AON access.
Also the length between active components with fiber can be in the
dozens of miles without having to fall back to capacities in the Kbps range as
DSL, fiber is hence far better suited for wiring up the rural underserved
areas... (and let's be clear, the cost argument for deploying fiber to these
places today would have applied to all other infrastructure in the past, like
power, water, roads, telephony, and yet these typically have been deployed).
Regards
Sebastian
> 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.bor...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 1:44 PM Gert Doering via Starlink
> <starl...@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 etc)
> > 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
> starl...@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
> _______________________________________________
> Nnagain mailing list
> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
_______________________________________________
Nnagain mailing list
Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
