I believe the biggest argument here is the sheer demand to reduce trade times by 5ms or so between their points of presence. I haven’t seen the REAL engineering, but I have a lot of experience with modeling and optimizing capacities of modern networking gear. The proposal seems to claim a near zero latency of the data stream from a computational decision that has an “advantage expiration time” under 5ms. In 2017, I did a series of simulations for Magic Leap https://www.magicleap.com/en-us/ to predict their user experience based on Tprop and expected latency. We purchased several 10Gb “dedicated connections” from the Miami data center and other major data centers – LA, Phoenix, Chicago, NYC and Atlanta were among the cities. After passing through a few wire runs and switch ports, these guys will be lucky to see 3ms round trip latency to their transmitter in the same building. That’s all we could get out of the building using memory resident transfers, bonded 10G connections to the newest QFX10000 Juniper switches. So they’re going to be able to compress, RF modulate and put it on the wire in less than 3 ms? Doubtful. They’re going to use something that’s not TCP/IP? If they wait – maybe 5, certainly 10 – zero transfer rate quantum networking will be commercially available. It is being used right now for military and robust commercial real-time sharing of encryption keys. This reduces the site to site Tprop to near zero. Quantum networking systems are in customer testing scenarios right now, primarily for cryptographic reasons and because data transfer rates are not high. The transfer rate is currently the target of research and schemes to make it cost effective are underway. BUT – when the management of broad area quantum networks becomes available commercially, the RF stuff will have little value. -- Mickey Baker, N4MB Director, Southeastern Division ARRL, The National Association for Amateur Radio® Phone (561) 320-2775 Email: n4mb@arrl.org<mailto:n4mb@arrl.org> ARRL Customer Service: (860) 594-0355 From: arrl-odv <arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org> on behalf of Mike Ritz <w7vo@comcast.net> Date: Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 12:17 PM To: Minster, David NA2AA (CEO) <dminster@arrl.org> Cc: arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Subject: [arrl-odv:35215] Re: FW: BW and HF spectrum Interesting. Thanks for sharing, David. Certainly not encouraging. The article is correct in the FCC having to determine if the SMCs petition is “in the public interest”. That will be a key element. 73; Mike W7VO Sent from my iPhone, utilizing a very tiny keyboard fed from very fat fingers On Sep 26, 2023, at 8:58 AM, Minster, David NA2AA (CEO) <dminster@arrl.org> wrote: FYI An op-ed piece on the SMC From: Niswander, Rick <NISWANDERF@ecu.edu> Sent: Monday, September 25, 2023 8:26 PM To: Minster, David NA2AA (CEO) <dminster@arrl.org> Subject: BW and HF spectrum Businessweek op-ed on high-frequency traders and HF spectrum. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-09-25/high-frequency-traders... Frederick (Rick) Niswander, PhD, CPA, CGMA Professor Emeritus of Accounting East Carolina University Greenville, NC 27858 _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv