[Bloat] Re: [Starlink] [LibreQoS] Re: Re: Keynote: QoE/QoS - Bandwidth Is A Lie! at WISPAPALOOZA 2025 (October 16)

[Frantisek Borsik <frantisek.borsik@gmail.com>]

Some post-gigabit era data from IETF 124 Montreal, shared by Jason:

"Further on my "we are in the post-gigabit era" theme from the IETF-124
meeting. Max 825 user devices, with peak simultaneous of 227 devices.
Bandwidth usage: avg downstream 241 Mbps and peak 1.18 Gbps, avg upstream
21 Mbps and peak 468 Mbps. If you are on an Xfinity Internet mid-split
spectrum area, your home connection could have handled all of that."

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/jlivingood_bandwidth-postgigabitera-latency-activity-7393719438384136192-IJaP

All the best,

Frank

Frantisek (Frank) Borsik


*In loving memory of Dave Täht: *1965-2025

https://libreqos.io/2025/04/01/in-loving-memory-of-dave/


https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik

Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714

iMessage, mobile: +420775230885

Skype: casioa5302ca

frantisek.borsik@gmail.com


On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 4:39 PM Jim Forster <jim@connectivitycap.com> wrote:

> Sebastian — thanks for all that.  Again I find there is lots I don’t know,
>  That’s a relief, otherwise life would be boring,
>
>   — Jim
>
> On Nov 9, 2025, at 10:27 PM, Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10 November 2025 05:48:38 CET, Jim Forster <jim@connectivitycap.com>
> wrote:
>
> On Nov 8, 2025, at 1:11 PM, Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> As a market realist (that is someone who accepts efficient market when he
> sees them, but does not naive believe in the fairy tales of the invisible
> hand of the market) I think that we would be often much better off with a
> competently managed/regulated monopoly than with duo- to oligopolies that
> are treated as if they were efficient markets... Infrastructure (and at
> least access networks are at least infrastructure-ish IMHO) is not
> something where the free market typically excels at.
>
>
>
> Yeah, I also don’t think there’s an efficient, fair, market here that gets
> us what we w. In some ways, the Digital Divide is an expected outcome of
> capital allocation decisions by deregulated companies in a sector that has
> economies of scale and network effects.
>
>
> Indeed... I just note that the POTS network was much more comprehensive in
> its reach due to stricter regulation...
>
>
> At the same time, a "competently managed/regulated monopoly” may be as
> uncommon as Homo Economicus sitings are.
>
>
> Na, only if we put our aim for competence too high ;) . Over here
> electricity, water and street "networks" are dece
> ntly regulated infrastructure.
>
> Which example can you cite? NZ? UK? SE? And have they transitioned
> smoothly to new technology that would diminish the value of their existing
> infrastructure?
>
>
> Tricky... for infrastructure in general I believe there are loads of
> examples in Europe, for internet access networks it gets a bit trickier,
> but there are some examples of combining a single network with operator
> competition. (And that is my preferred model, monopoly network with
> regulated and fair access for operators, and then have as many operators as
> possibke offer their services over that network). But partial examples
> exist, e.g. the fiber network built in Amsterdam, or the point to point
> fiber network in switzerland where the incumbent built most of the ftth
> network and is regulated to physically unbundle individual lines to end
> customers, resultung in surprising competition of ISPs operating different
> technology over the same fibers (swisscom uses xgspon, salt.ch uses their
> own xgspin OLTs, init7 uses AON up to 25 Gbps). Sweden also seems to have a
> decent (albeit not regulated) separation between network operators and ISPs
> that offer services over these networks.
>
>
>
> I recall that in the US prior to the .com boom, the telco’s idea of
> broadband was ISDN or maybe DSL or SMDS. They wrote many papers, had lots
> of trials, but did not aggressively do broadband,
>
>
> Yes, I agree that the old model of a vertically integrated full service
> telco breed complacency and was not ideal either (even though the POTS
> network had better reach than the HFC networks).
>
> : 'Everyone knew’ that the cablecos’ HFC would never work, and that they
> could not do digital and certainly not voice,  HFC worked, and DOCSIS was a
> big success. That pressured the telcos to start actually deploying DSL, but
> it was too late, and the cablecos have dominated US broadband for a couple
> of decades.
>
> The outcome in Germany was different... hfc networks only ever reached
> around 75% of households and never exceeded 10 of estimated 45 million
> access sites for broadband services, while DSL still serves almost 23
> million (and reaches almost all 45 million).But yes on the technology side
> it likely was hfc's pressure that sped up dsl development.
> Now, the german market is a bit odd, as customers are neither terribly
> hungry for high capacity nor terribly price sensitive (the old ex-monopoly
> telco still serves most dsl customers in spite of being more expensive due
> to valid regulatory interventions).
>
> Regards
>        Sebastian
>
> P.S.: I understand that in this question there are of course multiple
> equally valid and justifyable positions one could take, this just happens
> to be mine. A couple of friendly ISPs for example reject this idea as they
> consider access networks to be a field where ISPs can differentiate and
> compete (some of them however proposed a regulated middle mile to be able
> to economically reach IXs and peering points to even the playing field).
>
>
> Jim
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>
>
>