From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <rjmcmahon@rjmcmahon.com>
Received: from bobcat.rjmcmahon.com (bobcat.rjmcmahon.com [45.33.58.123])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB7FD3B29D
 for <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net>; Tue, 27 Feb 2024 17:00:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.rjmcmahon.com (bobcat.rjmcmahon.com [45.33.58.123])
 by bobcat.rjmcmahon.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 244551B25E;
 Tue, 27 Feb 2024 14:00:56 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 bobcat.rjmcmahon.com 244551B25E
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rjmcmahon.com;
 s=bobcat; t=1709071256;
 bh=v9gZdYqnyBNuhFlHVE4S1UDr2VU1GkCbWp9SV7eaUAk=;
 h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From;
 b=gpkHahZpi5iL0JVYOCj3e9x2cw6Hca69W2EchA2ZrOB/0Mf7wZuMaQhQXK4W7ut3w
 E47nqyZHrFabzpEfnSp1kSPBjKXWzhHPQxuF07F7OT+eAZXE9luSLXcJmr7aeZXBxR
 08dXQ22Dd79oXu04tSHUCOiNGIMhNPIxvNtGtvN4=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 14:00:56 -0800
From: rjmcmahon <rjmcmahon@rjmcmahon.com>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Network_Neutrality_is_back!_Let=C2=B4s_make_the_technical_a?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?spects_heard_this_time!?= <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net>
In-Reply-To: <766106EC-9F2B-4440-B7A6-5AA483EF45F0@comcast.com>
References: <766106EC-9F2B-4440-B7A6-5AA483EF45F0@comcast.com>
Message-ID: <69133641c96091ed047e6bf11a2ff5d7@rjmcmahon.com>
X-Sender: rjmcmahon@rjmcmahon.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [NNagain] The FCC 2024 Section 706 Report,
 GN Docket No. 22-270 is out!
X-BeenThere: nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20
Precedence: list
List-Id: =?utf-8?q?Network_Neutrality_is_back!_Let=C2=B4s_make_the_technical_aspects_heard_this_time!?=
 <nnagain.lists.bufferbloat.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/options/nnagain>,
 <mailto:nnagain-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/nnagain>
List-Post: <mailto:nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net>
List-Help: <mailto:nnagain-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain>,
 <mailto:nnagain-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:00:56 -0000

> Interesting blog post on the latency part at
> https://broadbandbreakfast.com/untitled-12/.
> 
> Looking at the FCC draft report, page 73, Figure 24 – I find it sort
> of ridiculous that the table describes things as “Low Latency
> Service” available or not. That is because they seem to really
> misunderstand the notion of working latency. The table instead seems
> to classify any network with idle latency <100 ms to be low latency
> – which as Dave and others close to bufferbloat know is silly. Lots
> of these networks that are in this report classified as low latency
> would in fact have working latencies of 100s to 1,000s of milliseconds
> – far from low latency.
> 
> I looked at FCC MBA platform data from the last 6 months and here are
> the latency under load stats, 99th percentile for a selection of ten
> ISPs:
> ISP A  2470 ms
> 
> ISP B  2296 ms
> 
> ISP C 2281 ms
> 
> ISP D 2203 ms
> 
> ISP E  2070 ms
> 
> ISP F  1716 ms
> 
> ISP G 1468 ms
> 
> ISP H 965 ms
> 
> ISP I   909 ms
> 
> ISP J   896 ms
> 
> Jason

It does seem like there is a lot of confusion around idle latency vs 
working latency. Another common error is to conflate round trip time as 
two "one way delays." OWD & RTT are different metrics and both have 
utility. (all of this, including working-loads, is supported in iperf 2 
- https://iperf2.sourceforge.io/iperf-manpage.html - so there is free 
tooling out there that can help.)

Bob