Hello from Canada,
I noticed some discussion about FCC and latency again (here and on hacker news: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39533800). A few years ago, Reza and I spent considerable work at our national regulator, CRTC, establishing a latency and packet loss threshold for a minimum service broadband. We used M-Lab data to do so and I always hoped to see more work on latency as a measure, especially because you can calculate what would be minimum theoretical latency from an off-net IXP to a home.

You can see some of our work here: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/01972243.2019.1574533 & https://crtc.gc.ca/public/cisc/nt/NTRE061.pdf

The final decision: https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2020/2020-408.htm

Happy to offer any advice here and share some experiences if that helps.

Be good,
Fenwick

On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 at 13:32, 'rjmcmahon' via discuss <discuss@measurementlab.net> wrote:
Thanks for sharing this. I'm trying to find out what are the key metrics
that will be used for this monitoring. I want to make sure iperf 2 can
cover the technical, traffic related ones that make sense to a skilled
network operator, including a WiFi BSS manager. I didn't read all 327
pages though, from what I did read, I didn't see anything obvious. I
assume these types of KPIs may be in reference docs or something.

Thanks in advance for any help on this.
Bob
> And...
>
> Our bufferbloat.net submittal was cited multiple times! Thank you all
> for participating in that process!
>
> https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-400675A1.pdf
>
> It is a long read, and does still start off on the wrong feet (IMHO),
> in particular not understanding the difference between idle and
> working latency.
>
> It is my hope that by widening awareness of more of the real problems
> with latency under load to policymakers and other submitters
> downstream from this new FCC document, and more reading what we had to
> say, that we will begin to make serious progress towards finally
> fixing bufferbloat in the USA.
>
> I do keep hoping that somewhere along the way in the future, the costs
> of IPv4 address exhaustion and the IPv6 transition, will also get
> raised to the national level. [1]
>
> We are still collecting signatures for what the bufferbloat project
> members wrote, and have 1200 bucks in the kitty for further articles
> and/or publicity. Thoughts appreciated as to where we can go next with
> shifting the national debate about bandwidth in a better direction!
> Next up would be trying to get a meeting, and to do an ex-parte
> filing, I think, and I wish we could do a live demonstration on
> television about it as good as feynman did here:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raMmRKGkGD4
>
> Our original posting is here:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/19ADByjakzQXCj9Re_pUvrb5Qe5OK-QmhlYRLMBY4vH4/edit
>
> Larry's wonderful post is here:
> https://circleid.com/posts/20231211-its-the-latency-fcc
>
> [1] How can we get more talking about IPv4 and IPv6, too? Will we have
> to wait another year?
>
> https://hackaday.com/2024/02/14/floss-weekly-episode-769-10-more-internet/
>
> --
> https://blog.cerowrt.org/post/2024_predictions/
> Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "discuss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to discuss+unsubscribe@measurementlab.net.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/measurementlab.net/d/msgid/discuss/3d808d9df1a6929ecfba495e75b4fc1b%40rjmcmahon.com.


--
Be good,
Fen