<div dir="ltr">All input is good. Because the general web using population seems to have barely enough focus to last the length a tweet compared to even five years ago.<div><br><div><div>I do tend to react and type first, then later it does have the desired impact so sorry if it came over as a bit defensive. I fully agree with your caution in going for big ranking lists!</div></div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 8:04 PM, Kevin Darbyshire-Bryant <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kevin@darbyshire-bryant.me.uk" target="_blank">kevin@darbyshire-bryant.me.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><span class="">
<div>On 06/06/2015 10:30, jb wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">My 2c - I wasn't planning on creating pages listing
ISPs in order of decreasing buffer bloat score.</div>
</blockquote></span>
Good :-)<span class=""><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>And for speeds of course in the USA and most markets there
are ranges of products each with their own speed and price
attached, so ranking ISPs by any simple averaging of speeds is
pointless as well.</div>
</div>
</blockquote></span>
Absolutely. I despair in this country because there's a regular
'ISP A is faster than ISP B' graph/battle...and it really makes no
sense.<span class=""><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>However I think there is value in map-based speed results
especially ones that pin down average speeds and technologies
to streets and towns, and if there is any value at all in
grading a single test for bufferbloat (or latency to major
cities, or jitter, or packet loss ..) then there is also value
in combining those statistics.</div>
</div>
</blockquote></span>
If you're in a geographical/single supplier situation then yes. In
the UK it simply doesn't work like that, any area, 'any' supplier.<span class=""><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>And even just pure speeds, one can statistically work out
products and create interesting comparisons, both spot, and
changes over time. Even if, at least in the US, there is no
way to switch because your local cable company is your local
cable company.</div>
</div>
</blockquote></span>
Our speeds are fundamentally controlled by how close to the
cabinet/exchange you are, not really ISP controlled. There are 2
bandings on VDSL though, 80/20, 40/10. ADSL is a bit more 'best
effort' Incidentally VDSL is advertised as a 'fibre' service in
this country! You can get real fibre, but really it's Fibre(rare to
the home), Cable(Virgin Media), VDSL(effectively BT),
ADSL(BT&others)<span class=""><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>There is also value in showing just how far a few ISPs are
ahead of everyone. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>For example, in the USA, any speed ranking would put google
fiber far out in front, and Verizon FIOS far in front for
upload speed. Why hide that information? There may be a few
ISPs that really get on top of buffer bloat as well, and
highlighting those, if they exist, makes sense to me. This can
be done without doing a top 100 chart full of nonsense.</div>
</div>
</blockquote></span>
:-) No top 100 nonsense yay :-)<br>
<br>
I *am* very interested to see up/down bufferbloat split out by
ISP/delivery technology though. And I am very positive about the
dslreports bloat test, it's really very good and it's great to see
people making the issue of bufferbloat more measurable and more
mainstream. Apologies if I've sounded less than appreciative.<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
Kevin<br>
</font></span></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>