[LibreQoS] [Bloat] summarizing the bitag latency report?
moeller0 at gmx.de
Sat Nov 12 08:14:57 EST 2022
so I think you have three audiences that should learn about this:
a) end-users (my hot-take was tailored for end-users)
c) industry people (C-suite members of ISPs*)
I think you need three different one paragraph summaries tailored to each groups focus.
a) end users
I would stress the "you can improve your link today with little work" to make it fit for video conferencing "under working conditions".
I would not wade into the swamp that is "gaming" any deeper than necessary (so have a sentence along the lines of "these described methods will obviously also help other
latency-sensitive applications like gaming"). Why avoid gaming? Gamers are quite opinionated and take promises often literally, hence are easy to disappoint so better under-promise, but over-deliver.
Here I would emphasize that while fiber-to-everyone is the ultimate goal getting latency under control will result in a noticeable "better" (because subjectively more responsive) internet experience for those that will have to wait longer for fiber. I simply assume that fiber-everywhere is the goal across the aisle in the US, at least over here all major parties agree about the ultimate goal and just disagree how to get there, with the party in opposition magically always seeing more urgency ;).
So push this as a relative low-effort/low-cost method to noticeably improve the internet experience for the electorate...
c) industry people
This has two groups, those that run large internal networks and ISPs. I think for the first group the arguments for a) and b) could be re-used (b) reframed as low-cost ways to get more mileage out of the existing network infrastructure with a few targeted replacements/upgrades/configuration changes).
For the second group I am a bit at a loss, as the arguments a) and b) MIGHT not be all that attractive for someone selling internet-access priced by "top-speed", making lower speeds more enjoyable/usable seems a bit counter productive... One pitch could be a marketable advantage over the competition, but that requires actual competition.
Not sure how to give the enlightened ones arguments to convince their peers.
*) some are enlightened already
P.S.: QoS, vs QoE
Cause and effect, means and end... What the users will evaluate are their experiences; traditional QoS can be a means to improve that experience, with a hitherto often neglected aspect being latency-under-load which above a bare minimum access rate seems to correlate stronger with user experience than top-speeds.
To convince CFO, or congresscritters I would think the best would be a simple mobile demonstration platform... together with argument b) above
> On Nov 12, 2022, at 00:16, Dave Taht via Bloat <bloat at lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> If you were to try to summarize this *in a paragraph*, what would you say?
> (yes, I helped write this, but squeezing it down to less than 3 pages
> is beyond my capabilities, much less a paragraph, and by the time we
> hit the recommendations section, things had got too political to make
> sane recommendations)
> Also QoS, vs QoE. Try to imagine explaining the need to a CFO, or
> congresscritter. Feel free to take more than a paragraph.
> This song goes out to all the folk that thought Stadia would work:
> Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC
> Bloat mailing list
> Bloat at lists.bufferbloat.net
More information about the LibreQoS