[NNagain] FCC NOI due dec 1 on broadband speed standards

[Frantisek Borsik]

Yeah, there were clearly visible Cisco APs, but I don't have a picture and
can't recall the exact model numbers, but Jason might be able to, I guess.

And for that experts being wrong - mindboggling NOT, at all.

Most of the people at IETF were not interested about L4S for example -
nobody I asked about it even knew about it at the event. Besides,
obviously, L4S guys and the "Red team". Met 2 journalists (sic! TWO) and
they told me they don't know about any other journalist at the event and
obviously, they didn't know about L4S or bufferbloat/latency/jitter being a
topic, at all. Jason knows one of these journalists, she promised to start
looking at it...so I hope she does.

Having said that - most of the IETF people still believes that "It's speed,
stupid!" (or bandwidth, at best)...not Stuart Cheshire's good ole maxim,
with latency in it.


All the best,

Frank

Frantisek (Frank) Borsik



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

Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714

iMessage, mobile: +420775230885

Skype: casioa5302ca

frantisek.borsik at gmail.com


On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 5:07 PM Dave Taht via Nnagain <
nnagain at lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:

> As I noted also on the twitter thread for this, were I there, and
> dishonest, (particularly were gobs of money on the table) I could easily
> have permuted the bandwidth on both tests hugely upwards from a single
> laptop by running continuous speedtests. But speedtests are not what we do
> day in or out, and reflect normal usage not at all.
>
> The 83% of people (experts!!!) that were wrong is ... mindboggling.
>
> PS What wifi standard was at ietf? Is this still the old ciscos? The
> headline bandwidths claimed for any version of wifi drop dramatically at
> distance and with multiple users present.  So it might have taken a couple
> laptops out of the thousand there to move the stats in a perverse
> direction, now that I think about it.
>
> Thank you for doing this experiment! While there are certainly also cases
> were mass groupings of people totally saturate the underlying mac (more
> than the perceived bandwidth - I have seen congestion collapse and a sea of
> retransmits even in small wifi gatherings), the only number that seems a
> bit off  in your test from a typical residential/small office is the
> roughly 3.5x1 ratio between down and up. I am willing (for now) to put that
> down to engineers doing actual work, rather than netflix.
>
> I would so love to see more measurements like this at other wifi
> concentration points, in offices and coffee shops. Packet captures too!!!!
>
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 10:46 AM Livingood, Jason via Nnagain <
> nnagain at lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>
>> On the subject of how much bandwidth does one household need, here's a
>> fun stat for you.
>>
>>
>>
>> At the IETF’s 118th meeting <https://www.ietf.org/how/meetings/118/> last
>> week (Nov 4 – 10, 2023), there were over 1,000 engineers in attendance. At
>> peak there were 870 devices connected to the WiFi network. Peak bandwidth
>> usage:
>>
>>    - Downstream peak ~750 Mbps
>>    - Upstream ~250 Mbps
>>
>>
>>
>> From my pre-meeting Twitter poll (
>> https://twitter.com/jlivingood/status/1720060429311901873):
>>
>> [image: A screenshot of a chat Description automatically generated]
>> _______________________________________________
>> Nnagain mailing list
>> Nnagain at lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
>>
>
>
> --
> :( My old R&D campus is up for sale: https://tinyurl.com/yurtlab
> Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos
> _______________________________________________
> Nnagain mailing list
> Nnagain at lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/nnagain/attachments/20231114/4f921420/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 119956 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/nnagain/attachments/20231114/4f921420/attachment-0001.png>