[Starlink] Re: [LibreQoS] Re: Keynote: QoE/QoS - Bandwidth Is A Lie! at WISPAPALOOZA 2025 (October 16)

[Starlink] Re: [LibreQoS] Re: Keynote: QoE/QoS - Bandwidth Is A Lie! at WISPAPALOOZA 2025 (October 16)

[Frantisek Borsik]

Hello to all,

Recording of our QoE/QoS panel discussion is out! It was really great and
believe you will like it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1VET0VYQ6c

We have touch bandwidth, L4S, Starlink and more.

Here are the slides with additional reading:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1ML0I3Av3DCtQDiP8Djr_YGH2r4-UDZP25VEk-xyJcZE/edit?slide=id.p#slide=id.p

We hope to continue this conversation into more practical, demo-like
environment of sort, that we can see at IETF Hackathon and used to see in
the early WISPA event days, with Animal Farm.


All the best,

Frank

Frantisek (Frank) Borsik


*In loving memory of Dave Täht: *1965-2025

https://libreqos.io/2025/04/01/in-loving-memory-of-dave/


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

Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714

iMessage, mobile: +420775230885

Skype: casioa5302ca

frantisek.borsik@gmail.com


On Wed, Oct 1, 2025 at 11:32 PM Frantisek Borsik <frantisek.borsik@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Let's say that I love it, channeling my inner Dave Taht. But there were a
> couple of voices asking if I won't consider to change it a bit, to be "less
> hostile" to our "bandwidth is king!" friends...and I was trying, but this
> was really sticky and I'm happy that it stayed this way.
>
>
> All the best,
>
> Frank
>
> Frantisek (Frank) Borsik
>
>
> *In loving memory of Dave Täht: *1965-2025
>
> https://libreqos.io/2025/04/01/in-loving-memory-of-dave/
>
>
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik
>
> Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714
>
> iMessage, mobile: +420775230885
>
> Skype: casioa5302ca
>
> frantisek.borsik@gmail.com
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 1, 2025 at 9:25 PM dan <dandenson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I actually really like the title ;)
>>
>> It's that most of the time people are told they need more bandwidth to
>> solve a problem, when they really need lower latency and jitter.  So the
>> vast majority of the time 'more bandwidth' as a solution really is a lie.
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 2:47 PM Frantisek Borsik via LibreQoS <
>> libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks, Jim. Well, true that - but I wanted to do it either way, because
>>> of
>>> our dear Dave and - as a conversation starter.
>>> As @Jason Livingood <jason_livingood@comcast.com> said - "Bandwidth is
>>> dead. Long live latency."
>>>
>>> https://pulse.internetsociety.org/blog/bandwidth-is-dead-long-live-latency
>>>
>>> I will do my best to get the audio/video right and to share it with you
>>> all.
>>>
>>> PS: Sending you separate email.
>>>
>>> All the best,
>>>
>>> Frank
>>>
>>> Frantisek (Frank) Borsik
>>>
>>>
>>> *In loving memory of Dave Täht: *1965-2025
>>>
>>> https://libreqos.io/2025/04/01/in-loving-memory-of-dave/
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik
>>>
>>> Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714
>>>
>>> iMessage, mobile: +420775230885
>>>
>>> Skype: casioa5302ca
>>>
>>> frantisek.borsik@gmail.com
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 10:25 PM James Forster <jim@connectivitycap.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Wow, that’s fantastic, Frantisek!  Great work making this happen.
>>> >
>>> > These sort of titles aren’t my favorite. I think I understand the
>>> > sentiment but find the issues more nuanced than that. :-)
>>> >
>>> > If you can get clear audio, not much quality is needed for panels and
>>> > talking beads.   Best would be a feed right into an iPhone/android.
>>> >
>>> > Jim
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> LibreQoS mailing list -- libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to libreqos-leave@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>
>>

[Starlink] Re: [LibreQoS] Re: Keynote: QoE/QoS - Bandwidth Is A Lie! at WISPAPALOOZA 2025 (October 16)

[Jim Forster]

Frank — I’m watching it now, Great job pulling this group together, and nice, balanced opening statement. 

  — Jim

> On Nov 7, 2025, at 5:53 AM, Frantisek Borsik via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> Recording of our QoE/QoS panel discussion is out! It was really great and
> believe you will like it:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1VET0VYQ6c
> 
> We have touch bandwidth, L4S, Starlink and more.
> 
> Here are the slides with additional reading:
> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1ML0I3Av3DCtQDiP8Djr_YGH2r4-UDZP25VEk-xyJcZE/edit?slide=id.p#slide=id.p
> 
> We hope to continue this conversation into more practical, demo-like
> environment of sort, that we can see at IETF Hackathon and used to see in
> the early WISPA event days, with Animal Farm.

[Starlink] Re: [LibreQoS] Re: Keynote: QoE/QoS - Bandwidth Is A Lie! at WISPAPALOOZA 2025 (October 16)

[J Pan]

latency is based on round-trip time, and one-way delay includes
transmission delay, propagation delay, queuing delay and processing
delay. bandwidth does affect transmission delay (or serialization
delay), propagation delay is determined by the link length and the
"travel" speed of the signal, queuing delay is the hardest part and
affected by the buffer bloat a lot, and processing delay is another
variable. of course, transmission delay takes less and less portion of
the end-to-end delay now due to higher and higher "speed" links

consumers may mistaken the speed of the link (the "width" of their
pipe) as how fast their internet is (the "length" of the pipe), due to
the poor terminology we have been using ;-)
--
J Pan, UVic CSc, ECS566, 250-472-5796 (NO VM), Pan@UVic.CA, Web.UVic.CA/~pan

On Fri, Nov 7, 2025 at 8:19 AM Jim Forster via Starlink
<starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>
> Frank — I’m watching it now, Great job pulling this group together, and nice, balanced opening statement.
>
>   — Jim
>
> > On Nov 7, 2025, at 5:53 AM, Frantisek Borsik via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Recording of our QoE/QoS panel discussion is out! It was really great and
> > believe you will like it:
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1VET0VYQ6c
> >
> > We have touch bandwidth, L4S, Starlink and more.
> >
> > Here are the slides with additional reading:
> > https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1ML0I3Av3DCtQDiP8Djr_YGH2r4-UDZP25VEk-xyJcZE/edit?slide=id.p#slide=id.p
> >
> > We hope to continue this conversation into more practical, demo-like
> > environment of sort, that we can see at IETF Hackathon and used to see in
> > the early WISPA event days, with Animal Farm.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list -- starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> To unsubscribe send an email to starlink-leave@lists.bufferbloat.net

[Starlink] Re: [LibreQoS] Re: Keynote: QoE/QoS - Bandwidth Is A Lie! at WISPAPALOOZA 2025 (October 16)

[Jim Forster]

Exactly so.

Consumer expectations and service provider marketing may be influenced by memories of experience when transmission delay did matter.  At one time I was very happy with my home ISDN connection, and even shared it with my neighbor.  At about 128kbs, it was three orders of magnitude slower than my home fiber link.  I’ve not run the numbers but I’m pretty sure transimission speed mattered for video, even for crummy quality video,  So then when I learned a bit about digital video, and cable’s 64 QAM 27mbps channels, I got excited and thought, “wow, they could deliver 1mbps service!  And wouldn’t it be cool to have 1M home online at 10x the speed of ISDN?”.  It was cool!  And two more orders of magnitude later, here we are.

  — Jim

> On Nov 7, 2025, at 12:52 PM, J Pan <Pan@uvic.ca> wrote:
> 
> latency is based on round-trip time, and one-way delay includes
> transmission delay, propagation delay, queuing delay and processing
> delay. bandwidth does affect transmission delay (or serialization
> delay), propagation delay is determined by the link length and the
> "travel" speed of the signal, queuing delay is the hardest part and
> affected by the buffer bloat a lot, and processing delay is another
> variable. of course, transmission delay takes less and less portion of
> the end-to-end delay now due to higher and higher "speed" links
> 
> consumers may mistaken the speed of the link (the "width" of their
> pipe) as how fast their internet is (the "length" of the pipe), due to
> the poor terminology we have been using ;-)

[Starlink] Re: [LibreQoS] Re: Keynote: QoE/QoS - Bandwidth Is A Lie! at WISPAPALOOZA 2025 (October 16)

[J Pan]

marketing is even worse. some claim 200mbps because 150mbps down and
50mbps up at peak data rate. of course, this is not the only problem
in telecom, but likely the worst

nevertheless, there are stats such as 10% inflation for food and 20%
for gas, so in total 30% ;-) at this rate, any numbers can be floating
around but none are telling the truth ;-)
--
J Pan, UVic CSc, ECS566, 250-472-5796 (NO VM), Pan@UVic.CA, Web.UVic.CA/~pan

On Fri, Nov 7, 2025 at 10:55 AM Jim Forster <jim@connectivitycap.com> wrote:
>
> Exactly so.
>
> Consumer expectations and service provider marketing may be influenced by memories of experience when transmission delay did matter.  At one time I was very happy with my home ISDN connection, and even shared it with my neighbor.  At about 128kbs, it was three orders of magnitude slower than my home fiber link.  I’ve not run the numbers but I’m pretty sure transimission speed mattered for video, even for crummy quality video,  So then when I learned a bit about digital video, and cable’s 64 QAM 27mbps channels, I got excited and thought, “wow, they could deliver 1mbps service!  And wouldn’t it be cool to have 1M home online at 10x the speed of ISDN?”.  It was cool!  And two more orders of magnitude later, here we are.
>
>   — Jim
>
> On Nov 7, 2025, at 12:52 PM, J Pan <Pan@uvic.ca> wrote:
>
> latency is based on round-trip time, and one-way delay includes
> transmission delay, propagation delay, queuing delay and processing
> delay. bandwidth does affect transmission delay (or serialization
> delay), propagation delay is determined by the link length and the
> "travel" speed of the signal, queuing delay is the hardest part and
> affected by the buffer bloat a lot, and processing delay is another
> variable. of course, transmission delay takes less and less portion of
> the end-to-end delay now due to higher and higher "speed" links
>
> consumers may mistaken the speed of the link (the "width" of their
> pipe) as how fast their internet is (the "length" of the pipe), due to
> the poor terminology we have been using ;-)
>
>

[Starlink] Re: [LibreQoS] Re: Re: Keynote: QoE/QoS - Bandwidth Is A Lie! at WISPAPALOOZA 2025 (October 16)

[dan]

I'm starting to see the signs that raw bandwidth is starting to lose
it's dominance for marketing.  It's still the clear #1 ask but price
is rapidly overtaking speed for our customer requests.

I believe we've hit this era's threshold on throughput needs and
people have started to notice that 'more' doesn't feel like a faster
service.

one common scenario that we are using to win customers, in combination
with facebook testimonials, is that people have bad experiences with
wifi and they order a faster service from cable/fiber company and the
wifi just gets worse.  This scenario I think is incredibly common and
seems to be a catalyst for 'speed isn't everything'.  We come in with
50-500Mbps of service and solid whole-home wifi and they are
converted.

I hope we're not to far off from having 'speed' be just a feature, not
the entire story.

and yes, we QoE or service with cake via libreqos which is the
difference between great service and inadequate service IMO.

On Fri, Nov 7, 2025 at 12:50 PM J Pan via LibreQoS
<libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>
> marketing is even worse. some claim 200mbps because 150mbps down and
> 50mbps up at peak data rate. of course, this is not the only problem
> in telecom, but likely the worst
>
> nevertheless, there are stats such as 10% inflation for food and 20%
> for gas, so in total 30% ;-) at this rate, any numbers can be floating
> around but none are telling the truth ;-)
> --
> J Pan, UVic CSc, ECS566, 250-472-5796 (NO VM), Pan@UVic.CA, Web.UVic.CA/~pan
>
> On Fri, Nov 7, 2025 at 10:55 AM Jim Forster <jim@connectivitycap.com> wrote:
> >
> > Exactly so.
> >
> > Consumer expectations and service provider marketing may be influenced by memories of experience when transmission delay did matter.  At one time I was very happy with my home ISDN connection, and even shared it with my neighbor.  At about 128kbs, it was three orders of magnitude slower than my home fiber link.  I’ve not run the numbers but I’m pretty sure transimission speed mattered for video, even for crummy quality video,  So then when I learned a bit about digital video, and cable’s 64 QAM 27mbps channels, I got excited and thought, “wow, they could deliver 1mbps service!  And wouldn’t it be cool to have 1M home online at 10x the speed of ISDN?”.  It was cool!  And two more orders of magnitude later, here we are.
> >
> >   — Jim
> >
> > On Nov 7, 2025, at 12:52 PM, J Pan <Pan@uvic.ca> wrote:
> >
> > latency is based on round-trip time, and one-way delay includes
> > transmission delay, propagation delay, queuing delay and processing
> > delay. bandwidth does affect transmission delay (or serialization
> > delay), propagation delay is determined by the link length and the
> > "travel" speed of the signal, queuing delay is the hardest part and
> > affected by the buffer bloat a lot, and processing delay is another
> > variable. of course, transmission delay takes less and less portion of
> > the end-to-end delay now due to higher and higher "speed" links
> >
> > consumers may mistaken the speed of the link (the "width" of their
> > pipe) as how fast their internet is (the "length" of the pipe), due to
> > the poor terminology we have been using ;-)
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> LibreQoS mailing list -- libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net
> To unsubscribe send an email to libreqos-leave@lists.bufferbloat.net

[Starlink] Re: [LibreQoS] Re: Re: Keynote: QoE/QoS - Bandwidth Is A Lie! at WISPAPALOOZA 2025 (October 16)

[J Pan]

yes, availability (at least two competing network providers with
reliable services), affordability (so the competition to bring the
price and cost down) and applicability to modern internet applications
(video streaming, conferencing and gaming in addition to email and web
browsing) shall be the user-centric metrics in addition to throughput,
latency/jitter, packet loss, etc
--
J Pan, UVic CSc, ECS566, 250-472-5796 (NO VM), Pan@UVic.CA, Web.UVic.CA/~pan

On Sat, Nov 8, 2025 at 8:00 AM dan <dandenson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm starting to see the signs that raw bandwidth is starting to lose
> it's dominance for marketing.  It's still the clear #1 ask but price
> is rapidly overtaking speed for our customer requests.
>
> I believe we've hit this era's threshold on throughput needs and
> people have started to notice that 'more' doesn't feel like a faster
> service.
>
> one common scenario that we are using to win customers, in combination
> with facebook testimonials, is that people have bad experiences with
> wifi and they order a faster service from cable/fiber company and the
> wifi just gets worse.  This scenario I think is incredibly common and
> seems to be a catalyst for 'speed isn't everything'.  We come in with
> 50-500Mbps of service and solid whole-home wifi and they are
> converted.
>
> I hope we're not to far off from having 'speed' be just a feature, not
> the entire story.
>
> and yes, we QoE or service with cake via libreqos which is the
> difference between great service and inadequate service IMO.
>
> On Fri, Nov 7, 2025 at 12:50 PM J Pan via LibreQoS
> <libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> >
> > marketing is even worse. some claim 200mbps because 150mbps down and
> > 50mbps up at peak data rate. of course, this is not the only problem
> > in telecom, but likely the worst
> >
> > nevertheless, there are stats such as 10% inflation for food and 20%
> > for gas, so in total 30% ;-) at this rate, any numbers can be floating
> > around but none are telling the truth ;-)
> > --
> > J Pan, UVic CSc, ECS566, 250-472-5796 (NO VM), Pan@UVic.CA, Web.UVic.CA/~pan
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 7, 2025 at 10:55 AM Jim Forster <jim@connectivitycap.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Exactly so.
> > >
> > > Consumer expectations and service provider marketing may be influenced by memories of experience when transmission delay did matter.  At one time I was very happy with my home ISDN connection, and even shared it with my neighbor.  At about 128kbs, it was three orders of magnitude slower than my home fiber link.  I’ve not run the numbers but I’m pretty sure transimission speed mattered for video, even for crummy quality video,  So then when I learned a bit about digital video, and cable’s 64 QAM 27mbps channels, I got excited and thought, “wow, they could deliver 1mbps service!  And wouldn’t it be cool to have 1M home online at 10x the speed of ISDN?”.  It was cool!  And two more orders of magnitude later, here we are.
> > >
> > >   — Jim
> > >
> > > On Nov 7, 2025, at 12:52 PM, J Pan <Pan@uvic.ca> wrote:
> > >
> > > latency is based on round-trip time, and one-way delay includes
> > > transmission delay, propagation delay, queuing delay and processing
> > > delay. bandwidth does affect transmission delay (or serialization
> > > delay), propagation delay is determined by the link length and the
> > > "travel" speed of the signal, queuing delay is the hardest part and
> > > affected by the buffer bloat a lot, and processing delay is another
> > > variable. of course, transmission delay takes less and less portion of
> > > the end-to-end delay now due to higher and higher "speed" links
> > >
> > > consumers may mistaken the speed of the link (the "width" of their
> > > pipe) as how fast their internet is (the "length" of the pipe), due to
> > > the poor terminology we have been using ;-)
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > LibreQoS mailing list -- libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net
> > To unsubscribe send an email to libreqos-leave@lists.bufferbloat.net

[Starlink] Re: [LibreQoS] Re: Re: Keynote: QoE/QoS - Bandwidth Is A Lie! at WISPAPALOOZA 2025 (October 16)

[David Collier-Brown]

A niggle: Canada has bad experience with only two competing network 
providers in a given province. We got, and get, duopolies. In my case, I 
can have Bell or Rogers, one of their fronts (eg, Fido), or menbert of 
different provinces' duopolies (Telus).

I quite strongly recommend a minimum of  three competing providers

--dave

On 11/8/25 12:03, J Pan via Starlink wrote:
> yes, availability (at least two competing network providers with
> reliable services), affordability (so the competition to bring the
> price and cost down) and applicability to modern internet applications
> (video streaming, conferencing and gaming in addition to email and web
> browsing) shall be the user-centric metrics in addition to throughput,
> latency/jitter, packet loss, etc
> --
> J Pan, UVic CSc, ECS566, 250-472-5796 (NO VM), Pan@UVic.CA, Web.UVic.CA/~pan
>
> On Sat, Nov 8, 2025 at 8:00 AM dan <dandenson@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm starting to see the signs that raw bandwidth is starting to lose
>> it's dominance for marketing.  It's still the clear #1 ask but price
>> is rapidly overtaking speed for our customer requests.
>>
>> I believe we've hit this era's threshold on throughput needs and
>> people have started to notice that 'more' doesn't feel like a faster
>> service.
>>
>> one common scenario that we are using to win customers, in combination
>> with facebook testimonials, is that people have bad experiences with
>> wifi and they order a faster service from cable/fiber company and the
>> wifi just gets worse.  This scenario I think is incredibly common and
>> seems to be a catalyst for 'speed isn't everything'.  We come in with
>> 50-500Mbps of service and solid whole-home wifi and they are
>> converted.
>>
>> I hope we're not to far off from having 'speed' be just a feature, not
>> the entire story.
>>
>> and yes, we QoE or service with cake via libreqos which is the
>> difference between great service and inadequate service IMO.
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 7, 2025 at 12:50 PM J Pan via LibreQoS
>> <libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>> marketing is even worse. some claim 200mbps because 150mbps down and
>>> 50mbps up at peak data rate. of course, this is not the only problem
>>> in telecom, but likely the worst
>>>
>>> nevertheless, there are stats such as 10% inflation for food and 20%
>>> for gas, so in total 30% ;-) at this rate, any numbers can be floating
>>> around but none are telling the truth ;-)
>>> --
>>> J Pan, UVic CSc, ECS566, 250-472-5796 (NO VM), Pan@UVic.CA, Web.UVic.CA/~pan
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 7, 2025 at 10:55 AM Jim Forster <jim@connectivitycap.com> wrote:
>>>> Exactly so.
>>>>
>>>> Consumer expectations and service provider marketing may be influenced by memories of experience when transmission delay did matter.  At one time I was very happy with my home ISDN connection, and even shared it with my neighbor.  At about 128kbs, it was three orders of magnitude slower than my home fiber link.  I’ve not run the numbers but I’m pretty sure transimission speed mattered for video, even for crummy quality video,  So then when I learned a bit about digital video, and cable’s 64 QAM 27mbps channels, I got excited and thought, “wow, they could deliver 1mbps service!  And wouldn’t it be cool to have 1M home online at 10x the speed of ISDN?”.  It was cool!  And two more orders of magnitude later, here we are.
>>>>
>>>>    — Jim
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 7, 2025, at 12:52 PM, J Pan <Pan@uvic.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> latency is based on round-trip time, and one-way delay includes
>>>> transmission delay, propagation delay, queuing delay and processing
>>>> delay. bandwidth does affect transmission delay (or serialization
>>>> delay), propagation delay is determined by the link length and the
>>>> "travel" speed of the signal, queuing delay is the hardest part and
>>>> affected by the buffer bloat a lot, and processing delay is another
>>>> variable. of course, transmission delay takes less and less portion of
>>>> the end-to-end delay now due to higher and higher "speed" links
>>>>
>>>> consumers may mistaken the speed of the link (the "width" of their
>>>> pipe) as how fast their internet is (the "length" of the pipe), due to
>>>> the poor terminology we have been using ;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> LibreQoS mailing list -- libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to libreqos-leave@lists.bufferbloat.net
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list -- starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> To unsubscribe send an email to starlink-leave@lists.bufferbloat.net

-- 
David Collier-Brown,         | Always do right. This will gratify
System Programmer and Author | some people and astonish the rest
davecb@spamcop.net           |              -- Mark Twain

[Starlink] Re: [LibreQoS] Re: Re: Keynote: QoE/QoS - Bandwidth Is A Lie! at WISPAPALOOZA 2025 (October 16)

[Sebastian Moeller]

Hi David,


> On 8. Nov 2025, at 19:04, David Collier-Brown via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> 
> A niggle: Canada has bad experience with only two competing network providers in a given province. We got, and get, duopolies. In my case, I can have Bell or Rogers, one of their fronts (eg, Fido), or menbert of different provinces' duopolies (Telus).
> 
> I quite strongly recommend a minimum of  three competing providers

If two providers already manage to collude, why do yo believe three will be less likely to achieve that?


> 
> --dave
> 
> On 11/8/25 12:03, J Pan via Starlink wrote:
>> yes, availability (at least two competing network providers with
>> reliable services), affordability (so the competition to bring the
>> price and cost down) and applicability to modern internet applications
>> (video streaming, conferencing and gaming in addition to email and web
>> browsing) shall be the user-centric metrics in addition to throughput,
>> latency/jitter, packet loss, etc
>> --
>> J Pan, UVic CSc, ECS566, 250-472-5796 (NO VM), Pan@UVic.CA, Web.UVic.CA/~pan
>> 
>> On Sat, Nov 8, 2025 at 8:00 AM dan <dandenson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I'm starting to see the signs that raw bandwidth is starting to lose
>>> it's dominance for marketing.  It's still the clear #1 ask but price
>>> is rapidly overtaking speed for our customer requests.
>>> 
>>> I believe we've hit this era's threshold on throughput needs and
>>> people have started to notice that 'more' doesn't feel like a faster
>>> service.
>>> 
>>> one common scenario that we are using to win customers, in combination
>>> with facebook testimonials, is that people have bad experiences with
>>> wifi and they order a faster service from cable/fiber company and the
>>> wifi just gets worse.  This scenario I think is incredibly common and
>>> seems to be a catalyst for 'speed isn't everything'.  We come in with
>>> 50-500Mbps of service and solid whole-home wifi and they are
>>> converted.
>>> 
>>> I hope we're not to far off from having 'speed' be just a feature, not
>>> the entire story.
>>> 
>>> and yes, we QoE or service with cake via libreqos which is the
>>> difference between great service and inadequate service IMO.
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Nov 7, 2025 at 12:50 PM J Pan via LibreQoS
>>> <libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>>> marketing is even worse. some claim 200mbps because 150mbps down and
>>>> 50mbps up at peak data rate. of course, this is not the only problem
>>>> in telecom, but likely the worst
>>>> 
>>>> nevertheless, there are stats such as 10% inflation for food and 20%
>>>> for gas, so in total 30% ;-) at this rate, any numbers can be floating
>>>> around but none are telling the truth ;-)
>>>> --
>>>> J Pan, UVic CSc, ECS566, 250-472-5796 (NO VM), Pan@UVic.CA, Web.UVic.CA/~pan
>>>> 
>>>> On Fri, Nov 7, 2025 at 10:55 AM Jim Forster <jim@connectivitycap.com> wrote:
>>>>> Exactly so.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Consumer expectations and service provider marketing may be influenced by memories of experience when transmission delay did matter.  At one time I was very happy with my home ISDN connection, and even shared it with my neighbor.  At about 128kbs, it was three orders of magnitude slower than my home fiber link.  I’ve not run the numbers but I’m pretty sure transimission speed mattered for video, even for crummy quality video,  So then when I learned a bit about digital video, and cable’s 64 QAM 27mbps channels, I got excited and thought, “wow, they could deliver 1mbps service!  And wouldn’t it be cool to have 1M home online at 10x the speed of ISDN?”.  It was cool!  And two more orders of magnitude later, here we are.
>>>>> 
>>>>>   — Jim
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Nov 7, 2025, at 12:52 PM, J Pan <Pan@uvic.ca> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> latency is based on round-trip time, and one-way delay includes
>>>>> transmission delay, propagation delay, queuing delay and processing
>>>>> delay. bandwidth does affect transmission delay (or serialization
>>>>> delay), propagation delay is determined by the link length and the
>>>>> "travel" speed of the signal, queuing delay is the hardest part and
>>>>> affected by the buffer bloat a lot, and processing delay is another
>>>>> variable. of course, transmission delay takes less and less portion of
>>>>> the end-to-end delay now due to higher and higher "speed" links
>>>>> 
>>>>> consumers may mistaken the speed of the link (the "width" of their
>>>>> pipe) as how fast their internet is (the "length" of the pipe), due to
>>>>> the poor terminology we have been using ;-)
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> LibreQoS mailing list -- libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to libreqos-leave@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> _______________________________________________
>> Starlink mailing list -- starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> To unsubscribe send an email to starlink-leave@lists.bufferbloat.net
> 
> -- 
> David Collier-Brown,         | Always do right. This will gratify
> System Programmer and Author | some people and astonish the rest
> davecb@spamcop.net           |              -- Mark Twain
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list -- starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> To unsubscribe send an email to starlink-leave@lists.bufferbloat.net

[Starlink] Re: [LibreQoS] Re: Re: Keynote: QoE/QoS - Bandwidth Is A Lie! at WISPAPALOOZA 2025 (October 16)

[J Pan]

during the pandemic, i had to teach from home, and thus had to bond
both telus (dsl, as fiber was not available yet) and shaw (cable), and
the total cost was lower than each individually
--
J Pan, UVic CSc, ECS566, 250-472-5796 (NO VM), Pan@UVic.CA, Web.UVic.CA/~pan

On Sat, Nov 8, 2025 at 10:13 AM Sebastian Moeller via Starlink
<starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>
> Hi David,
>
>
> > On 8. Nov 2025, at 19:04, David Collier-Brown via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> >
> > A niggle: Canada has bad experience with only two competing network providers in a given province. We got, and get, duopolies. In my case, I can have Bell or Rogers, one of their fronts (eg, Fido), or menbert of different provinces' duopolies (Telus).
> >
> > I quite strongly recommend a minimum of  three competing providers
>
> If two providers already manage to collude, why do yo believe three will be less likely to achieve that?
>
>
> >
> > --dave
> >
> > On 11/8/25 12:03, J Pan via Starlink wrote:
> >> yes, availability (at least two competing network providers with
> >> reliable services), affordability (so the competition to bring the
> >> price and cost down) and applicability to modern internet applications
> >> (video streaming, conferencing and gaming in addition to email and web
> >> browsing) shall be the user-centric metrics in addition to throughput,
> >> latency/jitter, packet loss, etc
> >> --
> >> J Pan, UVic CSc, ECS566, 250-472-5796 (NO VM), Pan@UVic.CA, Web.UVic.CA/~pan
> >>
> >> On Sat, Nov 8, 2025 at 8:00 AM dan <dandenson@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> I'm starting to see the signs that raw bandwidth is starting to lose
> >>> it's dominance for marketing.  It's still the clear #1 ask but price
> >>> is rapidly overtaking speed for our customer requests.
> >>>
> >>> I believe we've hit this era's threshold on throughput needs and
> >>> people have started to notice that 'more' doesn't feel like a faster
> >>> service.
> >>>
> >>> one common scenario that we are using to win customers, in combination
> >>> with facebook testimonials, is that people have bad experiences with
> >>> wifi and they order a faster service from cable/fiber company and the
> >>> wifi just gets worse.  This scenario I think is incredibly common and
> >>> seems to be a catalyst for 'speed isn't everything'.  We come in with
> >>> 50-500Mbps of service and solid whole-home wifi and they are
> >>> converted.
> >>>
> >>> I hope we're not to far off from having 'speed' be just a feature, not
> >>> the entire story.
> >>>
> >>> and yes, we QoE or service with cake via libreqos which is the
> >>> difference between great service and inadequate service IMO.
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Nov 7, 2025 at 12:50 PM J Pan via LibreQoS
> >>> <libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> >>>> marketing is even worse. some claim 200mbps because 150mbps down and
> >>>> 50mbps up at peak data rate. of course, this is not the only problem
> >>>> in telecom, but likely the worst
> >>>>
> >>>> nevertheless, there are stats such as 10% inflation for food and 20%
> >>>> for gas, so in total 30% ;-) at this rate, any numbers can be floating
> >>>> around but none are telling the truth ;-)
> >>>> --
> >>>> J Pan, UVic CSc, ECS566, 250-472-5796 (NO VM), Pan@UVic.CA, Web.UVic.CA/~pan
> >>>>
> >>>> On Fri, Nov 7, 2025 at 10:55 AM Jim Forster <jim@connectivitycap.com> wrote:
> >>>>> Exactly so.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Consumer expectations and service provider marketing may be influenced by memories of experience when transmission delay did matter.  At one time I was very happy with my home ISDN connection, and even shared it with my neighbor.  At about 128kbs, it was three orders of magnitude slower than my home fiber link.  I’ve not run the numbers but I’m pretty sure transimission speed mattered for video, even for crummy quality video,  So then when I learned a bit about digital video, and cable’s 64 QAM 27mbps channels, I got excited and thought, “wow, they could deliver 1mbps service!  And wouldn’t it be cool to have 1M home online at 10x the speed of ISDN?”.  It was cool!  And two more orders of magnitude later, here we are.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>   — Jim
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Nov 7, 2025, at 12:52 PM, J Pan <Pan@uvic.ca> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> latency is based on round-trip time, and one-way delay includes
> >>>>> transmission delay, propagation delay, queuing delay and processing
> >>>>> delay. bandwidth does affect transmission delay (or serialization
> >>>>> delay), propagation delay is determined by the link length and the
> >>>>> "travel" speed of the signal, queuing delay is the hardest part and
> >>>>> affected by the buffer bloat a lot, and processing delay is another
> >>>>> variable. of course, transmission delay takes less and less portion of
> >>>>> the end-to-end delay now due to higher and higher "speed" links
> >>>>>
> >>>>> consumers may mistaken the speed of the link (the "width" of their
> >>>>> pipe) as how fast their internet is (the "length" of the pipe), due to
> >>>>> the poor terminology we have been using ;-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> LibreQoS mailing list -- libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net
> >>>> To unsubscribe send an email to libreqos-leave@lists.bufferbloat.net
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Starlink mailing list -- starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> >> To unsubscribe send an email to starlink-leave@lists.bufferbloat.net
> >
> > --
> > David Collier-Brown,         | Always do right. This will gratify
> > System Programmer and Author | some people and astonish the rest
> > davecb@spamcop.net           |              -- Mark Twain
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Starlink mailing list -- starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> > To unsubscribe send an email to starlink-leave@lists.bufferbloat.net
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list -- starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> To unsubscribe send an email to starlink-leave@lists.bufferbloat.net

[Starlink] Re: [LibreQoS] Re: Re: Keynote: QoE/QoS - Bandwidth Is A Lie! at WISPAPALOOZA 2025 (October 16)

[Sebastian Moeller]

Hi J,


> On 8. Nov 2025, at 18:03, J Pan via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> 
> yes, availability (at least two competing network providers with
> reliable services),

As David already mentioned that gets us a duopoly, but going mildly higher still results in an oligopoly... As a market realist (that is someone who accepts efficient market when he sees them, but does not naive believe in the fairy tales of the invisible hand of the market) I think that we would be often much better off with a competently managed/regulated monopoly than with duo- to oligopolies that are treated as if they were efficient markets... Infrastructure (and at least access networks are at least infrastructure-ish IMHO) is not something where the free market typically excels at.

> affordability (so the competition to bring the
> price and cost down)

I agree, but that is really at odds with your first point, to get that from a market we clearly need to grow the supply side to get out of oligopoly territory, and I am not sure that that is actually feasible.

> and applicability to modern internet applications
> (video streaming, conferencing and gaming in addition to email and web
> browsing) shall be the user-centric metrics in addition to throughput,
> latency/jitter, packet loss, etc

I am 100% behind this. I will mention though that I believe that latency increase under load is a decent proxy for the utility of a given access link for the usability with interactive applications.

Regards
	Sebastian

> --
> J Pan, UVic CSc, ECS566, 250-472-5796 (NO VM), Pan@UVic.CA, Web.UVic.CA/~pan
> 
> On Sat, Nov 8, 2025 at 8:00 AM dan <dandenson@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> I'm starting to see the signs that raw bandwidth is starting to lose
>> it's dominance for marketing.  It's still the clear #1 ask but price
>> is rapidly overtaking speed for our customer requests.
>> 
>> I believe we've hit this era's threshold on throughput needs and
>> people have started to notice that 'more' doesn't feel like a faster
>> service.
>> 
>> one common scenario that we are using to win customers, in combination
>> with facebook testimonials, is that people have bad experiences with
>> wifi and they order a faster service from cable/fiber company and the
>> wifi just gets worse.  This scenario I think is incredibly common and
>> seems to be a catalyst for 'speed isn't everything'.  We come in with
>> 50-500Mbps of service and solid whole-home wifi and they are
>> converted.
>> 
>> I hope we're not to far off from having 'speed' be just a feature, not
>> the entire story.
>> 
>> and yes, we QoE or service with cake via libreqos which is the
>> difference between great service and inadequate service IMO.
>> 
>> On Fri, Nov 7, 2025 at 12:50 PM J Pan via LibreQoS
>> <libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> marketing is even worse. some claim 200mbps because 150mbps down and
>>> 50mbps up at peak data rate. of course, this is not the only problem
>>> in telecom, but likely the worst
>>> 
>>> nevertheless, there are stats such as 10% inflation for food and 20%
>>> for gas, so in total 30% ;-) at this rate, any numbers can be floating
>>> around but none are telling the truth ;-)
>>> --
>>> J Pan, UVic CSc, ECS566, 250-472-5796 (NO VM), Pan@UVic.CA, Web.UVic.CA/~pan
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Nov 7, 2025 at 10:55 AM Jim Forster <jim@connectivitycap.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Exactly so.
>>>> 
>>>> Consumer expectations and service provider marketing may be influenced by memories of experience when transmission delay did matter.  At one time I was very happy with my home ISDN connection, and even shared it with my neighbor.  At about 128kbs, it was three orders of magnitude slower than my home fiber link.  I’ve not run the numbers but I’m pretty sure transimission speed mattered for video, even for crummy quality video,  So then when I learned a bit about digital video, and cable’s 64 QAM 27mbps channels, I got excited and thought, “wow, they could deliver 1mbps service!  And wouldn’t it be cool to have 1M home online at 10x the speed of ISDN?”.  It was cool!  And two more orders of magnitude later, here we are.
>>>> 
>>>>  — Jim
>>>> 
>>>> On Nov 7, 2025, at 12:52 PM, J Pan <Pan@uvic.ca> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> latency is based on round-trip time, and one-way delay includes
>>>> transmission delay, propagation delay, queuing delay and processing
>>>> delay. bandwidth does affect transmission delay (or serialization
>>>> delay), propagation delay is determined by the link length and the
>>>> "travel" speed of the signal, queuing delay is the hardest part and
>>>> affected by the buffer bloat a lot, and processing delay is another
>>>> variable. of course, transmission delay takes less and less portion of
>>>> the end-to-end delay now due to higher and higher "speed" links
>>>> 
>>>> consumers may mistaken the speed of the link (the "width" of their
>>>> pipe) as how fast their internet is (the "length" of the pipe), due to
>>>> the poor terminology we have been using ;-)
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> LibreQoS mailing list -- libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to libreqos-leave@lists.bufferbloat.net
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list -- starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> To unsubscribe send an email to starlink-leave@lists.bufferbloat.net

[Starlink] Re: [LibreQoS] Re: Re: Keynote: QoE/QoS - Bandwidth Is A Lie! at WISPAPALOOZA 2025 (October 16)

[Jim Forster]

> On Nov 8, 2025, at 1:11 PM, Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de> wrote:
> 
> As a market realist (that is someone who accepts efficient market when he sees them, but does not naive believe in the fairy tales of the invisible hand of the market) I think that we would be often much better off with a competently managed/regulated monopoly than with duo- to oligopolies that are treated as if they were efficient markets... Infrastructure (and at least access networks are at least infrastructure-ish IMHO) is not something where the free market typically excels at.


Yeah, I also don’t think there’s an efficient, fair, market here that gets us what we w. In some ways, the Digital Divide is an expected outcome of capital allocation decisions by deregulated companies in a sector that has economies of scale and network effects.

At the same time, a "competently managed/regulated monopoly” may be as uncommon as Homo Economicus sitings are. Which example can you cite? NZ? UK? SE? And have they transitioned smoothly to new technology that would diminish the value of their existing infrastructure?  

I recall that in the US prior to the .com boom, the telco’s idea of broadband was ISDN or maybe DSL or SMDS. They wrote many papers, had lots of trials, but did not aggressively do broadband,   'Everyone knew’ that the cablecos’ HFC would never work, and that they could not do digital and certainly not voice,  HFC worked, and DOCSIS was a big success. That pressured the telcos to start actually deploying DSL, but it was too late, and the cablecos have dominated US broadband for a couple of decades. 

Jim


> 

[Starlink] Re: [LibreQoS] Re: Re: Keynote: QoE/QoS - Bandwidth Is A Lie! at WISPAPALOOZA 2025 (October 16)

[Sebastian Moeller]

On 10 November 2025 05:48:38 CET, Jim Forster <jim@connectivitycap.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 8, 2025, at 1:11 PM, Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de> wrote:
>> 
>> As a market realist (that is someone who accepts efficient market when he sees them, but does not naive believe in the fairy tales of the invisible hand of the market) I think that we would be often much better off with a competently managed/regulated monopoly than with duo- to oligopolies that are treated as if they were efficient markets... Infrastructure (and at least access networks are at least infrastructure-ish IMHO) is not something where the free market typically excels at.
>
>
>Yeah, I also don’t think there’s an efficient, fair, market here that gets us what we w. In some ways, the Digital Divide is an expected outcome of capital allocation decisions by deregulated companies in a sector that has economies of scale and network effects.

Indeed... I just note that the POTS network was much more comprehensive in its reach due to stricter regulation...

>
>At the same time, a "competently managed/regulated monopoly” may be as uncommon as Homo Economicus sitings are. 

Na, only if we put our aim for competence too high ;) . Over here electricity, water and street "networks" are dece
ntly regulated infrastructure.

>Which example can you cite? NZ? UK? SE? And have they transitioned smoothly to new technology that would diminish the value of their existing infrastructure?  

Tricky... for infrastructure in general I believe there are loads of examples in Europe, for internet access networks it gets a bit trickier, but there are some examples of combining a single network with operator competition. (And that is my preferred model, monopoly network with regulated and fair access for operators, and then have as many operators as possibke offer their services over that network). But partial examples exist, e.g. the fiber network built in Amsterdam, or the point to point fiber network in switzerland where the incumbent built most of the ftth network and is regulated to physically unbundle individual lines to end customers, resultung in surprising competition of ISPs operating different technology over the same fibers (swisscom uses xgspon, salt.ch uses their own xgspin OLTs, init7 uses AON up to 25 Gbps). Sweden also seems to have a decent (albeit not regulated) separation between network operators and ISPs that offer services over these networks.


>
>I recall that in the US prior to the .com boom, the telco’s idea of broadband was ISDN or maybe DSL or SMDS. They wrote many papers, had lots of trials, but did not aggressively do broadband,  

Yes, I agree that the old model of a vertically integrated full service telco breed complacency and was not ideal either (even though the POTS network had better reach than the HFC networks).

: 'Everyone knew’ that the cablecos’ HFC would never work, and that they could not do digital and certainly not voice,  HFC worked, and DOCSIS was a big success. That pressured the telcos to start actually deploying DSL, but it was too late, and the cablecos have dominated US broadband for a couple of decades. 

The outcome in Germany was different... hfc networks only ever reached around 75% of households and never exceeded 10 of estimated 45 million access sites for broadband services, while DSL still serves almost 23 million (and reaches almost all 45 million).But yes on the technology side it likely was hfc's pressure that sped up dsl development.
Now, the german market is a bit odd, as customers are neither terribly hungry for high capacity nor terribly price sensitive (the old ex-monopoly telco still serves most dsl customers in spite of being more expensive due to valid regulatory interventions).

Regards
        Sebastian

P.S.: I understand that in this question there are of course multiple equally valid and justifyable positions one could take, this just happens to be mine. A couple of friendly ISPs for example reject this idea as they consider access networks to be a field where ISPs can differentiate and compete (some of them however proposed a regulated middle mile to be able to economically reach IXs and peering points to even the playing field).

>
>Jim
>
>
>> 
>

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

[Starlink] Re: [LibreQoS] Re: Re: Keynote: QoE/QoS - Bandwidth Is A Lie! at WISPAPALOOZA 2025 (October 16)

[Jim Forster]

Sebastian — thanks for all that.  Again I find there is lots I don’t know,  That’s a relief, otherwise life would be boring,

  — Jim

> On Nov 9, 2025, at 10:27 PM, Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 10 November 2025 05:48:38 CET, Jim Forster <jim@connectivitycap.com <mailto:jim@connectivitycap.com>> wrote:
>>> On Nov 8, 2025, at 1:11 PM, Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de> wrote:
>>> 
>>> As a market realist (that is someone who accepts efficient market when he sees them, but does not naive believe in the fairy tales of the invisible hand of the market) I think that we would be often much better off with a competently managed/regulated monopoly than with duo- to oligopolies that are treated as if they were efficient markets... Infrastructure (and at least access networks are at least infrastructure-ish IMHO) is not something where the free market typically excels at.
>> 
>> 
>> Yeah, I also don’t think there’s an efficient, fair, market here that gets us what we w. In some ways, the Digital Divide is an expected outcome of capital allocation decisions by deregulated companies in a sector that has economies of scale and network effects.
> 
> Indeed... I just note that the POTS network was much more comprehensive in its reach due to stricter regulation...
> 
>> 
>> At the same time, a "competently managed/regulated monopoly” may be as uncommon as Homo Economicus sitings are. 
> 
> Na, only if we put our aim for competence too high ;) . Over here electricity, water and street "networks" are dece
> ntly regulated infrastructure.
> 
>> Which example can you cite? NZ? UK? SE? And have they transitioned smoothly to new technology that would diminish the value of their existing infrastructure?  
> 
> Tricky... for infrastructure in general I believe there are loads of examples in Europe, for internet access networks it gets a bit trickier, but there are some examples of combining a single network with operator competition. (And that is my preferred model, monopoly network with regulated and fair access for operators, and then have as many operators as possibke offer their services over that network). But partial examples exist, e.g. the fiber network built in Amsterdam, or the point to point fiber network in switzerland where the incumbent built most of the ftth network and is regulated to physically unbundle individual lines to end customers, resultung in surprising competition of ISPs operating different technology over the same fibers (swisscom uses xgspon, salt.ch <http://salt.ch/> uses their own xgspin OLTs, init7 uses AON up to 25 Gbps). Sweden also seems to have a decent (albeit not regulated) separation between network operators and ISPs that offer services over these networks.
> 
> 
>> 
>> I recall that in the US prior to the .com boom, the telco’s idea of broadband was ISDN or maybe DSL or SMDS. They wrote many papers, had lots of trials, but did not aggressively do broadband,  
> 
> Yes, I agree that the old model of a vertically integrated full service telco breed complacency and was not ideal either (even though the POTS network had better reach than the HFC networks).
> 
> : 'Everyone knew’ that the cablecos’ HFC would never work, and that they could not do digital and certainly not voice,  HFC worked, and DOCSIS was a big success. That pressured the telcos to start actually deploying DSL, but it was too late, and the cablecos have dominated US broadband for a couple of decades. 
> 
> The outcome in Germany was different... hfc networks only ever reached around 75% of households and never exceeded 10 of estimated 45 million access sites for broadband services, while DSL still serves almost 23 million (and reaches almost all 45 million).But yes on the technology side it likely was hfc's pressure that sped up dsl development.
> Now, the german market is a bit odd, as customers are neither terribly hungry for high capacity nor terribly price sensitive (the old ex-monopoly telco still serves most dsl customers in spite of being more expensive due to valid regulatory interventions).
> 
> Regards
>        Sebastian
> 
> P.S.: I understand that in this question there are of course multiple equally valid and justifyable positions one could take, this just happens to be mine. A couple of friendly ISPs for example reject this idea as they consider access networks to be a field where ISPs can differentiate and compete (some of them however proposed a regulated middle mile to be able to economically reach IXs and peering points to even the playing field).
> 
>> 
>> Jim
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

[Starlink] Re: [LibreQoS] Re: Re: Keynote: QoE/QoS - Bandwidth Is A Lie! at WISPAPALOOZA 2025 (October 16)

[Frantisek Borsik]

Some post-gigabit era data from IETF 124 Montreal, shared by Jason:

"Further on my "we are in the post-gigabit era" theme from the IETF-124
meeting. Max 825 user devices, with peak simultaneous of 227 devices.
Bandwidth usage: avg downstream 241 Mbps and peak 1.18 Gbps, avg upstream
21 Mbps and peak 468 Mbps. If you are on an Xfinity Internet mid-split
spectrum area, your home connection could have handled all of that."

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/jlivingood_bandwidth-postgigabitera-latency-activity-7393719438384136192-IJaP

All the best,

Frank

Frantisek (Frank) Borsik


*In loving memory of Dave Täht: *1965-2025

https://libreqos.io/2025/04/01/in-loving-memory-of-dave/


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

Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714

iMessage, mobile: +420775230885

Skype: casioa5302ca

frantisek.borsik@gmail.com


On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 4:39 PM Jim Forster <jim@connectivitycap.com> wrote:

> Sebastian — thanks for all that.  Again I find there is lots I don’t know,
>  That’s a relief, otherwise life would be boring,
>
>   — Jim
>
> On Nov 9, 2025, at 10:27 PM, Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10 November 2025 05:48:38 CET, Jim Forster <jim@connectivitycap.com>
> wrote:
>
> On Nov 8, 2025, at 1:11 PM, Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> As a market realist (that is someone who accepts efficient market when he
> sees them, but does not naive believe in the fairy tales of the invisible
> hand of the market) I think that we would be often much better off with a
> competently managed/regulated monopoly than with duo- to oligopolies that
> are treated as if they were efficient markets... Infrastructure (and at
> least access networks are at least infrastructure-ish IMHO) is not
> something where the free market typically excels at.
>
>
>
> Yeah, I also don’t think there’s an efficient, fair, market here that gets
> us what we w. In some ways, the Digital Divide is an expected outcome of
> capital allocation decisions by deregulated companies in a sector that has
> economies of scale and network effects.
>
>
> Indeed... I just note that the POTS network was much more comprehensive in
> its reach due to stricter regulation...
>
>
> At the same time, a "competently managed/regulated monopoly” may be as
> uncommon as Homo Economicus sitings are.
>
>
> Na, only if we put our aim for competence too high ;) . Over here
> electricity, water and street "networks" are dece
> ntly regulated infrastructure.
>
> Which example can you cite? NZ? UK? SE? And have they transitioned
> smoothly to new technology that would diminish the value of their existing
> infrastructure?
>
>
> Tricky... for infrastructure in general I believe there are loads of
> examples in Europe, for internet access networks it gets a bit trickier,
> but there are some examples of combining a single network with operator
> competition. (And that is my preferred model, monopoly network with
> regulated and fair access for operators, and then have as many operators as
> possibke offer their services over that network). But partial examples
> exist, e.g. the fiber network built in Amsterdam, or the point to point
> fiber network in switzerland where the incumbent built most of the ftth
> network and is regulated to physically unbundle individual lines to end
> customers, resultung in surprising competition of ISPs operating different
> technology over the same fibers (swisscom uses xgspon, salt.ch uses their
> own xgspin OLTs, init7 uses AON up to 25 Gbps). Sweden also seems to have a
> decent (albeit not regulated) separation between network operators and ISPs
> that offer services over these networks.
>
>
>
> I recall that in the US prior to the .com boom, the telco’s idea of
> broadband was ISDN or maybe DSL or SMDS. They wrote many papers, had lots
> of trials, but did not aggressively do broadband,
>
>
> Yes, I agree that the old model of a vertically integrated full service
> telco breed complacency and was not ideal either (even though the POTS
> network had better reach than the HFC networks).
>
> : 'Everyone knew’ that the cablecos’ HFC would never work, and that they
> could not do digital and certainly not voice,  HFC worked, and DOCSIS was a
> big success. That pressured the telcos to start actually deploying DSL, but
> it was too late, and the cablecos have dominated US broadband for a couple
> of decades.
>
> The outcome in Germany was different... hfc networks only ever reached
> around 75% of households and never exceeded 10 of estimated 45 million
> access sites for broadband services, while DSL still serves almost 23
> million (and reaches almost all 45 million).But yes on the technology side
> it likely was hfc's pressure that sped up dsl development.
> Now, the german market is a bit odd, as customers are neither terribly
> hungry for high capacity nor terribly price sensitive (the old ex-monopoly
> telco still serves most dsl customers in spite of being more expensive due
> to valid regulatory interventions).
>
> Regards
>        Sebastian
>
> P.S.: I understand that in this question there are of course multiple
> equally valid and justifyable positions one could take, this just happens
> to be mine. A couple of friendly ISPs for example reject this idea as they
> consider access networks to be a field where ISPs can differentiate and
> compete (some of them however proposed a regulated middle mile to be able
> to economically reach IXs and peering points to even the playing field).
>
>
> Jim
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>
>
>

[Starlink] Re: [LibreQoS] Re: Re: Keynote: QoE/QoS - Bandwidth Is A Lie! at WISPAPALOOZA 2025 (October 16)

[David Fernández]

"Infrastructure (and at least access networks are at least
infrastructure-ish IMHO) is not something where the free market typically
excels at."

Telecom operators want an oligopoly. If there is much competition they
complain about it.

Telecommunications are infrastructure like water and electricity
distribution. Every time I see I can call emergencies from mobile, but I
don't have service from my operator I find it ridiculous. There is a
network there I could use, but "the free market" does not allow it.

Then, there is roaming and the prohibition of ISPs in contracts to share
your connection, e.g. with neighbors, so you walk around any city and you
have zillions of Wi-Fi access points, all closed, in the name of
profit/economic sustainability. Great.

Regards,

David


Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2025 19:11:38 +0100
> From: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
> Subject: [Starlink] Re: [LibreQoS] Re: Re: Keynote: QoE/QoS -
>         Bandwidth Is A Lie!  at WISPAPALOOZA 2025 (October 16)
> To: J Pan <Pan@uvic.ca>
> Cc: dan <dandenson@gmail.com>, Jim Forster <jim@connectivitycap.com>,
>         Frantisek Borsik <frantisek.borsik@gmail.com>, Cake List
>         <cake@lists.bufferbloat.net>, bloat <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>,
>         codel@lists.bufferbloat.net, libreqos
>         <libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net>, l4s-discuss@ietf.org,
>         starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> Message-ID: <93519830-549F-459A-A737-792F18F3241C@gmx.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset=utf-8
>
> Hi J,
>
>
> > On 8. Nov 2025, at 18:03, J Pan via Starlink <
> starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> >
> > yes, availability (at least two competing network providers with
> > reliable services),
>
> As David already mentioned that gets us a duopoly, but going mildly higher
> still results in an oligopoly... As a market realist (that is someone who
> accepts efficient market when he sees them, but does not naive believe in
> the fairy tales of the invisible hand of the market) I think that we would
> be often much better off with a competently managed/regulated monopoly than
> with duo- to oligopolies that are treated as if they were efficient
> markets... Infrastructure (and at least access networks are at least
> infrastructure-ish IMHO) is not something where the free market typically
> excels at.
>
> > affordability (so the competition to bring the
> > price and cost down)
>
> I agree, but that is really at odds with your first point, to get that
> from a market we clearly need to grow the supply side to get out of
> oligopoly territory, and I am not sure that that is actually feasible.
>
> > and applicability to modern internet applications
> > (video streaming, conferencing and gaming in addition to email and web
> > browsing) shall be the user-centric metrics in addition to throughput,
> > latency/jitter, packet loss, etc
>
> I am 100% behind this. I will mention though that I believe that latency
> increase under load is a decent proxy for the utility of a given access
> link for the usability with interactive applications.
>
> Regards
>         Sebastian
>
> > --
> > J Pan, UVic CSc, ECS566, 250-472-5796 (NO VM), Pan@UVic.CA,
> Web.UVic.CA/~pan
> >
> > On Sat, Nov 8, 2025 at 8:00 AM dan <dandenson@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I'm starting to see the signs that raw bandwidth is starting to lose
> >> it's dominance for marketing.  It's still the clear #1 ask but price
> >> is rapidly overtaking speed for our customer requests.
> >>
> >> I believe we've hit this era's threshold on throughput needs and
> >> people have started to notice that 'more' doesn't feel like a faster
> >> service.
> >>
> >> one common scenario that we are using to win customers, in combination
> >> with facebook testimonials, is that people have bad experiences with
> >> wifi and they order a faster service from cable/fiber company and the
> >> wifi just gets worse.  This scenario I think is incredibly common and
> >> seems to be a catalyst for 'speed isn't everything'.  We come in with
> >> 50-500Mbps of service and solid whole-home wifi and they are
> >> converted.
> >>
> >> I hope we're not to far off from having 'speed' be just a feature, not
> >> the entire story.
> >>
> >> and yes, we QoE or service with cake via libreqos which is the
> >> difference between great service and inadequate service IMO.
> >>
> >> On Fri, Nov 7, 2025 at 12:50 PM J Pan via LibreQoS
> >> <libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> marketing is even worse. some claim 200mbps because 150mbps down and
> >>> 50mbps up at peak data rate. of course, this is not the only problem
> >>> in telecom, but likely the worst
> >>>
> >>> nevertheless, there are stats such as 10% inflation for food and 20%
> >>> for gas, so in total 30% ;-) at this rate, any numbers can be floating
> >>> around but none are telling the truth ;-)
> >>> --
> >>> J Pan, UVic CSc, ECS566, 250-472-5796 (NO VM), Pan@UVic.CA,
> Web.UVic.CA/~pan
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Nov 7, 2025 at 10:55 AM Jim Forster <jim@connectivitycap.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Exactly so.
> >>>>
> >>>> Consumer expectations and service provider marketing may be
> influenced by memories of experience when transmission delay did matter.
> At one time I was very happy with my home ISDN connection, and even shared
> it with my neighbor.  At about 128kbs, it was three orders of magnitude
> slower than my home fiber link.  I’ve not run the numbers but I’m pretty
> sure transimission speed mattered for video, even for crummy quality
> video,  So then when I learned a bit about digital video, and cable’s 64
> QAM 27mbps channels, I got excited and thought, “wow, they could deliver
> 1mbps service!  And wouldn’t it be cool to have 1M home online at 10x the
> speed of ISDN?”.  It was cool!  And two more orders of magnitude later,
> here we are.
> >>>>
> >>>>  — Jim
> >>>>
> >>>> On Nov 7, 2025, at 12:52 PM, J Pan <Pan@uvic.ca> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> latency is based on round-trip time, and one-way delay includes
> >>>> transmission delay, propagation delay, queuing delay and processing
> >>>> delay. bandwidth does affect transmission delay (or serialization
> >>>> delay), propagation delay is determined by the link length and the
> >>>> "travel" speed of the signal, queuing delay is the hardest part and
> >>>> affected by the buffer bloat a lot, and processing delay is another
> >>>> variable. of course, transmission delay takes less and less portion of
> >>>> the end-to-end delay now due to higher and higher "speed" links
> >>>>
> >>>> consumers may mistaken the speed of the link (the "width" of their
> >>>> pipe) as how fast their internet is (the "length" of the pipe), due to
> >>>> the poor terminology we have been using ;-)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> LibreQoS mailing list -- libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net
> >>> To unsubscribe send an email to libreqos-leave@lists.bufferbloat.net
> > _______________________________________________
> > Starlink mailing list -- starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> > To unsubscribe send an email to starlink-leave@lists.bufferbloat.net
>
>
>

[Starlink] Re: [LibreQoS] Re: Re: Keynote: QoE/QoS - Bandwidth Is A Lie! at WISPAPALOOZA 2025 (October 16)

[Sebastian Moeller]

> On 8. Nov 2025, at 20:30, David Fernández via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> 
> "Infrastructure (and at least access networks are at least
> infrastructure-ish IMHO) is not something where the free market typically
> excels at."
> 
> Telecom operators want an oligopoly. If there is much competition they
> complain about it.

Oh, almost all companies want to find themselves in an under-regulated monopoly situation, nothing surprising. The question is, should we as society actually accept that?

> Telecommunications are infrastructure like water and electricity
> distribution. Every time I see I can call emergencies from mobile, but I
> don't have service from my operator I find it ridiculous. There is a
> network there I could use, but "the free market" does not allow it.

Well, the ugly truth about markets is, no side actually wants a fair market, but would prefer a monopoly or monopsony, alas typically the supply side is better positioned to reach that, especially with things that lend themselves to natural monopolies like infrastructure.

> 
> Then, there is roaming and the prohibition of ISPs in contracts to share
> your connection, e.g. with neighbors, so you walk around any city and you
> have zillions of Wi-Fi access points, all closed, in the name of
> profit/economic sustainability. Great.

Late stage capitalism... let's see what comes next... ;) Maybe we can fix things

Regards
	Sebastian

> 
> Regards,
> 
> David
> 
> 
> Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2025 19:11:38 +0100
>> From: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
>> Subject: [Starlink] Re: [LibreQoS] Re: Re: Keynote: QoE/QoS -
>>        Bandwidth Is A Lie!  at WISPAPALOOZA 2025 (October 16)
>> To: J Pan <Pan@uvic.ca>
>> Cc: dan <dandenson@gmail.com>, Jim Forster <jim@connectivitycap.com>,
>>        Frantisek Borsik <frantisek.borsik@gmail.com>, Cake List
>>        <cake@lists.bufferbloat.net>, bloat <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>,
>>        codel@lists.bufferbloat.net, libreqos
>>        <libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net>, l4s-discuss@ietf.org,
>>        starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> Message-ID: <93519830-549F-459A-A737-792F18F3241C@gmx.de>
>> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset=utf-8
>> 
>> Hi J,
>> 
>> 
>>> On 8. Nov 2025, at 18:03, J Pan via Starlink <
>> starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> yes, availability (at least two competing network providers with
>>> reliable services),
>> 
>> As David already mentioned that gets us a duopoly, but going mildly higher
>> still results in an oligopoly... As a market realist (that is someone who
>> accepts efficient market when he sees them, but does not naive believe in
>> the fairy tales of the invisible hand of the market) I think that we would
>> be often much better off with a competently managed/regulated monopoly than
>> with duo- to oligopolies that are treated as if they were efficient
>> markets... Infrastructure (and at least access networks are at least
>> infrastructure-ish IMHO) is not something where the free market typically
>> excels at.
>> 
>>> affordability (so the competition to bring the
>>> price and cost down)
>> 
>> I agree, but that is really at odds with your first point, to get that
>> from a market we clearly need to grow the supply side to get out of
>> oligopoly territory, and I am not sure that that is actually feasible.
>> 
>>> and applicability to modern internet applications
>>> (video streaming, conferencing and gaming in addition to email and web
>>> browsing) shall be the user-centric metrics in addition to throughput,
>>> latency/jitter, packet loss, etc
>> 
>> I am 100% behind this. I will mention though that I believe that latency
>> increase under load is a decent proxy for the utility of a given access
>> link for the usability with interactive applications.
>> 
>> Regards
>>        Sebastian
>> 
>>> --
>>> J Pan, UVic CSc, ECS566, 250-472-5796 (NO VM), Pan@UVic.CA,
>> Web.UVic.CA/~pan
>>> 
>>> On Sat, Nov 8, 2025 at 8:00 AM dan <dandenson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> I'm starting to see the signs that raw bandwidth is starting to lose
>>>> it's dominance for marketing.  It's still the clear #1 ask but price
>>>> is rapidly overtaking speed for our customer requests.
>>>> 
>>>> I believe we've hit this era's threshold on throughput needs and
>>>> people have started to notice that 'more' doesn't feel like a faster
>>>> service.
>>>> 
>>>> one common scenario that we are using to win customers, in combination
>>>> with facebook testimonials, is that people have bad experiences with
>>>> wifi and they order a faster service from cable/fiber company and the
>>>> wifi just gets worse.  This scenario I think is incredibly common and
>>>> seems to be a catalyst for 'speed isn't everything'.  We come in with
>>>> 50-500Mbps of service and solid whole-home wifi and they are
>>>> converted.
>>>> 
>>>> I hope we're not to far off from having 'speed' be just a feature, not
>>>> the entire story.
>>>> 
>>>> and yes, we QoE or service with cake via libreqos which is the
>>>> difference between great service and inadequate service IMO.
>>>> 
>>>> On Fri, Nov 7, 2025 at 12:50 PM J Pan via LibreQoS
>>>> <libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> marketing is even worse. some claim 200mbps because 150mbps down and
>>>>> 50mbps up at peak data rate. of course, this is not the only problem
>>>>> in telecom, but likely the worst
>>>>> 
>>>>> nevertheless, there are stats such as 10% inflation for food and 20%
>>>>> for gas, so in total 30% ;-) at this rate, any numbers can be floating
>>>>> around but none are telling the truth ;-)
>>>>> --
>>>>> J Pan, UVic CSc, ECS566, 250-472-5796 (NO VM), Pan@UVic.CA,
>> Web.UVic.CA/~pan
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Fri, Nov 7, 2025 at 10:55 AM Jim Forster <jim@connectivitycap.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Exactly so.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Consumer expectations and service provider marketing may be
>> influenced by memories of experience when transmission delay did matter.
>> At one time I was very happy with my home ISDN connection, and even shared
>> it with my neighbor.  At about 128kbs, it was three orders of magnitude
>> slower than my home fiber link.  I’ve not run the numbers but I’m pretty
>> sure transimission speed mattered for video, even for crummy quality
>> video,  So then when I learned a bit about digital video, and cable’s 64
>> QAM 27mbps channels, I got excited and thought, “wow, they could deliver
>> 1mbps service!  And wouldn’t it be cool to have 1M home online at 10x the
>> speed of ISDN?”.  It was cool!  And two more orders of magnitude later,
>> here we are.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> — Jim
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Nov 7, 2025, at 12:52 PM, J Pan <Pan@uvic.ca> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> latency is based on round-trip time, and one-way delay includes
>>>>>> transmission delay, propagation delay, queuing delay and processing
>>>>>> delay. bandwidth does affect transmission delay (or serialization
>>>>>> delay), propagation delay is determined by the link length and the
>>>>>> "travel" speed of the signal, queuing delay is the hardest part and
>>>>>> affected by the buffer bloat a lot, and processing delay is another
>>>>>> variable. of course, transmission delay takes less and less portion of
>>>>>> the end-to-end delay now due to higher and higher "speed" links
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> consumers may mistaken the speed of the link (the "width" of their
>>>>>> pipe) as how fast their internet is (the "length" of the pipe), due to
>>>>>> the poor terminology we have been using ;-)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> LibreQoS mailing list -- libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to libreqos-leave@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Starlink mailing list -- starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to starlink-leave@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> 
>> 
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list -- starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> To unsubscribe send an email to starlink-leave@lists.bufferbloat.net

[Starlink] Re: [LibreQoS] Re: Re: Keynote: QoE/QoS - Bandwidth Is A Lie! at WISPAPALOOZA 2025 (October 16)

[J Pan]

they are layer 8 or 9 issues ;-) yes, networking is an infrastructure,
and people only realize its importance when it's broken, just like
roads, canadapost/usps, air traffic controller,...
--
J Pan, UVic CSc, ECS566, 250-472-5796 (NO VM), Pan@UVic.CA, Web.UVic.CA/~pan

On Sat, Nov 8, 2025 at 11:46 AM Sebastian Moeller via Starlink
<starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 8. Nov 2025, at 20:30, David Fernández via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> >
> > "Infrastructure (and at least access networks are at least
> > infrastructure-ish IMHO) is not something where the free market typically
> > excels at."
> >
> > Telecom operators want an oligopoly. If there is much competition they
> > complain about it.
>
> Oh, almost all companies want to find themselves in an under-regulated monopoly situation, nothing surprising. The question is, should we as society actually accept that?
>
> > Telecommunications are infrastructure like water and electricity
> > distribution. Every time I see I can call emergencies from mobile, but I
> > don't have service from my operator I find it ridiculous. There is a
> > network there I could use, but "the free market" does not allow it.
>
> Well, the ugly truth about markets is, no side actually wants a fair market, but would prefer a monopoly or monopsony, alas typically the supply side is better positioned to reach that, especially with things that lend themselves to natural monopolies like infrastructure.
>
> >
> > Then, there is roaming and the prohibition of ISPs in contracts to share
> > your connection, e.g. with neighbors, so you walk around any city and you
> > have zillions of Wi-Fi access points, all closed, in the name of
> > profit/economic sustainability. Great.
>
> Late stage capitalism... let's see what comes next... ;) Maybe we can fix things
>
> Regards
>         Sebastian
>
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > David
> >
> >
> > Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2025 19:11:38 +0100
> >> From: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
> >> Subject: [Starlink] Re: [LibreQoS] Re: Re: Keynote: QoE/QoS -
> >>        Bandwidth Is A Lie!  at WISPAPALOOZA 2025 (October 16)
> >> To: J Pan <Pan@uvic.ca>
> >> Cc: dan <dandenson@gmail.com>, Jim Forster <jim@connectivitycap.com>,
> >>        Frantisek Borsik <frantisek.borsik@gmail.com>, Cake List
> >>        <cake@lists.bufferbloat.net>, bloat <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>,
> >>        codel@lists.bufferbloat.net, libreqos
> >>        <libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net>, l4s-discuss@ietf.org,
> >>        starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> >> Message-ID: <93519830-549F-459A-A737-792F18F3241C@gmx.de>
> >> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset=utf-8
> >>
> >> Hi J,
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 8. Nov 2025, at 18:03, J Pan via Starlink <
> >> starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> yes, availability (at least two competing network providers with
> >>> reliable services),
> >>
> >> As David already mentioned that gets us a duopoly, but going mildly higher
> >> still results in an oligopoly... As a market realist (that is someone who
> >> accepts efficient market when he sees them, but does not naive believe in
> >> the fairy tales of the invisible hand of the market) I think that we would
> >> be often much better off with a competently managed/regulated monopoly than
> >> with duo- to oligopolies that are treated as if they were efficient
> >> markets... Infrastructure (and at least access networks are at least
> >> infrastructure-ish IMHO) is not something where the free market typically
> >> excels at.
> >>
> >>> affordability (so the competition to bring the
> >>> price and cost down)
> >>
> >> I agree, but that is really at odds with your first point, to get that
> >> from a market we clearly need to grow the supply side to get out of
> >> oligopoly territory, and I am not sure that that is actually feasible.
> >>
> >>> and applicability to modern internet applications
> >>> (video streaming, conferencing and gaming in addition to email and web
> >>> browsing) shall be the user-centric metrics in addition to throughput,
> >>> latency/jitter, packet loss, etc
> >>
> >> I am 100% behind this. I will mention though that I believe that latency
> >> increase under load is a decent proxy for the utility of a given access
> >> link for the usability with interactive applications.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >>        Sebastian
> >>
> >>> --
> >>> J Pan, UVic CSc, ECS566, 250-472-5796 (NO VM), Pan@UVic.CA,
> >> Web.UVic.CA/~pan
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, Nov 8, 2025 at 8:00 AM dan <dandenson@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm starting to see the signs that raw bandwidth is starting to lose
> >>>> it's dominance for marketing.  It's still the clear #1 ask but price
> >>>> is rapidly overtaking speed for our customer requests.
> >>>>
> >>>> I believe we've hit this era's threshold on throughput needs and
> >>>> people have started to notice that 'more' doesn't feel like a faster
> >>>> service.
> >>>>
> >>>> one common scenario that we are using to win customers, in combination
> >>>> with facebook testimonials, is that people have bad experiences with
> >>>> wifi and they order a faster service from cable/fiber company and the
> >>>> wifi just gets worse.  This scenario I think is incredibly common and
> >>>> seems to be a catalyst for 'speed isn't everything'.  We come in with
> >>>> 50-500Mbps of service and solid whole-home wifi and they are
> >>>> converted.
> >>>>
> >>>> I hope we're not to far off from having 'speed' be just a feature, not
> >>>> the entire story.
> >>>>
> >>>> and yes, we QoE or service with cake via libreqos which is the
> >>>> difference between great service and inadequate service IMO.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Fri, Nov 7, 2025 at 12:50 PM J Pan via LibreQoS
> >>>> <libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> marketing is even worse. some claim 200mbps because 150mbps down and
> >>>>> 50mbps up at peak data rate. of course, this is not the only problem
> >>>>> in telecom, but likely the worst
> >>>>>
> >>>>> nevertheless, there are stats such as 10% inflation for food and 20%
> >>>>> for gas, so in total 30% ;-) at this rate, any numbers can be floating
> >>>>> around but none are telling the truth ;-)
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> J Pan, UVic CSc, ECS566, 250-472-5796 (NO VM), Pan@UVic.CA,
> >> Web.UVic.CA/~pan
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Fri, Nov 7, 2025 at 10:55 AM Jim Forster <jim@connectivitycap.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Exactly so.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Consumer expectations and service provider marketing may be
> >> influenced by memories of experience when transmission delay did matter.
> >> At one time I was very happy with my home ISDN connection, and even shared
> >> it with my neighbor.  At about 128kbs, it was three orders of magnitude
> >> slower than my home fiber link.  I’ve not run the numbers but I’m pretty
> >> sure transimission speed mattered for video, even for crummy quality
> >> video,  So then when I learned a bit about digital video, and cable’s 64
> >> QAM 27mbps channels, I got excited and thought, “wow, they could deliver
> >> 1mbps service!  And wouldn’t it be cool to have 1M home online at 10x the
> >> speed of ISDN?”.  It was cool!  And two more orders of magnitude later,
> >> here we are.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> — Jim
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Nov 7, 2025, at 12:52 PM, J Pan <Pan@uvic.ca> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> latency is based on round-trip time, and one-way delay includes
> >>>>>> transmission delay, propagation delay, queuing delay and processing
> >>>>>> delay. bandwidth does affect transmission delay (or serialization
> >>>>>> delay), propagation delay is determined by the link length and the
> >>>>>> "travel" speed of the signal, queuing delay is the hardest part and
> >>>>>> affected by the buffer bloat a lot, and processing delay is another
> >>>>>> variable. of course, transmission delay takes less and less portion of
> >>>>>> the end-to-end delay now due to higher and higher "speed" links
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> consumers may mistaken the speed of the link (the "width" of their
> >>>>>> pipe) as how fast their internet is (the "length" of the pipe), due to
> >>>>>> the poor terminology we have been using ;-)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> LibreQoS mailing list -- libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net
> >>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to libreqos-leave@lists.bufferbloat.net
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Starlink mailing list -- starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> >>> To unsubscribe send an email to starlink-leave@lists.bufferbloat.net
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Starlink mailing list -- starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> > To unsubscribe send an email to starlink-leave@lists.bufferbloat.net
>
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list -- starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> To unsubscribe send an email to starlink-leave@lists.bufferbloat.net

[Starlink] Re: [LibreQoS] Re: Re: Keynote: QoE/QoS - Bandwidth Is A Lie! at WISPAPALOOZA 2025 (October 16)

[David Fernández]

In Spain ISDN was replaced by DSL and now both, HFC and DSL and the POTS
have been replaced by FTTH.

Minimum you can get is 100 Mbit/s and max 10 Gbit/s (symmetrical), but for
households max 1 Gbit/s.

Prices start from ~20 euros/month.

The quality of the service that ISPs with revenues higher than 20 millions
are obliged to report follows ETSI standards (mainly speed tests), but will
include latency in 2026 ( as measured by IETF RFC 2681), jitter and packet
losses:

https://www.cnmc.es/sites/default/files/5753856.pdf

Regards

David


Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2025 07:27:37 +0100
> From: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
> Subject: [Starlink] Re: [LibreQoS] Re: Re: Keynote: QoE/QoS -
>         Bandwidth Is A Lie!  at WISPAPALOOZA 2025 (October 16)
> To: Jim Forster <jim@connectivitycap.com>
> Cc: J Pan <Pan@uvic.ca>, dan <dandenson@gmail.com>, Frantisek Borsik
>         <frantisek.borsik@gmail.com>, Cake List <
> cake@lists.bufferbloat.net>,
>         bloat <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>, codel@lists.bufferbloat.net,
>         libreqos <libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net>, l4s-discuss@ietf.org,
>         starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> Message-ID: <CDF65ACE-06AD-4C4A-8F74-14B704B89637@gmx.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
>
>
> On 10 November 2025 05:48:38 CET, Jim Forster <jim@connectivitycap.com>
> wrote:
> >> On Nov 8, 2025, at 1:11 PM, Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de> wrote:
> >>
> >> As a market realist (that is someone who accepts efficient market when
> he sees them, but does not naive believe in the fairy tales of the
> invisible hand of the market) I think that we would be often much better
> off with a competently managed/regulated monopoly than with duo- to
> oligopolies that are treated as if they were efficient markets...
> Infrastructure (and at least access networks are at least
> infrastructure-ish IMHO) is not something where the free market typically
> excels at.
> >
> >
> >Yeah, I also don’t think there’s an efficient, fair, market here that
> gets us what we w. In some ways, the Digital Divide is an expected outcome
> of capital allocation decisions by deregulated companies in a sector that
> has economies of scale and network effects.
>
> Indeed... I just note that the POTS network was much more comprehensive in
> its reach due to stricter regulation...
>
> >
> >At the same time, a "competently managed/regulated monopoly” may be as
> uncommon as Homo Economicus sitings are.
>
> Na, only if we put our aim for competence too high ;) . Over here
> electricity, water and street "networks" are dece
> ntly regulated infrastructure.
>
> >Which example can you cite? NZ? UK? SE? And have they transitioned
> smoothly to new technology that would diminish the value of their existing
> infrastructure?
>
> Tricky... for infrastructure in general I believe there are loads of
> examples in Europe, for internet access networks it gets a bit trickier,
> but there are some examples of combining a single network with operator
> competition. (And that is my preferred model, monopoly network with
> regulated and fair access for operators, and then have as many operators as
> possibke offer their services over that network). But partial examples
> exist, e.g. the fiber network built in Amsterdam, or the point to point
> fiber network in switzerland where the incumbent built most of the ftth
> network and is regulated to physically unbundle individual lines to end
> customers, resultung in surprising competition of ISPs operating different
> technology over the same fibers (swisscom uses xgspon, salt.ch uses their
> own xgspin OLTs, init7 uses AON up to 25 Gbps). Sweden also seems to have a
> decent (albeit not regulated) separation between network operators and ISPs
> that offer services over these networks.
>
>
> >
> >I recall that in the US prior to the .com boom, the telco’s idea of
> broadband was ISDN or maybe DSL or SMDS. They wrote many papers, had lots
> of trials, but did not aggressively do broadband,
>
> Yes, I agree that the old model of a vertically integrated full service
> telco breed complacency and was not ideal either (even though the POTS
> network had better reach than the HFC networks).
>
> : 'Everyone knew’ that the cablecos’ HFC would never work, and that they
> could not do digital and certainly not voice,  HFC worked, and DOCSIS was a
> big success. That pressured the telcos to start actually deploying DSL, but
> it was too late, and the cablecos have dominated US broadband for a couple
> of decades.
>
> The outcome in Germany was different... hfc networks only ever reached
> around 75% of households and never exceeded 10 of estimated 45 million
> access sites for broadband services, while DSL still serves almost 23
> million (and reaches almost all 45 million).But yes on the technology side
> it likely was hfc's pressure that sped up dsl development.
> Now, the german market is a bit odd, as customers are neither terribly
> hungry for high capacity nor terribly price sensitive (the old ex-monopoly
> telco still serves most dsl customers in spite of being more expensive due
> to valid regulatory interventions).
>
> Regards
>         Sebastian
>
> P.S.: I understand that in this question there are of course multiple
> equally valid and justifyable positions one could take, this just happens
> to be mine. A couple of friendly ISPs for example reject this idea as they
> consider access networks to be a field where ISPs can differentiate and
> compete (some of them however proposed a regulated middle mile to be able
> to economically reach IXs and peering points to even the playing field).
>
> >
> >Jim
> >
> >
> >>
> >

[Starlink] Re: [LibreQoS] Re: Re: Keynote: QoE/QoS - Bandwidth Is A Lie! at WISPAPALOOZA 2025 (October 16)

[Sebastian Moeller]

Hi David,


> On 10. Nov 2025, at 12:41, David Fernández via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> 
> In Spain ISDN was replaced by DSL and now both, HFC and DSL and the POTS
> have been replaced by FTTH.

I would guess by DSL you mostly mean ADSL? Over here ADSL is only used on long rural lines everywhere else it is mostly VDSL2@FTTC with 100/40 or even 250/40 Mbps plans available on most links. The incumbent still spent time upgrading to FTTC while Spain was already focussing on FTTH. The results are twofold:
a) most users can get access rates via DSL that make most application work well enough
b) we did not start the FTTH roll-out while interest rates were low ;)

Also, to add insult to injury, I have seen estimates for the average home connected for Spain and Francs (unsure why these were lumped together) of around 200-300 Euro, while the cost in Germany is more in the 2000-4000 Euro range... (there are almost no utility poles in use in Germany and putting cables underground is slower and more expensive).

> 
> Minimum you can get is 100 Mbit/s and max 10 Gbit/s (symmetrical),

No doubt that stiff gets advertized as 10 Gbps, but I am willing to bet that this mostly is XGS-PON, likely with FEC and that simply does not have a gross rate of 10 Gbps.... (XGSPON has a gross rate of 9.95328 and with the 216/248 stadard FEC this gets us to a shared 9.95328 * (216/248) = 8.66899 Gbps, even less of 10 Gbps, but I understand marketing loves round numbers)

> but for
> households max 1 Gbit/s.

Interesting, Switzerland and France offer >> 1 Gbps even for private households (not that typical houlsehold would notice the difference between 1 and say 2 Gbps in normal use).

> 
> Prices start from ~20 euros/month.

Sweet, proces over here rather start at 35 Euros, or 45 for fiber...

> 
> The quality of the service that ISPs with revenues higher than 20 millions
> are obliged to report follows ETSI standards (mainly speed tests), but will
> include latency in 2026 ( as measured by IETF RFC 2681), jitter and packet
> losses:
> 
> https://www.cnmc.es/sites/default/files/5753856.pdf

I occasionally am puzzled by the regulators... nothing bad about that RFC, except is seems rather complicated for a simple use case, and more to the point the regulator failedf to require latency under load numbers, which tend to be quite informative how well a link will do under sustained loads around saturation.


Thanks for the information
	Sebastian

> 
> Regards
> 
> David
> 
> 
> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2025 07:27:37 +0100
>> From: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
>> Subject: [Starlink] Re: [LibreQoS] Re: Re: Keynote: QoE/QoS -
>>        Bandwidth Is A Lie!  at WISPAPALOOZA 2025 (October 16)
>> To: Jim Forster <jim@connectivitycap.com>
>> Cc: J Pan <Pan@uvic.ca>, dan <dandenson@gmail.com>, Frantisek Borsik
>>        <frantisek.borsik@gmail.com>, Cake List <
>> cake@lists.bufferbloat.net>,
>>        bloat <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>, codel@lists.bufferbloat.net,
>>        libreqos <libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net>, l4s-discuss@ietf.org,
>>        starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> Message-ID: <CDF65ACE-06AD-4C4A-8F74-14B704B89637@gmx.de>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 10 November 2025 05:48:38 CET, Jim Forster <jim@connectivitycap.com>
>> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 8, 2025, at 1:11 PM, Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> As a market realist (that is someone who accepts efficient market when
>> he sees them, but does not naive believe in the fairy tales of the
>> invisible hand of the market) I think that we would be often much better
>> off with a competently managed/regulated monopoly than with duo- to
>> oligopolies that are treated as if they were efficient markets...
>> Infrastructure (and at least access networks are at least
>> infrastructure-ish IMHO) is not something where the free market typically
>> excels at.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Yeah, I also don’t think there’s an efficient, fair, market here that
>> gets us what we w. In some ways, the Digital Divide is an expected outcome
>> of capital allocation decisions by deregulated companies in a sector that
>> has economies of scale and network effects.
>> 
>> Indeed... I just note that the POTS network was much more comprehensive in
>> its reach due to stricter regulation...
>> 
>>> 
>>> At the same time, a "competently managed/regulated monopoly” may be as
>> uncommon as Homo Economicus sitings are.
>> 
>> Na, only if we put our aim for competence too high ;) . Over here
>> electricity, water and street "networks" are dece
>> ntly regulated infrastructure.
>> 
>>> Which example can you cite? NZ? UK? SE? And have they transitioned
>> smoothly to new technology that would diminish the value of their existing
>> infrastructure?
>> 
>> Tricky... for infrastructure in general I believe there are loads of
>> examples in Europe, for internet access networks it gets a bit trickier,
>> but there are some examples of combining a single network with operator
>> competition. (And that is my preferred model, monopoly network with
>> regulated and fair access for operators, and then have as many operators as
>> possibke offer their services over that network). But partial examples
>> exist, e.g. the fiber network built in Amsterdam, or the point to point
>> fiber network in switzerland where the incumbent built most of the ftth
>> network and is regulated to physically unbundle individual lines to end
>> customers, resultung in surprising competition of ISPs operating different
>> technology over the same fibers (swisscom uses xgspon, salt.ch uses their
>> own xgspin OLTs, init7 uses AON up to 25 Gbps). Sweden also seems to have a
>> decent (albeit not regulated) separation between network operators and ISPs
>> that offer services over these networks.
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> I recall that in the US prior to the .com boom, the telco’s idea of
>> broadband was ISDN or maybe DSL or SMDS. They wrote many papers, had lots
>> of trials, but did not aggressively do broadband,
>> 
>> Yes, I agree that the old model of a vertically integrated full service
>> telco breed complacency and was not ideal either (even though the POTS
>> network had better reach than the HFC networks).
>> 
>> : 'Everyone knew’ that the cablecos’ HFC would never work, and that they
>> could not do digital and certainly not voice,  HFC worked, and DOCSIS was a
>> big success. That pressured the telcos to start actually deploying DSL, but
>> it was too late, and the cablecos have dominated US broadband for a couple
>> of decades.
>> 
>> The outcome in Germany was different... hfc networks only ever reached
>> around 75% of households and never exceeded 10 of estimated 45 million
>> access sites for broadband services, while DSL still serves almost 23
>> million (and reaches almost all 45 million).But yes on the technology side
>> it likely was hfc's pressure that sped up dsl development.
>> Now, the german market is a bit odd, as customers are neither terribly
>> hungry for high capacity nor terribly price sensitive (the old ex-monopoly
>> telco still serves most dsl customers in spite of being more expensive due
>> to valid regulatory interventions).
>> 
>> Regards
>>        Sebastian
>> 
>> P.S.: I understand that in this question there are of course multiple
>> equally valid and justifyable positions one could take, this just happens
>> to be mine. A couple of friendly ISPs for example reject this idea as they
>> consider access networks to be a field where ISPs can differentiate and
>> compete (some of them however proposed a regulated middle mile to be able
>> to economically reach IXs and peering points to even the playing field).
>> 
>>> 
>>> Jim
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list -- starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> To unsubscribe send an email to starlink-leave@lists.bufferbloat.net