Re: [Starlink] The "reasons" that bufferbloat isn't a problem

[Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2570 bytes --]

I occasionally am happy to point out the 150+ isps now running libreqos and
cake... the several hundred running preseem and paraqum and bequant...

As a rule of thumb about 10k wisp subscribers eat around 25gbit. This we
(libreqos anyway) can do easily on a 1500 dollar whitebox (and we have
pushed it past 60gbit in the v1.5 release entering beta shortly). This is
usually way more capability than any given isp network segment needs...

The wisps have got fq codel available native in much of their gear too, and
of course starlink on their wifi...

There are probably 60k isps left to go though. There are isps still on
docsis 3.0.  I tend to regard these issues nowadays as being demand side as
these solutions are so widely available now...

But with billions being spent to just upgrade to fiber... a dark cloud
ahead is above 50mbit most of the bloat moves to the wifi... and despite
eero, openwrt, Google fiber etc that have been getting it right... sigh.

A bright light at the moment there is all the wifi products coming out with
a mt79 chip.

On Thu, Jun 6, 2024, 10:51 AM Stuart Cheshire <cheshire@apple.com> wrote:

> On Jun 4, 2024, at 16:03, Rich Brown <richb.hanover@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Yeah... I didn't write that as carefully as I could have. I was
> switching between "user voice" (who'll say 'speed') and "expert" voice (I
> know the difference). Check it now:
> https://randomneuronsfiring.com/all-the-reasons-that-bufferbloat-isnt-a-problem/
>
> Thanks for doing that.
>
> How about also changing “new faster ISP plan” to “new bigger ISP plan”? I
> know that may sound like a slightly weird phrase, but getting people’s
> attention by surprising them a little can be beneficial. If it looks weird
> to them and that makes them pause and think, then that’s good.
>
> If the hypothetical ISP imagined here were actually willing to offer a
> plan that truly provided consistently *faster* connectivity instead of just
> more of the same, we’d be very happy. The truth today is that most IPs
> offer *bigger*, not *better*. They are selling quantity, not quality.
>
> (I am intentionally not lumping *all* ISPs into the same bucket here.
> Some, like Comcast, are actually making big efforts to improve quality as
> well as quantity. Comcast dramatically reduced the working latency of my
> cable modem during the work-from-home pandemic, and they continue to work
> on improving that even more. I want to be sure to give credit where it is
> deserved.)
>
> Stuart Cheshire
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3295 bytes --]