From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Authentication-Results: mail.toke.dk; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=; dkim=fail; arc=none (Message is not ARC signed); dmarc=fail (Used From Domain Record) header.from=uvic.ca policy.dmarc=none Received: from mail-yx1-f52.google.com (mail-yx1-f52.google.com [74.125.224.52]) by mail.toke.dk (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EDF0B936588 for ; Sat, 08 Nov 2025 21:09:07 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-yx1-f52.google.com with SMTP id 956f58d0204a3-640c857ce02so1573155d50.0 for ; Sat, 08 Nov 2025 12:09:07 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1762632546; x=1763237346; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-gg:x-gm-message-state:from :to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=8501rVfqnYAwsSplEAfBC1dPgGbQcX6UeD5HUlitUFw=; b=lrc2ckAVQnVAw3fkECjZtH3oRsAm6fcEjCH9POiNwXI37h/j3DKK23uS7H9jT568BC zX+mMt5jCEtKdlSynwwyaEW+85RieAY0U2ho+AAVLPOhlpD8bAs5DUxPGpQ3Al7agZ+3 KZNHB1PY6ZKT5VcMYgOPUk2SqlwYqFJOMlCuIfDjDfVh1f7p1sqdbCjY5Uis6/8+itoq do4KTHVgUFqHjs0YAyPUlq5myd9m0LMiGN3k9bMkmQnlhSD+y6xfp3e5U9wrBs9qOMKK c3FXdm6bPzqvJhypRfxf+or37Mov8BBiEWasGXRj9Cmndgvjqazsbv1IqxV7EaJpBW5V 9sLg== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWBh6JIGi3CIXcazQBa0EMsmjXe/NoTqBUalWiRyyvfwFFyibhYSC0pyPsUDW0Q+692rJlo9QsGhg==@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxSLGnuiCk7spB238tN46CN4G4caa9MfX+81HzL7bF0McfhaC8B oUiogY6oqKz5SyqPPzfv6ot7D58MF6Mck0toAQSsM4K7gZiHlkJLOTH5s3okphjlTBO7pTqxExI wzWnd8XiUNELN2uAd+ALoTu8PqqCKD+8= X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncvLhDL/tYgrkEi/0qNdfkYEghch+wLsQnK2N4w4FsVDa+OLFXDDEc24L26IT/4 SErV/TpUVda+QZv1F7YOERUe7pTZ/v/fMt+0vcZPifwBhdIlGaj4PBLTBgaNuWwoKQYlzDNBeiu EZNuzgpR4L5Sws7rxfCgN4+twNxdNEAIOkif+5x/F/2wAFuRB/HwsQLPEO7352SS6E9/bJ/wFmx 1QQ9KIyPLwd1DYp7smI/3DPFCnl2ACINzXVRKbLXEttUPdt2IXRZ+rOApHU X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHaL6Hb/v4YrrNPvUNwEEE2swoDAU9tBzQqVPrgP1UKVBSA1ikmUXUT0E52/F66yDawVOyW20eD7vEEu35AizE= X-Received: by 2002:a05:690e:4189:b0:629:acb6:d8a with SMTP id 956f58d0204a3-640d4585255mr2950314d50.26.1762632545992; Sat, 08 Nov 2025 12:09:05 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <176262673045.1347.14550047629682790885@gauss> In-Reply-To: From: J Pan Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2025 12:08:55 -0800 X-Gm-Features: AWmQ_bmpO94b1n0M-6nwm4fCnH-Kl6h8dcPGYR9i_6CZJDZcEyNvbHytH-_LMjE Message-ID: To: Sebastian Moeller Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?David_Fern=C3=A1ndez?= , starlink Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID-Hash: PZSV7VQ5TKIJVNXD7KA46445ZPFYYOI4 X-Message-ID-Hash: PZSV7VQ5TKIJVNXD7KA46445ZPFYYOI4 X-MailFrom: panatuvicdotca@gmail.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list Subject: [Starlink] =?utf-8?q?Re=3A_=5BLibreQoS=5D_Re=3A_Re=3A_Keynote=3A_QoE/QoS_-_=C2=A0_=C2=A0_=C2=A0_=C2=A0_Bandwidth_Is_A_Lie!=C2=A0_at_WISPAPALOOZA_2025_=28October_16=29?= List-Id: "Starlink has bufferbloat. Bad." Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: 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/~pa= n On Sat, Nov 8, 2025 at 11:46=E2=80=AFAM Sebastian Moeller via Starlink wrote: > > > > > On 8. Nov 2025, at 20:30, David Fern=C3=A1ndez via Starlink wrote: > > > > "Infrastructure (and at least access networks are at least > > infrastructure-ish IMHO) is not something where the free market typical= ly > > 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 mo= nopoly 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 mark= et, but would prefer a monopoly or monopsony, alas typically the supply sid= e is better positioned to reach that, especially with things that lend them= selves to natural monopolies like infrastructure. > > > > > Then, there is roaming and the prohibition of ISPs in contracts to shar= e > > your connection, e.g. with neighbors, so you walk around any city and y= ou > > 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 > >> Subject: [Starlink] Re: [LibreQoS] Re: Re: Keynote: QoE/QoS - > >> Bandwidth Is A Lie! at WISPAPALOOZA 2025 (October 16) > >> To: J Pan > >> Cc: dan , Jim Forster , > >> Frantisek Borsik , Cake List > >> , bloat , > >> codel@lists.bufferbloat.net, libreqos > >> , l4s-discuss@ietf.org, > >> starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net > >> Message-ID: <93519830-549F-459A-A737-792F18F3241C@gmx.de> > >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Dutf-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 hi= gher > >> 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 w= ould > >> 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 typica= lly > >> 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 we= b > >>> 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 laten= cy > >> increase under load is a decent proxy for the utility of a given acces= s > >> 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=E2=80=AFAM dan wrot= e: > >>>> > >>>> 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 combinati= on > >>>> with facebook testimonials, is that people have bad experiences with > >>>> wifi and they order a faster service from cable/fiber company and th= e > >>>> wifi just gets worse. This scenario I think is incredibly common an= d > >>>> seems to be a catalyst for 'speed isn't everything'. We come in wit= h > >>>> 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, n= ot > >>>> 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=E2=80=AFPM J Pan via LibreQoS > >>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> marketing is even worse. some claim 200mbps because 150mbps down an= d > >>>>> 50mbps up at peak data rate. of course, this is not the only proble= m > >>>>> 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 float= ing > >>>>> 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=E2=80=AFAM Jim Forster > >> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Exactly so. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Consumer expectations and service provider marketing may be > >> influenced by memories of experience when transmission delay did matte= r. > >> At one time I was very happy with my home ISDN connection, and even sh= ared > >> it with my neighbor. At about 128kbs, it was three orders of magnitud= e > >> slower than my home fiber link. I=E2=80=99ve not run the numbers but = I=E2=80=99m pretty > >> sure transimission speed mattered for video, even for crummy quality > >> video, So then when I learned a bit about digital video, and cable=E2= =80=99s 64 > >> QAM 27mbps channels, I got excited and thought, =E2=80=9Cwow, they cou= ld deliver > >> 1mbps service! And wouldn=E2=80=99t it be cool to have 1M home online= at 10x the > >> speed of ISDN?=E2=80=9D. It was cool! And two more orders of magnitu= de later, > >> here we are. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> =E2=80=94 Jim > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Nov 7, 2025, at 12:52=E2=80=AFPM, J Pan wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> latency is based on round-trip time, and one-way delay includes > >>>>>> transmission delay, propagation delay, queuing delay and processin= g > >>>>>> 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 an= d > >>>>>> affected by the buffer bloat a lot, and processing delay is anothe= r > >>>>>> variable. of course, transmission delay takes less and less portio= n 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), du= e 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.ne= t > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> 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