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-yw1-f177.google.com (mail-yw1-f177.google.com [209.85.128.177]) by mail.toke.dk (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 430E4935DF3 for ; Sat, 08 Nov 2025 19:32:07 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-yw1-f177.google.com with SMTP id 00721157ae682-786a85a68c6so17580807b3.3 for ; Sat, 08 Nov 2025 10:32:07 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1762626726; x=1763231526; 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=+mRWaBJvUnEfkN4XzgWpctSv03DgPXkdFOL6qoGEA28=; b=q4LrH0hETT+RLCB8CCLpaYAVgBT0DpJ0NUxk2y+znTQm2bjJf24IFYsXr7UA8NRnAw ls1qDC0IVsZazbWlbjcUaowVZBXLyV912icj4Ubcx5ysxP1Ll4TuBvJ8fLEeoUWpnm3C kNQtH1KylyMZ4FPgKj+itNvcNMOu8w8q8arCQ7AK5TzPPcqw5UaidTAyOXLF4Bu3rr5V gNJIpJQOsV7wUTWcYRXDDbXNE+9z+xccZKD9NLr82SUC9fePkM6yov6sndvVgRzmZ8zq Md4VvIbbw/sTom1VBA8eEPL61FNJ7iAijafy0pc61mrw78Dbue1KEQiy4H29/7qDA3BU Vo9A== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCU1cqc4SFN7Dmi0qzyjeqflQ012wxLxoYvOeiq8dTXKKwbmj+ku8dG2z3xUW/XKCGM24k7kM/w7Ww==@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yz2XKlxwp6MDLBfJrbasw3CuH17q7C9zFvU1ZFZLJ3jIgQHSY1N 9mHpXIb+g7Y4YrxfVxHUyEiZh8ugVIhh+UjRk/wM1PUDzQq8jlz/M6lS4II9f9eGcdpuLZwEICt l23iVgoJEXs3Dds0tNzhgCXVzbl9igUFZmkZu X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncsKJJaPDBv5iIla0xvjjNxRsm14+fyzuGThGojm25SCjRcdWxKmQd+wclUHCj4 eXrHC3d0XTohXSqIPnitSHecK2hTBKfDdEvKP2BeO63EzVYc9pJXwVOQWBb+Npv8JrtAk00/Odd G6/zJ/yc204kcGV1nmLtCQH+UzfIAbm3NAk8AWC67w4s3GB51EidFHMeMYvCe7bZ6DWNjTveByx GYhSjyNhvReUEzBAqbnxHeeRTIff+r2sYu/yxRABEjulTxlNW87fxyjlqmB X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHdqcAw75zF6nWuFFyTwzhyINQi3QwyDs6hI119jSe/bp71VtvXj4DL4ZqMnNDVpF9DbUsK1nNgrYd/AsW/Nrc= X-Received: by 2002:a05:690c:2007:b0:787:afbb:7243 with SMTP id 00721157ae682-787d5474dddmr24198297b3.66.1762626726512; Sat, 08 Nov 2025 10:32:06 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <9390D9DA-3C77-429F-A41D-E0FECD52FF06@connectivitycap.com> <2036296F-1567-4B66-BD8C-3AB49EBD5AA3@connectivitycap.com> <3934C9BE-EED5-4DF7-9451-E438E0FEFE3E@connectivitycap.com> <700f5e50-69b9-4a73-96a6-d097eb67bce2@rogers.com> <1FB1F340-88B7-4D57-B89C-C670339BAA47@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: <1FB1F340-88B7-4D57-B89C-C670339BAA47@gmx.de> From: J Pan Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2025 10:31:55 -0800 X-Gm-Features: AWmQ_bn9YJG9M-nFyZakIm6SLh6LLJW8CbuQN2SFyMXB4raIl6UxOYA3ab1hOcM Message-ID: To: Sebastian Moeller Cc: David Collier-Brown , starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID-Hash: GXZCEGMPSAFJ2Q7GHOLQZVOEG4PPC2VQ X-Message-ID-Hash: GXZCEGMPSAFJ2Q7GHOLQZVOEG4PPC2VQ 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] Re: [LibreQoS] Re: Re: Keynote: QoE/QoS - Bandwidth Is A Lie! at WISPAPALOOZA 2025 (October 16) List-Id: "Starlink has bufferbloat. Bad." Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: 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/~pa= n On Sat, Nov 8, 2025 at 10:13=E2=80=AFAM Sebastian Moeller via Starlink wrote: > > Hi David, > > > > On 8. Nov 2025, at 19:04, David Collier-Brown via Starlink wrote: > > > > A niggle: Canada has bad experience with only two competing network pro= viders in a given province. We got, and get, duopolies. In my case, I can h= ave 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.C= A/~pan > >> > >> On Sat, Nov 8, 2025 at 8:00=E2=80=AFAM dan 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 combinatio= n > >>> 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, no= t > >>> 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 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 floati= ng > >>>> 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 influen= ced by memories of experience when transmission delay did matter. At one t= ime 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=E2=80=99ve not run the numbers but I=E2=80=99m pret= ty sure transimission speed mattered for video, even for crummy quality vid= eo, 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 could= deliver 1mbps service! And wouldn=E2=80=99t it be cool to have 1M home on= line at 10x the speed of ISDN?=E2=80=9D. It was cool! And two more orders= of magnitude 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 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