Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

[Frantisek Borsik <frantisek.borsik@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6576 bytes --]

Eugene - the easiest thing in the case of your ISP would be tell him about
us: https://libreqos.io

He can take a look on it, join our support chat and get help if he won't be
able to get it up and running:
https://chat.libreqos.io/join/fvu3cerayyaumo377xwvpev6/

But most of the ISPs don't need to talk with us at all, it's easy to deploy.


All the best,

Frank

Frantisek (Frank) Borsik



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

Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714

iMessage, mobile: +420775230885

Skype: casioa5302ca

frantisek.borsik@gmail.com


On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 11:22 PM Eugene Y Chang via Starlink <
starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:

> OK. I need help teaching my ISPs that they can do this without threatening
> their business model.
> Who can help me?
>
> A public demo? Yes! Are you saying that if our (my) neighborhood ISP
> adopted the lessons from the public demo, most of the latency issues would
> be solved? What won’t get fixed? How do we make this a widely adopted best
> practice? Am I crying over issues that are already fixed? Does this
> simplify the issues at the FCC?
>
> Gene
> ----------------------------------------------
> Eugene Chang
> IEEE Life Senior Member
>
>
>
>
> On Apr 30, 2024, at 11:07 AM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Just fq codel or cake everything and you get all that.
>
> Libreqos is free software for those that do not want to update their data
> plane. Perhaps we should do a public demo of what it can do for every tech
> on the planet. Dsl benefits, fiber does also (but it is the stats that
> matter more on fiber because the customer wifi becomes bloated)
>
> Starlink merely fq codeled their wifi and did some aqm work (not codel I
> think) to get the amazing results they are getting today. I don't have the
> waveform test results handy but they are amazing. I feel a sea change in
> the wind...
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2024, 12:51 PM Eugene Y Chang via Starlink <
> starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>
>> Colin,
>> I am overwhelmed with all the reasons that prevent low(er) or consistent
>> latency.
>> I think that our best ISP offerings should deliver graceful, agile, or
>> nimble service. Sure, handle all the high-volume data. The high-volume
>> service just shouldn’t preclude graceful service. Yes, the current ISP
>> practices fall short. Can we help them improve their service?
>>
>> Am I asking too much?
>>
>> Gene
>> ----------------------------------------------
>> Eugene Chang
>> IEEE Life Senior Member
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Apr 30, 2024, at 9:31 AM, Colin_Higbie via Starlink <
>> starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>
>> Gene,
>>
>> I think the lion's share of other people (many brilliant people here) on
>> this thread are focused on keeping latency down when under load. I
>> generally just read and don't contribute on those discussions, because
>> that's not my area of expertise. I only posted my point on bandwidth, not
>> to detract from the importance of reducing latency, but to correct what I
>> believed to be an important error on minimum bandwidth required to be able
>> to perform standard Internet functions.
>>
>> To my surprise, there was pushback on the figure, so I've responded to
>> try to educate this group on streaming usage in the hope that the people
>> working on the latency problem under load (core reason for this group to
>> exist) can also be aware of the minimum bandwidth needs to ensure they
>> don't plan based on bad assumptions.
>>
>> For a single user, minimum bandwidth (independent of latency) needs to be
>> at least 25Mbps assuming the goal is to provide access to all standard
>> Internet services. Anything short of that will deny users access to the
>> primary streaming services, and more specifically won't be able to watch 4K
>> HDR video, which is the market standard for streaming services today and
>> likely will remain at that level for the next several years.
>>
>> I think it's fine to offer lower-cost options that don't deliver 4K HDR
>> video (not everyone cares about that), but at least 25Mbps should be
>> available to an Internet customer for any new Internet service rollout.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Colin
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Starlink <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> On Behalf Of
>> starlink-request@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 3:05 PM
>> To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> Subject: Starlink Digest, Vol 37, Issue 15
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 09:04:43 -1000
>> From: Eugene Y Chang <eugene.chang@ieee.org>
>> To: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>, Dave Taht via Starlink
>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC
>> Message-ID: <438B1BC4-D465-497A-B6BA-700E1D411036@ieee.org>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>> I am always surprised how complicated these discussions become.
>> (Surprised mostly because I forgot the kind of issues this community care
>> about.) The discussion doesn’t shed light on the following scenarios.
>>
>> While watching stream content, activating controls needed to switch
>> content sometimes (often?) have long pauses. I attribute that to buffer
>> bloat and high latency.
>>
>> With a happy household user watching streaming media, a second user could
>> have terrible shopping experience with Amazon. The interactive response
>> could be (is often) horrible. (Personally, I would be doing email and
>> working on a shared doc. The Amazon analogy probably applies to more
>> people.)
>>
>> How can we deliver graceful performance to both persons in a household?
>> Is seeking graceful performance too complicated to improve?
>> (I said “graceful” to allow technical flexibility.)
>>
>> Gene
>> ----------------------------------------------
>> Eugene Chang
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Starlink mailing list
>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Starlink mailing list
>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 13458 bytes --]