Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC

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

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 8497 bytes --]

Basically, Eugene, the situation you are describing is calling for a
competitor to disrupt them!

This is such an old story - so many ISPs, especially WIPSs, started just
because they either didn't have any option or all those options available
were really terrible.

Don't you want to pick up the glove? :P

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 11:53 PM Eugene Y Chang <eugene.chang@ieee.org>
wrote:

> Frank,
> Thank you. What you suggest makes sense if it was objective!
>
> In my neighborhood, the ISP’s organization will feel they have nothing to
> learn from outsiders. (Worst, both major ISPs are just a subsidiary of
> another organization. They just implement corporate standards. The local
> managers are not motivated to deviate from their corporate marching orders.)
>
> A public promotion (campaign) of modern best practices is needed. Then I
> need to have this campaign spill over to the subscriber community. The
> business community needs to be educated that their productivity will
> improve. The social leaders need to learn that their community will get
> better service. Then, and only then, can I see the ISP feeling the need to
> improve. It helps if the improvement is just open-source software on their
> hardware investment.
>
>
> Gene
> ----------------------------------------------
> Eugene Chang
> IEEE Life Senior Member
>
>
>
> On Apr 30, 2024, at 11:35 AM, Frantisek Borsik <frantisek.borsik@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> 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: 18462 bytes --]