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

[Eugene Y Chang <eugene.chang@ieee.org>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4276 bytes --]



> On Jun 7, 2024, at 7:51 AM, David Lang <david@lang.hm> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 7 Jun 2024, Eugene Y Chang via Starlink wrote:
> 
>> A lot of business processes use a web portal, e.g. SalesForce. Their productivity is highly sensitive to latency. The closes categorization that legislators/regulators might relate to is telemarketing. A lot of business solutions use the similar technology but not for telemarketing. Any ideas on a better name for this group of business solutions. Having a named use case that is sensitive to latency would help.
> 
> I would expect that any ISP tht does well for 5-10 would work for that use case. Does it really need a separate category listed?
> 

5-10? Units?

The existing list of use cases can be delivered with terrible latency.
I am asking if we need a use case where it is obvious that latency has an impact.

Our challenge is ordinary people don’t understand why they should care about latency. The need latency to become personal.

Gene

> David Lang
> 
>>> On Jun 6, 2024, at 8:20 PM, Sebastian Moeller via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi MIchael,
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On 7. Jun 2024, at 01:10, Michael Richardson via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Sebastian Moeller via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>>>> [SM] Yes, however Gaming is not in the enumerated list of use-cases the
>>>>> regulator cares about (in the context of the minimal internet quality
>>>>> end users are guaranteed).
>>>> 
>>>> That's too bad, because online work/school are effectively a technology
>>>> subset of gaming :-)
>>> 
>>> [SM] I tend to agree that gamers can be seen as canaries in the coal mine regarding latency, but in this specific case my opion on what should or should not be taken into account is irrelevant, because the list of use-cases is explicitly mentioned in the text of the law...  First by referencing DIRECTIVE (EU) 2018/1972 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 11 December 2018 establishing the European Electronic Communications Code
>>> https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32018L1972#d1e32-196-1
>>> ANNEX V
>>> MINIMUM SET OF SERVICES WHICH THE ADEQUATE BROADBAND INTERNET ACCESS SERVICE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 84(3) SHALL BE CAPABLE OF SUPPORTING
>>> (1) E-mail
>>> (2) search engines enabling search and finding of all type of information(
>>> 3) basic training and education online tools
>>> (4) online newspapers or news
>>> (5) buying or ordering goods or services online
>>> (6) job searching and job searching tools
>>> (7) professional networking
>>> (8) internet banking
>>> (9) eGovernment service use
>>> (10) social media and instant messaging
>>> (11) calls and video calls (standard quality)
>>> 
>>> and then by adding
>>> "Teleheimarbeit einschließlich Verschlüsselungsverfahren im üblichen Umfang und eine für Verbraucher marktübliche Nutzung von Online-Inhaltediensten ermöglichen."
>>> 
>>> in the text iof the law, which roughly translates to:
>>> home office/remote desktop including common encryption methods as well as a the capability to per-use on-line content services on a level appropriate for consumers.
>>> 
>>> Note how gaming is not enumerated and at best could be read into the 'in-line content' clause... or maybe the "(5) buying or ordering goods or services online". I see an uphill battle arguing for loiw latency if all I can bring, is 'gamers desire/require' lower latencies... (not that this argument is wrong, but it ewill give me little leverage as gaming, for all the revenue it brings (bigger than Hollywood) is not held in high regard).
>>> 
>>>> And gamers seem to know good quality, it's somewhat easy to test and gamers
>>>> aren't afraid to demand it, changing ISPs if they have to.
>>> 
>>> [SM] The context here is a right to getting internet access with specific minimum guarantees at an affordable price, people who will need to use this law likely have no real options... otherwise no need to pound on that law...
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink


[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 9124 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Message signed with OpenPGP --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]