HI Michael,

> On May 22, 2022, at 18:10, Michael Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> 
> https://www.thelocal.de/20220504/explained-how-germany-is-trying-to-tackle-its-slow-internet-problem/
> 
> Near the end of the article:
>   "In addition to the minimum download and upload speeds, the government
>   says the latency (reaction time) should also be no more than 150
>   milliseconds."
> 
> It would be nice if they used the (Apple) RPM metric instead, as more people
> would be be able to immediately measure that from a phone/laptop.

        This is IMHO a slightly different kettle of fish, alas. This is the 
legal reference of what is/will be considered to be the minimum internet grade 
people in Germany are entitled to (for some measure of entitled). As is all 
measurements are against the nationally certified measurement infrastructure 
(breitbandmessung.de) operated for the national regulatory agency 
(Bundesnetzagentur: short BNetzA) by zafaco. I am willing to bet the 150ms are 
a direct result from old ITU acceptable mouth to ear one-way delay data.
        I agree that it would be helpful to convince the BNetzA to switch their 
latency measurement from idle latency to latency under load (especially since 
the ITU numbers really only make sense if interpreted as 
latency-under-load/working-conditions). Personally I think an IETF RFC 
(currently in the making thanks to great folks at apple and other places) will 
have more sway than (just) pointing to apple's Macos/iOS internal/proprietary 
networkQuality tool.

> I wonder if some Apple PR person might be willing to respond to this effort
> in a complementary way and suggest this.
> (And I'm not an apple user)

        That could help, if someone from apple would talk to BNetzA* pointing 
at the IETF effort and explain why they implemented the networkQuality tool; 
not sure though how such a contact would happen (full disclosure I know exactly 
0 person inside the BNetzA or politics that would need to be convinced).


Regards
        Sebastian

*) I had a discussion about reporting MTU per direction which span multiple 
years between me trying to explain why this is worthwhile (and apparently 
failing), and them implementing something, albeit half-arsed: for their servers 
they report the servers configured MTU and not the path MTU in download 
direction... I tried to also explain why latency under load would be immensely 
intersting, but so far crickets....


> 
> --
> ]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
> ]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
> ]     [email protected]  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    
> [
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Bloat mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat

_______________________________________________
Bloat mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat

Reply via email to