Hi Dave,
so I think you have three audiences that should learn about this:
a) end-users (my hot-take was tailored for end-users)
b) politicians
c) industry people (C-suite members of ISPs*)
I think you need three different one paragraph summaries tailored to each
groups focus.
a) end users
I would stress the "you can improve your link today with little work" to make
it fit for video conferencing "under working conditions".
I would not wade into the swamp that is "gaming" any deeper than necessary (so
have a sentence along the lines of "these described methods will obviously also
help other
latency-sensitive applications like gaming"). Why avoid gaming? Gamers are
quite opinionated and take promises often literally, hence are easy to
disappoint so better under-promise, but over-deliver.
b) politicians
Here I would emphasize that while fiber-to-everyone is the ultimate goal
getting latency under control will result in a noticeable "better" (because
subjectively more responsive) internet experience for those that will have to
wait longer for fiber. I simply assume that fiber-everywhere is the goal across
the aisle in the US, at least over here all major parties agree about the
ultimate goal and just disagree how to get there, with the party in opposition
magically always seeing more urgency ;).
So push this as a relative low-effort/low-cost method to noticeably improve the
internet experience for the electorate...
c) industry people
This has two groups, those that run large internal networks and ISPs. I think
for the first group the arguments for a) and b) could be re-used (b) reframed
as low-cost ways to get more mileage out of the existing network infrastructure
with a few targeted replacements/upgrades/configuration changes).
For the second group I am a bit at a loss, as the arguments a) and b) MIGHT not
be all that attractive for someone selling internet-access priced by
"top-speed", making lower speeds more enjoyable/usable seems a bit counter
productive... One pitch could be a marketable advantage over the competition,
but that requires actual competition.
Not sure how to give the enlightened ones arguments to convince their peers.
Regards
Sebastian
*) some are enlightened already
P.S.: QoS, vs QoE
Cause and effect, means and end... What the users will evaluate are their
experiences; traditional QoS can be a means to improve that experience, with a
hitherto often neglected aspect being latency-under-load which above a bare
minimum access rate seems to correlate stronger with user experience than
top-speeds.
To convince CFO, or congresscritters I would think the best would be a simple
mobile demonstration platform... together with argument b) above
> On Nov 12, 2022, at 00:16, Dave Taht via Bloat <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> If you were to try to summarize this *in a paragraph*, what would you say?
>
> https://www.bitag.org/documents/BITAG_latency_explained.pdf
>
> (yes, I helped write this, but squeezing it down to less than 3 pages
> is beyond my capabilities, much less a paragraph, and by the time we
> hit the recommendations section, things had got too political to make
> sane recommendations)
>
> Also QoS, vs QoE. Try to imagine explaining the need to a CFO, or
> congresscritter. Feel free to take more than a paragraph.
>
>
> --
> This song goes out to all the folk that thought Stadia would work:
> https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dtaht_the-mushroom-song-activity-6981366665607352320-FXtz
> Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC
> _______________________________________________
> Bloat mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
_______________________________________________
Bloat mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
