The bufferbloat "movement" infuriates me because it's light on science and heavy on publicity. It reminds me of my dad's story about his buddy who tried to make his car go faster by cutting a hole in the firewall underneath the gas petal so he could push it down further.
There's lots of research on this dating back to the 90's, starting with CBQ and RED. The existing research is underdeployed, and merely shortening the buffers is definitely the wrong move. We should use an adaptive algorithm like BLUE or DBL, which are descendents of RED. These don't have constants that need tuning like queue-length (FIFO/bufferbloat) or drop probability (RED), and they're meant to handle TCP and non-TCP (RTP/UDP) flows differently. Linux does support these in 'tc', but (1) we need to do it by default, not after painful amounts of undocumented configuration, and (2) to do them at >1Gbit/s ideally we need NIC support. FWIH Cisco supports DBL in cat45k sup4 and newer but I'm not positive, and they leave it off by default.
For file sharing, HFSC is probably more appropriate. It's the descendent of CBQ, and is supported in 'tc'. But to do any queueing on cable Internet, Linux needs to be running, with 'tc', *on the cable modem*. With DSL you can somewhat fake it because you know what speed the uplink is, so you can simulate the ATM bottleneck inside the kernel and then emit prescheduled packets to the DSL modem over Ethernet. The result is that no buffer accumulates in the DSL modem, and packets get layed out onto the ATM wire with tiny gaps between them---this is what I do, and it basically works. With cable you don't know the conditions of the wire so this trick is impossible. Also, end users can only effectively schedule their upstream bandwidth, so ISP's need to somehow give you control of the downstream, *configurable* control through reflected upstream TOS/DSCP bits or something, to mark your filesharing traffic differently since obviously we can't trust them to do it.
Buffer bloat infuriates me because it's blitheringly ignorant of implemented research more than a decade old and is allowing people to feel like they're doing something about the problem when really they're just swapping one bad constant for another. It's the wrong prescription. The fact he's gotten this far shows our peer review process is broken.