So I'm trying to parse that ... On 20 August 2017 at 13:50, Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins...@gmail.com> wrote: > It's interesting that we're seeing around the globe a push to impose by > legislation net neutrality, as a means to prevent market forces who want to > do exactly that.
So market forces want to have net neutrality, yet legislation for net neutrality is trying to prevent these market forces attaining net neutrality? >Rather puts them on the wrong side of history. While the > differential exists between value as dictated by the market, and > legislatively imposed externalities, > we'll continue to see content > industries subsidising the advertisers. > So content providers are paying advertisers to display advertising, rather than being paid by advertisers? > Kind regards > > Paul Wilkins > > On 20 August 2017 at 11:49, Mark Smith <markzzzsm...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Geoff arrived early, tried out QoS, wrote a book on it, then gave up on >> it. >> >> http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2012-06/noqos.html >> >> >> >> On 20 Aug. 2017 11:07 am, "Paul Wilkins" <paulwilkins...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> For those who arrived late, this 2015 article goes to some length to >> elaborate on the QoS ramifications of the FCC's Title II ruling for >> broadband: >> >> >> https://www.cnet.com/news/13-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-fccs-net-neutrality-regulation/L >> >> Kind regards >> >> Paul Wilkins >> >> On 19 August 2017 at 15:49, Jamie Baddeley <jamie.badde...@vpc.co.nz> >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 19 August 2017 at 16:57, Matt Palmer <mpal...@hezmatt.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 01:00:39PM +1000, Paul Wilkins wrote: >>>> > If your client sites have redundant links, you can get massive >>>> > performance >>>> > benefit by routing bulk transfer via the backup path. >>>> > >>>> > As for there is no QoS on the internet, that's mostly because US >>>> > service >>>> > providers are legislatively blocked from what would be a departure >>>> > from net >>>> > neutrality. >>>> >>>> <eyeroll> >>>> >>>> It's got nothing to do with Net Neutrality. If it was, (a) it would >>>> have >>>> happened long before any of that got started, and (b) the rest of the >>>> world, >>>> which is not similarly constrained, would be doing it, and everything >>>> would >>>> be just peachy. >>>> >>>> No, the problem with QoS on the Internet is the same as allowing senders >>>> to >>>> mark e-mails with priorities: everyone thinks *their* traffic is >>>> important, >>>> so everyone marks their packets / e-mails as "TOP PRIORITY", and you're >>>> back >>>> to exactly the same situation you're in now, where everything's >>>> best-effort >>>> and nobody is particularly happy. >>>> >>>> - Matt >>>> >>> Indeed. There is no QoS on the Internet because Best Effort is the only >>> standard everyone can agree on. Of course some 'Best Efforts' are better >>> than others, but that's life. >>> >>> Now, you can use some of the various techniques described in this thread. >>> But that's not QoS. It's just making a better effort. Which is good. >>> >>> jamie >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> AusNOG mailing list >>> AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net >>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> AusNOG mailing list >> AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net >> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog > > > > _______________________________________________ > AusNOG mailing list > AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net > http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog > _______________________________________________ AusNOG mailing list AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog