I think you’ll find the push for net neutrality is driven because business interests often come before the community and people don’t like that; no matter how much some may not like it, the Internet has become a utility for countries in the same way electricity and water are. Look at the absurdity of the power supply in NSW/SA or the actions of ISPs in the USA and you see why people are lobbying their representatives for net neutrality. Businesses don’t always act in the interest of the community and legislation like Title II is a response to that. From: AusNOG [mailto:ausnog-boun...@lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of Paul Wilkins Sent: Monday, 21 August 2017 12:27 AM To: <ausnog@lists.ausnog.net> <ausnog@lists.ausnog.net> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] QoS on Internet traffic
There's market forces both sides, the content providers who want a premium service, and the advertisers, whose business model is subsidised by the imposed market failure. That's how externalities work. But legislating for market failures to subsidise the vested interests of advertisers, means consumers paying in terms of worse service than their money pays for. Essentially a differentiated tariff model would mean consumers who want high quality content/real time services, could have those demands met in the market. The advertisers resist this, because they would be relegated to carriage with bulk data. Kind regards Paul Wilkins On 20 August 2017 at 14:23, Mark Smith <markzzzsm...@gmail.com<mailto:markzzzsm...@gmail.com>> wrote: So I'm trying to parse that ... On 20 August 2017 at 13:50, Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins...@gmail.com<mailto: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<mailto: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<https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/38L3BqUknvkIM?domain=potaroo.net> >> >> >> >> On 20 Aug. 2017 11:07 am, "Paul Wilkins" >> <paulwilkins...@gmail.com<mailto: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<https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/q0YwBQfdZ4dF7?domain=cnet.com> >> >> Kind regards >> >> Paul Wilkins >> >> On 19 August 2017 at 15:49, Jamie Baddeley >> <jamie.badde...@vpc.co.nz<mailto:jamie.badde...@vpc.co.nz>> >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 19 August 2017 at 16:57, Matt Palmer >>> <mpal...@hezmatt.org<mailto: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<mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net> >>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog<https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/44GqB7UvQkvtn?domain=lists.ausnog.net> >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> AusNOG mailing list >> AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net<mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net> >> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog<https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/44GqB7UvQkvtn?domain=lists.ausnog.net> > > > > _______________________________________________ > AusNOG mailing list > AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net<mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net> > http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog<https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/44GqB7UvQkvtn?domain=lists.ausnog.net> >
_______________________________________________ AusNOG mailing list AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
