I put it on hackernews: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37694306
I too strongly support formal NN rules, and am in general, against some but certainly not all of the title II regulation, and unlike jason, perhaps, tend to want to supercede lawyers´ claims that it can only be solved via legal means with somehow providing sufficient technical advice and technology to make the truly needed things happen faster. I disagree thoroughly with the call for 100/20 nationwide, as one example that can be better addressed and more quickly, by fixing bufferbloat, and shoring up those with 10/1 service or none, to a level of 25/10. It is hard to understand the renewed fuss and furor, when law meets technical reality. "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled" - Richard Feynman. The only cynical observation I have, is that the entire mess generates billable hours and clickbait. https://www.vox.com/technology/2023/9/28/23893138/fcc-net-neutrality-returns vs https://www.lightreading.com/regulatory-politics/at-mwc-fcc-s-carr-denounces-net-neutrality-revival-as-a-dead-end I really enjoyed reading "Jessica Rosenworcel´s" down to earth and practical comments on tuesday: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-397257A1.pdf particularly her admonishment for "no death threats this time¨, and calls for moderation such as: "They say Title II is heavy-handed. And if we were seeking comment on applying Title II to broadband in its entirety, they might have a point. But instead, we are proposing a light touch. Back in 2015, when the FCC last had net neutrality rules upheld by the courts, the FCC chose to forbear from 27 provisions of Title II of the Communications Act and over 700 agency regulations for broadband and broadband providers. We are sticking with that approach. They say this is a stalking horse for rate regulation. Nope. No how, no way. We know competition is the best way to bring down rates for consumers. And approaches like the Affordable Connectivity Program are the best bet for making sure service is affordable for all. They say nothing bad has happened. Again, states stepped into the void created by the FCC retreating from net neutrality. I think it is time for Washington to step back in with a national policy to make sure internet access is fast, open, and fair." On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 10:10 AM Livingood, Jason <jason_living...@comcast.com> wrote: > > On 9/28/23, 02:25, "Bloat on behalf of Sebastian Moeller via Bloat" > <bloat-boun...@lists.bufferbloat.net > <mailto:bloat-boun...@lists.bufferbloat.net> on behalf of > bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>> wrote: > > But the core issue IMHO really was an economic one, the over-subscription > > ratios that worked before torrenting simply did not cut it any more in an > > environment when customers actually tried to use their contracted access > > rates "quantitatively". > > It was more complicated than that. At least in cable networks it came at the > end of single channel DOCSIS 2.0 devices, as cable upgraded to channel > bonding in DOCSIS 3.0 - which to your point brought dramatic increases in > capacity. That was happening at the same time P2P was becoming popular. On > the other hand, customers were congesting their own connections pretty > pervasively - trying to use VoIP while their P2P client was active. At the > time the P2P protocol tended to be pretty aggressive and smothered real-time > apps (if you gave the client 1 Mbps US it would use it, if 10 Mbps - used > that 100% as well, 25 Mbps - same, etc.). > > The answer ended up being a mix of more capacity, apps being more responsive > to other LAN demands, and then advancements in congestion control & queuing. > But there were many customers who were basically self-congesting w/P2P and > VoIP running in their home. > > > but this is why e.g. my bit torrent could affect your VoIP, simply by > > pushing the whole segment into upload capacity congestion... (ISPs in > > theory could fix this by plain old QoS engineering, but the issue at hand > > was with a non-ISP VoIP/SIP service and there QoS becomes tricky if the ISP > > as these packets need to be identified in a way that is not game-able**) > > Sure - for their own (nascent & small scale) digital voice products. But to > 3rd party VoIP - no one then was really doing inter-domain DSCP marking > end-to-end (still are not). The non-ISP offering here was the big driver of > consumer complaints. > > > ****) This is not to diss the press, they are doing what they are supposed > > to do, but it just shows that active regulation is a tricky business, and a > > light touch typically "looks better" (even though I see no real evidence it > > actually works better). > > It's not made easier in the US where one can strongly support formal national > NN rules but be against putting it under Title-II regulation vs. Title-I. > IANAL so cannot properly explain the nuances. Ultimately legislation is the > best solution, as this will just be in the courts for years, but our US > Congress is not the most functional body these days and people have tried to > do legislation for many years. > > Jason > -- Oct 30: https://netdevconf.info/0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-bof.html Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos _______________________________________________ Bloat mailing list Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
