Re: new thread: QoS, latency, bandwidth and the FCC/net neutrality debate

[Herminio Hernandez, Jr.]

Here is another great video worth considering. It is very long but
informative https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Z_nBhfpmk4

On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 10:30 PM, Herminio Hernandez, Jr. <
herminio.hernande...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Here is a good presentation by Bryan Lunduke on NN
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csK3KspB-6A
>
> On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 10:24 PM, Herminio Hernandez Jr. <
> herminio.hernande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> My point was those abuses were addressed without the need of NN in the
>> past. NN IMO was a too heavy handed and misguided approach to a situation
>> which the previous system took care of.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Nov 25, 2017, at 9:52 PM, Brian Cluff  wrote:
>>
>> I think you forget that the neutrality was put into place specifically to
>> deal with the network providers messing with netflix among other service's
>> data in favor of their own services.  That IS how we dealt with it.
>>
>> You keep talking about being able to get optimized services, but those
>> are legal and common now.  Getting rid of net neutrality won't enable
>> those.  Throttling your competitors services to the point of degrading
>> their service isn't an optimized service.
>>
>> Brian Cluff
>>
>>
>> On 11/25/2017 07:24 PM, Herminio Hernandez, Jr. wrote:
>>
>> I do understand those concerns, but those types of abuses have existed in
>> the past and were dealt with before there was Net Neutrality. I do really
>> think that the bigger threat from the big content providers and not the
>> ISPs.
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 7:12 PM,  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I hear you.  If everyone would play fair I would think slicing up data
>>> usage is fair.  I watch a lot of YouTube, however I do not need 4k.  My
>>> main concern is for businesses who use the Internet to market and do
>>> business.  As you probably know there is a move from brick and mortar to
>>> online stores and more so to selling on Amazon.
>>>
>>> If there is no net neutrality and GoDaddy invests in timewarner, then
>>> timewarner could keep people from seeing your website that is hosted on
>>> HostGator. Then Godaddy could coerce you into moving to GoDaddy or pay a
>>> fee to GoDaddy or timewarner.
>>>
>>> I see some serious antitrust coming. We need to get ICAAN back and we
>>> need to keep the Internet the Wild West to some degree. I do see Google is
>>> headed for some antitrust law suites, and maybe Government oversight.
>>> Government oversight is scary given how corrupt our Government is.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2017-11-24 12:31, Herminio Hernandez, Jr. wrote:
>>>
>>> I will start with some thoughts on why I find the NN debate troubling.
>>> First there is a technical misunderstanding. NN is built on the idea that
>>> ISPs should treat all traffic equally. This concept is simply unrealistic.
>>> Bandwidth is a limited resource there is only so much data that a Ethernet
>>> port can transmit and receive. Also things like MTU size, latency, jitter
>>> all impact the reliable transmission of data which bring me to my other
>>> point. Not all traffic is the same. There are night and day differences
>>> between TCP and UDP traffic. For example UDP (which is what most voice and
>>> video is) is faster than TCP. The drawback to this is that UDP does not
>>> have the recovery features that TCP has in case of packet loss (ie sequence
>>> number and acknowledgment packets). There UDP applications are more prone
>>> to suffer when latency is high or links get saturated. To overcome this
>>> network engineer implement prioritization and traffic shaping to ensure
>>> these services are not impacted.
>>>
>>> As more content is consumed such as 4K video on the internet, the need
>>> for traffic shaping will only increase. Netflix already has the ability to
>>> push 100Gbps from their servers. That is a ton of data that needs to be
>>> prioritized by ISPs. This is not free there are serious costs involved in
>>> man hours and infrastructure. Someone needs to bear that cost. This is why
>>> I am not opposed to fast lanes. If Netflix is going to have ISPs ensure all
>>> of the massive amounts to data are push is delivered efficiently, then the
>>> ISPs should be free to charge a premium for this service. Netflix does not
>>> want to bear this cost, hense their support for Net Neutrality. They want
>>> the ISPs to bear the cost, but then result of that is we bear the cost via
>>> data caps.
>>>
>>> When you strip away all the slogans it all comes down to money and
>>> control. Data will be traffic shaped it is just who decides how unelected
>>> government bureaucrats pushing some public policy or market forces.
>>>
>>> Something else to consider a lot not all but a lot of the very same
>>> people who cry that the end of Net Neutrality will be end of free speech
>>> (no more free and open internet) have no issue saying Twiiter, Facebook,
>>> and Google (since they are 'private companies') have the right demonetize,
>>> obscure, or even ban individuals who e

Re: new thread: QoS, latency, bandwidth and the FCC/net neutrality debate

[Herminio Hernandez, Jr.]

Here is a good presentation by Bryan Lunduke on NN
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csK3KspB-6A

On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 10:24 PM, Herminio Hernandez Jr. <
herminio.hernande...@gmail.com> wrote:

> My point was those abuses were addressed without the need of NN in the
> past. NN IMO was a too heavy handed and misguided approach to a situation
> which the previous system took care of.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Nov 25, 2017, at 9:52 PM, Brian Cluff  wrote:
>
> I think you forget that the neutrality was put into place specifically to
> deal with the network providers messing with netflix among other service's
> data in favor of their own services.  That IS how we dealt with it.
>
> You keep talking about being able to get optimized services, but those are
> legal and common now.  Getting rid of net neutrality won't enable those.
> Throttling your competitors services to the point of degrading their
> service isn't an optimized service.
>
> Brian Cluff
>
>
> On 11/25/2017 07:24 PM, Herminio Hernandez, Jr. wrote:
>
> I do understand those concerns, but those types of abuses have existed in
> the past and were dealt with before there was Net Neutrality. I do really
> think that the bigger threat from the big content providers and not the
> ISPs.
>
> On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 7:12 PM,  wrote:
>
>>
>> I hear you.  If everyone would play fair I would think slicing up data
>> usage is fair.  I watch a lot of YouTube, however I do not need 4k.  My
>> main concern is for businesses who use the Internet to market and do
>> business.  As you probably know there is a move from brick and mortar to
>> online stores and more so to selling on Amazon.
>>
>> If there is no net neutrality and GoDaddy invests in timewarner, then
>> timewarner could keep people from seeing your website that is hosted on
>> HostGator. Then Godaddy could coerce you into moving to GoDaddy or pay a
>> fee to GoDaddy or timewarner.
>>
>> I see some serious antitrust coming. We need to get ICAAN back and we
>> need to keep the Internet the Wild West to some degree. I do see Google is
>> headed for some antitrust law suites, and maybe Government oversight.
>> Government oversight is scary given how corrupt our Government is.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2017-11-24 12:31, Herminio Hernandez, Jr. wrote:
>>
>> I will start with some thoughts on why I find the NN debate troubling.
>> First there is a technical misunderstanding. NN is built on the idea that
>> ISPs should treat all traffic equally. This concept is simply unrealistic.
>> Bandwidth is a limited resource there is only so much data that a Ethernet
>> port can transmit and receive. Also things like MTU size, latency, jitter
>> all impact the reliable transmission of data which bring me to my other
>> point. Not all traffic is the same. There are night and day differences
>> between TCP and UDP traffic. For example UDP (which is what most voice and
>> video is) is faster than TCP. The drawback to this is that UDP does not
>> have the recovery features that TCP has in case of packet loss (ie sequence
>> number and acknowledgment packets). There UDP applications are more prone
>> to suffer when latency is high or links get saturated. To overcome this
>> network engineer implement prioritization and traffic shaping to ensure
>> these services are not impacted.
>>
>> As more content is consumed such as 4K video on the internet, the need
>> for traffic shaping will only increase. Netflix already has the ability to
>> push 100Gbps from their servers. That is a ton of data that needs to be
>> prioritized by ISPs. This is not free there are serious costs involved in
>> man hours and infrastructure. Someone needs to bear that cost. This is why
>> I am not opposed to fast lanes. If Netflix is going to have ISPs ensure all
>> of the massive amounts to data are push is delivered efficiently, then the
>> ISPs should be free to charge a premium for this service. Netflix does not
>> want to bear this cost, hense their support for Net Neutrality. They want
>> the ISPs to bear the cost, but then result of that is we bear the cost via
>> data caps.
>>
>> When you strip away all the slogans it all comes down to money and
>> control. Data will be traffic shaped it is just who decides how unelected
>> government bureaucrats pushing some public policy or market forces.
>>
>> Something else to consider a lot not all but a lot of the very same
>> people who cry that the end of Net Neutrality will be end of free speech
>> (no more free and open internet) have no issue saying Twiiter, Facebook,
>> and Google (since they are 'private companies') have the right demonetize,
>> obscure, or even ban individuals who express ideas that other deem
>> "offensive". How is that promoting a "Free and Open Internet"?
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Eric Oyen  wrote:
>>
>>> well, as someone else suggested, a new thread.
>>>
>>> so, shall we start the discussion?
>>>
>>> ok, as mentioned, bandwidth is a limited resource. the question i

Re: new thread: QoS, latency, bandwidth and the FCC/net neutrality debate

[Herminio Hernandez Jr.]

My point was those abuses were addressed without the need of NN in the past. NN 
IMO was a too heavy handed and misguided approach to a situation which the 
previous system took care of. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 25, 2017, at 9:52 PM, Brian Cluff  wrote:
> 
> I think you forget that the neutrality was put into place specifically to 
> deal with the network providers messing with netflix among other service's 
> data in favor of their own services.  That IS how we dealt with it.
> 
> You keep talking about being able to get optimized services, but those are 
> legal and common now.  Getting rid of net neutrality won't enable those.  
> Throttling your competitors services to the point of degrading their service 
> isn't an optimized service.
> 
> Brian Cluff
> 
> 
>> On 11/25/2017 07:24 PM, Herminio Hernandez, Jr. wrote:
>> I do understand those concerns, but those types of abuses have existed in 
>> the past and were dealt with before there was Net Neutrality. I do really 
>> think that the bigger threat from the big content providers and not the 
>> ISPs.  
>> 
>>> On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 7:12 PM,  wrote:
>>> 
>>> I hear you.  If everyone would play fair I would think slicing up data 
>>> usage is fair.  I watch a lot of YouTube, however I do not need 4k.  My 
>>> main concern is for businesses who use the Internet to market and do 
>>> business.  As you probably know there is a move from brick and mortar to 
>>> online stores and more so to selling on Amazon.   
>>> 
>>> If there is no net neutrality and GoDaddy invests in timewarner, then 
>>> timewarner could keep people from seeing your website that is hosted on 
>>> HostGator. Then Godaddy could coerce you into moving to GoDaddy or pay a 
>>> fee to GoDaddy or timewarner.
>>> 
>>> I see some serious antitrust coming. We need to get ICAAN back and we need 
>>> to keep the Internet the Wild West to some degree. I do see Google is 
>>> headed for some antitrust law suites, and maybe Government oversight. 
>>> Government oversight is scary given how corrupt our Government is.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
 On 2017-11-24 12:31, Herminio Hernandez, Jr. wrote:
 
 I will start with some thoughts on why I find the NN debate troubling. 
 First there is a technical misunderstanding. NN is built on the idea that 
 ISPs should treat all traffic equally. This concept is simply unrealistic. 
 Bandwidth is a limited resource there is only so much data that a Ethernet 
 port can transmit and receive. Also things like MTU size, latency, jitter 
 all impact the reliable transmission of data which bring me to my other 
 point. Not all traffic is the same. There are night and day differences 
 between TCP and UDP traffic. For example UDP (which is what most voice and 
 video is) is faster than TCP. The drawback to this is that UDP does not 
 have the recovery features that TCP has in case of packet loss (ie 
 sequence number and acknowledgment packets). There UDP applications are 
 more prone to suffer when latency is high or links get saturated. To 
 overcome this network engineer implement prioritization and traffic 
 shaping to ensure these services are not impacted. 
  
 As more content is consumed such as 4K video on the internet, the need for 
 traffic shaping will only increase. Netflix already has the ability to 
 push 100Gbps from their servers. That is a ton of data that needs to be 
 prioritized by ISPs. This is not free there are serious costs involved in 
 man hours and infrastructure. Someone needs to bear that cost. This is why 
 I am not opposed to fast lanes. If Netflix is going to have ISPs ensure 
 all of the massive amounts to data are push is delivered efficiently, then 
 the ISPs should be free to charge a premium for this service. Netflix does 
 not want to bear this cost, hense their support for Net Neutrality. They 
 want the ISPs to bear the cost, but then result of that is we bear the 
 cost via data caps. 
  
 When you strip away all the slogans it all comes down to money and 
 control. Data will be traffic shaped it is just 
 who decides how unelected government bureaucrats pushing some public 
 policy or market forces.
  
 Something else to consider a lot not all but a lot of the very same people 
 who cry that the end of Net Neutrality will be end of free speech (no more 
 free and open internet) have no issue saying 
 Twiiter, Facebook, and Google (since they are 'private companies') have 
 the right demonetize, obscure, or even ban individuals who express ideas 
 that other deem "offensive". How is that promoting a "Free and Open 
 Internet"?
 
> On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Eric Oyen  wrote:
> well, as someone else suggested, a new thread.
> 
> so, shall we start the discussion?
> 
> ok, as mentioned

Re: new thread: QoS, latency, bandwidth and the FCC/net neutrality debate

[Brian Cluff]

I think you forget that the neutrality was put into place specifically 
to deal with the network providers messing with netflix among other 
service's data in favor of their own services.  That IS how we dealt 
with it.


You keep talking about being able to get optimized services, but those 
are legal and common now.  Getting rid of net neutrality won't enable 
those.  Throttling your competitors services to the point of degrading 
their service isn't an optimized service.


Brian Cluff


On 11/25/2017 07:24 PM, Herminio Hernandez, Jr. wrote:
I do understand those concerns, but those types of abuses have existed 
in the past and were dealt with before there was Net Neutrality. I do 
really think that the bigger threat from the big content providers and 
not the ISPs.


On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 7:12 PM, > wrote:



I hear you.  If everyone would play fair I would think slicing up
data usage is fair.  I watch a lot of YouTube, however I do not
need 4k.  My main concern is for businesses who use the Internet
to market and do business.  As you probably know there is a move
from brick and mortar to online stores and more so to selling on
Amazon.

If there is no net neutrality and GoDaddy invests in timewarner,
then timewarner could keep people from seeing your website that is
hosted on HostGator. Then Godaddy could coerce you into moving to
GoDaddy or pay a fee to GoDaddy or timewarner.

I see some serious antitrust coming. We need to get ICAAN back and
we need to keep the Internet the Wild West to some degree. I do
see Google is headed for some antitrust law suites, and maybe
Government oversight. Government oversight is scary given how
corrupt our Government is.



On 2017-11-24 12:31, Herminio Hernandez, Jr. wrote:


I will start with some thoughts on why I find the NN debate
troubling. First there is a technical misunderstanding. NN is
built on the idea that ISPs should treat all traffic equally.
This concept is simply unrealistic. Bandwidth is a limited
resource there is only so much data that a Ethernet port can
transmit and receive. Also things like MTU size, latency, jitter
all impact the reliable transmission of data which bring me to my
other point. Not all traffic is the same. There are night and day
differences between TCP and UDP traffic. For example UDP (which
is what most voice and video is) is faster than TCP. The drawback
to this is that UDP does not have the recovery features that TCP
has in case of packet loss (ie sequence number and acknowledgment
packets). There UDP applications are more prone to suffer when
latency is high or links get saturated. To overcome this network
engineer implement prioritization and traffic shaping to ensure
these services are not impacted.
As more content is consumed such as 4K video on the internet, the
need for traffic shaping will only increase. Netflix already has
the ability to push 100Gbps from their servers. That is a ton of
data that needs to be prioritized by ISPs. This is not free there
are serious costs involved in man hours and infrastructure.
Someone needs to bear that cost. This is why I am not opposed to
fast lanes. If Netflix is going to have ISPs ensure all of the
massive amounts to data are push is delivered efficiently, then
the ISPs should be free to charge a premium for this service.
Netflix does not want to bear this cost, hense their support for
Net Neutrality. They want the ISPs to bear the cost, but then
result of that is we bear the cost via data caps.
When you strip away all the slogans it all comes down to money
and control. Data will be traffic shaped it is just who decides
how unelected government bureaucrats pushing some public policy
or market forces.
Something else to consider a lot not all but a lot of the very
same people who cry that the end of Net Neutrality will be end of
free speech (no more free and open internet) have no issue saying
Twiiter, Facebook, and Google (since they are 'private
companies') have the right demonetize, obscure, or even ban
individuals who express ideas that other deem "offensive". How is
that promoting a "Free and Open Internet"?

On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Eric Oyen mailto:eric.o...@icloud.com>> wrote:

well, as someone else suggested, a new thread.

so, shall we start the discussion?

ok, as mentioned, bandwidth is a limited resource. the
question is How limited?

Then there is the question: can an ISP curtail certain types
of traffic (null route it, delay it, other bandwidth shaping
routines)? How far can they go?

What really is net neutrality?

lastly, what part does the FCC play, or should they?

so, any thoughts on the above questions?

-eric
   

Re: new thread: QoS, latency, bandwidth and the FCC/net neutrality debate

[Herminio Hernandez, Jr.]

I do understand those concerns, but those types of abuses have existed in
the past and were dealt with before there was Net Neutrality. I do really
think that the bigger threat from the big content providers and not the
ISPs.

On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 7:12 PM,  wrote:

>
> I hear you.  If everyone would play fair I would think slicing up data
> usage is fair.  I watch a lot of YouTube, however I do not need 4k.  My
> main concern is for businesses who use the Internet to market and do
> business.  As you probably know there is a move from brick and mortar to
> online stores and more so to selling on Amazon.
>
> If there is no net neutrality and GoDaddy invests in timewarner, then
> timewarner could keep people from seeing your website that is hosted on
> HostGator. Then Godaddy could coerce you into moving to GoDaddy or pay a
> fee to GoDaddy or timewarner.
>
> I see some serious antitrust coming. We need to get ICAAN back and we need
> to keep the Internet the Wild West to some degree. I do see Google is
> headed for some antitrust law suites, and maybe Government oversight.
> Government oversight is scary given how corrupt our Government is.
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2017-11-24 12:31, Herminio Hernandez, Jr. wrote:
>
> I will start with some thoughts on why I find the NN debate troubling.
> First there is a technical misunderstanding. NN is built on the idea that
> ISPs should treat all traffic equally. This concept is simply unrealistic.
> Bandwidth is a limited resource there is only so much data that a Ethernet
> port can transmit and receive. Also things like MTU size, latency, jitter
> all impact the reliable transmission of data which bring me to my other
> point. Not all traffic is the same. There are night and day differences
> between TCP and UDP traffic. For example UDP (which is what most voice and
> video is) is faster than TCP. The drawback to this is that UDP does not
> have the recovery features that TCP has in case of packet loss (ie sequence
> number and acknowledgment packets). There UDP applications are more prone
> to suffer when latency is high or links get saturated. To overcome this
> network engineer implement prioritization and traffic shaping to ensure
> these services are not impacted.
>
> As more content is consumed such as 4K video on the internet, the need for
> traffic shaping will only increase. Netflix already has the ability to push
> 100Gbps from their servers. That is a ton of data that needs to be
> prioritized by ISPs. This is not free there are serious costs involved in
> man hours and infrastructure. Someone needs to bear that cost. This is why
> I am not opposed to fast lanes. If Netflix is going to have ISPs ensure all
> of the massive amounts to data are push is delivered efficiently, then the
> ISPs should be free to charge a premium for this service. Netflix does not
> want to bear this cost, hense their support for Net Neutrality. They want
> the ISPs to bear the cost, but then result of that is we bear the cost via
> data caps.
>
> When you strip away all the slogans it all comes down to money and
> control. Data will be traffic shaped it is just who decides how unelected
> government bureaucrats pushing some public policy or market forces.
>
> Something else to consider a lot not all but a lot of the very same people
> who cry that the end of Net Neutrality will be end of free speech (no more
> free and open internet) have no issue saying Twiiter, Facebook, and Google
> (since they are 'private companies') have the right demonetize, obscure, or
> even ban individuals who express ideas that other deem "offensive". How is
> that promoting a "Free and Open Internet"?
>
> On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Eric Oyen  wrote:
>
>> well, as someone else suggested, a new thread.
>>
>> so, shall we start the discussion?
>>
>> ok, as mentioned, bandwidth is a limited resource. the question is How
>> limited?
>>
>> Then there is the question: can an ISP curtail certain types of traffic
>> (null route it, delay it, other bandwidth shaping routines)? How far can
>> they go?
>>
>> What really is net neutrality?
>>
>> lastly, what part does the FCC play, or should they?
>>
>> so, any thoughts on the above questions?
>>
>> -eric
>> from the central offices of the Technomage Guild, you got questions, we
>> got answers Dept.
>>
>> ---
>> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org
>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
>> http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>
>
> ---
> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
> http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>
>
> ---
> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
> http://l

Re: new thread: QoS, latency, bandwidth and the FCC/net neutrality debate

[techlists]

I hear you.  If everyone would play fair I would think slicing up data
usage is fair.  I watch a lot of YouTube, however I do not need 4k.  My
main concern is for businesses who use the Internet to market and do
business.  As you probably know there is a move from brick and mortar to
online stores and more so to selling on Amazon.

If there is no net neutrality and GoDaddy invests in timewarner, then
timewarner could keep people from seeing your website that is hosted on
HostGator. Then Godaddy could coerce you into moving to GoDaddy or pay a
fee to GoDaddy or timewarner. 

I see some serious antitrust coming. We need to get ICAAN back and we
need to keep the Internet the Wild West to some degree. I do see Google
is headed for some antitrust law suites, and maybe Government oversight.
Government oversight is scary given how corrupt our Government is. 

On 2017-11-24 12:31, Herminio Hernandez, Jr. wrote:

> I will start with some thoughts on why I find the NN debate troubling. First 
> there is a technical misunderstanding. NN is built on the idea that ISPs 
> should treat all traffic equally. This concept is simply unrealistic. 
> Bandwidth is a limited resource there is only so much data that a Ethernet 
> port can transmit and receive. Also things like MTU size, latency, jitter all 
> impact the reliable transmission of data which bring me to my other point. 
> Not all traffic is the same. There are night and day differences between TCP 
> and UDP traffic. For example UDP (which is what most voice and video is) is 
> faster than TCP. The drawback to this is that UDP does not have the recovery 
> features that TCP has in case of packet loss (ie sequence number and 
> acknowledgment packets). There UDP applications are more prone to suffer when 
> latency is high or links get saturated. To overcome this network engineer 
> implement prioritization and traffic shaping to ensure these services are not 
> impacted.  
> 
> As more content is consumed such as 4K video on the internet, the need for 
> traffic shaping will only increase. Netflix already has the ability to push 
> 100Gbps from their servers. That is a ton of data that needs to be 
> prioritized by ISPs. This is not free there are serious costs involved in man 
> hours and infrastructure. Someone needs to bear that cost. This is why I am 
> not opposed to fast lanes. If Netflix is going to have ISPs ensure all of the 
> massive amounts to data are push is delivered efficiently, then the ISPs 
> should be free to charge a premium for this service. Netflix does not want to 
> bear this cost, hense their support for Net Neutrality. They want the ISPs to 
> bear the cost, but then result of that is we bear the cost via data caps.  
> 
> When you strip away all the slogans it all comes down to money and control. 
> Data will be traffic shaped it is just who decides how unelected government 
> bureaucrats pushing some public policy or market forces. 
> 
> Something else to consider a lot not all but a lot of the very same people 
> who cry that the end of Net Neutrality will be end of free speech (no more 
> free and open internet) have no issue saying Twiiter, Facebook, and Google 
> (since they are 'private companies') have the right demonetize, obscure, or 
> even ban individuals who express ideas that other deem "offensive". How is 
> that promoting a "Free and Open Internet"? 
> 
> On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Eric Oyen  wrote:
> 
>> well, as someone else suggested, a new thread.
>> 
>> so, shall we start the discussion?
>> 
>> ok, as mentioned, bandwidth is a limited resource. the question is How 
>> limited?
>> 
>> Then there is the question: can an ISP curtail certain types of traffic 
>> (null route it, delay it, other bandwidth shaping routines)? How far can 
>> they go?
>> 
>> What really is net neutrality?
>> 
>> lastly, what part does the FCC play, or should they?
>> 
>> so, any thoughts on the above questions?
>> 
>> -eric
>> from the central offices of the Technomage Guild, you got questions, we got 
>> answers Dept.
>> 
>> ---
>> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org
>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
>> http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss [1]
> 
> ---
> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
> http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
 

Links:
--
[1] http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss---
PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss

Re: new thread: QoS, latency, bandwidth and the FCC/net neutrality debate

[Herminio Hernandez Jr.]

We ought to be worried about the control that Google, Facebook, Twitter, and 
Apple has over our data. Those are the real gatekeepers. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 25, 2017, at 5:13 PM, Matthew Crews  wrote:
> 
> I'm just waiting for the day when ISPs decide to perform routine MITM attacks 
> on https and other encrypted transport mechanisms. Then what do we do? 
> Nothing, we are hosed at that point for good.
---
PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss

Re: new thread: QoS, latency, bandwidth and the FCC/net neutrality debate

[Stephen Partington]

You are talking about the same industry that allowed us west to get away
with almost 15 years of shinanegans.

On Nov 25, 2017 4:26 PM, "Herminio Hernandez Jr." <
herminio.hernande...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Stephen pre 2015 there were avenues in place where you can appeal to if
> you feel ISPs are screwing you. I think AT&T at the time tried screw over
> FaceTime users they all complained and pressured them to back off. There
> was no need for a massive overhaul in how the internet was managed.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Nov 25, 2017, at 4:12 PM, Stephen Partington 
> wrote:
>
> Paying for more is fine. But when they can choke down the pipe
> artificially just to put you in a position to now need to pay for the
> premium service. So now you ha e to pay more just to get access.
>
> On Nov 25, 2017 4:03 PM, "Herminio Hernandez Jr." <
> herminio.hernande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Brian,
>>
>> This is why allowing ISPs to sell fast lanes and even tiered services
>> would not be the end of the world.  There a ton of people who do not use
>> streaming services that would like to opt in to a service that was cheaper
>> but throttled streaming services and there people who would be happy to pay
>> more to have better streaming services. In the end more options will
>> benefit consumers.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Nov 25, 2017, at 3:20 PM, Brian Cluff  wrote:
>>
>> Here's the real problem with that.  I already pay a ton of money so that
>> I can stream video well.  Most people could get away with a much slower,
>> and cheaper, Internet pipe if it wasn't for stuff like streaming services.
>>
>> We used at all pay around $15 to $20 per month for an Internet connection
>> 15 years ago and it was fine.  Now we all regularly pay around $100 give or
>> take for a faster connection so that our netflix comes over at decent
>> quality Ultimately Netflix doesn't cost $8 a month, it cost $108
>> dollars a month, it just so happens that the connection that gives us
>> Netflix also gives us some other useful services.
>>
>> Now the network providers that are getting the lions share of the money
>> so that we can get these streaming services want a piece of the pie of
>> every service that has managed to be successful on the Internet... From
>> services I might add that make the network providers service worth getting
>> in the first place.  The network providers play it like we would all have
>> these expensive connections no matter what and that all the services that
>> make their network connect worth having in the first place is a drain on
>> their service that would be better off without netflix, hulu, youtube,
>> facebook... etc...etc...  In my view it's the other way around and they
>> should be hoping and praying that those services don't figure out how to
>> cut them out of the picture... something that I'll bet they figure out how
>> to do if it's suddenly a lot more expensive to be in business because of
>> the current way they do things.
>>
>> For a lot of people, if they weren't getting netflix they could quite
>> likely get away with no Internet connection at all, or one that cost less
>> than $20 a month so that they could check their email.
>>
>> And the answer to who is going to pay for it is, the end user aka you and
>> me.  Last I checked content providers and ISPs don't print money, so they
>> have no choice but to pass the costs onto the end user.
>>
>> Brian Cluff
>>
>> On 11/25/2017 02:45 PM, Eric Oyen wrote:
>>
>> well, considering that the top multinational multimedia cartels own 90%
>> of the news information outlets these days, that situation is already
>> happening.  what we need is a specified statement like this:
>> all internet services providers are required to allow competing content
>> to cross to the end user without censorship  (that is, they cannot block
>> it). However, they might be allowed to charge a "reasonable fee" to allow
>> it through.
>>
>> now, the question becomes, who bears the cost of that fee? the content
>> provider, the ISP or the end user? and yes, double dipping would definitely
>> not be allowed.
>>
>> now, the old tape cassette fee model worked good for years. the content
>> providers got a small percentage on each cassette sold and users got to
>> tape their favorite songs. why not the same thing here: charge a small
>> percentage (like 1%) to the end user on a monthly basis to be paid into a
>> general fund for all content providers? that 1% is small considering
>> individual users, but adds up fast when you consider the number of
>> customers each ISP/broadband provider has. in my case, that would be about
>> 80 cents on my cable bill. doesn't seem like a lot, doesn't it?
>>
>> -eric
>> from the central offices of the Technomage Guild, Think tank operations
>> Dept.
>>
>> On Nov 25, 2017, at 9:29 AM, Michael Butash wrote:
>>
>> Most network devices these days, including wireless, firewalls, as well
>> as you standard routers and switches tend to do layer 

Re: new thread: QoS, latency, bandwidth and the FCC/net neutrality debate

[Matthew Crews]

I'm just waiting for the day when ISPs decide to perform routine MITM attacks 
on https and other encrypted transport mechanisms. Then what do we do? Nothing, 
we are hosed at that point for good.---
PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss

Re: new thread: QoS, latency, bandwidth and the FCC/net neutrality debate

[Herminio Hernandez Jr.]

Stephen pre 2015 there were avenues in place where you can appeal to if you 
feel ISPs are screwing you. I think AT&T at the time tried screw over FaceTime 
users they all complained and pressured them to back off. There was no need for 
a massive overhaul in how the internet was managed. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 25, 2017, at 4:12 PM, Stephen Partington  wrote:
> 
> Paying for more is fine. But when they can choke down the pipe artificially 
> just to put you in a position to now need to pay for the premium service. So 
> now you ha e to pay more just to get access. 
> 
>> On Nov 25, 2017 4:03 PM, "Herminio Hernandez Jr." 
>>  wrote:
>> Brian,
>> 
>> This is why allowing ISPs to sell fast lanes and even tiered services would 
>> not be the end of the world.  There a ton of people who do not use streaming 
>> services that would like to opt in to a service that was cheaper but 
>> throttled streaming services and there people who would be happy to pay more 
>> to have better streaming services. In the end more options will benefit 
>> consumers. 
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>> On Nov 25, 2017, at 3:20 PM, Brian Cluff  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Here's the real problem with that.  I already pay a ton of money so that I 
>>> can stream video well.  Most people could get away with a much slower, and 
>>> cheaper, Internet pipe if it wasn't for stuff like streaming services.
>>> 
>>> We used at all pay around $15 to $20 per month for an Internet connection 
>>> 15 years ago and it was fine.  Now we all regularly pay around $100 give or 
>>> take for a faster connection so that our netflix comes over at decent 
>>> quality Ultimately Netflix doesn't cost $8 a month, it cost $108 
>>> dollars a month, it just so happens that the connection that gives us 
>>> Netflix also gives us some other useful services. 
>>> 
>>> Now the network providers that are getting the lions share of the money so 
>>> that we can get these streaming services want a piece of the pie of every 
>>> service that has managed to be successful on the Internet... From services 
>>> I might add that make the network providers service worth getting in the 
>>> first place.  The network providers play it like we would all have these 
>>> expensive connections no matter what and that all the services that make 
>>> their network connect worth having in the first place is a drain on their 
>>> service that would be better off without netflix, hulu, youtube, 
>>> facebook... etc...etc...  In my view it's the other way around and they 
>>> should be hoping and praying that those services don't figure out how to 
>>> cut them out of the picture... something that I'll bet they figure out how 
>>> to do if it's suddenly a lot more expensive to be in business because of 
>>> the current way they do things.
>>> 
>>> For a lot of people, if they weren't getting netflix they could quite 
>>> likely get away with no Internet connection at all, or one that cost less 
>>> than $20 a month so that they could check their email.
>>> 
>>> And the answer to who is going to pay for it is, the end user aka you and 
>>> me.  Last I checked content providers and ISPs don't print money, so they 
>>> have no choice but to pass the costs onto the end user.
>>> 
>>> Brian Cluff
>>> 
 On 11/25/2017 02:45 PM, Eric Oyen wrote:
 well, considering that the top multinational multimedia cartels own 90%
of the news information outlets these days, that situation is already 
 happening.  what we need is a specified statement like this:
 all internet services providers are required to allow competing content to 
 cross to the end user without censorship  (that is, they cannot block it). 
 However, they might be allowed to charge a "reasonable fee" to allow it 
 through. 
 
 now, the question becomes, who bears the cost of that fee? the content 
 provider, the ISP or the end user? and yes, double dipping would 
 definitely not be allowed.
 
 now, the old tape cassette fee model worked good for years. the content 
 providers got a small percentage on each cassette sold and users got to 
 tape their favorite songs. why not the same thing here: charge a small 
 percentage (like 1%) to the end user on a monthly basis to be paid into a 
 general fund for all content providers? that 1% is small considering 
 individual users, but adds up fast when you consider the number of 
 customers each ISP/broadband provider has. in my case, that would be about 
 80 cents on my cable bill. doesn't seem like a lot, doesn't it?
 
 -eric
 from the central offices of the Technomage Guild, Think tank operations 
 Dept.
 
> On Nov 25, 2017, at 9:29 AM, Michael Butash wrote:
> 
> Most network devices these days, including wireless, firewalls, as well 
> as you standard routers and switches tend to do layer 4 and up 
> application inspection, primarily for creating policies li

Re: new thread: QoS, latency, bandwidth and the FCC/net neutrality debate

[Stephen Partington]

Paying for more is fine. But when they can choke down the pipe artificially
just to put you in a position to now need to pay for the premium service.
So now you ha e to pay more just to get access.

On Nov 25, 2017 4:03 PM, "Herminio Hernandez Jr." <
herminio.hernande...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Brian,
>
> This is why allowing ISPs to sell fast lanes and even tiered services
> would not be the end of the world.  There a ton of people who do not use
> streaming services that would like to opt in to a service that was cheaper
> but throttled streaming services and there people who would be happy to pay
> more to have better streaming services. In the end more options will
> benefit consumers.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Nov 25, 2017, at 3:20 PM, Brian Cluff  wrote:
>
> Here's the real problem with that.  I already pay a ton of money so that I
> can stream video well.  Most people could get away with a much slower, and
> cheaper, Internet pipe if it wasn't for stuff like streaming services.
>
> We used at all pay around $15 to $20 per month for an Internet connection
> 15 years ago and it was fine.  Now we all regularly pay around $100 give or
> take for a faster connection so that our netflix comes over at decent
> quality Ultimately Netflix doesn't cost $8 a month, it cost $108
> dollars a month, it just so happens that the connection that gives us
> Netflix also gives us some other useful services.
>
> Now the network providers that are getting the lions share of the money so
> that we can get these streaming services want a piece of the pie of every
> service that has managed to be successful on the Internet... From services
> I might add that make the network providers service worth getting in the
> first place.  The network providers play it like we would all have these
> expensive connections no matter what and that all the services that make
> their network connect worth having in the first place is a drain on their
> service that would be better off without netflix, hulu, youtube,
> facebook... etc...etc...  In my view it's the other way around and they
> should be hoping and praying that those services don't figure out how to
> cut them out of the picture... something that I'll bet they figure out how
> to do if it's suddenly a lot more expensive to be in business because of
> the current way they do things.
>
> For a lot of people, if they weren't getting netflix they could quite
> likely get away with no Internet connection at all, or one that cost less
> than $20 a month so that they could check their email.
>
> And the answer to who is going to pay for it is, the end user aka you and
> me.  Last I checked content providers and ISPs don't print money, so they
> have no choice but to pass the costs onto the end user.
>
> Brian Cluff
>
> On 11/25/2017 02:45 PM, Eric Oyen wrote:
>
> well, considering that the top multinational multimedia cartels own 90% of
> the news information outlets these days, that situation is already
> happening.  what we need is a specified statement like this:
> all internet services providers are required to allow competing content to
> cross to the end user without censorship  (that is, they cannot block it).
> However, they might be allowed to charge a "reasonable fee" to allow it
> through.
>
> now, the question becomes, who bears the cost of that fee? the content
> provider, the ISP or the end user? and yes, double dipping would definitely
> not be allowed.
>
> now, the old tape cassette fee model worked good for years. the content
> providers got a small percentage on each cassette sold and users got to
> tape their favorite songs. why not the same thing here: charge a small
> percentage (like 1%) to the end user on a monthly basis to be paid into a
> general fund for all content providers? that 1% is small considering
> individual users, but adds up fast when you consider the number of
> customers each ISP/broadband provider has. in my case, that would be about
> 80 cents on my cable bill. doesn't seem like a lot, doesn't it?
>
> -eric
> from the central offices of the Technomage Guild, Think tank operations
> Dept.
>
> On Nov 25, 2017, at 9:29 AM, Michael Butash wrote:
>
> Most network devices these days, including wireless, firewalls, as well as
> you standard routers and switches tend to do layer 4 and up application
> inspection, primarily for creating policies like "limit youtube|netflix to
> 1mbps", "block peer to peer traffic", and "limit google to safe search
> only" that muck with your content when at work, school, anywhere you have
> an network admin like Herminio or I trying to keep users from doing things
> to break the network, or at least them all at once doing so.
>
> Early on, Netflix and Youtube grew to be behemoth network hogs for
> providers, so rather than let storming elephants trample the village, they
> would "queue" that traffic so it wouldn't overrun more important things,
> like normal web browsing and more perceptible use cases (still li

Re: new thread: QoS, latency, bandwidth and the FCC/net neutrality debate

[Herminio Hernandez Jr.]

Brian,

This is why allowing ISPs to sell fast lanes and even tiered services would not 
be the end of the world.  There a ton of people who do not use streaming 
services that would like to opt in to a service that was cheaper but throttled 
streaming services and there people who would be happy to pay more to have 
better streaming services. In the end more options will benefit consumers. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 25, 2017, at 3:20 PM, Brian Cluff  wrote:
> 
> Here's the real problem with that.  I already pay a ton of money so that I 
> can stream video well.  Most people could get away with a much slower, and 
> cheaper, Internet pipe if it wasn't for stuff like streaming services.
> 
> We used at all pay around $15 to $20 per month for an Internet connection 15 
> years ago and it was fine.  Now we all regularly pay around $100 give or take 
> for a faster connection so that our netflix comes over at decent quality 
> Ultimately Netflix doesn't cost $8 a month, it cost $108 dollars a month, it 
> just so happens that the connection that gives us Netflix also gives us some 
> other useful services. 
> 
> Now the network providers that are getting the lions share of the money so 
> that we can get these streaming services want a piece of the pie of every 
> service that has managed to be successful on the Internet... From services I 
> might add that make the network providers service worth getting in the first 
> place.  The network providers play it like we would all have these expensive 
> connections no matter what and that all the services that make their network 
> connect worth having in the first place is a drain on their service that 
> would be better off without netflix, hulu, youtube, facebook... etc...etc...  
> In my view it's the other way around and they should be hoping and praying 
> that those services don't figure out how to cut them out of the picture... 
> something that I'll bet they figure out how to do if it's suddenly a lot more 
> expensive to be in business because of the current way they do things.
> 
> For a lot of people, if they weren't getting netflix they could quite likely 
> get away with no Internet connection at all, or one that cost less than $20 a 
> month so that they could check their email.
> 
> And the answer to who is going to pay for it is, the end user aka you and me. 
>  Last I checked content providers and ISPs don't print money, so they have no 
> choice but to pass the costs onto the end user.
> 
> Brian Cluff
> 
>> On 11/25/2017 02:45 PM, Eric Oyen wrote:
>> well, considering that the top multinational multimedia cartels own 90% of 
>> the news information outlets these days, that situation is already 
>> happening.  what we need is a specified statement like this:
>> all internet services providers are required to allow competing content to 
>> cross to the end user without censorship  (that is, they cannot block it). 
>> However, they might be allowed to charge a "reasonable fee" to allow it 
>> through. 
>> 
>> now, the question becomes, who bears the cost of that fee? the content 
>> provider, the ISP or the end user? and yes, double dipping would definitely 
>> not be allowed.
>> 
>> now, the old tape cassette fee model worked good for years. the content 
>> providers got a small percentage on each cassette sold and users got to tape 
>> their favorite songs. why not the same thing here: charge a small percentage 
>> (like 1%) to the end user on a monthly basis to be paid into a general fund 
>> for all content providers? that 1% is small considering individual users, 
>> but adds up fast when you consider the number of customers each 
>> ISP/broadband provider has. in my case, that would be about 80 cents on my 
>> cable bill. doesn't seem like a lot, doesn't it?
>> 
>> -eric
>> from the central offices of the Technomage Guild, Think tank operations Dept.
>> 
>>> On Nov 25, 2017, at 9:29 AM, Michael Butash wrote:
>>> 
>>> Most network devices these days, including wireless, firewalls, as well as 
>>> you standard routers and switches tend to do layer 4 and up application 
>>> inspection, primarily for creating policies like "limit youtube|netflix to 
>>> 1mbps", "block peer to peer traffic", and "limit google to safe search 
>>> only" that muck with your content when at work, school, anywhere you have 
>>> an network admin like Herminio or I trying to keep users from doing things 
>>> to break the network, or at least them all at once doing so.
>>> 
>>> Early on, Netflix and Youtube grew to be behemoth network hogs for 
>>> providers, so rather than let storming elephants trample the village, they 
>>> would "queue" that traffic so it wouldn't overrun more important things, 
>>> like normal web browsing and more perceptible use cases (still likely do).  
>>> As Stephen said, they eventually got smarter, or Netflix did, to peer 
>>> directly with the mega providers, and put local content distribution nodes 
>>> directly into them on 100gb

Re: new thread: QoS, latency, bandwidth and the FCC/net neutrality debate

[Brian Cluff]

Here's the real problem with that.  I already pay a ton of money so that 
I can stream video well.  Most people could get away with a much slower, 
and cheaper, Internet pipe if it wasn't for stuff like streaming services.


We used at all pay around $15 to $20 per month for an Internet 
connection 15 years ago and it was fine.  Now we all regularly pay 
around $100 give or take for a faster connection so that our netflix 
comes over at decent quality Ultimately Netflix doesn't cost $8 a 
month, it cost $108 dollars a month, it just so happens that the 
connection that gives us Netflix also gives us some other useful services.


Now the network providers that are getting the lions share of the money 
so that we can get these streaming services want a piece of the pie of 
every service that has managed to be successful on the Internet... From 
services I might add that make the network providers service worth 
getting in the first place.  The network providers play it like we would 
all have these expensive connections no matter what and that all the 
services that make their network connect worth having in the first place 
is a drain on their service that would be better off without netflix, 
hulu, youtube, facebook... etc...etc...  In my view it's the other way 
around and they should be hoping and praying that those services don't 
figure out how to cut them out of the picture... something that I'll bet 
they figure out how to do if it's suddenly a lot more expensive to be in 
business because of the current way they do things.


For a lot of people, if they weren't getting netflix they could quite 
likely get away with no Internet connection at all, or one that cost 
less than $20 a month so that they could check their email.


And the answer to who is going to pay for it is, the end user aka you 
and me.  Last I checked content providers and ISPs don't print money, so 
they have no choice but to pass the costs onto the end user.


Brian Cluff

On 11/25/2017 02:45 PM, Eric Oyen wrote:
well, considering that the top multinational multimedia cartels own 
90% of the news information outlets these days, that situation is 
already happening.  what we need is a specified statement like this:
all internet services providers are required to allow competing 
content to cross to the end user without censorship  (that is, they 
cannot block it). However, they might be allowed to charge a 
"reasonable fee" to allow it through.


now, the question becomes, who bears the cost of that fee? the content 
provider, the ISP or the end user? and yes, double dipping would 
definitely not be allowed.


now, the old tape cassette fee model worked good for years. the 
content providers got a small percentage on each cassette sold and 
users got to tape their favorite songs. why not the same thing here: 
charge a small percentage (like 1%) to the end user on a monthly basis 
to be paid into a general fund for all content providers? that 1% is 
small considering individual users, but adds up fast when you consider 
the number of customers each ISP/broadband provider has. in my case, 
that would be about 80 cents on my cable bill. doesn't seem like a 
lot, doesn't it?


-eric
from the central offices of the Technomage Guild, Think tank 
operations Dept.


On Nov 25, 2017, at 9:29 AM, Michael Butash wrote:

Most network devices these days, including wireless, firewalls, as 
well as you standard routers and switches tend to do layer 4 and up 
application inspection, primarily for creating policies like "limit 
youtube|netflix to 1mbps", "block peer to peer traffic", and "limit 
google to safe search only" that muck with your content when at work, 
school, anywhere you have an network admin like Herminio or I trying 
to keep users from doing things to break the network, or at least 
them all at once doing so.


Early on, Netflix and Youtube grew to be behemoth network hogs for 
providers, so rather than let storming elephants trample the village, 
they would "queue" that traffic so it wouldn't overrun more important 
things, like normal web browsing and more perceptible use cases 
(still likely do).  As Stephen said, they eventually got smarter, or 
Netflix did, to peer directly with the mega providers, and put local 
content distribution nodes directly into them on 100gb switches so 
they didn't have to slaughter your traffic (and take the bad press 
eventually in being the internet cop ala comcast).


Is this really what the net neutrality debate is about anymore?  No, 
politicians don't care about internet speeds, it's really about media 
consolidation occurring that you will be pretty much left with att, 
comcast, and news corp for all television, internet, phone, and news 
in general.  What could go wrong, other than enabling maniacal 
billionaires to buy their way into the white house.


-mb


On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Herminio Hernandez Jr. 
> wrote:


They are very relate

Re: new thread: QoS, latency, bandwidth and the FCC/net neutrality debate

[Herminio Hernandez Jr.]

Eric,

This seems to be a reasonable alternative than what is being proposed by Net 
Neutrality. Saying to ISPs do not block competing content is more realistic 
than do not throttle. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 25, 2017, at 2:45 PM, Eric Oyen  wrote:
> 
> well, considering that the top multinational multimedia cartels own 90% of 
> the news information outlets these days, that situation is already happening. 
>  what we need is a specified statement like this:
> all internet services providers are required to allow competing content to 
> cross to the end user without censorship  (that is, they cannot block it). 
> However, they might be allowed to charge a "reasonable fee" to allow it 
> through. 
> 
> now, the question becomes, who bears the cost of that fee? the content 
> provider, the ISP or the end user? and yes, double dipping would definitely 
> not be allowed.
> 
> now, the old tape cassette fee model worked good for years. the content 
> providers got a small percentage on each cassette sold and users got to tape 
> their favorite songs. why not the same thing here: charge a small percentage 
> (like 1%) to the end user on a monthly basis to be paid into a general fund 
> for all content providers? that 1% is small considering individual users, but 
> adds up fast when you consider the number of customers each ISP/broadband 
> provider has. in my case, that would be about 80 cents on my cable bill. 
> doesn't seem like a lot, doesn't it?
> 
> -eric
> from the central offices of the Technomage Guild, Think tank operations Dept.
> 
>> On Nov 25, 2017, at 9:29 AM, Michael Butash wrote:
>> 
>> Most network devices these days, including wireless, firewalls, as well as 
>> you standard routers and switches tend to do layer 4 and up application 
>> inspection, primarily for creating policies like "limit youtube|netflix to 
>> 1mbps", "block peer to peer traffic", and "limit google to safe search only" 
>> that muck with your content when at work, school, anywhere you have an 
>> network admin like Herminio or I trying to keep users from doing things to 
>> break the network, or at least them all at once doing so.
>> 
>> Early on, Netflix and Youtube grew to be behemoth network hogs for 
>> providers, so rather than let storming elephants trample the village, they 
>> would "queue" that traffic so it wouldn't overrun more important things, 
>> like normal web browsing and more perceptible use cases (still likely do).  
>> As Stephen said, they eventually got smarter, or Netflix did, to peer 
>> directly with the mega providers, and put local content distribution nodes 
>> directly into them on 100gb switches so they didn't have to slaughter your 
>> traffic (and take the bad press eventually in being the internet cop ala 
>> comcast).
>> 
>> Is this really what the net neutrality debate is about anymore?  No, 
>> politicians don't care about internet speeds, it's really about media 
>> consolidation occurring that you will be pretty much left with att, comcast, 
>> and news corp for all television, internet, phone, and news in general.  
>> What could go wrong, other than enabling maniacal billionaires to buy their 
>> way into the white house.
>> 
>> -mb
>> 
>> 
>>> On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Herminio Hernandez Jr. 
>>>  wrote:
>>> They are very related Network QoS exists because there are limits in how 
>>> much networking gear transmits packets and frames. There is a lot more to 
>>> it than just writing the policy. There is a cost to engineer that out. 
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> 
 On Nov 24, 2017, at 12:59 PM, Stephen Partington  
 wrote:
 
 It is not that simple in my mind. Network QoS is very different then the 
 possibility of the customers pay extra for additional services. 
 
 Besides Netflix has cache devices that can and are frequently in local is 
 Datacenters to alleviate latency and Bw issues. 
 
 And given the current fcc chairs attitude I am really skeptical. 
 
> On Nov 24, 2017 12:31 PM, "Herminio Hernandez, Jr." 
>  wrote:
> I will start with some thoughts on why I find the NN debate troubling. 
> First there is a technical misunderstanding. NN is built on the idea that 
> ISPs should treat all traffic equally. This concept is simply 
> unrealistic. Bandwidth is a limited resource there is only so much data 
> that a Ethernet port can transmit and receive. Also things like MTU size, 
> latency, jitter all impact the reliable transmission of data which bring 
> me to my other point. Not all traffic is the same. There are night and 
> day differences between TCP and UDP traffic. For example UDP (which is 
> what most voice and video is) is faster than TCP. The drawback to this is 
> that UDP does not have the recovery features that TCP has in case of 
> packet loss (ie sequence number and acknowledgment packets). There UDP 
> applications are more prone to suffer when lat

Re: new thread: QoS, latency, bandwidth and the FCC/net neutrality debate

[Eric Oyen]

well, considering that the top multinational multimedia cartels own 90% of the 
news information outlets these days, that situation is already happening.  what 
we need is a specified statement like this:
all internet services providers are required to allow competing content to 
cross to the end user without censorship  (that is, they cannot block it). 
However, they might be allowed to charge a "reasonable fee" to allow it 
through. 

now, the question becomes, who bears the cost of that fee? the content 
provider, the ISP or the end user? and yes, double dipping would definitely not 
be allowed.

now, the old tape cassette fee model worked good for years. the content 
providers got a small percentage on each cassette sold and users got to tape 
their favorite songs. why not the same thing here: charge a small percentage 
(like 1%) to the end user on a monthly basis to be paid into a general fund for 
all content providers? that 1% is small considering individual users, but adds 
up fast when you consider the number of customers each ISP/broadband provider 
has. in my case, that would be about 80 cents on my cable bill. doesn't seem 
like a lot, doesn't it?

-eric
from the central offices of the Technomage Guild, Think tank operations Dept.

On Nov 25, 2017, at 9:29 AM, Michael Butash wrote:

> Most network devices these days, including wireless, firewalls, as well as 
> you standard routers and switches tend to do layer 4 and up application 
> inspection, primarily for creating policies like "limit youtube|netflix to 
> 1mbps", "block peer to peer traffic", and "limit google to safe search only" 
> that muck with your content when at work, school, anywhere you have an 
> network admin like Herminio or I trying to keep users from doing things to 
> break the network, or at least them all at once doing so.
> 
> Early on, Netflix and Youtube grew to be behemoth network hogs for providers, 
> so rather than let storming elephants trample the village, they would "queue" 
> that traffic so it wouldn't overrun more important things, like normal web 
> browsing and more perceptible use cases (still likely do).  As Stephen said, 
> they eventually got smarter, or Netflix did, to peer directly with the mega 
> providers, and put local content distribution nodes directly into them on 
> 100gb switches so they didn't have to slaughter your traffic (and take the 
> bad press eventually in being the internet cop ala comcast).
> 
> Is this really what the net neutrality debate is about anymore?  No, 
> politicians don't care about internet speeds, it's really about media 
> consolidation occurring that you will be pretty much left with att, comcast, 
> and news corp for all television, internet, phone, and news in general.  What 
> could go wrong, other than enabling maniacal billionaires to buy their way 
> into the white house.
> 
> -mb
> 
> 
> On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Herminio Hernandez Jr. 
>  wrote:
> They are very related Network QoS exists because there are limits in how much 
> networking gear transmits packets and frames. There is a lot more to it than 
> just writing the policy. There is a cost to engineer that out. 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Nov 24, 2017, at 12:59 PM, Stephen Partington  wrote:
> 
>> It is not that simple in my mind. Network QoS is very different then the 
>> possibility of the customers pay extra for additional services. 
>> 
>> Besides Netflix has cache devices that can and are frequently in local is 
>> Datacenters to alleviate latency and Bw issues. 
>> 
>> And given the current fcc chairs attitude I am really skeptical. 
>> 
>> On Nov 24, 2017 12:31 PM, "Herminio Hernandez, Jr." 
>>  wrote:
>> I will start with some thoughts on why I find the NN debate troubling. First 
>> there is a technical misunderstanding. NN is built on the idea that ISPs 
>> should treat all traffic equally. This concept is simply unrealistic. 
>> Bandwidth is a limited resource there is only so much data that a Ethernet 
>> port can transmit and receive. Also things like MTU size, latency, jitter 
>> all impact the reliable transmission of data which bring me to my other 
>> point. Not all traffic is the same. There are night and day differences 
>> between TCP and UDP traffic. For example UDP (which is what most voice and 
>> video is) is faster than TCP. The drawback to this is that UDP does not have 
>> the recovery features that TCP has in case of packet loss (ie sequence 
>> number and acknowledgment packets). There UDP applications are more prone to 
>> suffer when latency is high or links get saturated. To overcome this network 
>> engineer implement prioritization and traffic shaping to ensure these 
>> services are not impacted. 
>> 
>> As more content is consumed such as 4K video on the internet, the need for 
>> traffic shaping will only increase. Netflix already has the ability to push 
>> 100Gbps from their servers. That is a ton of data that needs to be 
>> prioritized by ISPs. This

Re: new thread: QoS, latency, bandwidth and the FCC/net neutrality debate

[Herminio Hernandez, Jr.]

> On Nov 25, 2017, at 10:25 AM, Steve Litt  wrote:
>
> [snip tech explanation that could be addressed without making the
> Internet oligopoly owned]
>

How does net neutrality keep the internet from being oligopoly owned?
Does it say
that ISPs are no longer have the protection of a natural monopoly?
That would break
its power sadly that is not NN is. NN is built on a technical premise
that seriously flawed.

> Those poor ISPs. What are there, about six of them? Neatly dividing the
> country so few have more than two choices, and lots have only one? Is
> this how capitalism is supposed to work?
>

In a truly free market there would no government protect monopolies.
This fact is more the
reason we are in the mess we are in.

> You can make the next Netflix. Make a better protocol, have better
> films. You CANNOT make a competitor to Verison:
>

Really? Ever heard of wireless ISPs? The reason there is "no
competitor" (and I would
doubt that assertion) is not b/c Verizon is a 'natural monopoly', but
rather ISPs have
certain government protections that prevents or hinders entry to  the
market place. One
of the great benefits of the Free Market is possibility of innovation.
Pre 2006 did anyone
have any idea how a phone made by apple would change how we do computing?


> Monopolies that must dig up your yard (or use scarce radio bandwidth)
> to deliver a very necessary service are called utilities. They're
> heavily regulated to prevent monopolistic exploitation.

Utilities are regulated under laws that were written in the 1930s that
simply unsuitable
for modern technology.

> The first decade of the popular Internet were backboned by phone lines,
> completely regulated as utilities. Everybody had the same chance, the
> same deal. The result was a level of competition that spawned
> innovation that drove the 1990's economy: Probably some of you remember
> that. Capitalism's benefits are amazing if you get monopolism out of
> the way.
>

The internet thrived because it was not heavily regulated. Remember
the Telecommunications
Act of 1996? It labeled the internet as an 'information service' not a
'utility' and insured
light regulation. The system worked pretty well from 1996 - 2014.

> But wait, there's more. If Net Neutrality goes away, the oligopolists
> become gatekeepers. Compete with their programming? It's back to the
> slow lane for you. Have a website or service promoting Net Neutrality
> and criticizing the oligopoly? Yeah, it's too bad about those data
> glitches you somehow keep encountering.
>

The scary distopia that pro NN advocates are pushing simply did not
exist pre 2015 when NN took effect.
Yes there attempts by ISPs to screw people but they complained, fought
back and in the end the ISPs
relented. This is how markets work.

>
> Pre-cisely! And most of the campaign contributions electing
> anti-net-neutrality people come from the oligopoly, who want to become
> more monopolistic, extracting more money for less service.
>

Really and pro NN lobbiest like Microsft, Google, Facebook have our
best interest in heart. You really think they
care about our free speech?

> Net Neutrality is serious business. I'm betting that if it's discarded,
> innovation decreases, and there go the tech jobs. There's a planned
> nationwide pro-net-neutrality protest at Verizon stores
> (https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/22/net-neutrality-advocates-plan-protests-for-december-7-at-verizon-stores/)
>

Once again this does not describe the internet pre 2015. NN has only
been in effect for 2 years and you really
want me to believe that removing will usher the technical apocalypse?
---
PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss

Re: new thread: QoS, latency, bandwidth and the FCC/net neutrality debate

[Steve Litt]

On Fri, 24 Nov 2017 12:31:51 -0700
"Herminio Hernandez, Jr."  wrote:

> I will start with some thoughts on why I find the NN debate troubling.
> First there is a technical misunderstanding. 

[snip tech explanation that could be addressed without making the
Internet oligopoly owned]

> 
> This is not free there are
> serious costs involved in man hours and infrastructure. Someone needs
> to bear that cost. This is why I am not opposed to fast lanes. If
> Netflix is going to have ISPs ensure all of the massive amounts to
> data are push is delivered efficiently, then the ISPs should be free
> to charge a premium for this service. Netflix does not want to bear
> this cost, hense their support for Net Neutrality. They want the ISPs
> to bear the cost, but then result of that is we bear the cost via
> data caps.

Those poor ISPs. What are there, about six of them? Neatly dividing the
country so few have more than two choices, and lots have only one? Is
this how capitalism is supposed to work?

You can make the next Netflix. Make a better protocol, have better
films. You CANNOT make a competitor to Verison: You cannot trench
through peoples yards. As a matter of fact, many states have made laws
prohibiting a municipality from providing their residents with
broadband. The ISPs have an oligopoly, and in many places a monopoly.
They're doing fine, even if they do pay some of Netflix' freight. 

Monopolies that must dig up your yard (or use scarce radio bandwidth)
to deliver a very necessary service are called utilities. They're
heavily regulated to prevent monopolistic exploitation. Those wanting
to end Net Neutrality want it both ways for the six broadband providers.

The first decade of the popular Internet were backboned by phone lines,
completely regulated as utilities. Everybody had the same chance, the
same deal. The result was a level of competition that spawned
innovation that drove the 1990's economy: Probably some of you remember
that. Capitalism's benefits are amazing if you get monopolism out of
the way.

But wait, there's more. If Net Neutrality goes away, the oligopolists
become gatekeepers. Compete with their programming? It's back to the
slow lane for you. Have a website or service promoting Net Neutrality
and criticizing the oligopoly? Yeah, it's too bad about those data
glitches you somehow keep encountering.


> 
> When you strip away all the slogans it all comes down to money and
> control. 

Pre-cisely! And most of the campaign contributions electing
anti-net-neutrality people come from the oligopoly, who want to become
more monopolistic, extracting more money for less service.

Net Neutrality is serious business. I'm betting that if it's discarded,
innovation decreases, and there go the tech jobs. There's a planned
nationwide pro-net-neutrality protest at Verizon stores
(https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/22/net-neutrality-advocates-plan-protests-for-december-7-at-verizon-stores/)

If you care about creating technical jobs, especially the kind at small
businesses, who do much less offshoring and therefore are likely to
hire *you*, attend this protest. If you'd like an IT marketplace with
greater upward pressure on your salary, I suggest you take off work or
at your lunchtime go to that protest and help out at the protest.

SteveT

Steve Litt 
November 2017 featured book: Troubleshooting: Just the Facts
http://www.troubleshooters.com/tjust
---
PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss

Re: new thread: QoS, latency, bandwidth and the FCC/net neutrality debate

[Michael Butash]

Most network devices these days, including wireless, firewalls, as well as
you standard routers and switches tend to do layer 4 and up application
inspection, primarily for creating policies like "limit youtube|netflix to
1mbps", "block peer to peer traffic", and "limit google to safe search
only" that muck with your content when at work, school, anywhere you have
an network admin like Herminio or I trying to keep users from doing things
to break the network, or at least them all at once doing so.

Early on, Netflix and Youtube grew to be behemoth network hogs for
providers, so rather than let storming elephants trample the village, they
would "queue" that traffic so it wouldn't overrun more important things,
like normal web browsing and more perceptible use cases (still likely do).
As Stephen said, they eventually got smarter, or Netflix did, to peer
directly with the mega providers, and put local content distribution nodes
directly into them on 100gb switches so they didn't have to slaughter your
traffic (and take the bad press eventually in being the internet cop ala
comcast).

Is this really what the net neutrality debate is about anymore?  No,
politicians don't care about internet speeds, it's really about media
consolidation occurring that you will be pretty much left with att,
comcast, and news corp for all television, internet, phone, and news in
general.  What could go wrong, other than enabling maniacal billionaires to
buy their way into the white house.

-mb


On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Herminio Hernandez Jr. <
herminio.hernande...@gmail.com> wrote:

> They are very related Network QoS exists because there are limits in how
> much networking gear transmits packets and frames. There is a lot more to
> it than just writing the policy. There is a cost to engineer that out.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Nov 24, 2017, at 12:59 PM, Stephen Partington 
> wrote:
>
> It is not that simple in my mind. Network QoS is very different then the
> possibility of the customers pay extra for additional services.
>
> Besides Netflix has cache devices that can and are frequently in local is
> Datacenters to alleviate latency and Bw issues.
>
> And given the current fcc chairs attitude I am really skeptical.
>
> On Nov 24, 2017 12:31 PM, "Herminio Hernandez, Jr." <
> herminio.hernande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I will start with some thoughts on why I find the NN debate troubling.
>> First there is a technical misunderstanding. NN is built on the idea that
>> ISPs should treat all traffic equally. This concept is simply unrealistic.
>> Bandwidth is a limited resource there is only so much data that a Ethernet
>> port can transmit and receive. Also things like MTU size, latency, jitter
>> all impact the reliable transmission of data which bring me to my other
>> point. Not all traffic is the same. There are night and day differences
>> between TCP and UDP traffic. For example UDP (which is what most voice and
>> video is) is faster than TCP. The drawback to this is that UDP does not
>> have the recovery features that TCP has in case of packet loss (ie sequence
>> number and acknowledgment packets). There UDP applications are more prone
>> to suffer when latency is high or links get saturated. To overcome this
>> network engineer implement prioritization and traffic shaping to ensure
>> these services are not impacted.
>>
>> As more content is consumed such as 4K video on the internet, the need
>> for traffic shaping will only increase. Netflix already has the ability to
>> push 100Gbps from their servers. That is a ton of data that needs to be
>> prioritized by ISPs. This is not free there are serious costs involved in
>> man hours and infrastructure. Someone needs to bear that cost. This is why
>> I am not opposed to fast lanes. If Netflix is going to have ISPs ensure all
>> of the massive amounts to data are push is delivered efficiently, then the
>> ISPs should be free to charge a premium for this service. Netflix does not
>> want to bear this cost, hense their support for Net Neutrality. They want
>> the ISPs to bear the cost, but then result of that is we bear the cost via
>> data caps.
>>
>> When you strip away all the slogans it all comes down to money and
>> control. Data will be traffic shaped it is just who decides how unelected
>> government bureaucrats pushing some public policy or market forces.
>>
>> Something else to consider a lot not all but a lot of the very same
>> people who cry that the end of Net Neutrality will be end of free speech
>> (no more free and open internet) have no issue saying Twiiter, Facebook,
>> and Google (since they are 'private companies') have the right demonetize,
>> obscure, or even ban individuals who express ideas that other deem
>> "offensive". How is that promoting a "Free and Open Internet"?
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Eric Oyen  wrote:
>>
>>> well, as someone else suggested, a new thread.
>>>
>>> so, shall we start the discussion?
>>>
>>> ok, as ment