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

[Steve Litt]

On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 22:45:34 -0700
"Herminio Hernandez Jr. "  wrote:

> So if Net Neutrality is failing now why keep it?

Because it's just a tiny bit of net neutrality. True net neutrality
would be to regulate the broadband vendors as utilities, which is
exactly what they are.

I think this guy has a pretty good rebuttal to all your arguments:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/29/technology/internet-dying-repeal-net-neutrality.html

I quote:


Because net neutrality shelters start-ups — which can’t easily pay for
fast-line access — from internet giants that can pay, the rules are
just about the last bulwark against the complete corporate takeover of
much of online life. When the rules go, the internet will still work,
but it will look like and feel like something else altogether — a
network in which business development deals, rather than innovation,
determine what you experience, a network that feels much more like
cable TV than the technological Wild West that gave you Napster and
Netflix.

 
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

[Eric Oyen]

the version of "net neutrality" currently in force certainly doesn't appear to 
be working. Comcast pretty much flouts it. not sure about the others yet.

now, perhaps if some third party owned all the intermediate and last mile cable 
and rented it out to whoever would pay to put data across it, then we might see 
a return to the glory days of the internet. however, I don't see that happening.

-eric
from the central offices of the Technomage Guild, pipe dreams 'R' us.

On Nov 29, 2017, at 10:45 PM, Herminio Hernandez Jr. wrote:

> So if Net Neutrality is failing now why keep it?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Nov 29, 2017, at 10:34 PM, Eric Oyen  wrote:
>> 
>> yeah. btw, comcast is actively throttling torrent traffic as we speak (it 
>> was posted on twitter about an hour ago). they are still throttling netflix. 
>> yet, they claim they are abiding by their customer agreement not to do this. 
>> so, this pretty much means that comcast (as the ISP) has already proven to 
>> lie to their customers and to the FCC. 
>> 
>> so, given that, what is to stop the other providers (like verizon, AT&T, 
>> cox, TW, T-mobile and others) from behaving just as badly?
>> 
>> now, the situation is this:
>> since 1995 and the initial rollout of DSL, there were some 100 or so ISP's 
>> here in the valley. most were still dialup. there was 2 over the air 
>> (wireless other than cell) providers, cable was just getting started and 
>> dialup was still common. less than 4 years later, fully half of the ISP's 
>> have disappeared, broadband was getting cheaper and both the phone company 
>> and cable companies had their own in house ISP. 1996 was the turning point 
>> with the deregulation of the telco's, thus cutting out others from using 
>> DSL. THen you also had big software (such as microsoft) trying to get in on 
>> the action (they partnered with USWest, later to become QWest). fast forward 
>> to mid 2005.. virtually no independent ISP's existed (or there were very 
>> few) and dialup was fast becoming a distant memory in large cities. by this 
>> point, you started seeing the consolidation of pathways onto the internet. 
>> there was cellular (still slow), cable or DSL (no one uses T-1 or above 
>> anymore). With mergers happening well into 2010 and later, the number of 
>> available routes to the internet reduced down to the current 6. All of them 
>> own the facilities, intervening cable/wire or airspace. anyone trying to 
>> compete with that couldn't because those 6 entities have already set price 
>> points that no small operator could match (another barrier to entry).
>> 
>> so, here we are. we have 6 near monopolies with very similar plans, price 
>> points, and capabilities. they have grown powerful enough that they can 
>> dictate to local municipalities what is allowed or not. They have also 
>> lobbied to get protectionist laws put in place to prevent new competition.  
>> There are a couple of new operators coming on the scene: satellite internet 
>> with planet wide coverage) and also aircraft mobile coverage that can cover 
>> most of the land area at any given time. Once those systems are fully 
>> operational, it might force the big 6 to take action, or improve their 
>> services to compete. btw, a LEO satellite system can have a 400 mile wide 
>> footprint and cost pennies to keep operational (we are talking micro 
>> satellites here). 
>> 
>> the big question, will this new scenario improve things or lead to more of 
>> the same? Also, how do we, as customers, make sure we have a good choice of 
>> services? Will the government have to step in and pull some anti-trust 
>> actions?
>> 
>> lots of complex questions and no easy answers.
>> 
>> -eric
>> from the central offices of the Technomage Guild, Future engineering Dept.
>> 
>>> On Nov 29, 2017, at 10:04 PM, Matthew Crews wrote:
>>> 
>>> I think some of y'all forget that the net neutrality debate isn't really 
>>> about QoS, latency, or bandwidth. It is about ISPs intentionally throttling 
>>> or blocking services and websites that compete directly with other services 
>>> that an ISP might offer, or even for arbitrary reasons or no reasons at all.
>>> 
>>> Since the vast majority of us are in the Phoenix area, we are likely 
>>> serviced by either CenturyLink or Cox for our physical internet, and by 
>>> Verizon, AT&T, Sprint or T-Mobile for cellular internet. Without net 
>>> neutrality, Cox will be allowed to throttle services like Hulu, Netflix and 
>>> Youtube to horribly slow speeds if they want, while allowing their own 
>>> competing television services and streaming services to go through at high 
>>> speed; they can "restore" normal speeds for an extra fee, or not. Verizon 
>>> could block or throttle access to Google Drive, Apple iDrive, or One Drive, 
>>> while freely allowing access to their competing "Verizon Cloud" and 
>>> "Verizon Messages". The same with AT&T and blocking Skype, Google Hangouts, 
>>> Apple Facetime, or WhatsApp

Re: OT: Any Mac Geniuses on the List who can advise on a Mac for Christmas?

[David Schwartz]

I’ve been using Macs regularly since I got a 27” iMac back in 2006.

I’ve had a few Mac Minis, and both them and the old white iMacs could be opened 
up (with a little effort) and upgraded.

Newer stuff is much harder to crack open, although I’m told MBPs can be 
upgraded without much trouble by removing their bottom (with the right 
screwdriver).

Personally, I like to buy equipment that’s slightly behind the leading edge, 
preferably refurbished, or “nearly new”.

All MBPs seem tocome now with: quad-core i7, 16GB RAM, and SSDs.

The variations are: CPU speed, SSD size, and GPU.

Here’s a tip: you’re going to find the best deals on Apple stuff between 
Christmas and around the 5th or so of January on eBay.

College kids who’ve gotten something the previous semester on a student 
discount suddenly have to leave school, or they need to sell their machine to 
help pay for school, or something.

Look for a machine with a “bottom-end” (today) CPU (eg., 2.6GHz i7), 1TB SSD, 
and a “bottom-end” GPU, with AppleCare.

The MSRP on MBPs like this online or at the Apple Store will be around $3400. 
If you’re patient, it’s extremly likely you’ll be able to find one on eBay 
during this time for $2k give or take a couple hundred, because these folks 
just want to pay off the balance they owe after a semester of use.

You can also keep your eye on the Apple Refurbished store online.

https://u2206659.ct.sendgrid.net/wf/click?upn=3cK2FVJjyu2N-2Bxco034fZhkcNOiartu8q1tF5gHJ5EbRa-2BAQuAXC53h0paxl2KQ9RwS0uK1It2N1YkjSlQInhw-3D-3D_6lpMB7VLnN-2Fj9-2FEErg8-2F-2BMBpb5QxlByTgv2M3fbWD9ebvC-2BWrN3h7jImK8EVWYBeIewqeHOfkg3lN40c4PHrtJBewo31oKoATL8cfA7i8jyUKVYgfukAQg9mHfiGjAIZyucImwb0SAL9WkJHMD-2Bk-2Bm1CQVWYy7UqaJET-2FF2C8Jm0J-2FOEZZSCsM9jQViQGpekUIjlHEjxnnlTVJO3986ZYptxFj5o5fBLbJMVrupS8vo-3D
 


In this case, get a machine that was released 12-18 months ago. You get a full 
warranty, you can buy AppleCare, and it’s 15-25% off the original price.

Just because someone doesn’t think they need a laptop for its portability is no 
reason to avoid them. I keep my 15” MBP sitting on my desk closed most of the 
time. I have it connected to a 55” 4k monitor, and I use an Apple keyboard, 
Apple trackpad, and a Logitech USB mouse with it.

Even if money were no object, I’d be hardpressed to think of a better setup. 
Maybe a Mac Pro. But I like being able to unplug my MBP and take it with me any 
time I might want it.

BTW, regarding Mac hardware, the biggest two factors in price when it comes to 
their machines is: SSD size and CPU speed.

On the refurb store, 13” MBPs start at $829 with a spinning HD, and those with 
SSDs start at $1100. The top-of-the-line 15” is $3569. So there’s a model for 
almost any budget!

-David Schwartz




> On Nov 29, 2017, at 8:43 PM, Mark Phillips  wrote:
> 
> It is time to upgrade my daughter's 2009 Macbook Pro. She does not need the 
> portability of a laptop as she uses her iPad for that. He home use is not 
> that demanding, except that she loves to edit her diving and vacation movies. 
> She could use a Mac mini, as she has a 23" monitor, apple keyboard, and apple 
> mouse. However, I am not sure there is enough RAM and horsepower in a Mac 
> mini, so I have been looking at iMacs as well. 
> 
> My assumptions are she needs at least 16 GB of RAM and a quad core i7 for 
> serious video editing (around an hour of 1080p 60 Hz. video when rendered). 
> Which puts us up around $1400+. Are my assumptions correct, or off base? What 
> should we be looking at?
> 
> She was a Linux user when she was younger, but then they grow up, go to 
> college, get a job, get married, and think they know everything;) (she 
> ditched Linux in college)
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Mark
> ---
> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
> https://u2206659.ct.sendgrid.net/wf/click?upn=5DvWGaZUY8Sh5aRLWfQTKYiRLVzunonVk948p8WIzMe-2FXlJ9Cta8w8U9xoku9LrUSHNMJbSd3ZEwH-2BqnW2UHlA-3D-3D_6lpMB7VLnN-2Fj9-2FEErg8-2F-2BMBpb5QxlByTgv2M3fbWD9ebvC-2BWrN3h7jImK8EVWYBeIewqeHOfkg3lN40c4PHrtBttAevbR5Vuza7U4sTPuW5sTfOrAYwqYlXf3IrT23v3yOtpunUPbbMYv5AGNXoPQ9DNB9bTk57k6ZjEGW3Og6OcxBCttNLzr2t2i-2BNARYrFjPw3WpT8Uaxah2dKRZNsmDXT-2BMbMMPo14B6vELL4sfo-3D

---
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.]

So if Net Neutrality is failing now why keep it?

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 29, 2017, at 10:34 PM, Eric Oyen  wrote:
> 
> yeah. btw, comcast is actively throttling torrent traffic as we speak (it was 
> posted on twitter about an hour ago). they are still throttling netflix. yet, 
> they claim they are abiding by their customer agreement not to do this. so, 
> this pretty much means that comcast (as the ISP) has already proven to lie to 
> their customers and to the FCC. 
> 
> so, given that, what is to stop the other providers (like verizon, AT&T, cox, 
> TW, T-mobile and others) from behaving just as badly?
> 
> now, the situation is this:
> since 1995 and the initial rollout of DSL, there were some 100 or so ISP's 
> here in the valley. most were still dialup. there was 2 over the air 
> (wireless other than cell) providers, cable was just getting started and 
> dialup was still common. less than 4 years later, fully half of the ISP's 
> have disappeared, broadband was getting cheaper and both the phone company 
> and cable companies had their own in house ISP. 1996 was the turning point 
> with the deregulation of the telco's, thus cutting out others from using DSL. 
> THen you also had big software (such as microsoft) trying to get in on the 
> action (they partnered with USWest, later to become QWest). fast forward to 
> mid 2005.. virtually no independent ISP's existed (or there were very few) 
> and dialup was fast becoming a distant memory in large cities. by this point, 
> you started seeing the consolidation of pathways onto the internet. there was 
> cellular (still slow), cable or DSL (no one uses T-1 or above anymore). With 
> mergers happening well into 2010 and later, the number of available routes to 
> the internet reduced down to the current 6. All of them own the facilities, 
> intervening cable/wire or airspace. anyone trying to compete with that 
> couldn't because those 6 entities have already set price points that no small 
> operator could match (another barrier to entry).
> 
> so, here we are. we have 6 near monopolies with very similar plans, price 
> points, and capabilities. they have grown powerful enough that they can 
> dictate to local municipalities what is allowed or not. They have also 
> lobbied to get protectionist laws put in place to prevent new competition.  
> There are a couple of new operators coming on the scene: satellite internet 
> with planet wide coverage) and also aircraft mobile coverage that can cover 
> most of the land area at any given time. Once those systems are fully 
> operational, it might force the big 6 to take action, or improve their 
> services to compete. btw, a LEO satellite system can have a 400 mile wide 
> footprint and cost pennies to keep operational (we are talking micro 
> satellites here). 
> 
> the big question, will this new scenario improve things or lead to more of 
> the same? Also, how do we, as customers, make sure we have a good choice of 
> services? Will the government have to step in and pull some anti-trust 
> actions?
> 
> lots of complex questions and no easy answers.
> 
> -eric
> from the central offices of the Technomage Guild, Future engineering Dept.
> 
>> On Nov 29, 2017, at 10:04 PM, Matthew Crews wrote:
>> 
>> I think some of y'all forget that the net neutrality debate isn't really 
>> about QoS, latency, or bandwidth. It is about ISPs intentionally throttling 
>> or blocking services and websites that compete directly with other services 
>> that an ISP might offer, or even for arbitrary reasons or no reasons at all.
>> 
>> Since the vast majority of us are in the Phoenix area, we are likely 
>> serviced by either CenturyLink or Cox for our physical internet, and by 
>> Verizon, AT&T, Sprint or T-Mobile for cellular internet. Without net 
>> neutrality, Cox will be allowed to throttle services like Hulu, Netflix and 
>> Youtube to horribly slow speeds if they want, while allowing their own 
>> competing television services and streaming services to go through at high 
>> speed; they can "restore" normal speeds for an extra fee, or not. Verizon 
>> could block or throttle access to Google Drive, Apple iDrive, or One Drive, 
>> while freely allowing access to their competing "Verizon Cloud" and "Verizon 
>> Messages". The same with AT&T and blocking Skype, Google Hangouts, Apple 
>> Facetime, or WhatsApp. Unless of course you pay extra, or not if the ISP 
>> doesn't want you to access a service at all.
>> 
>> In countries that do not have net neutrality, this isn't hypothetical. This 
>> actually happens. See: 
>> https://twitter.com/rokhanna/status/923701871092441088?lang=en
>> 
>> Lets not forget that some ISPs were actively sabotaging certain network 
>> services such as Bittorrent. See: 
>> https://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2007/10/evidence-mounts-that-comcast-is-targeting-bittorrent-traffic/
>> 
>> At some point, this does cross the line into corporate censorship if an ISP 
>> is allowed to arbitrar

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

[Herminio Hernandez Jr.]

It is the failure to see the correlation that is frustrating. How do you think 
throttling happens or why technically speaking? The previous system address 
abuses by the ISPs. Net Neutrality is technically flawed b/c it assumes a 
technically flawed premise (ie all traffic can be treated the same). You cannot 
effectively manage a network in 2017 without some traffic shaping. Who gets to 
decide if some decision in traffic management is ‘legitimate’ or ‘abusive’. Do 
you really want a bunch of unelected officials who got their position due who 
they connected to make those calls?  Should ISPs have to gain approval for 
every policy decision to be sure it is not abusive. How do you think this going 
to be enforced? 

The situation you feared was attempted in the past and was dealt with. We 
already have a legal framework to address those abuses. 

Finally let talk about censorship. Who in 2017 is silencing Free Speech? The 
ISPs or Google, Facebook, Twitter? You do not search too hard before you find 
stores of these content providers silencing political speech they deem 
inappropriate. People talk about a Free and Open Internet but do we have that 
now?

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 29, 2017, at 10:04 PM, Matthew Crews  
> wrote:
> 
> I think some of y'all forget that the net neutrality debate isn't really 
> about QoS, latency, or bandwidth. It is about ISPs intentionally throttling 
> or blocking services and websites that compete directly with other services 
> that an ISP might offer, or even for arbitrary reasons or no reasons at all.
> 
> Since the vast majority of us are in the Phoenix area, we are likely serviced 
> by either CenturyLink or Cox for our physical internet, and by Verizon, AT&T, 
> Sprint or T-Mobile for cellular internet. Without net neutrality, Cox will be 
> allowed to throttle services like Hulu, Netflix and Youtube to horribly slow 
> speeds if they want, while allowing their own competing television services 
> and streaming services to go through at high speed; they can "restore" normal 
> speeds for an extra fee, or not. Verizon could block or throttle access to 
> Google Drive, Apple iDrive, or One Drive, while freely allowing access to 
> their competing "Verizon Cloud" and "Verizon Messages". The same with AT&T 
> and blocking Skype, Google Hangouts, Apple Facetime, or WhatsApp. Unless of 
> course you pay extra, or not if the ISP doesn't want you to access a service 
> at all.
> 
> In countries that do not have net neutrality, this isn't hypothetical. This 
> actually happens. See: 
> https://twitter.com/rokhanna/status/923701871092441088?lang=en
> 
> Lets not forget that some ISPs were actively sabotaging certain network 
> services such as Bittorrent. See: 
> https://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2007/10/evidence-mounts-that-comcast-is-targeting-bittorrent-traffic/
> 
> At some point, this does cross the line into corporate censorship if an ISP 
> is allowed to arbitrarily block access to websites. Would you want to pay 
> $5/mo for the "right" to access facebook.com, google.com, or ubuntu.com, or 
> play games via Xbox Live or Steam? I sure as hell don't. With net neutrality 
> gone, nothing is stopping this theoretical scenario from actually happening.
> 
> If the goal is to free up network congestion from an ISP perspective, this is 
> easily accomplished by imposing download limits (which Cox most certainly 
> does, as well as all cellular providers, even under "unlimited" plans), and 
> other content-neutral means (such as throttling during a peak time of day). 
> Or ISPs can continue to raise prices.
> 
> -Matt
> ---
> 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

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

[Eric Oyen]

yeah. btw, comcast is actively throttling torrent traffic as we speak (it was 
posted on twitter about an hour ago). they are still throttling netflix. yet, 
they claim they are abiding by their customer agreement not to do this. so, 
this pretty much means that comcast (as the ISP) has already proven to lie to 
their customers and to the FCC. 

so, given that, what is to stop the other providers (like verizon, AT&T, cox, 
TW, T-mobile and others) from behaving just as badly?

now, the situation is this:
since 1995 and the initial rollout of DSL, there were some 100 or so ISP's here 
in the valley. most were still dialup. there was 2 over the air (wireless other 
than cell) providers, cable was just getting started and dialup was still 
common. less than 4 years later, fully half of the ISP's have disappeared, 
broadband was getting cheaper and both the phone company and cable companies 
had their own in house ISP. 1996 was the turning point with the deregulation of 
the telco's, thus cutting out others from using DSL. THen you also had big 
software (such as microsoft) trying to get in on the action (they partnered 
with USWest, later to become QWest). fast forward to mid 2005.. virtually no 
independent ISP's existed (or there were very few) and dialup was fast becoming 
a distant memory in large cities. by this point, you started seeing the 
consolidation of pathways onto the internet. there was cellular (still slow), 
cable or DSL (no one uses T-1 or above anymore). With mergers happening well 
into 2010 and later, the number of available routes to the internet reduced 
down to the current 6. All of them own the facilities, intervening cable/wire 
or airspace. anyone trying to compete with that couldn't because those 6 
entities have already set price points that no small operator could match 
(another barrier to entry).

so, here we are. we have 6 near monopolies with very similar plans, price 
points, and capabilities. they have grown powerful enough that they can dictate 
to local municipalities what is allowed or not. They have also lobbied to get 
protectionist laws put in place to prevent new competition.  There are a couple 
of new operators coming on the scene: satellite internet with planet wide 
coverage) and also aircraft mobile coverage that can cover most of the land 
area at any given time. Once those systems are fully operational, it might 
force the big 6 to take action, or improve their services to compete. btw, a 
LEO satellite system can have a 400 mile wide footprint and cost pennies to 
keep operational (we are talking micro satellites here). 

the big question, will this new scenario improve things or lead to more of the 
same? Also, how do we, as customers, make sure we have a good choice of 
services? Will the government have to step in and pull some anti-trust actions?

lots of complex questions and no easy answers.

-eric
from the central offices of the Technomage Guild, Future engineering Dept.

On Nov 29, 2017, at 10:04 PM, Matthew Crews wrote:

> I think some of y'all forget that the net neutrality debate isn't really 
> about QoS, latency, or bandwidth. It is about ISPs intentionally throttling 
> or blocking services and websites that compete directly with other services 
> that an ISP might offer, or even for arbitrary reasons or no reasons at all.
> 
> Since the vast majority of us are in the Phoenix area, we are likely serviced 
> by either CenturyLink or Cox for our physical internet, and by Verizon, AT&T, 
> Sprint or T-Mobile for cellular internet. Without net neutrality, Cox will be 
> allowed to throttle services like Hulu, Netflix and Youtube to horribly slow 
> speeds if they want, while allowing their own competing television services 
> and streaming services to go through at high speed; they can "restore" normal 
> speeds for an extra fee, or not. Verizon could block or throttle access to 
> Google Drive, Apple iDrive, or One Drive, while freely allowing access to 
> their competing "Verizon Cloud" and "Verizon Messages". The same with AT&T 
> and blocking Skype, Google Hangouts, Apple Facetime, or WhatsApp. Unless of 
> course you pay extra, or not if the ISP doesn't want you to access a service 
> at all.
> 
> In countries that do not have net neutrality, this isn't hypothetical. This 
> actually happens. See: 
> https://twitter.com/rokhanna/status/923701871092441088?lang=en
> 
> Lets not forget that some ISPs were actively sabotaging certain network 
> services such as Bittorrent. See: 
> https://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2007/10/evidence-mounts-that-comcast-is-targeting-bittorrent-traffic/
> 
> At some point, this does cross the line into corporate censorship if an ISP 
> is allowed to arbitrarily block access to websites. Would you want to pay 
> $5/mo for the "right" to access facebook.com, google.com, or ubuntu.com, or 
> play games via Xbox Live or Steam? I sure as hell don't. With net neutrality 
> gone, nothing is stopping this theoretical scena

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

[Matthew Crews]

I think some of y'all forget that the net neutrality debate isn't really about 
QoS, latency, or bandwidth. It is about ISPs intentionally throttling or 
blocking services and websites that compete directly with other services that 
an ISP might offer, or even for arbitrary reasons or no reasons at all.

Since the vast majority of us are in the Phoenix area, we are likely serviced 
by either CenturyLink or Cox for our physical internet, and by Verizon, AT&T, 
Sprint or T-Mobile for cellular internet. Without net neutrality, Cox will be 
allowed to throttle services like Hulu, Netflix and Youtube to horribly slow 
speeds if they want, while allowing their own competing television services and 
streaming services to go through at high speed; they can "restore" normal 
speeds for an extra fee, or not. Verizon could block or throttle access to 
Google Drive, Apple iDrive, or One Drive, while freely allowing access to their 
competing "Verizon Cloud" and "Verizon Messages". The same with AT&T and 
blocking Skype, Google Hangouts, Apple Facetime, or WhatsApp. Unless of course 
you pay extra, or not if the ISP doesn't want you to access a service at all.

In countries that do not have net neutrality, this isn't hypothetical. This 
actually happens. See: 
https://twitter.com/rokhanna/status/923701871092441088?lang=en

Lets not forget that some ISPs were actively sabotaging certain network 
services such as Bittorrent. See: 
https://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2007/10/evidence-mounts-that-comcast-is-targeting-bittorrent-traffic/

At some point, this does cross the line into corporate censorship if an ISP is 
allowed to arbitrarily block access to websites. Would you want to pay $5/mo 
for the "right" to access facebook.com, google.com, or ubuntu.com, or play 
games via Xbox Live or Steam? I sure as hell don't. With net neutrality gone, 
nothing is stopping this theoretical scenario from actually happening.

If the goal is to free up network congestion from an ISP perspective, this is 
easily accomplished by imposing download limits (which Cox most certainly does, 
as well as all cellular providers, even under "unlimited" plans), and other 
content-neutral means (such as throttling during a peak time of day). Or ISPs 
can continue to raise prices.

-Matt
---
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: OT: Any Mac Geniuses on the List who can advise on a Mac for Christmas?

[Stephen Partington]

The late 2012 Mac Mini can take up to 16 GB via sodimm and 2 2.5 in drives.
Make one an SSD and get the i7 model you have a capable machine. I am using
one as a Linux server and one as a win server.

On Nov 29, 2017 8:43 PM, "Mark Phillips"  wrote:

> It is time to upgrade my daughter's 2009 Macbook Pro. She does not need
> the portability of a laptop as she uses her iPad for that. He home use is
> not that demanding, except that she loves to edit her diving and vacation
> movies. She could use a Mac mini, as she has a 23" monitor, apple keyboard,
> and apple mouse. However, I am not sure there is enough RAM and horsepower
> in a Mac mini, so I have been looking at iMacs as well.
>
> My assumptions are she needs at least 16 GB of RAM and a quad core i7 for
> serious video editing (around an hour of 1080p 60 Hz. video when rendered).
> Which puts us up around $1400+. Are my assumptions correct, or off base?
> What should we be looking at?
>
> She was a Linux user when she was younger, but then they grow up, go to
> college, get a job, get married, and think they know everything;) (she
> ditched Linux in college)
>
> Thanks!
>
> Mark
>
> ---
> 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

Re: OT: Any Mac Geniuses on the List who can advise on a Mac for Christmas?

[Herminio Hernandez Jr.]

You can find great Mac deals here. This place is in Phoenix. 

http://theapplexchange.com/wp/home/current-inventory/

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 29, 2017, at 8:54 PM, Eric Oyen  wrote:
> 
> recent vintage mac mini with 4 or 8 GB ram, Core i7 or i9, 256 GB or larger 
> HDD/SDD and superdrive. the upper end units can run about $1,000 and are 
> available online, or at the apple store, fry's electronics or best buy.
> 
> these are reasonably powerful units that don't use a lot of juice.
> 
> hopefully, this helps.
> 
> -eric
> from the central offices of the Technomage Guild, Sales and hardware support
> 
>> On Nov 29, 2017, at 8:43 PM, Mark Phillips wrote:
>> 
>> It is time to upgrade my daughter's 2009 Macbook Pro. She does not need the 
>> portability of a laptop as she uses her iPad for that. He home use is not 
>> that demanding, except that she loves to edit her diving and vacation 
>> movies. She could use a Mac mini, as she has a 23" monitor, apple keyboard, 
>> and apple mouse. However, I am not sure there is enough RAM and horsepower 
>> in a Mac mini, so I have been looking at iMacs as well. 
>> 
>> My assumptions are she needs at least 16 GB of RAM and a quad core i7 for 
>> serious video editing (around an hour of 1080p 60 Hz. video when rendered). 
>> Which puts us up around $1400+. Are my assumptions correct, or off base? 
>> What should we be looking at?
>> 
>> She was a Linux user when she was younger, but then they grow up, go to 
>> college, get a job, get married, and think they know everything;) (she 
>> ditched Linux in college)
>> 
>> Thanks!
>> 
>> Mark
>> ---
>> 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://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss

Re: OT: Any Mac Geniuses on the List who can advise on a Mac for Christmas?

[Eric Oyen]

recent vintage mac mini with 4 or 8 GB ram, Core i7 or i9, 256 GB or larger 
HDD/SDD and superdrive. the upper end units can run about $1,000 and are 
available online, or at the apple store, fry's electronics or best buy.

these are reasonably powerful units that don't use a lot of juice.

hopefully, this helps.

-eric
from the central offices of the Technomage Guild, Sales and hardware support

On Nov 29, 2017, at 8:43 PM, Mark Phillips wrote:

> It is time to upgrade my daughter's 2009 Macbook Pro. She does not need the 
> portability of a laptop as she uses her iPad for that. He home use is not 
> that demanding, except that she loves to edit her diving and vacation movies. 
> She could use a Mac mini, as she has a 23" monitor, apple keyboard, and apple 
> mouse. However, I am not sure there is enough RAM and horsepower in a Mac 
> mini, so I have been looking at iMacs as well. 
> 
> My assumptions are she needs at least 16 GB of RAM and a quad core i7 for 
> serious video editing (around an hour of 1080p 60 Hz. video when rendered). 
> Which puts us up around $1400+. Are my assumptions correct, or off base? What 
> should we be looking at?
> 
> She was a Linux user when she was younger, but then they grow up, go to 
> college, get a job, get married, and think they know everything;) (she 
> ditched Linux in college)
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Mark
> ---
> 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

OT: Any Mac Geniuses on the List who can advise on a Mac for Christmas?

[Mark Phillips]

It is time to upgrade my daughter's 2009 Macbook Pro. She does not need the
portability of a laptop as she uses her iPad for that. He home use is not
that demanding, except that she loves to edit her diving and vacation
movies. She could use a Mac mini, as she has a 23" monitor, apple keyboard,
and apple mouse. However, I am not sure there is enough RAM and horsepower
in a Mac mini, so I have been looking at iMacs as well.

My assumptions are she needs at least 16 GB of RAM and a quad core i7 for
serious video editing (around an hour of 1080p 60 Hz. video when rendered).
Which puts us up around $1400+. Are my assumptions correct, or off base?
What should we be looking at?

She was a Linux user when she was younger, but then they grow up, go to
college, get a job, get married, and think they know everything;) (she
ditched Linux in college)

Thanks!

Mark
---
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.]

Go for it! I have turned an RPI3 into a router firewall before. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 29, 2017, at 3:46 PM, Eric Oyen  wrote:
> 
> well, I am giving serious thought to flashing that unit with DD-WRT. It's 
> that or get a raspberry pie and set that up as the firewall and network 
> manager.
> 
> -eric
> from the central offices of the Technomage Guild, Gatekeeper's Dept
> 
>> On Nov 29, 2017, at 2:37 PM, Herminio Hernandez, Jr. wrote:
>> 
>> I am not sure how well commercial devices implement QoS. As you saw it is 
>> very powerful. 
>> 
>>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Eric Oyen  wrote:
>>> I was trying to optimize throughput to the chrome cast device (video 
>>> streaming). basically, I was trying to dedicate 6 Mbits/sec for IPTV. ran 
>>> into a couple of issues and will have to do further reading on the Asus 
>>> router I am using.
>>> 
>>> -eric
>>> from the central office of the technomage Guild, Network troubleshooting 
>>> div.
>>> 
 On Nov 29, 2017, at 2:00 PM, Herminio Hernandez, Jr. wrote:
 
 What exactly were you doing? What NOS were you applying the policies? QoS 
 is an entire suite of tools used for traffic management. It can be as 
 light or heavy as you want it to be.
 
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Eric Oyen  wrote:
> I have actually done performance testing with qoS here. believe me, it 
> does affect other users on my circuit.  sure, it can be useful, but it's 
> a sledge hammer where a light touch is required.
> 
> -eric
> from the central offices of the Technomage Guild, Network Ops Center
> 
>> On Nov 29, 2017, at 10:07 AM, Carruth, Rusty wrote:
>> 
>> I strongly disagree with the statement “which the internet needs to 
>> function”.
>>  
>> No, the internet does NOT need QoS in order to function.  Its been 
>> working fine for years without that.  Its just people trying to do 
>> things on the internet that it was not designed for who demand QoS in 
>> order to co-opt the internet for THEIR use.
>>  
>> If you insist that the internet MUST have QoS to function, then that’s 
>> the end of the discussion.  Those who believe that must demand NO NN, 
>> otherwise the internet won’t work the way they think it should.  Those 
>> who have not bought in to that assumption may be on either side of the 
>> debate.  But if you buy the theory that QoS is required for the internet 
>> to function then you must oppose anything that allows the internet to 
>> function the way it was designed.
>>  
>> And the point about QoS effectively stealing bandwidth from other users 
>> is something we’ve not spoken of thus far, as far as I can remember.  
>> But it is something to keep in mind – hacking the medium to enable 
>> realtime data reduces the usability of the internet for all people who 
>> are not using realtime data.
>>  
>> Which brings up a rabbit trail which I’ll start a new thread upon.
>>  
>> Rusty
>>  
>> From: PLUG-discuss [mailto:plug-discuss-boun...@lists.phxlinux.org] On 
>> Behalf Of Herminio Hernandez, Jr.
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 3:33 PM
>> To: Main PLUG discussion list
>> Subject: Re: new thread: QoS, latency, bandwidth and the FCC/net 
>> neutrality debate
>>  
>> Here is a good definition of QoS from Cisco: "The ability of the network 
>> to provide better or 'special' service to a set of users/applications to 
>> the detriment of other users/application". Net Neutrality cannot exist 
>> in a network where QoS is needed which the internet needs to function.
>>  
>> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 5:15 PM, Herminio Hernandez, Jr. 
>>  wrote:
>> I understand your frustration, but to be frank it is unrealistic to 
>> think that the industry is going to redesign the physical infrastructure 
>> to accommodate voice and video. The ship has sailed there. Converged 
>> infrastructure is here to stay. Now the job is to find the best solution 
>> for this reality and Net Neutrality is not it IMO.
>>  
>> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 5:05 PM, Carruth, Rusty 
>>  wrote:
>> I’m going to have to switch to inline answers.  See below.
>>  
>>  
>> From: PLUG-discuss [mailto:plug-discuss-boun...@lists.phxlinux.org] On 
>> Behalf Of Herminio Hernandez, Jr.
>> 
>> >TCP would not solve the issue. Think about constantly having to ask the 
>> >person on the other end of a phone conversation to repeat themselves 
>> >because the sound kept dropping. That would drive you be insane. That 
>> >is very much like TCP. >Voice and Video traffic simply will not work in 
>> >that scenario. 
>>  
>> Which is pretty much to my point.  TCP doesn’t work well for realtime 
>> data (unless perhaps you have nobody else on the wire and a perfect 
>> wire).
>>  
>> So, the first attem

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

[Eric Oyen]

well, I am giving serious thought to flashing that unit with DD-WRT. It's that 
or get a raspberry pie and set that up as the firewall and network manager.

-eric
from the central offices of the Technomage Guild, Gatekeeper's Dept

On Nov 29, 2017, at 2:37 PM, Herminio Hernandez, Jr. wrote:

> I am not sure how well commercial devices implement QoS. As you saw it is 
> very powerful. 
> 
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Eric Oyen  wrote:
> I was trying to optimize throughput to the chrome cast device (video 
> streaming). basically, I was trying to dedicate 6 Mbits/sec for IPTV. ran 
> into a couple of issues and will have to do further reading on the Asus 
> router I am using.
> 
> -eric
> from the central office of the technomage Guild, Network troubleshooting div.
> 
> On Nov 29, 2017, at 2:00 PM, Herminio Hernandez, Jr. wrote:
> 
>> What exactly were you doing? What NOS were you applying the policies? QoS is 
>> an entire suite of tools used for traffic management. It can be as light or 
>> heavy as you want it to be.
>> 
>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Eric Oyen  wrote:
>> I have actually done performance testing with qoS here. believe me, it does 
>> affect other users on my circuit.  sure, it can be useful, but it's a sledge 
>> hammer where a light touch is required.
>> 
>> -eric
>> from the central offices of the Technomage Guild, Network Ops Center
>> 
>> On Nov 29, 2017, at 10:07 AM, Carruth, Rusty wrote:
>> 
>>> I strongly disagree with the statement “which the internet needs to 
>>> function”.
>>>  
>>> No, the internet does NOT need QoS in order to function.  Its been working 
>>> fine for years without that.  Its just people trying to do things on the 
>>> internet that it was not designed for who demand QoS in order to co-opt the 
>>> internet for THEIR use.
>>>  
>>> If you insist that the internet MUST have QoS to function, then that’s the 
>>> end of the discussion.  Those who believe that must demand NO NN, otherwise 
>>> the internet won’t work the way they think it should.  Those who have not 
>>> bought in to that assumption may be on either side of the debate.  But if 
>>> you buy the theory that QoS is required for the internet to function then 
>>> you must oppose anything that allows the internet to function the way it 
>>> was designed.
>>>  
>>> And the point about QoS effectively stealing bandwidth from other users is 
>>> something we’ve not spoken of thus far, as far as I can remember.  But it 
>>> is something to keep in mind – hacking the medium to enable realtime data 
>>> reduces the usability of the internet for all people who are not using 
>>> realtime data.
>>>  
>>> Which brings up a rabbit trail which I’ll start a new thread upon.
>>>  
>>> Rusty
>>>  
>>> From: PLUG-discuss [mailto:plug-discuss-boun...@lists.phxlinux.org] On 
>>> Behalf Of Herminio Hernandez, Jr.
>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 3:33 PM
>>> To: Main PLUG discussion list
>>> Subject: Re: new thread: QoS, latency, bandwidth and the FCC/net neutrality 
>>> debate
>>>  
>>> Here is a good definition of QoS from Cisco: "The ability of the network to 
>>> provide better or 'special' service to a set of users/applications to the 
>>> detriment of other users/application". Net Neutrality cannot exist in a 
>>> network where QoS is needed which the internet needs to function.
>>>  
>>> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 5:15 PM, Herminio Hernandez, Jr. 
>>>  wrote:
>>> I understand your frustration, but to be frank it is unrealistic to think 
>>> that the industry is going to redesign the physical infrastructure to 
>>> accommodate voice and video. The ship has sailed there. Converged 
>>> infrastructure is here to stay. Now the job is to find the best solution 
>>> for this reality and Net Neutrality is not it IMO.
>>>  
>>> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 5:05 PM, Carruth, Rusty  
>>> wrote:
>>> I’m going to have to switch to inline answers.  See below.
>>>  
>>>  
>>> From: PLUG-discuss [mailto:plug-discuss-boun...@lists.phxlinux.org] On 
>>> Behalf Of Herminio Hernandez, Jr.
>>> 
>>> >TCP would not solve the issue. Think about constantly having to ask the 
>>> >person on the other end of a phone conversation to repeat themselves 
>>> >because the sound kept dropping. That would drive you be insane. That is 
>>> >very much like TCP. >Voice and Video traffic simply will not work in that 
>>> >scenario. 
>>>  
>>> Which is pretty much to my point.  TCP doesn’t work well for realtime data 
>>> (unless perhaps you have nobody else on the wire and a perfect wire).
>>>  
>>> So, the first attempt at a workaround was to use UDP, whose performance 
>>> fits better with ‘almost realtime’ data in a network that was fairly quiet. 
>>>  When that began to fail because of busy networks, something else was 
>>> needed.
>>>  
>>> The next attempt seems to be to change the network transport protocol to 
>>> prioritize certain packets over other packets, which is IMHO risky business.
>>>  
>>> IF, and ONLY IF, there is absolutel

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

[Herminio Hernandez, Jr.]

I am not sure how well commercial devices implement QoS. As you saw it is
very powerful.

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Eric Oyen  wrote:

> I was trying to optimize throughput to the chrome cast device (video
> streaming). basically, I was trying to dedicate 6 Mbits/sec for IPTV. ran
> into a couple of issues and will have to do further reading on the Asus
> router I am using.
>
> -eric
> from the central office of the technomage Guild, Network troubleshooting
> div.
>
> On Nov 29, 2017, at 2:00 PM, Herminio Hernandez, Jr. wrote:
>
> What exactly were you doing? What NOS were you applying the policies? QoS
> is an entire suite of tools used for traffic management. It can be as light
> or heavy as you want it to be.
>
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Eric Oyen  wrote:
>
>> I have actually done performance testing with qoS here. believe me, it
>> does affect other users on my circuit.  sure, it can be useful, but it's a
>> sledge hammer where a light touch is required.
>>
>> -eric
>> from the central offices of the Technomage Guild, Network Ops Center
>>
>> On Nov 29, 2017, at 10:07 AM, Carruth, Rusty wrote:
>>
>> I strongly disagree with the statement “which the internet needs to
>> function”.
>>
>> No, the internet does NOT need QoS in order to function.  Its been
>> working fine for years without that.  Its just people trying to do things
>> on the internet that it was not designed for who demand QoS in order to
>> co-opt the internet for THEIR use.
>>
>> If you insist that the internet MUST have QoS to function, then that’s
>> the end of the discussion.  Those who believe that must demand NO NN,
>> otherwise the internet won’t work the way they think it should.  Those who
>> have not bought in to that assumption may be on either side of the debate.
>> But if you buy the theory that QoS is required for the internet to function
>> then you must oppose anything that allows the internet to function the way
>> it was designed.
>>
>> And the point about QoS effectively stealing bandwidth from other users
>> is something we’ve not spoken of thus far, as far as I can remember.  But
>> it is something to keep in mind – hacking the medium to enable realtime
>> data reduces the usability of the internet for all people who are not using
>> realtime data.
>>
>> Which brings up a rabbit trail which I’ll start a new thread upon.
>>
>> Rusty
>>
>> *From:* PLUG-discuss [mailto:plug-discuss-boun...@lists.phxlinux.org] *On
>> Behalf Of *Herminio Hernandez, Jr.
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 28, 2017 3:33 PM
>> *To:* Main PLUG discussion list
>> *Subject:* Re: new thread: QoS, latency, bandwidth and the FCC/net
>> neutrality debate
>>
>> Here is a good definition of QoS from Cisco: "The ability of the network
>> to provide better or 'special' service to a set of users/applications to
>> the detriment of other users/application". Net Neutrality cannot exist in a
>> network where QoS is needed which the internet needs to function.
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 5:15 PM, Herminio Hernandez, Jr. <
>> herminio.hernande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I understand your frustration, but to be frank it is unrealistic to think
>> that the industry is going to redesign the physical infrastructure to
>> accommodate voice and video. The ship has sailed there. Converged
>> infrastructure is here to stay. Now the job is to find the best solution
>> for this reality and Net Neutrality is not it IMO.
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 5:05 PM, Carruth, Rusty 
>> wrote:
>> I’m going to have to switch to inline answers.  See below.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* PLUG-discuss [mailto:plug-discuss-boun...@lists.phxlinux.org] *On
>> Behalf Of *Herminio Hernandez, Jr.
>> >TCP would not solve the issue. Think about constantly having to ask the
>> person on the other end of a phone conversation to repeat themselves
>> because the sound kept dropping. That would drive you be insane. That is
>> very much like TCP. >Voice and Video traffic simply will not work in
>> that scenario.
>>
>> Which is pretty much to my point.  TCP doesn’t work well for realtime
>> data (unless perhaps you have nobody else on the wire and a perfect wire).
>>
>> So, the first attempt at a workaround was to use UDP, whose performance
>> fits better with ‘almost realtime’ data in a network that was fairly
>> quiet.  When that began to fail because of busy networks, something else
>> was needed.
>>
>> The next attempt seems to be to change the network transport protocol to
>> prioritize certain packets over other packets, which is IMHO risky business.
>>
>> IF, and ONLY IF, there is absolutely no allowance for a transporter of
>> packets to give (or remove) special priority to certain packets based upon
>> something other than their type (VoIP, video), then the issue of realtime
>> data on the interent MIGHT have found a way out of the problem of trying to
>> force something onto a medium which it wasn’t designed to handle.  But I
>> still feel this is trying to force a design onto something that c

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

[Eric Oyen]

I was trying to optimize throughput to the chrome cast device (video 
streaming). basically, I was trying to dedicate 6 Mbits/sec for IPTV. ran into 
a couple of issues and will have to do further reading on the Asus router I am 
using.

-eric
from the central office of the technomage Guild, Network troubleshooting div.

On Nov 29, 2017, at 2:00 PM, Herminio Hernandez, Jr. wrote:

> What exactly were you doing? What NOS were you applying the policies? QoS is 
> an entire suite of tools used for traffic management. It can be as light or 
> heavy as you want it to be.
> 
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Eric Oyen  wrote:
> I have actually done performance testing with qoS here. believe me, it does 
> affect other users on my circuit.  sure, it can be useful, but it's a sledge 
> hammer where a light touch is required.
> 
> -eric
> from the central offices of the Technomage Guild, Network Ops Center
> 
> On Nov 29, 2017, at 10:07 AM, Carruth, Rusty wrote:
> 
>> I strongly disagree with the statement “which the internet needs to 
>> function”.
>>  
>> No, the internet does NOT need QoS in order to function.  Its been working 
>> fine for years without that.  Its just people trying to do things on the 
>> internet that it was not designed for who demand QoS in order to co-opt the 
>> internet for THEIR use.
>>  
>> If you insist that the internet MUST have QoS to function, then that’s the 
>> end of the discussion.  Those who believe that must demand NO NN, otherwise 
>> the internet won’t work the way they think it should.  Those who have not 
>> bought in to that assumption may be on either side of the debate.  But if 
>> you buy the theory that QoS is required for the internet to function then 
>> you must oppose anything that allows the internet to function the way it was 
>> designed.
>>  
>> And the point about QoS effectively stealing bandwidth from other users is 
>> something we’ve not spoken of thus far, as far as I can remember.  But it is 
>> something to keep in mind – hacking the medium to enable realtime data 
>> reduces the usability of the internet for all people who are not using 
>> realtime data.
>>  
>> Which brings up a rabbit trail which I’ll start a new thread upon.
>>  
>> Rusty
>>  
>> From: PLUG-discuss [mailto:plug-discuss-boun...@lists.phxlinux.org] On 
>> Behalf Of Herminio Hernandez, Jr.
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 3:33 PM
>> To: Main PLUG discussion list
>> Subject: Re: new thread: QoS, latency, bandwidth and the FCC/net neutrality 
>> debate
>>  
>> Here is a good definition of QoS from Cisco: "The ability of the network to 
>> provide better or 'special' service to a set of users/applications to the 
>> detriment of other users/application". Net Neutrality cannot exist in a 
>> network where QoS is needed which the internet needs to function.
>>  
>> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 5:15 PM, Herminio Hernandez, Jr. 
>>  wrote:
>> I understand your frustration, but to be frank it is unrealistic to think 
>> that the industry is going to redesign the physical infrastructure to 
>> accommodate voice and video. The ship has sailed there. Converged 
>> infrastructure is here to stay. Now the job is to find the best solution for 
>> this reality and Net Neutrality is not it IMO.
>>  
>> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 5:05 PM, Carruth, Rusty  
>> wrote:
>> I’m going to have to switch to inline answers.  See below.
>>  
>>  
>> From: PLUG-discuss [mailto:plug-discuss-boun...@lists.phxlinux.org] On 
>> Behalf Of Herminio Hernandez, Jr.
>> 
>> >TCP would not solve the issue. Think about constantly having to ask the 
>> >person on the other end of a phone conversation to repeat themselves 
>> >because the sound kept dropping. That would drive you be insane. That is 
>> >very much like TCP. >Voice and Video traffic simply will not work in that 
>> >scenario. 
>>  
>> Which is pretty much to my point.  TCP doesn’t work well for realtime data 
>> (unless perhaps you have nobody else on the wire and a perfect wire).
>>  
>> So, the first attempt at a workaround was to use UDP, whose performance fits 
>> better with ‘almost realtime’ data in a network that was fairly quiet.  When 
>> that began to fail because of busy networks, something else was needed.
>>  
>> The next attempt seems to be to change the network transport protocol to 
>> prioritize certain packets over other packets, which is IMHO risky business.
>>  
>> IF, and ONLY IF, there is absolutely no allowance for a transporter of 
>> packets to give (or remove) special priority to certain packets based upon 
>> something other than their type (VoIP, video), then the issue of realtime 
>> data on the interent MIGHT have found a way out of the problem of trying to 
>> force something onto a medium which it wasn’t designed to handle.  But I 
>> still feel this is trying to force a design onto something that can’t handle 
>> it.
>>  
>> In any case, I still think that those who use ‘the internet’ for realtime 
>> data and wish to force it to 

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

[Herminio Hernandez, Jr.]

What exactly were you doing? What NOS were you applying the policies? QoS
is an entire suite of tools used for traffic management. It can be as light
or heavy as you want it to be.

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Eric Oyen  wrote:

> I have actually done performance testing with qoS here. believe me, it
> does affect other users on my circuit.  sure, it can be useful, but it's a
> sledge hammer where a light touch is required.
>
> -eric
> from the central offices of the Technomage Guild, Network Ops Center
>
> On Nov 29, 2017, at 10:07 AM, Carruth, Rusty wrote:
>
> I strongly disagree with the statement “which the internet needs to
> function”.
>
> No, the internet does NOT need QoS in order to function.  Its been working
> fine for years without that.  Its just people trying to do things on the
> internet that it was not designed for who demand QoS in order to co-opt the
> internet for THEIR use.
>
> If you insist that the internet MUST have QoS to function, then that’s the
> end of the discussion.  Those who believe that must demand NO NN, otherwise
> the internet won’t work the way they think it should.  Those who have not
> bought in to that assumption may be on either side of the debate.  But if
> you buy the theory that QoS is required for the internet to function then
> you must oppose anything that allows the internet to function the way it
> was designed.
>
> And the point about QoS effectively stealing bandwidth from other users is
> something we’ve not spoken of thus far, as far as I can remember.  But it
> is something to keep in mind – hacking the medium to enable realtime data
> reduces the usability of the internet for all people who are not using
> realtime data.
>
> Which brings up a rabbit trail which I’ll start a new thread upon.
>
> Rusty
>
> *From:* PLUG-discuss [mailto:plug-discuss-boun...@lists.phxlinux.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Herminio Hernandez, Jr.
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 28, 2017 3:33 PM
> *To:* Main PLUG discussion list
> *Subject:* Re: new thread: QoS, latency, bandwidth and the FCC/net
> neutrality debate
>
> Here is a good definition of QoS from Cisco: "The ability of the network
> to provide better or 'special' service to a set of users/applications to
> the detriment of other users/application". Net Neutrality cannot exist in a
> network where QoS is needed which the internet needs to function.
>
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 5:15 PM, Herminio Hernandez, Jr. <
> herminio.hernande...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I understand your frustration, but to be frank it is unrealistic to think
> that the industry is going to redesign the physical infrastructure to
> accommodate voice and video. The ship has sailed there. Converged
> infrastructure is here to stay. Now the job is to find the best solution
> for this reality and Net Neutrality is not it IMO.
>
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 5:05 PM, Carruth, Rusty 
> wrote:
> I’m going to have to switch to inline answers.  See below.
>
>
>
> *From:* PLUG-discuss [mailto:plug-discuss-boun...@lists.phxlinux.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Herminio Hernandez, Jr.
> >TCP would not solve the issue. Think about constantly having to ask the
> person on the other end of a phone conversation to repeat themselves
> because the sound kept dropping. That would drive you be insane. That is
> very much like TCP. >Voice and Video traffic simply will not work in that
> scenario.
>
> Which is pretty much to my point.  TCP doesn’t work well for realtime data
> (unless perhaps you have nobody else on the wire and a perfect wire).
>
> So, the first attempt at a workaround was to use UDP, whose performance
> fits better with ‘almost realtime’ data in a network that was fairly
> quiet.  When that began to fail because of busy networks, something else
> was needed.
>
> The next attempt seems to be to change the network transport protocol to
> prioritize certain packets over other packets, which is IMHO risky business.
>
> IF, and ONLY IF, there is absolutely no allowance for a transporter of
> packets to give (or remove) special priority to certain packets based upon
> something other than their type (VoIP, video), then the issue of realtime
> data on the interent MIGHT have found a way out of the problem of trying to
> force something onto a medium which it wasn’t designed to handle.  But I
> still feel this is trying to force a design onto something that can’t
> handle it.
>
> In any case, I still think that those who use ‘the internet’ for realtime
> data and wish to force it to do what it was never designed for have MUCH
> more of a requirement to ‘play nice’ than those who use it for what it was
> originally designed.
>
> > You are right ethernet was not designed for voice and video in mind,
> but that is where we are at and it is not changing.
>
> So then you should reject any attempt to cram a bad design onto something
> that wasn’t designed for it.  Which those against any sort of net
> neutrality seem to be trying to do – force a bad design on the wrong medium
> (assuming I

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

[Eric Oyen]

I have actually done performance testing with qoS here. believe me, it does 
affect other users on my circuit.  sure, it can be useful, but it's a sledge 
hammer where a light touch is required.

-eric
from the central offices of the Technomage Guild, Network Ops Center

On Nov 29, 2017, at 10:07 AM, Carruth, Rusty wrote:

> I strongly disagree with the statement “which the internet needs to function”.
>  
> No, the internet does NOT need QoS in order to function.  Its been working 
> fine for years without that.  Its just people trying to do things on the 
> internet that it was not designed for who demand QoS in order to co-opt the 
> internet for THEIR use.
>  
> If you insist that the internet MUST have QoS to function, then that’s the 
> end of the discussion.  Those who believe that must demand NO NN, otherwise 
> the internet won’t work the way they think it should.  Those who have not 
> bought in to that assumption may be on either side of the debate.  But if you 
> buy the theory that QoS is required for the internet to function then you 
> must oppose anything that allows the internet to function the way it was 
> designed.
>  
> And the point about QoS effectively stealing bandwidth from other users is 
> something we’ve not spoken of thus far, as far as I can remember.  But it is 
> something to keep in mind – hacking the medium to enable realtime data 
> reduces the usability of the internet for all people who are not using 
> realtime data.
>  
> Which brings up a rabbit trail which I’ll start a new thread upon.
>  
> Rusty
>  
> From: PLUG-discuss [mailto:plug-discuss-boun...@lists.phxlinux.org] On Behalf 
> Of Herminio Hernandez, Jr.
> Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 3:33 PM
> To: Main PLUG discussion list
> Subject: Re: new thread: QoS, latency, bandwidth and the FCC/net neutrality 
> debate
>  
> Here is a good definition of QoS from Cisco: "The ability of the network to 
> provide better or 'special' service to a set of users/applications to the 
> detriment of other users/application". Net Neutrality cannot exist in a 
> network where QoS is needed which the internet needs to function.
>  
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 5:15 PM, Herminio Hernandez, Jr. 
>  wrote:
> I understand your frustration, but to be frank it is unrealistic to think 
> that the industry is going to redesign the physical infrastructure to 
> accommodate voice and video. The ship has sailed there. Converged 
> infrastructure is here to stay. Now the job is to find the best solution for 
> this reality and Net Neutrality is not it IMO.
>  
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 5:05 PM, Carruth, Rusty  
> wrote:
> I’m going to have to switch to inline answers.  See below.
>  
>  
> From: PLUG-discuss [mailto:plug-discuss-boun...@lists.phxlinux.org] On Behalf 
> Of Herminio Hernandez, Jr.
> 
> >TCP would not solve the issue. Think about constantly having to ask the 
> >person on the other end of a phone conversation to repeat themselves because 
> >the sound kept dropping. That would drive you be insane. That is very much 
> >like TCP. >Voice and Video traffic simply will not work in that scenario. 
>  
> Which is pretty much to my point.  TCP doesn’t work well for realtime data 
> (unless perhaps you have nobody else on the wire and a perfect wire).
>  
> So, the first attempt at a workaround was to use UDP, whose performance fits 
> better with ‘almost realtime’ data in a network that was fairly quiet.  When 
> that began to fail because of busy networks, something else was needed.
>  
> The next attempt seems to be to change the network transport protocol to 
> prioritize certain packets over other packets, which is IMHO risky business.
>  
> IF, and ONLY IF, there is absolutely no allowance for a transporter of 
> packets to give (or remove) special priority to certain packets based upon 
> something other than their type (VoIP, video), then the issue of realtime 
> data on the interent MIGHT have found a way out of the problem of trying to 
> force something onto a medium which it wasn’t designed to handle.  But I 
> still feel this is trying to force a design onto something that can’t handle 
> it.
>  
> In any case, I still think that those who use ‘the internet’ for realtime 
> data and wish to force it to do what it was never designed for have MUCH more 
> of a requirement to ‘play nice’ than those who use it for what it was 
> originally designed.
>  
> > You are right ethernet was not designed for voice and video in mind, but 
> > that is where we are at and it is not changing.
>  
> So then you should reject any attempt to cram a bad design onto something 
> that wasn’t designed for it.  Which those against any sort of net neutrality 
> seem to be trying to do – force a bad design on the wrong medium (assuming I 
> have half a clue as to what NN is SUPPOSED to be).
>  
> Those who wish to transport realtime data over a network should design a 
> network that can do that, not co-opt somebody else’s network.  Again, IMHO.
> 

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

[Herminio Hernandez, Jr.]

Let me further explain what I "what these people know". They are people who
pushing claim that packets are just packets who know very well that is
simply not true. This is not a debatable point. I can show you packet
traces of a http connection, a https session, a ssh session, and a
streaming session. Just looking at how they transmit without even diving
into the details will demonstrate how silly that idea is. Those are just
four types! We have not talked about torrents, XMPP, SMTP, DNS, POP, BGP,
SIP, FTP, Telnet ... I can go on but none of those packets behave the same
way and to even think that there people who 'honestly' think that we can
one policy to manage it all is beyond belief. That is what bothers people
(I mean those at the top of this whole debate) do know better.

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Herminio Hernandez Jr. <
herminio.hernande...@gmail.com> wrote:

> There is avoiding because of supply and demand. The internet has exploded
> in bandwidth use. Even if all the ISPs had 100Gbps backbone connections
> there will come a point when even that is not enough. Plus it is not just
> port speed. Even if you had 1 Tbps (which I am pretty sure does not exist)
> ports you need a CPU fast enough to be able to process the frames and
> packets at line rate. You need enough memory for support the buffering.
> None of this is cheap. So business made the decision it is cheaper to
> oversell at a cheaper price. Now you can “demand” that ISPs must always
> upgrade. However you will not like your bill and that will pretty much
> guarantee no new ISP startups since they probably will not have the capital
> for top line Network gear.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Nov 29, 2017, at 11:36 AM, Carruth, Rusty 
> wrote:
>
> No, sorry, your understanding of “what these people know” is not correct.
> I do not believe that we should let those who ‘hook stuff together’ hide
> the fact that they have been overselling bandwidth for a long time.
>
>
>
> Probably from the very beginning.
>
>
>
> In the beginning (well, not really, but in 1994-ish time frame), if you
> had a T1 line, you could tell who had a 56K connection, because an FTP or
> other file download from them would max out at 56k.  (I know because I was
> there and did that. Many times.  Sometimes I’d see it bounce around just at
> and below 56K as others used the wire over which I was transferring data (I
> usually assumed it was on their end, but don’t really know for sure)).
>
>
>
> In those days, there were fewer end points with fewer users and no or very
> little ‘realtime’ data, so ISPs could get away with selling more bandwidth
> than they had, or perhaps more reasonable would be to say that the formula
> they used (if any!) for computing how much bandwidth they needed between
> themselves and ‘everyone else’ assumed no realtime data (we didn’t really
> have much if any ‘realtime’ data back in those days as far as I can
> remember), and less loading per customer (that is to say, most customers
> would not utilize the full bandwidth (or a significant portion) of their
> pipe for HOURS at a time).
>
>
>
> Now that the customer has changed, it is time for the ISPs to realize that
> they need to change the formula.  QoS will only postpone the inevitable
> (and probably not for long!).  I’m pretty sure there is not enough
> inter-ISP bandwidth to rationally serve the ‘needs’ of their customers, for
> much longer.
>
>
>
> So, I disagree with the conclusion that ‘there is no avoiding it’ (4th
> sentence below).  What there is no avoiding is the fact that ISPs don’t
> have enough ‘backbone’ bandwidth to handle all their customers. QoS won’t
> fix that, it’s just a bandaid to reduce the available bandwidth for
> non-realtime data users until there is not enough bandwidth even for the
> realtime folks.  (I could have said ‘steal bandwidth from normal,
> non-realtime users’ if I wanted to be more pejorative and say what I really
> feel ;-).
>
>
>
> And, just like running out of IPv4 addresses – that time WILL come.  With
> or without QoS.  (And unfortunately NAT won’t fix THAT problem ;-)
>
>
>
> Your guess as to when that will be is as good as or better than mine…
>
>
>
> Will the day come that ISPs become responsible to their customers to
> actually provide what they are advertising?  I doubt it.  Read your fine
> print.
>
>
>
> (Now, if we had the infrastructure I was advocating for a while, there
> might actually BE enough bandwidth on the backbone.  Oh, well, that will
> probably never happen)
>
>
>
> Anyway, if the ISPs didn’t grossly oversell their available bandwidth,
> this whole debate would sound completely silly.
>
>
>
>
>
> Rusty
>
>
>
> *From:* PLUG-discuss [mailto:plug-discuss-boun...@lists.phxlinux.org
> ] *On Behalf Of *Herminio
> Hernandez Jr.
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 29, 2017 10:56 AM
> *To:* Main PLUG discussion list
> *Subject:* Re: new thread: QoS, latency, bandwidth and the FCC/net
> neutrality debate
>
>
>
> Even if there was no 

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

[Herminio Hernandez Jr.]

There is avoiding because of supply and demand. The internet has exploded in 
bandwidth use. Even if all the ISPs had 100Gbps backbone connections there will 
come a point when even that is not enough. Plus it is not just port speed. Even 
if you had 1 Tbps (which I am pretty sure does not exist) ports you need a CPU 
fast enough to be able to process the frames and packets at line rate. You need 
enough memory for support the buffering. None of this is cheap. So business 
made the decision it is cheaper to oversell at a cheaper price. Now you can 
“demand” that ISPs must always upgrade. However you will not like your bill and 
that will pretty much guarantee no new ISP startups since they probably will 
not have the capital for top line Network gear. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 29, 2017, at 11:36 AM, Carruth, Rusty  wrote:
> 
> No, sorry, your understanding of “what these people know” is not correct.  I 
> do not believe that we should let those who ‘hook stuff together’ hide the 
> fact that they have been overselling bandwidth for a long time.
>  
> Probably from the very beginning.
>  
> In the beginning (well, not really, but in 1994-ish time frame), if you had a 
> T1 line, you could tell who had a 56K connection, because an FTP or other 
> file download from them would max out at 56k.  (I know because I was there 
> and did that. Many times.  Sometimes I’d see it bounce around just at and 
> below 56K as others used the wire over which I was transferring data (I 
> usually assumed it was on their end, but  don’t really know for sure)).
>  
> In those days, there were fewer end points with fewer users and no or very 
> little ‘realtime’ data, so ISPs could get away with selling more bandwidth 
> than they had, or perhaps more reasonable would be to say that the formula 
> they used (if any!) for computing how much bandwidth they needed between 
> themselves and ‘everyone else’ assumed no realtime data (we didn’t really 
> have much if any ‘realtime’ data back in those days as far as I can 
> remember), and less loading per customer (that is to say, most customers 
> would not utilize the full bandwidth (or a significant portion) of their pipe 
> for HOURS at a time).
>  
> Now that the customer has changed, it is time for the ISPs to realize that 
> they need to change the formula.  QoS will only postpone the inevitable (and 
> probably not for long!).  I’m pretty sure there is not enough inter-ISP 
> bandwidth to rationally serve the ‘needs’ of their customers, for much longer.
>  
> So, I disagree with the conclusion that ‘there is no avoiding it’ (4th 
> sentence below).  What there is no avoiding is the fact that ISPs don’t have 
> enough ‘backbone’ bandwidth to handle all their customers. QoS won’t fix 
> that, it’s just a bandaid to reduce the available bandwidth for non-realtime 
> data users until there is not enough bandwidth even for the realtime folks.  
> (I could have said ‘steal bandwidth from normal, non-realtime users’ if I 
> wanted to be more pejorative and say what I really feel ;-).
>  
> And, just like running out of IPv4 addresses – that time WILL come.  With or 
> without QoS.  (And unfortunately NAT won’t fix THAT problem ;-)
>  
> Your guess as to when that will be is as good as or better than mine…
>  
> Will the day come that ISPs become responsible to their customers to actually 
> provide what they are advertising?  I doubt it.  Read your fine print.
>  
> (Now, if we had the infrastructure I was advocating for a while, there might 
> actually BE enough bandwidth on the backbone.  Oh, well, that will probably 
> never happen)
>  
> Anyway, if the ISPs didn’t grossly oversell their available bandwidth, this 
> whole debate would sound completely silly.
>  
>  
> Rusty
>  
> From: PLUG-discuss [mailto:plug-discuss-boun...@lists.phxlinux.org] On Behalf 
> Of Herminio Hernandez Jr. 
> Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 10:56 AM
> To: Main PLUG discussion list
> Subject: Re: new thread: QoS, latency, bandwidth and the FCC/net neutrality 
> debate
>  
> Even if there was no voice and video QoS would be needed for simple fact that 
> network congestion exists. QoS has been around since the days of dialup. The 
> world where there is unlimited bandwidth and network interfaces will always 
> transfer at line rate simply does not exist. There is no avoiding it.   
> People will always want more data faster than new infrastructure can be 
> built. 
>  
> This what I find disturbing about the whole debate. There are people who are 
> pushing the idea that packets are just packets and voice, video, data can all 
> be treated the same. These people know better. They know it is not a question 
> if we should manage the internet but who will manage it. Who’s traffic will 
> get priority service, who will not? 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Nov 29, 2017, at 10:07 AM, Carruth, Rusty  wrote:
> 
> I strongly disagree with the statement “which the internet needs to function”.
>  
> No,

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

[Carruth, Rusty]

No, sorry, your understanding of “what these people know” is not correct.  I do 
not believe that we should let those who ‘hook stuff together’ hide the fact 
that they have been overselling bandwidth for a long time.

Probably from the very beginning.

In the beginning (well, not really, but in 1994-ish time frame), if you had a 
T1 line, you could tell who had a 56K connection, because an FTP or other file 
download from them would max out at 56k.  (I know because I was there and did 
that. Many times.  Sometimes I’d see it bounce around just at and below 56K as 
others used the wire over which I was transferring data (I usually assumed it 
was on their end, but don’t really know for sure)).

In those days, there were fewer end points with fewer users and no or very 
little ‘realtime’ data, so ISPs could get away with selling more bandwidth than 
they had, or perhaps more reasonable would be to say that the formula they used 
(if any!) for computing how much bandwidth they needed between themselves and 
‘everyone else’ assumed no realtime data (we didn’t really have much if any 
‘realtime’ data back in those days as far as I can remember), and less loading 
per customer (that is to say, most customers would not utilize the full 
bandwidth (or a significant portion) of their pipe for HOURS at a time).

Now that the customer has changed, it is time for the ISPs to realize that they 
need to change the formula.  QoS will only postpone the inevitable (and 
probably not for long!).  I’m pretty sure there is not enough inter-ISP 
bandwidth to rationally serve the ‘needs’ of their customers, for much longer.

So, I disagree with the conclusion that ‘there is no avoiding it’ (4th sentence 
below).  What there is no avoiding is the fact that ISPs don’t have enough 
‘backbone’ bandwidth to handle all their customers. QoS won’t fix that, it’s 
just a bandaid to reduce the available bandwidth for non-realtime data users 
until there is not enough bandwidth even for the realtime folks.  (I could have 
said ‘steal bandwidth from normal, non-realtime users’ if I wanted to be more 
pejorative and say what I really feel ;-).

And, just like running out of IPv4 addresses – that time WILL come.  With or 
without QoS.  (And unfortunately NAT won’t fix THAT problem ;-)

Your guess as to when that will be is as good as or better than mine…

Will the day come that ISPs become responsible to their customers to actually 
provide what they are advertising?  I doubt it.  Read your fine print.

(Now, if we had the infrastructure I was advocating for a while, there might 
actually BE enough bandwidth on the backbone.  Oh, well, that will probably 
never happen)

Anyway, if the ISPs didn’t grossly oversell their available bandwidth, this 
whole debate would sound completely silly.


Rusty

From: PLUG-discuss [mailto:plug-discuss-boun...@lists.phxlinux.org] On Behalf 
Of Herminio Hernandez Jr.
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 10:56 AM
To: Main PLUG discussion list
Subject: Re: new thread: QoS, latency, bandwidth and the FCC/net neutrality 
debate

Even if there was no voice and video QoS would be needed for simple fact that 
network congestion exists. QoS has been around since the days of dialup. The 
world where there is unlimited bandwidth and network interfaces will always 
transfer at line rate simply does not exist. There is no avoiding it.   People 
will always want more data faster than new infrastructure can be built.

This what I find disturbing about the whole debate. There are people who are 
pushing the idea that packets are just packets and voice, video, data can all 
be treated the same. These people know better. They know it is not a question 
if we should manage the internet but who will manage it. Who’s traffic will get 
priority service, who will not?
Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 29, 2017, at 10:07 AM, Carruth, Rusty 
mailto:rusty.carr...@smartm.com>> wrote:
I strongly disagree with the statement “which the internet needs to function”.

No, the internet does NOT need QoS in order to function.  Its been working fine 
for years without that.  Its just people trying to do things on the internet 
that it was not designed for who demand QoS in order to co-opt the internet for 
THEIR use.

If you insist that the internet MUST have QoS to function, then that’s the end 
of the discussion.  Those who believe that must demand NO NN, otherwise the 
internet won’t work the way they think it should.  Those who have not bought in 
to that assumption may be on either side of the debate.  But if you buy the 
theory that QoS is required for the internet to function then you must oppose 
anything that allows the internet to function the way it was designed.

And the point about QoS effectively stealing bandwidth from other users is 
something we’ve not spoken of thus far, as far as I can remember.  But it is 
something to keep in mind – hacking the medium to enable realtime data reduces 
the usability of the internet for all people w

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

[Herminio Hernandez Jr.]

Even if there was no voice and video QoS would be needed for simple fact that 
network congestion exists. QoS has been around since the days of dialup. The 
world where there is unlimited bandwidth and network interfaces will always 
transfer at line rate simply does not exist. There is no avoiding it.   People 
will always want more data faster than new infrastructure can be built. 

This what I find disturbing about the whole debate. There are people who are 
pushing the idea that packets are just packets and voice, video, data can all 
be treated the same. These people know better. They know it is not a question 
if we should manage the internet but who will manage it. Who’s traffic will get 
priority service, who will not? 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 29, 2017, at 10:07 AM, Carruth, Rusty  wrote:
> 
> I strongly disagree with the statement “which the internet needs to function”.
>  
> No, the internet does NOT need QoS in order to function.  Its been working 
> fine for years without that.  Its just people trying to do things on the 
> internet that it was not designed for who demand QoS in order to co-opt the 
> internet for THEIR use.
>  
> If you insist that the internet MUST have QoS to function, then that’s the 
> end of the discussion.  Those who believe that must demand NO NN, otherwise 
> the internet won’t work the way they think it should.  Those who have not 
> bought in to that assumption may be on either side of the debate.  But if you 
> buy the theory that QoS is required for the internet to function then you 
> must oppose anything that allows the internet to function the way it was 
> designed.
>  
> And the point about QoS effectively stealing bandwidth from other users is 
> something we’ve not spoken of thus far, as far as I can remember.  But it is 
> something to keep in mind – hacking the medium to enable realtime data 
> reduces the usability of the internet for all people who are not using 
> realtime data.
>  
> Which brings up a rabbit trail which I’ll start a new thread upon.
>  
> Rusty
>  
> From: PLUG-discuss [mailto:plug-discuss-boun...@lists.phxlinux.org] On Behalf 
> Of Herminio Hernandez, Jr.
> Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 3:33 PM
> To: Main PLUG discussion list
> Subject: Re: new thread: QoS, latency, bandwidth and the FCC/net neutrality 
> debate
>  
> Here is a good definition of QoS from Cisco: "The ability of the network to 
> provide better or 'special' service to a set of users/applications to the 
> detriment of other users/application". Net Neutrality cannot exist in a 
> network where QoS is needed which the internet needs to function.
>  
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 5:15 PM, Herminio Hernandez, Jr. 
>  wrote:
> I understand your frustration, but to be frank it is unrealistic to think 
> that the industry is going to redesign the physical infrastructure to 
> accommodate voice and video. The ship has sailed there. Converged 
> infrastructure is here to stay. Now the job is to find the best solution for 
> this reality and Net Neutrality is not it IMO.
>  
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 5:05 PM, Carruth, Rusty  
> wrote:
> I’m going to have to switch to inline answers.  See below.
>  
>  
> From: PLUG-discuss [mailto:plug-discuss-boun...@lists.phxlinux.org] On Behalf 
> Of Herminio Hernandez, Jr.
> 
> >TCP would not solve the issue. Think about constantly having to ask the 
> >person on the other end of a phone conversation to repeat themselves because 
> >the sound kept dropping. That would drive you be insane. That is very much 
> >like TCP. >Voice and Video traffic simply will not work in that scenario. 
>  
> Which is pretty much to my point.  TCP doesn’t work well for realtime data 
> (unless perhaps you have nobody else on the wire and a perfect wire).
>  
> So, the first attempt at a workaround was to use UDP, whose performance fits 
> better with ‘almost realtime’ data in a network that was fairly quiet.  When 
> that began to fail because of busy networks, something else was needed.
>  
> The next attempt seems to be to change the network transport protocol to 
> prioritize certain packets over other packets, which is IMHO risky business.
>  
> IF, and ONLY IF, there is absolutely no allowance for a transporter of 
> packets to give (or remove) special priority to certain packets based upon 
> something other than their type (VoIP, video), then the issue of realtime 
> data on the interent MIGHT have found a way out of the problem of trying to 
> force something onto a medium which it wasn’t designed to handle.  But I 
> still feel this is trying to force a design onto something that can’t handle 
> it.
>  
> In any case, I still think that those who use ‘the internet’ for realtime 
> data and wish to force it to do what it was never designed for have MUCH more 
> of a requirement to ‘play nice’ than those who use it for what it was 
> originally designed.
>  
> > You are right ethernet was not designed for voice and video in mind, but 
> > that is w

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

[Carruth, Rusty]

Oh, my, that might actually work.  But then there must be the question of 
whether or not their world view already demands that QoS be implemented 'in 
order for the internet to work'.  If you start with that belief, then the end 
result is already determined.

And, indeed, this is actually a world-view discussion.  The directions you go 
technically depend entirely upon how you decide 'the internet is supposed to 
work'.

If the internet only works when realtime data can pass freely, at the expense 
of non-realtime users (or worse, when only those who pay extra get the 
bandwidth they thought they were paying for - see my rabbit trail thread for an 
issue tangentially related to this), then QoS is required, etc.

If, on the other hand, the internet works fine as designed, and this is just a 
way for ISPs and others to keep from actually providing the bandwidth they 
claim to be providing, then QoS is absolutely not required.  The infrastructure 
providers need to actually provide the bandwidth they claim to be providing you.

So, here's a technical question - why is QoS required?

Is it not because there isn't actually an appropriate amount of bandwidth 
available between all the different end points to provide the implied bandwidth 
available?

That is, if you have a 10Mbs pipe to the internet, and someone else has a 10Mbs 
pipe, but between your ISP and theirs is only a 1Mbs pipe - guess what?  Now, 
what if some realtime data 'needs' to pass over that 1Mbs pipe - you lose, 
player 2. No bandwidth forrr YOU!  (These numbers are, of course bogus, but are 
intended to demonstrate both where the ISPs have problems and what sorts of 
things affect your usable bandwidth - and how QoS can render the internet 
completely unusable for anyone not sending realtime data.  And what happens 
when 100 users 'need' 100Mbs of bandwidth to send their realtime data across a 
50Mbs link???  Suddenly the internet doesn't work any more, according to the 
new definition.  This QoS thing is ONLY putting off the inevitable - the 
backbone needs more bandwidth.)

In summary - QoS will only 'fix' the realtime data issue until enough users 
'need' more realtime bandwidth than the backbone can provide - then all of a 
sudden the internet is broken again.  If there was enough bandwidth 'on the 
backbone' to handle all the possible realtime data (ok, sure, the backbone 
doesn't exist any more, but that really doesn't affect the discussion in a 
substantive way) then this whole discussion would be silly.

Rusty

-Original Message-
From: PLUG-discuss [mailto:plug-discuss-boun...@lists.phxlinux.org] On Behalf 
Of Eric Oyen
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 4:28 PM
To: Main PLUG discussion list
Subject: Re: new thread: QoS, latency, bandwidth and the FCC/net neutrality 
debate

ok, as a reply to my own posting, it appears that some of the issues regarding 
net neutrality are very political in nature.

Frankly, what the FCC needs is a bevy of network engineers who are conversant 
with all areas of network topology, protocols, security, and traffic handling. 
Then there would be some really qualified answers and rules coming out of the 
FCC then. 

-eric
from the central offices of the Technomage Guild, Dept of political 
machinations.

On Nov 28, 2017, at 4:04 PM, Eric Oyen wrote:

> Below is the text from an article covering net neutrality. It seems that we, 
> out here, with our limited view of things might be missing the big picture.
> 
> what is net neutrality?
> better yet, what is REAL net neutrality?
> 
> anywya, this article might illuminate some of the real issues.
> 
> 
> http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/11/repealing_obamas_net_neutrality_a_blow_for_freedom.html
> 
> 
> November 28, 2017 
> 
> Repealing Obama's Net Neutrality a Blow for Freedom
> 
> By Daniel John Sobieski 
> 
> The FCC is expected to vote and approve on December 14 Chairman Ajit Pai’s
> proposal to end the so-called “net neutrality” rules imposed by President
> Obama’s FCC in 2015. This has provoked howls from liberals and tech giants
> that this is a blow for Internet freedom and another boon for big business.
> It is exactly the opposite. It is in fact a boon for economic and political
> freedom as are all the other Obama-era regulations rescinded by the Trump
> administration that have promoted economic growth and lessened our
> dependency on big government. As the Washington Examiner notes: 
> 
> Sometimes you have to wonder how sincere people are when they gnash their
> teeth and pull out their hair over President Trump blocking or reversing an
> Obama-era regulation. 
> 
> The latest cries of distress about anarchy and market apocalypse can be
> heard about an announcement by the Federal Communications Commission that it
> will roll back “net neutrality.” 
> 
> Net neutrality’s dubious value is made obvious by the misleading way
> Democrats and many news outlets reported the decision. “F.C.C. plans net
> neutrality repeal in a victory 

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

[Carruth, Rusty]

I strongly disagree with the statement “which the internet needs to function”.

No, the internet does NOT need QoS in order to function.  Its been working fine 
for years without that.  Its just people trying to do things on the internet 
that it was not designed for who demand QoS in order to co-opt the internet for 
THEIR use.

If you insist that the internet MUST have QoS to function, then that’s the end 
of the discussion.  Those who believe that must demand NO NN, otherwise the 
internet won’t work the way they think it should.  Those who have not bought in 
to that assumption may be on either side of the debate.  But if you buy the 
theory that QoS is required for the internet to function then you must oppose 
anything that allows the internet to function the way it was designed.

And the point about QoS effectively stealing bandwidth from other users is 
something we’ve not spoken of thus far, as far as I can remember.  But it is 
something to keep in mind – hacking the medium to enable realtime data reduces 
the usability of the internet for all people who are not using realtime data.

Which brings up a rabbit trail which I’ll start a new thread upon.

Rusty

From: PLUG-discuss [mailto:plug-discuss-boun...@lists.phxlinux.org] On Behalf 
Of Herminio Hernandez, Jr.
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 3:33 PM
To: Main PLUG discussion list
Subject: Re: new thread: QoS, latency, bandwidth and the FCC/net neutrality 
debate

Here is a good definition of QoS from Cisco: "The ability of the network to 
provide better or 'special' service to a set of users/applications to the 
detriment of other users/application". Net Neutrality cannot exist in a network 
where QoS is needed which the internet needs to function.

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 5:15 PM, Herminio Hernandez, Jr. 
mailto:herminio.hernande...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I understand your frustration, but to be frank it is unrealistic to think that 
the industry is going to redesign the physical infrastructure to accommodate 
voice and video. The ship has sailed there. Converged infrastructure is here to 
stay. Now the job is to find the best solution for this reality and Net 
Neutrality is not it IMO.

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 5:05 PM, Carruth, Rusty 
mailto:rusty.carr...@smartm.com>> wrote:
I’m going to have to switch to inline answers.  See below.


From: PLUG-discuss 
[mailto:plug-discuss-boun...@lists.phxlinux.org]
 On Behalf Of Herminio Hernandez, Jr.
>TCP would not solve the issue. Think about constantly having to ask the person 
>on the other end of a phone conversation to repeat themselves because the 
>sound kept dropping. That would drive you be insane. That is very much like 
>TCP. >Voice and Video traffic simply will not work in that scenario.

Which is pretty much to my point.  TCP doesn’t work well for realtime data 
(unless perhaps you have nobody else on the wire and a perfect wire).

So, the first attempt at a workaround was to use UDP, whose performance fits 
better with ‘almost realtime’ data in a network that was fairly quiet.  When 
that began to fail because of busy networks, something else was needed.

The next attempt seems to be to change the network transport protocol to 
prioritize certain packets over other packets, which is IMHO risky business.

IF, and ONLY IF, there is absolutely no allowance for a transporter of packets 
to give (or remove) special priority to certain packets based upon something 
other than their type (VoIP, video), then the issue of realtime data on the 
interent MIGHT have found a way out of the problem of trying to force something 
onto a medium which it wasn’t designed to handle.  But I still feel this is 
trying to force a design onto something that can’t handle it.

In any case, I still think that those who use ‘the internet’ for realtime data 
and wish to force it to do what it was never designed for have MUCH more of a 
requirement to ‘play nice’ than those who use it for what it was originally 
designed.

> You are right ethernet was not designed for voice and video in mind, but that 
> is where we are at and it is not changing.

So then you should reject any attempt to cram a bad design onto something that 
wasn’t designed for it.  Which those against any sort of net neutrality seem to 
be trying to do – force a bad design on the wrong medium (assuming I have half 
a clue as to what NN is SUPPOSED to be).

Those who wish to transport realtime data over a network should design a 
network that can do that, not co-opt somebody else’s network.  Again, IMHO.

Rusty

> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 4:37 PM, Carruth, Rusty 
> mailto:rusty.carr...@smartm.com>> wrote:
I still disagree.

First, if they needed reliable delivery of packets, then they should use TCP.

My understanding of the ‘theory’ of why streaming services use UDP is that it 
doesn’t hurt ‘much’ if you lose a ‘few’ packets – not as much as them showing 
up in the wrong order, or massively delayed, so using