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

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, 
>> 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, 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 and blocking Skype, Google Hangouts, 
>>> Apple

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

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, 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, 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 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

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

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, 
> 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 
> 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

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, 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, 
> 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 
> 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

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

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 <eric.o...@icloud.com> 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 <eric.o...@icloud.com> 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 <eric.o...@icloud.com> 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&g

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

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 <eric.o...@icloud.com> 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 <eric.o...@icloud.com> 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 <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 
>>> >becau

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

2017-11-29 Thread 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 <eric.o...@icloud.com> 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 <eric.o...@icloud.com> 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 <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
>> wa

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

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 <eric.o...@icloud.com> 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 <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.
>>  
>

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

2017-11-29 Thread 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 <eric.o...@icloud.com> 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 <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.
&

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

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 <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

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

2017-11-29 Thread Herminio Hernandez, Jr.

gt;
>
>
> Rusty
>
>
>
> *From:* PLUG-discuss [mailto:plug-discuss-boun...@lists.phxlinux.org
> <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 <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 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
> <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 <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

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

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 <rusty.carr...@smartm.com> 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 t

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

2017-11-29 Thread 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 
<rusty.carr...@smartm.com<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 
t

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 <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 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 <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

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

2017-11-29 Thread 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

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

2017-11-29 Thread 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. 
<herminio.hernande...@gmail.com<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 
<rusty.carr...@smartm.com<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<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 
> <rusty.carr...@smartm.com<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 streami

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

oh yeah. I know real well about their hit piece on the ADA. the author of that 
story got corrected on his views from someone who is disabled (namely me).

like I stated in my followup post to my own post here, I indicated the 
political nature of the whole mess. hope this clears up things. :)

-eric
from the central offices of the technomage Guild, the redundant dept to stamp 
out redundancy.

On Nov 28, 2017, at 4:57 PM, Steve Litt wrote:

> On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 16:04:18 -0700
> 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
> 
> Cmon, Eric, it's very obvious this article has an agenda quite apart
> from the Internet.
> 
> "Liberals oppose the free flow of information they can’t control"
> 
> This is a political hitpiece, and what, aside from them having
> "thinker" in the website title, makes their opinion as expressed inthis
> editorial any more credible than the opinion of the average person on
> this list?
> 
> To examine their agenda, look at some of what they've written on the
> Americans With Disability Act:
> 
> http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2012/04/the_ada_and_regulatory_overreach.html
> 
> http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/06/when_reasonable_accommodation_isnt.html
> 
> http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/06/transgender_privilege_and_the_americans_with_disabilities_act.html
> 
> 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

---
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

2017-11-28 Thread Steve Litt

On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 16:04:18 -0700
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

Cmon, Eric, it's very obvious this article has an agenda quite apart
from the Internet.

"Liberals oppose the free flow of information they can’t control"

This is a political hitpiece, and what, aside from them having
"thinker" in the website title, makes their opinion as expressed inthis
editorial any more credible than the opinion of the average person on
this list?

To examine their agenda, look at some of what they've written on the
Americans With Disability Act:

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2012/04/the_ada_and_regulatory_overreach.html

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/06/when_reasonable_accommodation_isnt.html

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/06/transgender_privilege_and_the_americans_with_disabilities_act.html

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

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 for telecoms,” wrote the New York Times.
> Missing from the headline or lede was that the decision was a loss for
> Netflix, Amazon, Google, and other corporate giants that provide content. 
> 
> Liberals oppose the free flow of information they can’t control and in the
> name of providing equal access to all they sought to regulate the access of
> everybody. They., in effect, sought to put toll booths and speed bumps on
> the information superhighway. As the Daily Signal reported: 
> 
> On Wednesday, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai revealed his most important change yet:
> eliminating the spectacularly nonsensical “net neutrality” rules imposed by
> President Barack Obama’s FCC in 2015. 
> 
> The 2015 rules deemed internet service providers such as Verizon and Comcast
> to be “common carriers” under the 80-year-old Communications Act. 
> 
> This allowed the FCC to subject those companies to meticulous FCC control
> over how they provide service --specifically, net neutrality rules requiring
> providers to treat all internet transmissions equally, even if the sender or
> consumer would prefer customized service. 
> 
> Not surprisingly, investment in broadband networks subsequently declined,
> and innovation -- such as certain free data service plans -- was threatened.
> 
> 
> But Wednesday, the FCC chairman revealed plans to repeal the 2015 Open
> Internet Order and return to what he described as “the light-touch
> regulatory framework that served our nation so well.” 
> 
> President Obama feared the free flow of information as a threat to his power
> grabs and attempt to fundamentally transform the United States. Just as
> cable news eliminated the old guard network’s role as gatekeepers of what we
> saw and heard, the Internet freed information consumers to seek the truth
> and speak their minds in an unfettered environment. 
> 
> Under net neutrality, the FCC took for itself the power to regulate how
> Internet providers manage their networks and how they serve their customers.
> The FCC would decide how and what information could flow through the
> Internet, all in the name of providing access to the alleged victims of
> corporate greed. 
> 
> The Internet, perhaps as much as the first printing press, has freed the
> minds of men from the tyranny of those gatekeepers who know that if you can
> control what people say and know, you can control the people themselves. And
> that is what President Obama feared. In a May 2010 commencement speech to
> graduates at Hampton University in Virginia, President Obama complained that
> too much information is actually a threat to democracy. 
> 
> Obama’s fear of Internet freedom and the free flow of information was noted
> by Investor’s Business Daily when it editorialized in 2014: 
> 
> We would suggest that it is because

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

you are not the only 1 who knows one of the original inventors of the net. :)
A local friend of mine holds about 28 patents, several of them for upgrading 
old mechanical switches in place to handle newer digital data. It is amazing 
how far we have come since 1968.

-eric
from the central offices of the Technomage Guild, History library Division.

On Nov 28, 2017, at 2:37 PM, Carruth, Rusty 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 UDP is a workaround to 
> try to use a medium that wasn’t actually designed to carry realtime data.
>  
> So, I go with the line of reasoning that claims that using ‘the internet’ for 
> real-time data is to misuse the medium.  And if a medium is misused, those so 
> misusing it shouldn’t be surprised if it doesn’t work in a way it wasn’t 
> designed to do.
>  
> Yes, it doesn’t work well with real-time data. 
>  
> Wasn’t intended to, IMHO.
>  
>  
> (Just a grumpy old man who knows that the internet pre-existed the guy who 
> claims to have invented it…  And who even knows what ftp, telnet, rcp, 
> gopher, and uucp used to mean ;-)  (and who performed tests to prove that, 
> between two Solaris boxes on a COAX ‘ethernet’ cable, FTP was faster than 
> anything else.  But I digress! ;-)
>  
> From: PLUG-discuss [mailto:plug-discuss-boun...@lists.phxlinux.org] On Behalf 
> Of Herminio Hernandez, Jr.
> Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 2:28 PM
> To: Main PLUG discussion list
> Subject: Re: new thread: QoS, latency, bandwidth and the FCC/net neutrality 
> debate
>  
> Rusty,
>  
> I know my language was strong but let explain why, First not all traffic 
> behaves the same. Go back to my initial post on the differences between TCP 
> and UDP. UDP by the nature of the protocol is more sensitive to things like 
> packet loss, latency, etc. So in order to deliver UDP services reliably (ie 
> most streaming services) some type of prioritization must occur. If not then 
> video will be constantly buffering and VoIP calls will drop. The reason why 
> there exist QoS policies is because engineers are try to work with the 
> transport medium we have. Bandwidth is a limited resource and you have all 
> these different types of traffic contending for the same resource. If people 
> expect web browsing, YouTube, Mumble, Netflix, SFTP, all run efficiently 
> across the wire then prioritization is a reality that will not go away. This 
> is nature of modern networks where data, voice and video are all converged on 
> the same media. The reason I used the language I did was b/c an engineer who 
> does not understands this and actually thinks that 'all traffic' can be 
> treated the same will actually bring harm to the network. He will be doing a 
> great disservice to users he supporting all under the false notion of 
> 'equality'.
>  
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Carruth, Rusty <rusty.carr...@smartm.com> 
> wrote:
> Yes, lets get back to the technical issues.
> 
> First, though let me review: Apparently an ISP has been targeting certain 
> SITES or DOMAINS and throttling them.  If that the case, then a discussion of 
> the network issues is beside the point - the issue of treating certain 
> endpoints differently based upon some non-technical issue would be the issue.
> 
> Anyway, that being said -
> 
> I was actually somewhat offended when the statement was made claiming that 
> anyone who believes that all traffic, regardless of type (voice, file, web 
> pages, etc) should be treated the same was an idiot.
> 
> On what basis is someone who thinks that a certain type of traffic DESERVES a 
> different assurance of throughput against any OTHER type of traffic?  If the 
> entity using a certain transport mechanism has different requirements than 
> the transport medium can provide, then they are the unwise ones.  And have no 
> right to demand that the transport medium change to accommodate their demands.
> 
> Especially at everyone else's expense.
> 
> Why does VoIP or Video REQUIRE special treatment?  I claim that either the 
> systems which use these technologies either figure out ways to work within 
> the limitations of the medium, or find a different medium.  Don’t demand that 
> the medium ADD special treatment for you.
> 
> One might then say that having the user pay extra for the special treatment 
> would address this, and not force the cost of this on to all users, but this 
> opens the door for a medium provider to use their (essentially) mo

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

Whereas I agree with a lot of what you said, I think in a group with
divergent political opinions it would be better to focus on the technical
flaws of Net Neutrality.

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 6:04 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 for telecoms,” wrote the New York Times.
> Missing from the headline or lede was that the decision was a loss for
> Netflix, Amazon, Google, and other corporate giants that provide content.
>
> Liberals oppose the free flow of information they can’t control and in the
> name of providing equal access to all they sought to regulate the access of
> everybody. They., in effect, sought to put toll booths and speed bumps on
> the information superhighway. As the Daily Signal reported:
>
> On Wednesday, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai revealed his most important change yet:
> eliminating the spectacularly nonsensical “net neutrality” rules imposed by
> President Barack Obama’s FCC in 2015.
>
> The 2015 rules deemed internet service providers such as Verizon and
> Comcast
> to be “common carriers” under the 80-year-old Communications Act.
>
> This allowed the FCC to subject those companies to meticulous FCC control
> over how they provide service --specifically, net neutrality rules
> requiring
> providers to treat all internet transmissions equally, even if the sender
> or
> consumer would prefer customized service.
>
> Not surprisingly, investment in broadband networks subsequently declined,
> and innovation -- such as certain free data service plans -- was
> threatened.
>
>
> But Wednesday, the FCC chairman revealed plans to repeal the 2015 Open
> Internet Order and return to what he described as “the light-touch
> regulatory framework that served our nation so well.”
>
> President Obama feared the free flow of information as a threat to his
> power
> grabs and attempt to fundamentally transform the United States. Just as
> cable news eliminated the old guard network’s role as gatekeepers of what
> we
> saw and heard, the Internet freed information consumers to seek the truth
> and speak their minds in an unfettered environment.
>
> Under net neutrality, the FCC took for itself the power to regulate how
> Internet providers manage their networks and how they serve their
> customers.
> The FCC would decide how and what information could flow through the
> Internet, all in the name of providing access to the alleged victims of
> corporate greed.
>
> The Internet, perhaps as much as the first printing press, has freed the
> minds of men from the tyranny of those gatekeepers who know that if you can
> control what people say and know, you can control the people themselves.
> And
> that is what President Obama feared. In a May 2010 commencement speech to
> graduates at Hampton University in Virginia, President Obama complained
> that
> too much information is actually a threat to democracy.
>
> Obama’s fear of Internet freedom and the free flow of information was noted
> by Investor’s Business Daily when it editorialized in 2014:
>
> We would suggest that it is because Obama has long opposed the free flow of
> information as a hindrance to his ambitious big-government agenda, an
> animus
> that started with diatribes against cable outlets such as Fox News and
> conservative talk radio.
>
> In a 2010 speech to graduates at Hampton University in

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

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 for telecoms,” wrote the New York Times.
Missing from the headline or lede was that the decision was a loss for
Netflix, Amazon, Google, and other corporate giants that provide content.

Liberals oppose the free flow of information they can’t control and in the
name of providing equal access to all they sought to regulate the access of
everybody. They., in effect, sought to put toll booths and speed bumps on
the information superhighway. As the Daily Signal reported:

On Wednesday, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai revealed his most important change yet:
eliminating the spectacularly nonsensical “net neutrality” rules imposed by
President Barack Obama’s FCC in 2015.

The 2015 rules deemed internet service providers such as Verizon and Comcast
to be “common carriers” under the 80-year-old Communications Act.

This allowed the FCC to subject those companies to meticulous FCC control
over how they provide service --specifically, net neutrality rules requiring
providers to treat all internet transmissions equally, even if the sender or
consumer would prefer customized service.

Not surprisingly, investment in broadband networks subsequently declined,
and innovation -- such as certain free data service plans -- was threatened.

But Wednesday, the FCC chairman revealed plans to repeal the 2015 Open
Internet Order and return to what he described as “the light-touch
regulatory framework that served our nation so well.”

President Obama feared the free flow of information as a threat to his power
grabs and attempt to fundamentally transform the United States. Just as
cable news eliminated the old guard network’s role as gatekeepers of what we
saw and heard, the Internet freed information consumers to seek the truth
and speak their minds in an unfettered environment.

Under net neutrality, the FCC took for itself the power to regulate how
Internet providers manage their networks and how they serve their customers.
The FCC would decide how and what information could flow through the
Internet, all in the name of providing access to the alleged victims of
corporate greed.

The Internet, perhaps as much as the first printing press, has freed the
minds of men from the tyranny of those gatekeepers who know that if you can
control what people say and know, you can control the people themselves. And
that is what President Obama feared. In a May 2010 commencement speech to
graduates at Hampton University in Virginia, President Obama complained that
too much information is actually a threat to democracy.

Obama’s fear of Internet freedom and the free flow of information was noted
by Investor’s Business Daily when it editorialized in 2014:

We would suggest that it is because Obama has long opposed the free flow of
information as a hindrance to his ambitious big-government agenda, an animus
that started with diatribes against cable outlets such as Fox News and
conservative talk radio.

In a 2010 speech to graduates at Hampton University in Virginia, Obama
complained that too much information is a threat to democracy.

“With iPods and iPads and Xboxes and PlayStations -- none of which I know
how to work -- information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of
entertainment, rather than a means of emancipation,” he opined.

“All of this is not only putting new pressures on you, it is putting new
pressures on our country and on our democracy.”

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 <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 <
>> 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 UDP is a
>> workaround to try to use a medium that wasn’t actually designed to carry
>> realtime data.
>>
>>
>>
>> So, I go with the line of reasoning that claims that using ‘the internet’
>> for real-time data is to misuse the medium.  And if a medium is misused,
>> those so misusing it shouldn’t be surprised if it doesn’t work in a way it
>> wasn’t designed to do.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, it doesn’t work well with real-time data.
>>
>>
>>
>> Wasn’t intended to, IMHO.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> (Just a grumpy old man who knows that the internet pre-existed the g

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

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 <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 <
> 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 UDP is a
> workaround to try to use a medium that wasn’t actually designed to carry
> realtime data.
>
>
>
> So, I go with the line of reasoning that claims that using ‘the internet’
> for real-time data is to misuse the medium.  And if a medium is misused,
> those so misusing it shouldn’t be surprised if it doesn’t work in a way it
> wasn’t designed to do.
>
>
>
> Yes, it doesn’t work well with real-time data.
>
>
>
> Wasn’t intended to, IMHO.
>
>
>
>
>
> (Just a grumpy old man who knows that the internet pre-existed the guy who
> claims to have invented it…  And who even knows what ftp, telnet, rcp,
> gopher, and uucp used to mean ;-)  (and who performed tests to prove that,
> between two Solaris boxes on a COAX ‘ethernet’ cable, FTP was faster than
> anything else.  But I digress! ;-)
>
>
>
> *From:* PLUG-discuss [mailto:plug-discuss-boun...@lists.phxlinux.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Herminio Hernandez, Jr.
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 28, 2017 2:28 PM
>
>
> *To:* Main PLUG discussion list
> *Subject:* Re: new thread: QoS, latency, bandwidth and the FCC/net
> neutrality debate
>
>
>
> Rusty,
>
>
>
> I know my language was strong but let explain why, First not all traffic
> behaves the same. Go back to my initial post on the differences between TCP
> and UDP. UDP by the nature of the protocol is more sensitive to things like
&

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

2017-11-28 Thread Carruth, Rusty

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 
> <rusty.carr...@smartm.com<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 UDP is a workaround to 
try to use a medium that wasn’t actually designed to carry realtime data.

So, I go with the line of reasoning that claims that using ‘the internet’ for 
real-time data is to misuse the medium.  And if a medium is misused, those so 
misusing it shouldn’t be surprised if it doesn’t work in a way it wasn’t 
designed to do.

Yes, it doesn’t work well with real-time data.

Wasn’t intended to, IMHO.

(Just a grumpy old man who knows that the internet pre-existed the guy who 
claims to have invented it…  And who even knows what ftp, telnet, rcp, gopher, 
and uucp used to mean ;-)  (and who performed tests to prove that, between two 
Solaris boxes on a COAX ‘ethernet’ cable, FTP was faster than anything else.  
But I digress! ;-)

From: PLUG-discuss 
[mailto:plug-discuss-boun...@lists.phxlinux.org<mailto:plug-discuss-boun...@lists.phxlinux.org>]
 On Behalf Of Herminio Hernandez, Jr.
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 2:28 PM

To: Main PLUG discussion list
Subject: Re: new thread: QoS, latency, bandwidth and the FCC/net neutrality 
debate

Rusty,

I know my language was strong but let explain why, First not all traffic 
behaves the same. Go back to my initial post on the differences between TCP and 
UDP. UDP by the nature of the protocol is more sensitive to things like packet 
loss, latency, etc. So in order to deliver UDP services reliably (ie most 
streaming services) some type of prioritization must occur. If not then video 
will be constantly buffering and VoIP calls will drop. The reason why there 
exist QoS policies is because engineers are try to work with the transport 
medium we have. Bandwidth is a limited resource and you have all these 
different types of traffic contending for the same resource. If people expect 
web browsing, YouTube, Mumble, Netflix, SFTP, all run efficiently across the 
wire then prioritization is a reality that will not go away. This is nature of 
modern networks where data, voice and video are all converged on the same 
media. The reason I used the language I did was b/c an engineer who does not 
understands this and actually thinks that 'all traffic' can be treated the same 
will actually bring harm to the network. He will be doing a great disservice to 
u

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

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.

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.

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 4:37 PM, Carruth, Rusty <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 UDP is a
> workaround to try to use a medium that wasn’t actually designed to carry
> realtime data.
>
>
>
> So, I go with the line of reasoning that claims that using ‘the internet’
> for real-time data is to misuse the medium.  And if a medium is misused,
> those so misusing it shouldn’t be surprised if it doesn’t work in a way it
> wasn’t designed to do.
>
>
>
> Yes, it doesn’t work well with real-time data.
>
>
>
> Wasn’t intended to, IMHO.
>
>
>
>
>
> (Just a grumpy old man who knows that the internet pre-existed the guy who
> claims to have invented it…  And who even knows what ftp, telnet, rcp,
> gopher, and uucp used to mean ;-)  (and who performed tests to prove that,
> between two Solaris boxes on a COAX ‘ethernet’ cable, FTP was faster than
> anything else.  But I digress! ;-)
>
>
>
> *From:* PLUG-discuss [mailto:plug-discuss-boun...@lists.phxlinux.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Herminio Hernandez, Jr.
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 28, 2017 2:28 PM
>
> *To:* Main PLUG discussion list
> *Subject:* Re: new thread: QoS, latency, bandwidth and the FCC/net
> neutrality debate
>
>
>
> Rusty,
>
>
>
> I know my language was strong but let explain why, First not all traffic
> behaves the same. Go back to my initial post on the differences between TCP
> and UDP. UDP by the nature of the protocol is more sensitive to things like
> packet loss, latency, etc. So in order to deliver UDP services reliably (ie
> most streaming services) some type of prioritization must occur. If not
> then video will be constantly buffering and VoIP calls will drop. The
> reason why there exist QoS policies is because engineers are try to work
> with the transport medium we have. Bandwidth is a limited resource and you
> have all these different types of traffic contending for the same resource.
> If people expect web browsing, YouTube, Mumble, Netflix, SFTP, all run
> efficiently across the wire then prioritization is a reality that will not
> go away. This is nature of modern networks where data, voice and video are
> all converged on the same media. The reason I used the language I did was
> b/c an engineer who does not understands this and actually thinks that 'all
> traffic' can be treated the same will actually bring harm to the network.
> He will be doing a great disservice to users he supporting all under the
> false notion of 'equality'.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Carruth, Rusty <rusty.carr...@smartm.com>
> wrote:
>
> Yes, lets get back to the technical issues.
>
> First, though let me review: Apparently an ISP has been targeting certain
> SITES or DOMAINS and throttling them.  If that the case, then a discussion
> of the network issues is beside the point - the issue of treating certain
> endpoints differently based upon some non-technical issue would be the
> issue.
>
> Anyway, that being said -
>
> I was actually somewhat offended when the statement was made claiming that
> anyone who believes that all traffic, regardless of type (voice, file, web
> pages, etc) should be treated the same was an idiot.
>
> On what basis is someone who thinks that a certain type of traffic
> DESERVES a different assurance of throughput against any OTHER type of
> traffic?  If the entity using a certain transport mechanism has different
> requirements than the transport medium can provide, then they are the
> unwise ones.  And have no right to demand that the transport medium change
> to accommodate their demands.
>
> Especially at everyone else's expense.
>
> Why does VoIP or Video REQUIRE special treatment?  I claim that either the
> systems which use these technologies either figure out ways to work within
> the limitations of the medium, or find a different medium.  Don’t demand
> that the medium ADD special treatment for you.
>
> One might then say that having the use

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

2017-11-28 Thread Carruth, Rusty

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 UDP is a workaround to 
try to use a medium that wasn’t actually designed to carry realtime data.

So, I go with the line of reasoning that claims that using ‘the internet’ for 
real-time data is to misuse the medium.  And if a medium is misused, those so 
misusing it shouldn’t be surprised if it doesn’t work in a way it wasn’t 
designed to do.

Yes, it doesn’t work well with real-time data.

Wasn’t intended to, IMHO.


(Just a grumpy old man who knows that the internet pre-existed the guy who 
claims to have invented it…  And who even knows what ftp, telnet, rcp, gopher, 
and uucp used to mean ;-)  (and who performed tests to prove that, between two 
Solaris boxes on a COAX ‘ethernet’ cable, FTP was faster than anything else.  
But I digress! ;-)

From: PLUG-discuss [mailto:plug-discuss-boun...@lists.phxlinux.org] On Behalf 
Of Herminio Hernandez, Jr.
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 2:28 PM
To: Main PLUG discussion list
Subject: Re: new thread: QoS, latency, bandwidth and the FCC/net neutrality 
debate

Rusty,

I know my language was strong but let explain why, First not all traffic 
behaves the same. Go back to my initial post on the differences between TCP and 
UDP. UDP by the nature of the protocol is more sensitive to things like packet 
loss, latency, etc. So in order to deliver UDP services reliably (ie most 
streaming services) some type of prioritization must occur. If not then video 
will be constantly buffering and VoIP calls will drop. The reason why there 
exist QoS policies is because engineers are try to work with the transport 
medium we have. Bandwidth is a limited resource and you have all these 
different types of traffic contending for the same resource. If people expect 
web browsing, YouTube, Mumble, Netflix, SFTP, all run efficiently across the 
wire then prioritization is a reality that will not go away. This is nature of 
modern networks where data, voice and video are all converged on the same 
media. The reason I used the language I did was b/c an engineer who does not 
understands this and actually thinks that 'all traffic' can be treated the same 
will actually bring harm to the network. He will be doing a great disservice to 
users he supporting all under the false notion of 'equality'.

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Carruth, Rusty 
<rusty.carr...@smartm.com<mailto:rusty.carr...@smartm.com>> wrote:
Yes, lets get back to the technical issues.

First, though let me review: Apparently an ISP has been targeting certain SITES 
or DOMAINS and throttling them.  If that the case, then a discussion of the 
network issues is beside the point - the issue of treating certain endpoints 
differently based upon some non-technical issue would be the issue.

Anyway, that being said -

I was actually somewhat offended when the statement was made claiming that 
anyone who believes that all traffic, regardless of type (voice, file, web 
pages, etc) should be treated the same was an idiot.

On what basis is someone who thinks that a certain type of traffic DESERVES a 
different assurance of throughput against any OTHER type of traffic?  If the 
entity using a certain transport mechanism has different requirements than the 
transport medium can provide, then they are the unwise ones.  And have no right 
to demand that the transport medium change to accommodate their demands.

Especially at everyone else's expense.

Why does VoIP or Video REQUIRE special treatment?  I claim that either the 
systems which use these technologies either figure out ways to work within the 
limitations of the medium, or find a different medium.  Don’t demand that the 
medium ADD special treatment for you.

One might then say that having the user pay extra for the special treatment 
would address this, and not force the cost of this on to all users, but this 
opens the door for a medium provider to use their (essentially) monopoly 
position to materially affect the open market in ways which could easily damage 
the open market.


(I was tempted to say something about 'in the beginning, all traffic was just 
packets - and they still are just packets'. ;-)

All the above has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the company I work for, its 
IMHO.


-Original Message-
From: PLUG-discuss 
[mailto:plug-discuss-boun...@lists.phxlinux.org<mailto:plug-discuss-boun...@lists.phxlinux.org>]
 On Behalf Of Herminio Hernandez Jr.
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 7:44 AM
To: Main PLUG discussion list
Subject: Re: new thread: QoS, latency, bandwidth and the FCC/net neutrality 
debate

I do not what you are getting at? Yes we all look at Net Neutrality through the 
lens of our assumptions on how the economy sho

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

Rusty,

I know my language was strong but let explain why, First not all traffic
behaves the same. Go back to my initial post on the differences between TCP
and UDP. UDP by the nature of the protocol is more sensitive to things like
packet loss, latency, etc. So in order to deliver UDP services reliably (ie
most streaming services) some type of prioritization must occur. If not
then video will be constantly buffering and VoIP calls will drop. The
reason why there exist QoS policies is because engineers are try to work
with the transport medium we have. Bandwidth is a limited resource and you
have all these different types of traffic contending for the same resource.
If people expect web browsing, YouTube, Mumble, Netflix, SFTP, all run
efficiently across the wire then prioritization is a reality that will not
go away. This is nature of modern networks where data, voice and video are
all converged on the same media. The reason I used the language I did was
b/c an engineer who does not understands this and actually thinks that 'all
traffic' can be treated the same will actually bring harm to the network.
He will be doing a great disservice to users he supporting all under the
false notion of 'equality'.

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Carruth, Rusty <rusty.carr...@smartm.com>
wrote:

> Yes, lets get back to the technical issues.
>
> First, though let me review: Apparently an ISP has been targeting certain
> SITES or DOMAINS and throttling them.  If that the case, then a discussion
> of the network issues is beside the point - the issue of treating certain
> endpoints differently based upon some non-technical issue would be the
> issue.
>
> Anyway, that being said -
>
> I was actually somewhat offended when the statement was made claiming that
> anyone who believes that all traffic, regardless of type (voice, file, web
> pages, etc) should be treated the same was an idiot.
>
> On what basis is someone who thinks that a certain type of traffic
> DESERVES a different assurance of throughput against any OTHER type of
> traffic?  If the entity using a certain transport mechanism has different
> requirements than the transport medium can provide, then they are the
> unwise ones.  And have no right to demand that the transport medium change
> to accommodate their demands.
>
> Especially at everyone else's expense.
>
> Why does VoIP or Video REQUIRE special treatment?  I claim that either the
> systems which use these technologies either figure out ways to work within
> the limitations of the medium, or find a different medium.  Don’t demand
> that the medium ADD special treatment for you.
>
> One might then say that having the user pay extra for the special
> treatment would address this, and not force the cost of this on to all
> users, but this opens the door for a medium provider to use their
> (essentially) monopoly position to materially affect the open market in
> ways which could easily damage the open market.
>
>
> (I was tempted to say something about 'in the beginning, all traffic was
> just packets - and they still are just packets'. ;-)
>
> All the above has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the company I work for,
> its IMHO.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: PLUG-discuss [mailto:plug-discuss-boun...@lists.phxlinux.org] On
> Behalf Of Herminio Hernandez Jr.
> Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 7:44 AM
> To: Main PLUG discussion list
> Subject: Re: new thread: QoS, latency, bandwidth and the FCC/net
> neutrality debate
>
> I do not what you are getting at? Yes we all look at Net Neutrality
> through the lens of our assumptions on how the economy should be built. I
> am sure many would believe that government should a significant role is
> managing and others not. Most of this thread has focused on that.
>
> I would love to discuss more the technical side of the debate. The first
> part of original post thread were the technical reasons why I felt NN was
> bad policy.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Nov 28, 2017, at 7:24 AM, Steve Litt <sl...@troubleshooters.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 22:52:04 -0700
> > "Herminio Hernandez Jr. " <herminio.hernande...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> First since I do not believe in
> >
> >> central planning
> >  
> >
> >> I do not know what
> >> competitors will once they have the freedom to offer services. This
> >> what is awesome about the
> >
> >
> >> Free Market,
> >  ^^^
> >
> >> if there is market that was
> >> moved closed off now open they will find creative ways to provide
> >> services.
> >
> > Looks to me like Net Neutrality is being used as a

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

2017-11-28 Thread Carruth, Rusty

Yes, lets get back to the technical issues.

First, though let me review: Apparently an ISP has been targeting certain SITES 
or DOMAINS and throttling them.  If that the case, then a discussion of the 
network issues is beside the point - the issue of treating certain endpoints 
differently based upon some non-technical issue would be the issue.

Anyway, that being said -

I was actually somewhat offended when the statement was made claiming that 
anyone who believes that all traffic, regardless of type (voice, file, web 
pages, etc) should be treated the same was an idiot.

On what basis is someone who thinks that a certain type of traffic DESERVES a 
different assurance of throughput against any OTHER type of traffic?  If the 
entity using a certain transport mechanism has different requirements than the 
transport medium can provide, then they are the unwise ones.  And have no right 
to demand that the transport medium change to accommodate their demands.

Especially at everyone else's expense.

Why does VoIP or Video REQUIRE special treatment?  I claim that either the 
systems which use these technologies either figure out ways to work within the 
limitations of the medium, or find a different medium.  Don’t demand that the 
medium ADD special treatment for you.

One might then say that having the user pay extra for the special treatment 
would address this, and not force the cost of this on to all users, but this 
opens the door for a medium provider to use their (essentially) monopoly 
position to materially affect the open market in ways which could easily damage 
the open market.

(I was tempted to say something about 'in the beginning, all traffic was just 
packets - and they still are just packets'. ;-)

All the above has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the company I work for, its 
IMHO.

-Original Message-
From: PLUG-discuss [mailto:plug-discuss-boun...@lists.phxlinux.org] On Behalf 
Of Herminio Hernandez Jr. 
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 7:44 AM
To: Main PLUG discussion list
Subject: Re: new thread: QoS, latency, bandwidth and the FCC/net neutrality 
debate

I do not what you are getting at? Yes we all look at Net Neutrality through the 
lens of our assumptions on how the economy should be built. I am sure many 
would believe that government should a significant role is managing and others 
not. Most of this thread has focused on that. 

I would love to discuss more the technical side of the debate. The first part 
of original post thread were the technical reasons why I felt NN was bad 
policy. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 28, 2017, at 7:24 AM, Steve Litt <sl...@troubleshooters.com> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 22:52:04 -0700
> "Herminio Hernandez Jr. " <herminio.hernande...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> First since I do not believe in 
> 
>> central planning 
>  
> 
>> I do not know what
>> competitors will once they have the freedom to offer services. This
>> what is awesome about the 
> 
> 
>> Free Market, 
>  ^^^
> 
>> if there is market that was
>> moved closed off now open they will find creative ways to provide
>> services. 
> 
> Looks to me like Net Neutrality is being used as a proxy for some
> much more generic theories.
> 
> 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
---
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

2017-11-28 Thread Herminio Hernandez Jr.

I do not what you are getting at? Yes we all look at Net Neutrality through the 
lens of our assumptions on how the economy should be built. I am sure many 
would believe that government should a significant role is managing and others 
not. Most of this thread has focused on that. 

I would love to discuss more the technical side of the debate. The first part 
of original post thread were the technical reasons why I felt NN was bad 
policy. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 28, 2017, at 7:24 AM, Steve Litt  wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 22:52:04 -0700
> "Herminio Hernandez Jr. "  wrote:
> 
>> First since I do not believe in 
> 
>> central planning 
>  
> 
>> I do not know what
>> competitors will once they have the freedom to offer services. This
>> what is awesome about the 
> 
> 
>> Free Market, 
>  ^^^
> 
>> if there is market that was
>> moved closed off now open they will find creative ways to provide
>> services. 
> 
> Looks to me like Net Neutrality is being used as a proxy for some
> much more generic theories.
> 
> 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
---
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

2017-11-28 Thread Steve Litt

On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 22:52:04 -0700
"Herminio Hernandez Jr. "  wrote:

> First since I do not believe in 

> central planning 
  

> I do not know what
> competitors will once they have the freedom to offer services. This
> what is awesome about the 


> Free Market, 
  ^^^

> if there is market that was
> moved closed off now open they will find creative ways to provide
> services. 

Looks to me like Net Neutrality is being used as a proxy for some
much more generic theories.

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

2017-11-27 Thread Herminio Hernandez Jr.

First since I do not believe in central planning I do not know what competitors 
will once they have the freedom to offer services. This what is awesome about 
the Free Market, if there is market that was moved closed off now open they 
will find creative ways to provide services. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 27, 2017, at 10:43 PM, Steve Litt  wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 20:11:02 -0700
> Eric Oyen  wrote:
> 
>> The days of
>> dialup internet are also long gone. who would spend $19 a month for
>> 56k when you can get that price point on 1 Mbit service?
> 
> Many people way out in the country have no wired connection except
> phone lines, 56k, and if that's all they've got, they'll pay their
> $50/month for it (no alternative, remember?).
> 
> But more to the point, today's average website takes 5 minutes to load
> on dialup. I'm proud that most pages on Troubleshooters.Com still
> load reasonably well on dialup. Perhaps that doesn't improve my bottom
> line, but I think it makes me a good citizen.
> 
> 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
---
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

2017-11-27 Thread Steve Litt

On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 20:11:02 -0700
Eric Oyen  wrote:

> The days of
> dialup internet are also long gone. who would spend $19 a month for
> 56k when you can get that price point on 1 Mbit service?

Many people way out in the country have no wired connection except
phone lines, 56k, and if that's all they've got, they'll pay their
$50/month for it (no alternative, remember?).

But more to the point, today's average website takes 5 minutes to load
on dialup. I'm proud that most pages on Troubleshooters.Com still
load reasonably well on dialup. Perhaps that doesn't improve my bottom
line, but I think it makes me a good citizen.

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

2017-11-27 Thread Steve Litt

On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 20:26:44 -0700
"Herminio Hernandez Jr. "  wrote:

> I agree the limited of choices is an issue but that was a result of
> government meddling in telecom space allowing ISPs to have monopoly
> power. 

You gonna give an infinite number of competitors the right to trench
peoples' yards? If not, the government must step in.
 
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

2017-11-27 Thread Herminio Hernandez Jr.

I agree the limited of choices is an issue but that was a result of government 
meddling in telecom space allowing ISPs to have monopoly power. The answer to 
that is to lobby for that power to be removed not import more government 
intervention that will have more adverse effects. Taken all that aside the 
internet is no where near the same thing as the telephone service and try and 
treat them the same is unrealistic. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 27, 2017, at 8:11 PM, Eric Oyen  wrote:
> 
> in this case, I believe that steve might be the more correct on this issue.
> 
> try finding a paper application these days. about the only places I see this 
> are government offices.
> 
> try finding broadband other than cox, century link, dish. The days of dialup 
> internet are also long gone. who would spend $19 a month for 56k when you can 
> get that price point on 1 Mbit service?
> 
> also, there is no municipal internet anymore (except in very small areas of 
> tempe) the ISP's (such cox, comcast, etc) have petitioned or lobbied to have 
> that struck down add to this the barrier to entry that both the cable and DSL 
> providers have in place, and you have a recipe for monopolistic control of 
> access to the internet.
> 
> now, there has already been a recent case where a big provider (in this case: 
> comcast) deliberately throttled traffic from a video vendor for over 2 months 
> that same broadband operator has also been caught inserting redirects, 
> throttling other services and in one case, even denying service to specific 
> content through their broadband connection (ostensibly because it was a 
> competing vendor)
> 
> so, back when the telco lines were utility regulated, there were many ISP's 
> and a lot of available entrances onto the net. since 2010, that has been 
> whittled down to a half dozen providers, all of which control 95% of all the 
> access to the internet in urban areas and city centers. also, if you live in 
> a rural location, you stand a far higher chance of not having service (last 
> mile expenses being the justified reason).
> 
> so, with only 2,3 or even 4 choices, all of which offer similar packaging at 
> nearly the same price points, is not much of a choice at all.
> 
> -eric
> from the central offices of the Technomage Guild, you can't get here from 
> there Dept.
> 
>> On Nov 27, 2017, at 6:08 PM, Herminio Hernandez Jr. wrote:
>> 
>> Steve we just fundamentally disagree. The idea that rolling back NN will 
>> result in weekly outcries and basically the end of the internet  borders on 
>> hysteria. I am all for a Free and Open Internet, however I strongly disagree 
>> that Net Neutrality is the answer. It asks for that which is technically not 
>> feasible. The idea that you can treat the internet like POTS  lines is 
>> laughable to anyone who understands networking. I would never trust anyone 
>> who called themselves a network engineer who said ‘yeah you can treat voice, 
>> video, and data traffic the same way’. 
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>> On Nov 27, 2017, at 5:47 PM, Steve Litt  wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Sat, 25 Nov 2017 22:30:25 -0700
>>> "Herminio Hernandez, Jr."  wrote:
>>> 
 Here is a good presentation by Bryan Lunduke on NN
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csK3KspB-6A
>>> 
>>> I got to time marker 7:20 on that video, which is already more than I
>>> had time for, and just based on 0-7:20, I call bullshit. The guy first
>>> says, "yeah, there was throttling by the big ISPs, but through public
>>> outcry and lawsuits they were stopped."
>>> 
>>> Maybe we don't want to resume lawsuits and public outcry every few
>>> weeks when one deep pocket ISP or another throttles or sabotages a
>>> competitor or web presence they don't like. Maybe some of us don't like
>>> paying lawyers.
>>> 
>>> Then, around the seven minute mark, he says something to the effect
>>> that when ISPs throttled, customers switched ISPs. Out of touch much?
>>> Where I live, you have a choice of Spectrum, or the Centurylink phone
>>> company who can give me about 2MBit down, without satellite latency,
>>> because I'm more than 10K feet from their nearest plant. Much more of
>>> the populace is like me (or in a worse situation) than like wherever
>>> Lunduke lives. 
>>> 
>>> When I want a tool, I can go to Home Depot, Lowes, True Value, Ace,
>>> Harbor Freight, and if I want a cheap junk tool, Walmart. When I want
>>> broadband with 21st century uplink and downlink speed that doesn't go
>>> down in rainstorms, I've got Spectrum, Spectrum and Spectrum. Six tool
>>> vendors I can get to compete for my business, but one broadband vendor.
>>> 
>>> So Lunduke says they throttle if they can get away with it, and he
>>> implies a falsehood when he speaks of switching vendors. This is
>>> exactly my point. If every American had six possible ISPs, and if the
>>> US enforced their antitrust laws and prosecuted

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

2017-11-27 Thread Eric Oyen

in this case, I believe that steve might be the more correct on this issue.

try finding a paper application these days. about the only places I see this 
are government offices.

try finding broadband other than cox, century link, dish. The days of dialup 
internet are also long gone. who would spend $19 a month for 56k when you can 
get that price point on 1 Mbit service?

also, there is no municipal internet anymore (except in very small areas of 
tempe) the ISP's (such cox, comcast, etc) have petitioned or lobbied to have 
that struck down add to this the barrier to entry that both the cable and DSL 
providers have in place, and you have a recipe for monopolistic control of 
access to the internet.

now, there has already been a recent case where a big provider (in this case: 
comcast) deliberately throttled traffic from a video vendor for over 2 months 
that same broadband operator has also been caught inserting redirects, 
throttling other services and in one case, even denying service to specific 
content through their broadband connection (ostensibly because it was a 
competing vendor)

so, back when the telco lines were utility regulated, there were many ISP's and 
a lot of available entrances onto the net. since 2010, that has been whittled 
down to a half dozen providers, all of which control 95% of all the access to 
the internet in urban areas and city centers. also, if you live in a rural 
location, you stand a far higher chance of not having service (last mile 
expenses being the justified reason).

so, with only 2,3 or even 4 choices, all of which offer similar packaging at 
nearly the same price points, is not much of a choice at all.

-eric
from the central offices of the Technomage Guild, you can't get here from there 
Dept.

On Nov 27, 2017, at 6:08 PM, Herminio Hernandez Jr. wrote:

> Steve we just fundamentally disagree. The idea that rolling back NN will 
> result in weekly outcries and basically the end of the internet  borders on 
> hysteria. I am all for a Free and Open Internet, however I strongly disagree 
> that Net Neutrality is the answer. It asks for that which is technically not 
> feasible. The idea that you can treat the internet like POTS  lines is 
> laughable to anyone who understands networking. I would never trust anyone 
> who called themselves a network engineer who said ‘yeah you can treat voice, 
> video, and data traffic the same way’. 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Nov 27, 2017, at 5:47 PM, Steve Litt  wrote:
>> 
>> On Sat, 25 Nov 2017 22:30:25 -0700
>> "Herminio Hernandez, Jr."  wrote:
>> 
>>> Here is a good presentation by Bryan Lunduke on NN
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csK3KspB-6A
>> 
>> I got to time marker 7:20 on that video, which is already more than I
>> had time for, and just based on 0-7:20, I call bullshit. The guy first
>> says, "yeah, there was throttling by the big ISPs, but through public
>> outcry and lawsuits they were stopped."
>> 
>> Maybe we don't want to resume lawsuits and public outcry every few
>> weeks when one deep pocket ISP or another throttles or sabotages a
>> competitor or web presence they don't like. Maybe some of us don't like
>> paying lawyers.
>> 
>> Then, around the seven minute mark, he says something to the effect
>> that when ISPs throttled, customers switched ISPs. Out of touch much?
>> Where I live, you have a choice of Spectrum, or the Centurylink phone
>> company who can give me about 2MBit down, without satellite latency,
>> because I'm more than 10K feet from their nearest plant. Much more of
>> the populace is like me (or in a worse situation) than like wherever
>> Lunduke lives. 
>> 
>> When I want a tool, I can go to Home Depot, Lowes, True Value, Ace,
>> Harbor Freight, and if I want a cheap junk tool, Walmart. When I want
>> broadband with 21st century uplink and downlink speed that doesn't go
>> down in rainstorms, I've got Spectrum, Spectrum and Spectrum. Six tool
>> vendors I can get to compete for my business, but one broadband vendor.
>> 
>> So Lunduke says they throttle if they can get away with it, and he
>> implies a falsehood when he speaks of switching vendors. This is
>> exactly my point. If every American had six possible ISPs, and if the
>> US enforced their antitrust laws and prosecuted collusion, there would
>> be no need for net neutrality. I hope to someday see such a situation,
>> but til then, ISPs need to be regulated like utilities.
>> 
>> One more thing. Lunduke keeps referring to the golden age before 2015.
>> Well, in 2014, there were still paper alternatives if you couldn't use
>> the Internet. You could still fill out paper job applications. You
>> could still buy goods in a vibrant brick and mortar marketplace. Those
>> days are gone: The Internet is now a necessity, and in most locations
>> Internet providers are a monopoly. They need to be regulated as
>> utilities: Same as electricity.
>> 
>> If you want to

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

2017-11-27 Thread Herminio Hernandez Jr.

Steve we just fundamentally disagree. The idea that rolling back NN will result 
in weekly outcries and basically the end of the internet  borders on hysteria. 
I am all for a Free and Open Internet, however I strongly disagree that Net 
Neutrality is the answer. It asks for that which is technically not feasible. 
The idea that you can treat the internet like POTS  lines is laughable to 
anyone who understands networking. I would never trust anyone who called 
themselves a network engineer who said ‘yeah you can treat voice, video, and 
data traffic the same way’. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 27, 2017, at 5:47 PM, Steve Litt  wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 25 Nov 2017 22:30:25 -0700
> "Herminio Hernandez, Jr."  wrote:
> 
>> Here is a good presentation by Bryan Lunduke on NN
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csK3KspB-6A
> 
> I got to time marker 7:20 on that video, which is already more than I
> had time for, and just based on 0-7:20, I call bullshit. The guy first
> says, "yeah, there was throttling by the big ISPs, but through public
> outcry and lawsuits they were stopped."
> 
> Maybe we don't want to resume lawsuits and public outcry every few
> weeks when one deep pocket ISP or another throttles or sabotages a
> competitor or web presence they don't like. Maybe some of us don't like
> paying lawyers.
> 
> Then, around the seven minute mark, he says something to the effect
> that when ISPs throttled, customers switched ISPs. Out of touch much?
> Where I live, you have a choice of Spectrum, or the Centurylink phone
> company who can give me about 2MBit down, without satellite latency,
> because I'm more than 10K feet from their nearest plant. Much more of
> the populace is like me (or in a worse situation) than like wherever
> Lunduke lives. 
> 
> When I want a tool, I can go to Home Depot, Lowes, True Value, Ace,
> Harbor Freight, and if I want a cheap junk tool, Walmart. When I want
> broadband with 21st century uplink and downlink speed that doesn't go
> down in rainstorms, I've got Spectrum, Spectrum and Spectrum. Six tool
> vendors I can get to compete for my business, but one broadband vendor.
> 
> So Lunduke says they throttle if they can get away with it, and he
> implies a falsehood when he speaks of switching vendors. This is
> exactly my point. If every American had six possible ISPs, and if the
> US enforced their antitrust laws and prosecuted collusion, there would
> be no need for net neutrality. I hope to someday see such a situation,
> but til then, ISPs need to be regulated like utilities.
> 
> One more thing. Lunduke keeps referring to the golden age before 2015.
> Well, in 2014, there were still paper alternatives if you couldn't use
> the Internet. You could still fill out paper job applications. You
> could still buy goods in a vibrant brick and mortar marketplace. Those
> days are gone: The Internet is now a necessity, and in most locations
> Internet providers are a monopoly. They need to be regulated as
> utilities: Same as electricity.
> 
> If you want to take a stand, why not write to congress telling them to
> pass a law invalidating all the state laws preventing municipalities
> from providing Internet to their citizens. Take a stand for competition.
> 
> 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
---
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

2017-11-27 Thread Steve Litt

On Sat, 25 Nov 2017 22:30:25 -0700
"Herminio Hernandez, Jr."  wrote:

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

I got to time marker 7:20 on that video, which is already more than I
had time for, and just based on 0-7:20, I call bullshit. The guy first
says, "yeah, there was throttling by the big ISPs, but through public
outcry and lawsuits they were stopped."

Maybe we don't want to resume lawsuits and public outcry every few
weeks when one deep pocket ISP or another throttles or sabotages a
competitor or web presence they don't like. Maybe some of us don't like
paying lawyers.

Then, around the seven minute mark, he says something to the effect
that when ISPs throttled, customers switched ISPs. Out of touch much?
Where I live, you have a choice of Spectrum, or the Centurylink phone
company who can give me about 2MBit down, without satellite latency,
because I'm more than 10K feet from their nearest plant. Much more of
the populace is like me (or in a worse situation) than like wherever
Lunduke lives. 

When I want a tool, I can go to Home Depot, Lowes, True Value, Ace,
Harbor Freight, and if I want a cheap junk tool, Walmart. When I want
broadband with 21st century uplink and downlink speed that doesn't go
down in rainstorms, I've got Spectrum, Spectrum and Spectrum. Six tool
vendors I can get to compete for my business, but one broadband vendor.

So Lunduke says they throttle if they can get away with it, and he
implies a falsehood when he speaks of switching vendors. This is
exactly my point. If every American had six possible ISPs, and if the
US enforced their antitrust laws and prosecuted collusion, there would
be no need for net neutrality. I hope to someday see such a situation,
but til then, ISPs need to be regulated like utilities.

One more thing. Lunduke keeps referring to the golden age before 2015.
Well, in 2014, there were still paper alternatives if you couldn't use
the Internet. You could still fill out paper job applications. You
could still buy goods in a vibrant brick and mortar marketplace. Those
days are gone: The Internet is now a necessity, and in most locations
Internet providers are a monopoly. They need to be regulated as
utilities: Same as electricity.

If you want to take a stand, why not write to congress telling them to
pass a law invalidating all the state laws preventing municipalities
from providing Internet to their citizens. Take a stand for competition.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 25, 2017, at 9:52 PM, Brian Cluff  wrote:
> 
> I think you forget that the neutrality was put into place specifically to 
> deal with the network providers messing with netflix among other service's 
> data in favor of their own services.  That IS how we dealt with it.
> 
> You keep talking about being able to get optimized services, but those are 
> legal and common now.  Getting rid of net neutrality won't enable those.  
> Throttling your competitors services to the point of degrading their service 
> isn't an optimized service.
> 
> Brian Cluff
> 
> 
>> On 11/25/2017 07:24 PM, Herminio Hernandez, Jr. wrote:
>> I do understand those concerns, but those types of abuses have existed in 
>> the past and were dealt with before there was Net Neutrality. I do really 
>> think that the bigger threat from the big content providers and not the 
>> ISPs.  
>> 
>>> On Sat, Nov 25, 2017 at 7:12 PM,  wrote:
>>> 
>>> I hear you.  If everyone would play fair I would think slicing up data 
>>> usage is fair.  I watch a lot of YouTube, however I do not need 4k.  My 
>>> main concern is for businesses who use the Internet to market and do 
>>> business.  As you probably know there is a move from brick and mortar to 
>>> online stores and more so to selling on Amazon.   
>>> 
>>> If there is no net neutrality and GoDaddy invests in timewarner, then 
>>> timewarner could keep people from seeing your website that is hosted on 
>>> HostGator. Then Godaddy could coerce you into moving to GoDaddy or pay a 
>>> fee to GoDaddy or timewarner.
>>> 
>>> I see some serious antitrust coming. We need to get ICAAN back and we need 
>>> to keep the Internet the Wild West to some degree. I do see Google is 
>>> headed for some antitrust law suites, and maybe Government oversight. 
>>> Government oversight is scary given how corrupt our Government is.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
 On 2017-11-24 12:31, Herminio Hernandez, Jr. wrote:

 I will start with some thoughts on why I find the NN debate troubling. 
 First there is a technical misunderstanding. NN is built on the idea that 
 ISPs should treat all traffic equally. This concept is simply unrealistic. 
 Bandwidth is a limited resource there is only so much data that a Ethernet 
 port can transmit and receive. Also things like MTU size, latency, jitter 
 all impact the reliable transmission of data which bring me to my other 
 point. Not all traffic is the same. There are night and day differences 
 between TCP and UDP traffic. For example UDP (which is what most voice and 
 video is) is faster than TCP. The drawback to this is that UDP does not 
 have the recovery features that TCP has in case of packet loss (ie 
 sequence number and acknowledgment packets). There UDP applications are 
 more prone to suffer when latency is high or links get saturated. To 
 overcome this network engineer implement prioritization and traffic 
 shaping to ensure these services are not impacted. 

 As more content is consumed such as 4K video on the internet, the need for 
 traffic shaping will only increase. Netflix already has the ability to 
 push 100Gbps from their servers. That is a ton of data that needs to be 
 prioritized by ISPs. This is not free there are serious costs involved in 
 man hours and infrastructure. Someone needs to bear that cost. This is why 
 I am not opposed to fast lanes. If Netflix is going to have ISPs ensure 
 all of the massive amounts to data are push is delivered efficiently, then 
 the ISPs should be free to charge a premium for this service. Netflix does 
 not want to bear this cost, hense their support for Net Neutrality. They 
 want the ISPs to bear the cost, but then result of that is we bear the 
 cost via data caps. 

 When you strip away all the slogans it all comes down to money and 
 control. Data will be traffic shaped it is just 
 who decides how unelected government bureaucrats pushing some public 
 policy or market forces.

 Something else to consider a lot not all but a lot of the very same people 
 who cry that the end of Net Neutrality will be end of free speech (no more 
 free and open internet) have no issue saying 
 Twiiter, Facebook, and Google (since they are 'private companies') have 
 the right demonetize, obscure, or even ban individuals who express ideas 
 that other deem "offensive". How is that promoting a "Free and Open 
 Internet"?

> On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Eric Oyen  wrote:
> well, as someone else suggested, a new thread.
>

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

2017-11-25 Thread Brian Cluff

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


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


Brian Cluff


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


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



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

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

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



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


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

On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Eric Oyen > wrote:

well, as someone else suggested, a new thread.

so, shall we start the discussion?

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

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

What really is net neutrality?

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

so,

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

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

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

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

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

2017-11-25 Thread techlists

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sent from my iPhone

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

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

2017-11-25 Thread Stephen Partington

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

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

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

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

2017-11-25 Thread Matthew Crews

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

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

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

Sent from my iPhone

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

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

2017-11-25 Thread Stephen Partington

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

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

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

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

Brian,

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

Sent from my iPhone

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

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

2017-11-25 Thread Brian Cluff

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


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


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


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


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


Brian Cluff

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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


-mb


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

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

Eric,

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

Sent from my iPhone

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

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

2017-11-25 Thread Eric Oyen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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