From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-oo1-xc31.google.com (mail-oo1-xc31.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::c31]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 80D193B29E; Fri, 29 Sep 2023 11:53:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-oo1-xc31.google.com with SMTP id 006d021491bc7-57b67c84999so7751769eaf.3; Fri, 29 Sep 2023 08:53:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1696002817; x=1696607617; darn=lists.bufferbloat.net; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=u+tbjjjCiNW2bgnu1SY5ybDLK7Mn97zebIfOmhSikUs=; b=FvojwYgVPNd2Gx0A+Xf4QKw4kGcXHowkQMA+iRUSFlJpqHZdGAVpFgNwkU2+jrW2fM iS9Pe8/yKF9IcaXjcKBd+zM5UN1B9UUMN1dVtiguoBUaJ1GqJWOHS9cVwp/Ml0KFvgBS msdmu39XhN2YSOFmB6yGewdyiq+sXhIU3foBQ4waledQEAr/izRL8O+1ChcTnox4dCZ/ oz3IOtQwbV2UdXcisiUhUKL4G+HLtLXGffZd2BapH8qJVuYL1zmConuGdGMCz+rTtG5c XjOG2eqX7HuJ3SUSFu23aszoBduwCyjx5sElBvl7aRyaI8KxeDz4LH6nrBrjunGvcpdm z65g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1696002817; x=1696607617; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=u+tbjjjCiNW2bgnu1SY5ybDLK7Mn97zebIfOmhSikUs=; b=Pj8DkST45zuWI91g9zvyLlPEObADk739G56J0t1hvxKbRST/7eEloTO4NqGsfTq4a/ rSP94u+3k+kLce5s9JqdlRT9it8hxn4h3WRQOAY/owhfKl8I0pmGKVPruYByU2kQaTI1 VJM7F81lQfBO706smEfsR+FITeVGRUVYAbB+U5C6Tcaj2IMtN5/kpxf46+B60kWKFVfX CaHjSJQHQVD7iwKOUEHBB47WYD1/7hQuJbcmqJWPKu5sQXlLG9RWiFEkSnUDEZ7V//6Z 5rc1SdYyletpgDUAN8LPtGwQ8oQGfxT2P32sr6PdomRCvwN1xjDJONn2b7P0vVW9TJPD 7hiQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxTpmDsrYyatPkwiAwxPKPBQIpNTX1t7lP4XYGIZgL2S2/5nh10 t6z+A5ol0URLu7XVkH3pRNURufYAo/Pe3iT+FC4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFQMTVXIRIQEStPu4KWE+EuvUJB1Orl5f1ajwNUjH7VzRd0aWQqYJpci/liK4L4zkNoHKZHMQEvUQ5BRar7zH0= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6358:4297:b0:143:9b23:e850 with SMTP id s23-20020a056358429700b001439b23e850mr5507793rwc.24.1696002817303; Fri, 29 Sep 2023 08:53:37 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4C8F178A-BDC9-4D7E-84BD-DFE7231E8740@cable.comcast.com> In-Reply-To: <4C8F178A-BDC9-4D7E-84BD-DFE7231E8740@cable.comcast.com> From: dan Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2023 09:53:26 -0600 Message-ID: To: "Livingood, Jason" Cc: Jonathan Morton , Dave Taht via Starlink , Rpm , libreqos , bloat Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000076a7c10606816d0f" Subject: Re: [Bloat] [LibreQoS] [Starlink] [Rpm] net neutrality back in the news X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2023 15:53:38 -0000 --00000000000076a7c10606816d0f Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 7:17=E2=80=AFAM Livingood, Jason via LibreQoS < libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote: > On 9/29/23, 00:54, "Jonathan Morton" chromatix99@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Some ISPs began to actively degrade Netflix traffic, in particular by > refusing to provision adequate peering capacity at the nodes through whic= h > Netflix traffic predominated > > That is not true and really not worth re-litigating here. > > > NN regulations forced ISPs to carry Netflix traffic with reasonable > levels of service, even though they didn't want to for purely selfish and > greedy commercial reasons. > > NN regulations played no role whatsoever in the resolution of that > conflict - a business arrangement was reached, just as it was in the SK > Telecom example recently: > https://about.netflix.com/en/news/sk-telecom-sk-broadband-and-netflix-est= ablish-strategic-partnership-to > > > ISPs behind L4S actively do not want a technology that works end-to-end > over the general Internet. > > That's simply not true. As someone running an L4S field trial right now - > we want the technology to get the widest possible deployment and be fully > end-to-end. Why else would there be so much effort to ensure that ECN and > DSCP marks can traverse network domain boundaries for example? Why else > would there be strong app developer interest? What evidence do you have t= o > show that anyone working on L4S want to create a walled garden? If > anything, it seems the opposite of 5G network slicing, which seems to me > personally to be another 3GPP run at walled garden stuff (like IMS). > Ultimately it is like a lot of other IETF work -- it is an interesting > technology and we'll have to see whether it gets good adoption - the > 'market' will decide. > > > They want something that can provide a domination service within their > own walled gardens. > > Also not correct. And last time I checked the balance sheets of companies > in these sectors - video streaming services were losing money while > provision of internet services were financially healthy. > > JL > > > I think this stuff degrades into conspiracy theory often enough. While I don't discount the possibility of collusion, I don't give these people/groups credit enough to pull of a mass scale conspiracy either.... If netflix is jammed down to small of a pipe at an ISP, that's more likely (IMO...) disorganization or incompetence or disinterest over conspiracy. I feel the same about government in general... --00000000000076a7c10606816d0f Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


=
On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 7:17=E2=80=AF= AM Livingood, Jason via LibreQoS <libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
On 9/29/23, 00:54, "Jonathan= Morton" <chromatix99@gmail.com <mailto:chromatix99@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Some ISPs began to actively degrade Netflix traffic, in particular by = refusing to provision adequate peering capacity at the nodes through which = Netflix traffic predominated

That is not true and really not worth re-litigating here.

> NN regulations forced ISPs to carry Netflix traffic with reasonable le= vels of service, even though they didn't want to for purely selfish and= greedy commercial reasons.

NN regulations played no role whatsoever in the resolution of that conflict= - a business arrangement was reached, just as it was in the SK Telecom exa= mple recently: https://about.netflix.com/en/news/sk-telecom-sk-broadban= d-and-netflix-establish-strategic-partnership-to

> ISPs behind L4S actively do not want a technology that works end-to-en= d over the general Internet.

That's simply not true. As someone running an L4S field trial right now= - we want the technology to get the widest possible deployment and be full= y end-to-end. Why else would there be so much effort to ensure that ECN and= DSCP marks can traverse network domain boundaries for example? Why else wo= uld there be strong app developer interest? What evidence do you have to sh= ow that anyone working on L4S want to create a walled garden? If anything, = it seems the opposite of 5G network slicing, which seems to me personally t= o be another 3GPP run at walled garden stuff (like IMS). Ultimately it is l= ike a lot of other IETF work -- it is an interesting technology and we'= ll have to see whether it gets good adoption - the 'market' will de= cide.

> They want something that can provide a domination service within their= own walled gardens.

Also not correct. And last time I checked the balance sheets of companies i= n these sectors - video streaming services were losing money while provisio= n of internet services were financially healthy.

JL



I think this stuff degrades into conspiracy t= heory often enough.=C2=A0 While I don't discount the possibility of col= lusion, I don't give these people/groups credit enough to pull of a mas= s scale conspiracy either....=C2=A0 If netflix is jammed down to small of a= pipe at an ISP, that's more likely (IMO...) disorganization or incompe= tence=C2=A0or disinterest over conspiracy.=C2=A0 =C2=A0I feel the same abou= t government in general...
--00000000000076a7c10606816d0f--