From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp113.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (smtp113.iad3a.emailsrvr.com [173.203.187.113]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 28DEF21F1F0 for ; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 08:38:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp31.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp31.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 8E8FC380250; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 11:38:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from app28.wa-webapps.iad3a (relay-webapps.rsapps.net [172.27.255.140]) by smtp31.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 56DD2380143; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 11:38:19 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender-Id: dpreed@reed.com Received: from app28.wa-webapps.iad3a (relay-webapps.rsapps.net [172.27.255.140]) by 0.0.0.0:25 (trex/5.4.2); Thu, 19 Mar 2015 15:38:19 GMT Received: from reed.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by app28.wa-webapps.iad3a (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4134280041; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 11:38:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: by apps.rackspace.com (Authenticated sender: dpreed@reed.com, from: dpreed@reed.com) with HTTP; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 11:38:19 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 11:38:19 -0400 (EDT) From: dpreed@reed.com To: "JF Tremblay" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Type: plain In-Reply-To: <88375E7E-8656-4DB6-8389-89C7B9DD7DF4@viagenie.ca> References: <20150316203532.05BD21E2@taggart.lackof.org> <123130.1426635142@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <15A0911A-E3B7-440A-A26B-C5E1489EA98B@viagenie.ca> <1426773234.362612992@apps.rackspace.com> <88375E7E-8656-4DB6-8389-89C7B9DD7DF4@viagenie.ca> X-Auth-ID: dpreed@reed.com Message-ID: <1426779499.26479897@apps.rackspace.com> X-Mailer: webmail/11.3.13-RC Cc: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] =?utf-8?q?DOCSIS_3+_recommendation=3F?= X-BeenThere: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Development issues regarding the cerowrt test router project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 15:38:50 -0000 I'll look up the quote, when I get home from California, in my email archiv= es. It may have been private email from Richard Woundy (an engineering SVP= at Comcast who is the person who drove the CableLabs effort forward, worki= ng with Jim Gettys - doing the in-house experiments...). To be clear, I am = not blaming Comcast's engineers or technologists for the most part. I *am* = blaming the failure of the Comcast leadership to invest in deploying the so= lution their own guys developed. I was skeptical at the time (and I think I= can find that email to Rich Woundy, too, as well as a note to Jim Gettys e= xpressing the same skepticism when he was celebrating the CableLabs experim= ents and their "best practices" regarding AQM).=0A=0AIt's worth remembering= that CableLabs, while owned jointly by all cable operators, does not actua= lly tell the operators what to do in any way. So recommendations are routi= nely ignored in favor of profitable operations. I'm sure you know that. I= t's certainly common knowledge among those who work at CableLabs (I had a n= umber of conversations with Richard Green when he ran the place on this ver= y subject).=0A=0ASo like any discussion where we anthropomorphize companies= , it's probably not useful to "pin blame".=0A=0AI wasn't trying to pin blam= e anywhere in particular - just observing that Cable companies still haven'= t deployed the actual AQM options they already have.=0A=0AInstead the cable= operators seem obsessed with creating a semi-proprietary "game lane" that = involves trying to use diffserv, even though they don't (and can't) have en= d-to-end agreement on the meaning of the DCP used, and therefore will try t= o use that as a basis for requiring gaming companies to directly peer with = the cable distribution network, where the DCP will work (as long as you buy= only "special" gear) to give the gaming companies a "fast lane" that they = have to pay for (to bypass the bloat that they haven't eliminated by upgrad= ing their deployments).=0A=0AWhy will the game providers not be able to jus= t use the standard Internet access service, without peering to every cable = company directly? Well, because when it comes to spending money on hardwar= e upgrades, there's more money in it to pay for the upgrade.=0A=0AThat's ju= st business logic, when you own a monopoly on Internet access. You want to= maximize the profits from your monopoly, because competition csn't exist. = [Fixing bufferbloat doesn't increase profits for a monopoly. In fact it dis= courages people from buying more expensive service, so it probably decrease= s profits.]=0A=0AIt's counterintuitive, I suppose, to focus on the business= ecology distortions caused by franchise monopolies in a technical group. B= ut engineering is not just technical - it's about economics in a very funda= mental way. Network engineering in particular.=0A=0AIf you want better net= works, eliminate the monopolies who have no interest in making them better = for users.=0A=0AOn Thursday, March 19, 2015 10:11am, "JF Tremblay" said:=0A=0A> =0A>> On Mar 19, 2015, at 9:53 AM= , dpreed@reed.com wrote:=0A>>=0A>> How many years has it been since Comcast= said they were going to fix bufferbloat=0A>> in their network within a yea= r?=0A> =0A> Any quote on that?=0A> =0A>> THat's a sign that the two dominan= t sectors of "Internet Access" business are=0A>> refusing to support qualit= y Internet service.=0A> =0A> I=E2=80=99m not sure this is a fair statement.= Comcast is a major (if not=0A> =E2=80=9Cthe=E2=80=9D player) in CableLabs,= and they made it clear that for Docsis=0A> 3.1, aqm was one of the importa= nt target. This might not have happened without all=0A> the noise around bl= oat that Jim and Dave made for years. (now peering and transit=0A> disputes= are another ball game)=0A> =0A> While cable operators started pretty much = with a blank slate in the early days of=0A> Docsis, they now have to deal w= ith legacy and a huge tail of old devices. So in=0A> this respect, yes they= are now a bit like the DSL incumbents, introduction of new=0A> technologie= s is over a 3-4 years timeframe at least.=0A> =0A>> It's almost as if the c= able companies don't want OTT video or simultaneous FTP=0A>> and interactiv= e gaming to work. Of course not. They'd never do that.=0A> =0A> =0A> You mi= ght be surprised at how much they care for gamers, these are often their=0A= > most vocal users. And those who will call to get things fixed. Support ca= lls and=0A> truck rolls are expensive and touch the bottom line, where it h= urts=E2=80=A6=0A> =0A> JF=0A> (a former cable operator)=0A> =0A> =0A> =0A