From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-yw1-x112f.google.com (mail-yw1-x112f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::112f]) (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 1B0D93B2A4; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 17:50:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-yw1-x112f.google.com with SMTP id 00721157ae682-35befab86a4so163024447b3.8; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 14:50:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=crWJlRJ7KmOqYNXOwp4EEvE9b3iT3YOY322nhD+2CYc=; b=jJbEKUgOUnLHbZAfwlW6tEDr4u0JkXBekgV54xhpjIhzNJP7fethNCqE6CHwY1F4od gawSYxzgbUVmzP5POX+3Hwz244QCIqcciWp68jySv6N9dSTVc7YsimZdL9jJRkBiPOtU njE7IhOOeO4eObIgYLaI4qBbfYcO2om+TWUtRfQSWnkn3rP2HrVcZRaj5w2n+t6DC7DU O3W95iz9c4Ou1azG5hqldp9+ghP1TpcL5pa+J4nFnoNm02njbpycW2Zr5uXflGhP4Ibj SMi8P4SDHDet0AmH1tpqcOSpI4amKp/lzAlk313DaYBNt7C4dfGAyYIYiz5db9/ocMMV bM3g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; 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=crWJlRJ7KmOqYNXOwp4EEvE9b3iT3YOY322nhD+2CYc=; b=ZJytFktsZ92stODcd7IfPEQz+74tB9tTVYytMmQXpOoyAVifVR+xwSOGTp8XX0t20/ d8xQtsnYN4so59K8OJu6RcipwOgmKf/M0bKadl/p7ZBqB1Y+RFg8yZ+3grlFuESLE1Vh /8ZimJePYP0XFfdNvxF6POnk0gsendfUPNLjXIj+tT93NwOBson0CUnD3JHuQNtmFp/J wvbUrknDYbF1/1Ui+bTnqg/y79i6/f5B6ZP2Bmv9NO4r4uKH1dFJ18Pn0LqDMbcu2Dc9 CJatFBK7f2tKIrLE+q3VrbQsRZi6mRrB8obWaLL44NA9D/6AKQFeT2XE23LoudZ02WN7 WinA== X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf2Jia5MbeLV6ybFBJqH0Kd3D6/9HgZNwVtW4tCfWFE8fN3D0A4O SXZ2fCbrM9D5rWSEDp7dZW1+dpsFn39UIK6Gm/I= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM4gnLZWIKF8aN5iCXJpELNKALC/72gLsJpTNxFvyvBUIO+DVVf3rV6er4XcW5cA31l5t58g4tEC8ps32Pr5FnQ= X-Received: by 2002:a81:7993:0:b0:351:b89:2cf8 with SMTP id u141-20020a817993000000b003510b892cf8mr39907075ywc.320.1666821057214; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 14:50:57 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <2C3CDDC5-DEE6-4F96-8B2F-60FF093EE412@gmx.de> <2087F2C8-1D9D-4093-90FF-65E68D0E1154@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: <2087F2C8-1D9D-4093-90FF-65E68D0E1154@gmx.de> From: dan Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2022 15:50:46 -0600 Message-ID: To: Sebastian Moeller Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Dave_T=C3=A4ht?= , Rpm , libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000004fd5e05ebf705c8" Subject: Re: [LibreQoS] [Rpm] benton's consumer broadband label prototype X-BeenThere: libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Many ISPs need the kinds of quality shaping cake can do List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2022 21:50:58 -0000 --00000000000004fd5e05ebf705c8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sebastian, we're basically arguing two entirely different systems. EU regulators are much more willing to regulate. In the US it's like the wild west. The government's efforts to step in and influence always seems to make it worse. Simply making companies accountable to their claims is 'enough' in my opinion. Right now, big players don't even monitor if customers devices are offline, or if modulation on their docsis modem is bad, etc. They've made it time consuming and difficult to even get support about those issues. No consequences and they keep getting federal money. They can mislead with no consequences. Some percent of people will automatically police services. If the big cable co says 'downloads are x, uploads are y, latency is z' and so on, enough people will habitually test those things and report. Putting teeth into the rules are required though, if you don't provide what you claim, then you owe a credit and potential escape from contracts and potentially refunds on install fees etc. Now, I don't disagree with clear billing labeling. We have massive problems of "the service is $65" and the bill comes at $77.82 with all the extras on there. Again though, that's simply false advertising and we already have consumer production rules that are not enforced. This stuff might land on the same label, but it's a different topic. On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 2:08 PM Sebastian Moeller wrote: > Hi Dan, > > > > On Oct 26, 2022, at 17:42, dan wrote: > > > > My argument here is more about government inadequacies. > > [SM] Sure regulatory capture is a reality and we can/should alway= s > strive for better government, but existing government is IMHO better than > no government ;) (not a fan of anarchy) > > > Without government warning labels for internet service we have a > massive streaming industry, gaming industry, home office workers, and so = on. > > [SM] That is somewhat orthogonal, as we also have a massive > organized crime "industry" in spite of government warning/acting against = it > ;) > > > It's imperfect, but the fact that many of us complain about how kids > are stuck in front of an xbox playing fortnite... well I guess it's worki= ng > to some degree. > > [SM] Not saying that all internet service is bad, just that enoug= h > of it is sub-promise that I personally consider regulatory action > desirable. We can discuss how that action should look like. (I also want = to > add, that e.g. in Germany many ISPs already delivered on their promises > even before the changes in law). > > > Government's ability to regulate and protect consumers that already > exists just isn't utilized, ie if you say you sell X, you give X else voi= d > contract and potential refunds of up-front costs. > > [SM] Hence me bringing the example from the German regulatory > agency that (acting based on a change in the relevant telecommunication > law) does exactly that, make sure both parties know what an internet acce= ss > link contract entails. > > > > In the US at least, the government's decision making process has fed th= e > 'bad' companies 3000-4000 per subscriber to build out services that don't > address the underserved anyway. All of this money thrown out there by th= e > government making their decisions and they've not moved the needle at all= . > > [SM] There is some inefficiency in the system of how to getting > those links built/updated to broadband where a pure profit motive with th= e > established prices will not work by itself. However it needs "free-market= " > players to abuse the government's willingness to pay for such build-outs > (and gorvernments willingness to not look close enugh to the details of t= he > implementation). > > > > IMO, very simple rules on advertising based on delivering what is > claimed will force industry innovation. > > [SM] What kind of innovation do you envision here? After all > "basic internet access" is a commodity, or should be, no? > > > If a company says 'fast' and that term is too broad, then any attack o= n > 'my latency is crap so this isn't fast' could lead to refunds. This is > capitalism after all. > > [SM] In the UK ISPs are, as far as I know, only allowed to > advertise with rates that are somehow empirically evidenced. In Germany > they can advertize with the PIB's "maximal rate", but then are held > accountable to actually deliver something close to that rate (the rules h= ow > the regulator controls whether ISPs hold their contracts are, in good > German fashion, somewhat baroque and convoluted/complicated, I am sure on= ce > the US commits to its own system it will be likely better/simpler to use)= . > > > > Maybe companies should have to say 'best throughput' if they are trying > to hyper their 1G or 2G service, they can't say 'fast' because that's not > really a valid measure. 'great low latency services' instead of fast. > > [SM] All of these terms like "fast" have no bearing over here, > ISPs need to reveal actual rates and then need to deliver these (again > there are rules how to interpret the availability of these rates end user= s > can expect). Over here ISPs advertize typically with their maximal downlo= ad > rate. > > > We have the language to market properly but companies are allowed to > market vaguely and it IMO contributes to consumer ignorance and > misunderstanding. > > > > For our 'fiber like' services we literally pitch latencies to various > gaming services and zoom relays. > > [SM] Which IMHO is fine, assuming you actually deliver robust and > reliable low latencies as far as that is under your control. Actually if > you deliver that, it well above just fine ;). Bit of a sign of competence > for any network operator not to blow up latency under load beyond reason. > > Regards > Sebastian > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 9:27 AM Sebastian Moeller > wrote: > > Hi Dan, > > > > > > > On Oct 26, 2022, at 17:09, dan via Rpm > wrote: > > > > > > Complete fail on a marketing perspective though, this would have to b= e > legislated and then handled by a third party. > > > > [SM] Well this is not intended to be a marketing tool, but a > regulatory tool to make sure the market works to the benefit of society (= I > understand that market members are incentivized to skew the market > mechanism to their advantage, this is why working markets need equally > working regulation, just like competitive sports require umpires/referees= ). > So yes legislation might well be required, but that would not be a sign o= f > failure, no? > > > > > No one is going to put out essentially a warning label that says > 'poor' or 'marginal' in any category for a product they sell. I wouldn't= , > and we have LTE services to get to people with no other option and they a= re > quite happy, it would be detrimental to hand them a sheet that says that > the service is actually 'poor'. > > > > [SM] True, but e.g. in Germany ISPs are required by law to > publish their contracted rates in a pre-described fashion pre-sale and ar= e > actually held responsible to some degree to actually deliver the promised > rates. (Well, not really, but consumers can get a cost-free right to > immediately cancel their contract or reduce their payments commensurate t= o > the under-delivery of the contracted speed*). What happens here is not th= at > ISPs need to disclose shitty service but that the need to declare what th= ey > intend to deliver and they are simply held responsible to actually do so*= *. > > > > > > *) The first option is already well established and works, the payment > reduction part is ATM still being worked out. > > **) Unfortunately, the required numbers currently do not include latenc= y > under load or even idle latency... there is still work ahead to convince > the regulatory agency of that. > > > > > Also, my trust in the government to decide what's good or bad... > laughable. > > > > [SM] Compared to bigger cooperations operating in "free-market" > capitalism? Really there is no alternative to government for that purpose= ... > > > > > You'd get things like on the example page. 903.5Mbps Median > download speed, 811.8 Median upload speed, gaming rating poor and video > conferencing marginal, on Fios service. I know that's an example, but it= 's > so spot on what the government might do... > > > > [SM] See e.g.: > > > https://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Sachgebiete/Tele= kommunikation/Unternehmen_Institutionen/Anbieterpflichten/Kundenschutz/Tran= sparenzma=C3=9Fnahmen/templates_for_information_sheets.pdf;jsessionid=3D086= 8AE15965FB584C81008C96BA15E4B?__blob=3DpublicationFile&v=3D1 > > and > > > https://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Sachgebiete/Tele= kommunikation/Unternehmen_Institutionen/Anbieterpflichten/Kundenschutz/Tran= sparenzma=C3=9Fnahmen/Instruction_for_drawing_up_PIS.pdf;jsessionid=3D0868A= E15965FB584C81008C96BA15E4B?__blob=3DpublicationFile&v=3D1 > > > > for how something similar might look in practice. > > > > > > > > As an operator, I will not implement this unless forced to and then > I'll support lobby efforts to get it removed. > > > > [SM] Ad that is why we can't have nice things... ;) No really, = I > agree this needs legislative/regulatory backing/teeth to work, but that i= s > not a failure but simply how our system developed. > > > > Regards > > Sebastian > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 8:30 PM Dave Taht via LibreQoS < > libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote: > > > is actually... not bad. > > > > > > https://www.benton.org/blog/consumer-driven-broadband-label-design > > > > > > -- > > > This song goes out to all the folk that thought Stadia would work: > > > > https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dtaht_the-mushroom-song-activity-698136666= 5607352320-FXtz > > > Dave T=C3=A4ht CEO, TekLibre, LLC > > > _______________________________________________ > > > LibreQoS mailing list > > > LibreQoS@lists.bufferbloat.net > > > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/libreqos > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Rpm mailing list > > > Rpm@lists.bufferbloat.net > > > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/rpm > > > > --00000000000004fd5e05ebf705c8 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sebastian, we're basically arguing two entirely differ= ent systems.=C2=A0 EU regulators are much more willing to regulate.=C2=A0 I= n the US it's like the wild west.=C2=A0 The government's efforts to= step in and influence always seems to make it worse.=C2=A0

Simply m= aking companies accountable to their claims is 'enough' in my opini= on.=C2=A0 Right now, big players don't even monitor if customers device= s are offline, or if modulation on their docsis modem is bad, etc.=C2=A0 Th= ey've made it time consuming and difficult to even get support about th= ose issues.=C2=A0 No consequences and they keep getting federal money.=C2= =A0 They can mislead with no consequences.=C2=A0=C2=A0

Some percent = of people will automatically police services.=C2=A0 If the big cable co say= s 'downloads are x, uploads are y, latency is z' and so on, enough = people will habitually test those things and report.=C2=A0 Putting teeth in= to the rules are required though, if you don't provide what you claim, = then you owe a credit and potential escape from contracts and potentially r= efunds on install fees etc.=C2=A0=C2=A0

Now, I don't disagree wi= th clear billing labeling.=C2=A0 We have massive problems of "the serv= ice is $65" and the bill comes at $77.82 with all the extras on there.= =C2=A0 Again though, that's simply false advertising and we already hav= e consumer production rules that are not enforced.=C2=A0 This stuff might l= and on the same label, but it's a different topic.

On Wed, Oct 26, 2= 022 at 2:08 PM Sebastian Moeller <moe= ller0@gmx.de> wrote:
Hi Dan,


> On Oct 26, 2022, at 17:42, dan <dandenson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> My argument here is more about government inadequacies.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 [SM] Sure regulatory capture is a reality and w= e can/should always strive for better government, but existing government i= s IMHO better than no government ;) (not a fan of anarchy)

>=C2=A0 Without government warning labels for internet service we have a= massive streaming industry, gaming industry, home office workers, and so o= n.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 [SM] That is somewhat orthogonal, as we also ha= ve a massive organized crime "industry" in spite of government wa= rning/acting against it ;)

>=C2=A0 It's imperfect, but the fact that many of us complain about = how kids are stuck in front of an xbox playing fortnite... well I guess it&= #39;s working to some degree.=C2=A0

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 [SM] Not saying that all internet service is ba= d, just that enough of it is sub-promise that I personally consider regulat= ory action desirable. We can discuss how that action should look like. (I a= lso want to add, that e.g. in Germany many ISPs already delivered on their = promises even before the changes in law).

> Government's ability to regulate and protect consumers that alread= y exists just isn't utilized, ie if you say you sell X, you give X else= void contract and potential refunds of up-front costs.=C2=A0

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 [SM] Hence me bringing the example from the Ger= man regulatory agency that (acting based on a change in the relevant teleco= mmunication law) does exactly that, make sure both parties know what an int= ernet access link contract entails.


> In the US at least, the government's decision making process has f= ed the 'bad' companies 3000-4000 per subscriber to build out servic= es that don't address the underserved anyway.=C2=A0 All of this money t= hrown out there by the government making their decisions and they've no= t moved the needle at all.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 [SM] There is some inefficiency in the system o= f how to getting those links built/updated to broadband where a pure profit= motive with the established prices will not work by itself. However it nee= ds "free-market" players to abuse the government's willingnes= s to pay for such build-outs (and gorvernments willingness to not look clos= e enugh to the details of the implementation).


> IMO, very simple rules on advertising based on delivering what is clai= med will force industry innovation.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 [SM] What kind of innovation do you envision he= re? After all "basic internet access" is a commodity, or should b= e, no?

>=C2=A0 If a company says 'fast' and that term is too broad, the= n any attack on 'my latency is crap so this isn't fast' could l= ead to refunds.=C2=A0 This is capitalism after all.=C2=A0

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 [SM] In the UK ISPs are, as far as I know, only= allowed to advertise with rates that are somehow empirically evidenced. In= Germany they can advertize with the PIB's "maximal rate", bu= t then are held accountable to actually deliver something close to that rat= e (the rules how the regulator controls whether ISPs hold their contracts a= re, in good German fashion, somewhat baroque and convoluted/complicated, I = am sure once the US commits to its own system it will be likely better/simp= ler to use).


> Maybe companies should have to say 'best throughput' if they a= re trying to hyper their 1G or 2G service, they can't say 'fast'= ; because that's not really a valid measure.=C2=A0 'great low laten= cy services' instead of fast.=C2=A0

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 [SM] All of these terms like "fast" h= ave no bearing over here, ISPs need to reveal actual rates and then need to= deliver these (again there are rules how to interpret the availability of = these rates end users can expect). Over here ISPs advertize typically with = their maximal download rate.

>=C2=A0 We have the language to market properly but companies are allowe= d to market vaguely and it IMO contributes to consumer ignorance and misund= erstanding.
>
> For our 'fiber like' services we literally pitch latencies to = various gaming services and zoom relays.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 [SM] Which IMHO is fine, assuming you actually = deliver robust and reliable low latencies as far as that is under your cont= rol. Actually if you deliver that, it well above just fine ;). Bit of a sig= n of competence for any network operator not to blow up latency under load = beyond reason.

Regards
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Sebastian



>=C2=A0 =C2=A0
>
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 9:27 AM Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de> wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
>
> > On Oct 26, 2022, at 17:09, dan via Rpm <rpm@lists.bufferbloat.net> = wrote:
> >
> > Complete fail on a marketing perspective though, this would have = to be legislated and then handled by a third party.
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0[SM] Well this is not intended to be = a marketing tool, but a regulatory tool to make sure the market works to th= e benefit of society (I understand that market members are incentivized to = skew the market mechanism to their advantage, this is why working markets n= eed equally working regulation, just like competitive sports require umpire= s/referees). So yes legislation might well be required, but that would not = be a sign of failure, no?
>
> >=C2=A0 No one is going to put out essentially a warning label that= says 'poor' or 'marginal' in any category for a product th= ey sell.=C2=A0 I wouldn't, and we have LTE services to get to people wi= th no other option and they are quite happy, it would be detrimental to han= d them a sheet that says that the service is actually 'poor'.
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0[SM] True, but e.g. in Germany ISPs a= re required by law to publish their contracted rates in a pre-described fas= hion pre-sale and are actually held responsible to some degree to actually = deliver the promised rates. (Well, not really, but consumers can get a cost= -free right to immediately cancel their contract or reduce their payments c= ommensurate to the under-delivery of the contracted speed*). What happens h= ere is not that ISPs need to disclose shitty service but that the need to d= eclare what they intend to deliver and they are simply held responsible to = actually do so**.
>
>
> *) The first option is already well established and works, the payment= reduction part is ATM still being worked out.
> **) Unfortunately, the required numbers currently do not include laten= cy under load or even idle latency... there is still work ahead to convince= the regulatory agency of that.
>
> > Also, my trust in the government to decide what's good or bad= ... laughable.
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0[SM] Compared to bigger cooperations = operating in "free-market" capitalism? Really there is no alterna= tive to government for that purpose...
>
> >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 You'd get things like on the example page.=C2=A0= 903.5Mbps Median download speed, 811.8 Median upload speed, gaming rating = poor and video conferencing marginal, on Fios service.=C2=A0 I know that= 9;s an example, but it's so spot on what the government might do...
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0[SM] See e.g.:
> https://www.bundesnetzagentur.de= /SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Sachgebiete/Telekommunikation/Unternehmen_Institut= ionen/Anbieterpflichten/Kundenschutz/Transparenzma=C3=9Fnahmen/templates_fo= r_information_sheets.pdf;jsessionid=3D0868AE15965FB584C81008C96BA15E4B?__bl= ob=3DpublicationFile&v=3D1
> and
> https://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/Sh= aredDocs/Downloads/DE/Sachgebiete/Telekommunikation/Unternehmen_Institution= en/Anbieterpflichten/Kundenschutz/Transparenzma=C3=9Fnahmen/Instruction_for= _drawing_up_PIS.pdf;jsessionid=3D0868AE15965FB584C81008C96BA15E4B?__blob=3D= publicationFile&v=3D1
>
> for how something similar might look in practice.
>
> >
> > As an operator, I will not implement this unless forced to and th= en I'll support lobby efforts to get it removed.
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0[SM] Ad that is why we can't have= nice things... ;) No really, I agree this needs legislative/regulatory bac= king/teeth to work, but that is not a failure but simply how our system dev= eloped.
>
> Regards
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Sebastian
>
>
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 8:30 PM Dave Taht via LibreQoS <libreqos@list= s.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> >=C2=A0 is actually... not bad.
> >
> > https://www.benton.org/b= log/consumer-driven-broadband-label-design
> >
> > --
> > This song goes out to all the folk that thought Stadia would work= :
> > ht= tps://www.linkedin.com/posts/dtaht_the-mushroom-song-activity-6981366665607= 352320-FXtz
> > Dave T=C3=A4ht CEO, TekLibre, LLC
> > _______________________________________________
> > LibreQoS mailing list
> > LibreQoS@lists.bufferbloat.net
> > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/li= breqos
> > _______________________________________________
> > Rpm mailing list
> > Rp= m@lists.bufferbloat.net
> > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/rpm >

--00000000000004fd5e05ebf705c8--