From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from bosmailout02.eigbox.net (bosmailout02.eigbox.net [66.96.184.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 309193CB37 for ; Wed, 11 Oct 2023 16:42:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from bosmailscan01.eigbox.net ([10.20.15.1]) by bosmailout02.eigbox.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1qqg2i-0007Q9-D3 for nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net; Wed, 11 Oct 2023 16:42:56 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=alum.mit.edu; s=dkim; h=Sender:Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Date: Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Cc:To:From:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=t/sT1TuqTvVajt7ZLJTAU+8kugXj7/3YQkCj6NM4mlY=; b=bB0XYIFroDynUo+kUWB/Kc/kJz Tkf8LdQDx12jd760w2zv/A7U+36/TFq2ixeMeKvP2jTJTQ1reex9tXMlp32t5GsZ+y+7Gvr47ph1W T/XuI4siYK7j/F6KfT+TbZJZ/PFvrOqxi7hbt1a6zFBfHzXY671GwAI2Nw3xCk7KRAupW2frmaH1M 0OreAM0Vg99PBrd8RHCrJH6zVw71hNHtAyP9AFyugh3YTs2M0wepPj4dStAQPOg/85kv1ji+ZSIQi S32HDb4NhS3aPl42beuybw2ZDsrRua4Ya5KMmgugz96yahu3Plu8cbnMHuygw9ff/XVQCDrv1KIk1 XQKyveyw==; Received: from [10.115.3.33] (helo=bosimpout13) by bosmailscan01.eigbox.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1qqg2i-0002Ok-4x for nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net; Wed, 11 Oct 2023 16:42:56 -0400 Received: from bosauthsmtp02.yourhostingaccount.com ([10.20.18.2]) by bosimpout13 with id wkis2A00G02gpmq01kiwht; Wed, 11 Oct 2023 16:42:56 -0400 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.3 cv=G76H7+s5 c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=9MP9vxlQrmnoeofDS6o88g==:117 a=tKttg/DTfI8zZz0UFxdR5w==:17 a=bhdUkHdE2iEA:10 a=r77TgQKjGQsHNAKrUKIA:9 a=usUTcz4nAAAA:8 a=kurRqvosAAAA:8 a=doUQZJtgAAAA:8 a=TGOQu4c8AAAA:8 a=hri3pnhyOxY5NzFzZAsA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=SSmOFEACAAAA:8 a=tBE7Fc6sBx0qTvU_1RQA:9 a=pH484D_ITLoQEYIO:21 a=gKO2Hq4RSVkA:10 a=UiCQ7L4-1S4A:10 a=hTZeC7Yk6K0A:10 a=frz4AuCg-hUA:10 a=MqnEBYhnR1GEXjMu-uAJ:22 a=kbxRQ_lfPIoQnHsAj2-A:22 a=d0-0EwFVFT64L02gzcZV:22 a=o0C07otDTeZuy3B71tGT:22 Received: from c-73-158-253-41.hsd1.ca.comcast.net ([73.158.253.41]:59295 helo=SRA6) by bosauthsmtp02.eigbox.net with esmtpa (Exim) id 1qqg2d-0003i0-SP; Wed, 11 Oct 2023 16:42:52 -0400 Reply-To: From: "Dick Roy" To: "'rjmcmahon'" Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?'Network_Neutrality_is_back!_Let?= =?UTF-8?Q?=C2=B4s_make_the_technical_aspects_he?= =?UTF-8?Q?ard_this_time!'?= , "'Nick Feamster'" References: <2f0395e99add7014924d288f4569b87b@rjmcmahon.com> In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2023 13:42:49 -0700 Organization: SRA Message-ID: <08D5EE1E15BD4E18862DB4CA29BE4A41@SRA6> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_045B_01D9FC48.D5A0A460" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: Adn8c7+YMroBf2pfT+Wd4OXW2oxclQADvY8g X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE X-EN-UserInfo: f809475445fb8041985048e338e1a001:931c98230c6409dcc37fa7e93b490c27 X-EN-AuthUser: dickroy@intellicommunications.com Sender: "Dick Roy" X-EN-OrigIP: 73.158.253.41 X-EN-OrigHost: c-73-158-253-41.hsd1.ca.comcast.net Subject: Re: [NNagain] Internet Education for Non-technorati? X-BeenThere: nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: =?utf-8?q?Network_Neutrality_is_back!_Let=C2=B4s_make_the_technical_aspects_heard_this_time!?= List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2023 20:42:57 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_045B_01D9FC48.D5A0A460 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20 =20 -----Original Message----- From: rjmcmahon [mailto:rjmcmahon@rjmcmahon.com]=20 Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2023 11:50 AM To: dickroy@alum.mit.edu Cc: 'Network Neutrality is back! Let=C2=B4s make the technical aspects = heard this time!'; 'Nick Feamster' Subject: Re: [NNagain] Internet Education for Non-technorati? =20 Yes, EDCAs are multidimensional. The coupling of EDCA to a DSCP field,=20 Access Class (AC) or MAC queue is just an engineering thing. The EDCA is = really just for an upcoming access arbitration and doesn't have to be=20 held constant. And the values are under control of the WiFi BSS manager. [RR] Yup! =20 What's a WiFi BSS manager one might ask? It's an unfilled role that the=20 standards engineers assumed would occur, yet are networking roles are=20 under staffed all over the planet. The default EDCAs are just some made=20 up numbers that have no simulation or other backing - though many think=20 they're gold or something - which they're not. [RR] We (ITS/DSRC people) did simulations to come up with our own = (802.11p) default set, and as you point it, it=E2=80=99s just a default = set and therefore subject to change! Gold it is not! :-)=20 =20 There are so many things at play just for WiFi performance yet alone=20 e2e. I wouldn't know where to start for a consumer label. Even marketing = terms like WiFi 6, 6e and 7 seem to mostly add confusion. [RR] Yup! =20 Then engineers design for the tests because what else can they do? And=20 the tests struggle to represent any kind of reality. Labels are likely=20 going to have a similar affect. [RR] Couldn=E2=80=99t agree more! =20 Even the basics of capacity and latency are not understood by consumers. = [RR] In their defense, they are both more than two syllable words! :-) = :-) The voice engineers created mean opinion scores which I don't think=20 consumers ever cared about. [RR] And the engineers really couldn=E2=80=99t explain it to them = either! :-) Then we talk about quality of experience=20 (QoE) as if it were a mathematical term, which it isn't. [RR] Sure isn=E2=80=99t as far as I know! =20 RR =20 Bob > -----Original Message----- > From: Nnagain [mailto:nnagain-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net] On Behalf > Of rjmcmahon via Nnagain > Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2023 11:18 AM > To: Network Neutrality is back! Let=C2=B4s make the technical aspects > heard this time! > Cc: rjmcmahon; Nick Feamster > Subject: Re: [NNagain] Internet Education for Non-technorati? >=20 > I've added many metrics around latency and one way delays (OWD) in > iperf >=20 > 2. There is no single type of latency, nor are the measurements > scalars. >=20 > (Few will understand violin plots or histograms on labels) >=20 > On top of that, a paced flow will have a different e2e latency > histogram >=20 > than an as fast as possible (AFAP) flow. They also drive different > WiFi >=20 > behaviors. Hence, it's not just a simple arrival rate and service time >=20 >=20 > anymore, even for queuing analysis. (Though Little's Law is pretty > cool >=20 > and useful for displacement ratings) Throw in BSS managed EDCAs and > all >=20 > bets are off. >=20 > _[RR] Wouldn=E2=80=99t the issue of EDCAs (i.e.different queues for > different priority classes with different tx parameters for each), > just make the analysis (more) =E2=80=9Cmultidimensional=E2=80=9D? = Might it be > possible to model such scenarios as N different collocated > bridges/routers), one for each access category? Does any of what I > just said make any sense in this context? __J __J_ >=20 > _ _ >=20 > _RR_ >=20 > Bob >=20 >> I think y'all are conflating two different labels here. The > nutrition >=20 >> label was one effort, now being deploye, the other is cybersecurity, >=20 >=20 >> now being discussed. >=20 >>=20 >=20 >> On the nutrition front... >=20 >> We successfully fought against "packet loss" being included on the >=20 >> nutrition label, but as ghu is my witness, I have no idea if a > formal >=20 >> method for declaring "typical latency" was ever formally derived. >=20 >>=20 >=20 >>=20 > = https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-requires-broadband-providers-display-lab= els-help-consumers >=20 >=20 >>=20 >=20 >> On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 10:39=E2=80=AFAM David Bray, PhD via Nnagain >=20 >> wrote: >=20 >>>=20 >=20 >>> I was at a closed-door event discussing these labels about two > weeks >=20 >>> ago (right before the potential government shutdown/temporarily >=20 >>> averted for now) - and it was non-attribution, so I can only > describe >=20 >>> my comments: >=20 >>>=20 >=20 >>> (1) the labels risk missing the reality that the Internet and >=20 >>> cybersecurity are not steady state, which begs the question how > will >=20 >>> they be updated >=20 >>> (2) the labels say nothing about how - even if the company promises > to >=20 >>> keep your data private and secure - how good their security > practices >=20 >>> are internal to the company? Or what if the company is bought in 5 >=20 >>> years? >=20 >>> (3) they use QR-codes to provide additional info, yet we know > QR-codes >=20 >>> can be sent to bad links so what if someone replaces a label with a >=20 >=20 >>> bad link such that the label itself becomes an exploit? >=20 >>>=20 >=20 >>> I think the biggest risks is these we be rolled out, some exploit > will >=20 >>> occur that the label didn't consider, consumers will be angry they >=20 >>> weren't "protected" and now we are even in worse shape because the >=20 >>> public's trust has gone further down hill, they angry at the >=20 >>> government, and the private sector feels like the time and energy > they >=20 >>> spent on the labels was for naught? >=20 >>>=20 >=20 >>> There's also the concern about how do startups roll-out such a > label >=20 >>> for their tech in the early iteration phase? How do they afford to > do >=20 >>> the extra work for the label vs. a big company (does this become a >=20 >>> regulatory moat?) >=20 >>>=20 >=20 >>> And let's say we have these labels. Will only consumers with the > money >=20 >>> to purchase the more expensive equipment that has more privacy and >=20 >>> security features buy that one - leaving those who cannot afford >=20 >>> privacy and security bad alternatives? >=20 >>>=20 >=20 >>> On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 1:31=E2=80=AFPM Jack Haverty via Nnagain >=20 >>> wrote: >=20 >>>>=20 >=20 >>>> A few days ago I made some comments about the idea of "educating" > the >=20 >>>> lawyers, politicians, and other smart, but not necessarily >=20 >>>> technically >=20 >>>> adept, decision makers. Today I saw a news story about a recent > FCC >=20 >>>> action, to mandate "nutrition labels" on Internet services offered > by >=20 >>>> ISPs: >=20 >>>>=20 >=20 >>>>=20 > = https://cordcuttersnews.com/fcc-says-comcast-spectrum-att-must-start-disp= laying-the-true-cost-and-speed-of-their-internet-service-starting-april-2= 024/ >=20 >=20 >>>>=20 >=20 >>>> This struck me as anecdotal, but a good example of the need for >=20 >>>> education. Although it's tempting and natural to look at existing >=20 >=20 >>>> infrastructures as models for regulating a new one, IMHO the > Internet >=20 >>>> does not work like the Food/Agriculture infrastructure does. >=20 >>>>=20 >=20 >>>> For example, the new mandates require ISPs to "label" their > products >=20 >>>> with "nutritional" data including "typical" latency, upload, and >=20 >>>> download speeds. They have until April 2024 to figure it out. > I've >=20 >>>> never encountered an ISP who could answer such questions - even > the >=20 >>>> ones >=20 >>>> I was involved in managing. Marketing can of course create an >=20 >>>> answer, >=20 >>>> since "typical" is such a vague term. Figuring out how to attach > the >=20 >>>> physical label to their service product may be a problem. >=20 >>>>=20 >=20 >>>> Such labels may not be very helpful to the end user struggling to >=20 >>>> find >=20 >>>> an ISP that delivers the service needed for some interactive use >=20 >>>> (audio >=20 >>>> or video conferencing, gaming, home automation, etc.) >=20 >>>>=20 >=20 >>>> Performance on the Internet depends on where the two endpoints > are, >=20 >>>> the >=20 >>>> physical path to get from one to the other, as well as the > hardware, >=20 >>>> software, current load, and other aspects of each endpoint, all >=20 >>>> outside >=20 >>>> the ISPs' control or vision. Since the two endpoints can be on >=20 >>>> different ISPs, perhaps requiring one or more additional > internediate >=20 >>>> ISPs, specifying a "typical" performance from all Points A to all >=20 >>>> Points >=20 >>>> B is even more challenging. >=20 >>>>=20 >=20 >>>> Switching to the transportation analogy, one might ask your local > bus >=20 >>>> or >=20 >>>> rail company what their typical time is to get from one city to >=20 >>>> another. If the two cities involved happen to be on their rail > or >=20 >>>> bus >=20 >>>> network, perhaps you can get an answer, but it will still depend > on >=20 >>>> where the two endpoints are. If one or both cities are not on > their >=20 >>>> rail network, the travel time might have to include use of other >=20 >>>> "networks" - bus, rental car, airplane, ship, etc. How long does > it >=20 >>>> typically take for you to get from any city on the planet to any >=20 >>>> other >=20 >>>> city on the planet? >=20 >>>>=20 >=20 >>>> IMHO, rules and regulations for the Internet need to reflect how > the >=20 >>>> Internet actually works. That's why I suggested a focus on > education >=20 >>>> for the decision makers. >=20 >>>>=20 >=20 >>>> Jack Haverty >=20 >>>>=20 >=20 >>>> _______________________________________________ >=20 >>>> Nnagain mailing list >=20 >>>> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net >=20 >>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain >=20 >>>=20 >=20 >>> _______________________________________________ >=20 >>> Nnagain mailing list >=20 >>> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net >=20 >>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain >=20 > _______________________________________________ >=20 > Nnagain mailing list >=20 > Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net >=20 > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain ------=_NextPart_000_045B_01D9FC48.D5A0A460 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: rjmcmahon [mailto:rjmcmahon@rjmcmahon.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2023 11:50 AM
To: dickroy@alum.mit.edu
Cc: 'Network Neutrality is back! Let=C2=B4s make the technical aspects = heard this time!'; 'Nick Feamster'
Subject: Re: [NNagain] Internet Education for = Non-technorati?

 

Yes, EDCAs are multidimensional. The coupling of EDCA to a DSCP = field,

Access Class (AC) or MAC queue is just an engineering thing. The = EDCA is

really just for an upcoming access arbitration and doesn't have = to be

held constant. And the values are under control of the WiFi BSS manager.

[RR] Yup!

 

What's a WiFi BSS manager one might ask? It's an unfilled role = that the

standards engineers assumed would occur, yet are networking = roles are

under staffed all over the planet. The default EDCAs are just = some made

up numbers that have no simulation or other backing - though = many think

they're gold or something - which they're = not.

[RR] We (ITS/DSRC people) did simulations to come up with our own (802.11p) = default set, and as you point it, it=E2=80=99s just a default set and therefore = subject to change! Gold it is not! J

 

There are so many things at play just for WiFi performance yet = alone

e2e. I wouldn't know where to start for a consumer label. Even marketing

terms like WiFi 6, 6e and 7 seem to mostly add = confusion.

[RR] Yup!

 

Then engineers design for the tests because what else can they = do? And

the tests struggle to represent any kind of reality. Labels are = likely

going to have a similar affect.

[RR] Couldn=E2=80=99t agree more!

 

Even the basics of capacity and latency are not understood by consumers.

[RR] In their defense, they are both more than two syllable words! = J J

The voice engineers created mean opinion scores which I don't = think

consumers ever cared about.

[RR] And = the engineers really couldn=E2=80=99t explain it to them either! = J

=C2=A0Then we talk about quality of experience =

(QoE) as if it were a mathematical term, which it = isn't.

[RR] Sure isn=E2=80=99t as far as I know!

 

RR

 

Bob

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Nnagain = [mailto:nnagain-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net] On Behalf

> Of rjmcmahon via Nnagain

> Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2023 11:18 = AM

> To: Network Neutrality is back! Let=C2=B4s make the = technical aspects

> heard this time!

> Cc: rjmcmahon; Nick Feamster

> Subject: Re: [NNagain] Internet Education for = Non-technorati?

>

> I've added many metrics around latency and one way delays = (OWD) in

> iperf

>

> 2. There is no single type of latency, nor are the = measurements

> scalars.

>

> (Few will understand violin plots or histograms on = labels)

>

> On top of that, a paced flow will have a different e2e = latency

> histogram

>

> than an as fast as possible (AFAP) flow. They also drive = different

> WiFi

>

> behaviors. Hence, it's not just a simple arrival rate and = service time

>

>

> anymore, even for queuing analysis. (Though Little's Law is = pretty

> cool

>

> and useful for displacement ratings) Throw in BSS managed = EDCAs and

> all

>

> bets are off.

>

> _[RR] Wouldn=E2=80=99t the issue of EDCAs (i.e.different = queues for

> different priority classes with different tx parameters for = each),

> just make the analysis (more) = =E2=80=9Cmultidimensional=E2=80=9D?=C2=A0 Might it = be

> possible to model such scenarios as N different = collocated

> bridges/routers), one for each access category?=C2=A0 Does = any of what I

> just said make any sense in this context? __J = __J_

>

> _ _

>

> _RR_

>

> Bob

>

>> I think y'all are conflating two different labels here. = The

> nutrition

>

>> label was one effort, now being deploye, the other is cybersecurity,

>

>

>> now being discussed.

>

>>

>

>> On the nutrition front...

>

>> We successfully fought against "packet loss" = being included on the

>

>> nutrition label, but as ghu is my witness, I have no = idea if a

> formal

>

>> method for declaring "typical latency" was = ever formally derived.

>

>>

>

>>

> https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-requires-broadband-providers-display-lab= els-help-consumers

>

>

>>

>

>> On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 10:39=E2=80=AFAM David Bray, PhD = via Nnagain

>

>> <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> = wrote:

>

>>>

>

>>> I was at a closed-door event discussing these = labels about two

> weeks

>

>>> ago (right before the potential government = shutdown/temporarily

>

>>> averted for now) - and it was non-attribution, so I = can only

> describe

>

>>> my comments:

>

>>>

>

>>> (1) the labels risk missing the reality that the = Internet and

>

>>> cybersecurity are not steady state, which begs the question how

> will

>

>>> they be updated

>

>>> (2) the labels say nothing about how - even if the = company promises

> to

>

>>> keep your data private and secure - how good their security

> practices

>

>>> are internal to the company? Or what if the company = is bought in 5

>

>>> years?

>

>>> (3) they use QR-codes to provide additional info, = yet we know

> QR-codes

>

>>> can be sent to bad links so what if someone = replaces a label with a

>

>

>>> bad link such that the label itself becomes an = exploit?

>

>>>

>

>>> I think the biggest risks is these we be rolled = out, some exploit

> will

>

>>> occur that the label didn't consider, consumers = will be angry they

>

>>> weren't "protected" and now we are even = in worse shape because the

>

>>> public's trust has gone further down hill, they = angry at the

>

>>> government, and the private sector feels like the = time and energy

> they

>

>>> spent on the labels was for = naught?

>

>>>

>

>>> There's also the concern about how do startups = roll-out such a

> label

>

>>> for their tech in the early iteration phase? How do = they afford to

> do

>

>>> the extra work for the label vs. a big company = (does this become a

>

>>> regulatory moat?)

>

>>>

>

>>> And let's say we have these labels. Will only = consumers with the

> money

>

>>> to purchase the more expensive equipment that has = more privacy and

>

>>> security features buy that one - leaving those who = cannot afford

>

>>> privacy and security bad = alternatives?

>

>>>

>

>>> On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 1:31=E2=80=AFPM Jack Haverty via Nnagain

>

>>> <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> = wrote:

>

>>>>

>

>>>> A few days ago I made some comments about the = idea of "educating"

> the

>

>>>> lawyers, politicians, and other smart, but not necessarily

>

>>>> technically

>

>>>> adept, decision makers.=C2=A0 Today I saw a = news story about a recent

> FCC

>

>>>> action, to mandate "nutrition labels" = on Internet services offered

> by

>

>>>> ISPs:

>

>>>>

>

>>>>

> https://cordcuttersnews.com/fcc-says-comcast-spectrum-att-must-start-disp= laying-the-true-cost-and-speed-of-their-internet-service-starting-april-2= 024/

>

>

>>>>

>

>>>> This struck me as anecdotal, but a good example = of the need for

>

>>>> education.=C2=A0 Although it's tempting and = natural to look at existing

>

>

>>>> infrastructures as models for regulating a new = one, IMHO the

> Internet

>

>>>> does not work like the Food/Agriculture = infrastructure does.

>

>>>>

>

>>>> For example, the new mandates require ISPs to "label" their

> products

>

>>>> with "nutritional" data including "typical" latency, upload, and

>

>>>> download speeds.=C2=A0=C2=A0 They have until = April 2024 to figure it out.

> I've

>

>>>> never encountered an ISP who could answer such questions - even

> the

>

>>>> ones

>

>>>> I was involved in managing.=C2=A0 Marketing can = of course create an

>

>>>> answer,

>

>>>> since "typical" is such a vague = term.=C2=A0 Figuring out how to attach

> the

>

>>>> physical label to their service product may be = a problem.

>

>>>>

>

>>>> Such labels may not be very helpful to the end = user struggling to

>

>>>> find

>

>>>> an ISP that delivers the service needed for = some interactive use

>

>>>> (audio

>

>>>> or video conferencing, gaming, home automation, = etc.)

>

>>>>

>

>>>> Performance on the Internet depends on where = the two endpoints

> are,

>

>>>> the

>

>>>> physical path to get from one to the other, as = well as the

> hardware,

>

>>>> software, current load, and other aspects of = each endpoint, all

>

>>>> outside

>

>>>> the ISPs' control or vision.=C2=A0=C2=A0 Since = the two endpoints can be on

>

>>>> different ISPs, perhaps requiring one or more additional

> internediate

>

>>>> ISPs, specifying a "typical" = performance from all Points A to all

>

>>>> Points

>

>>>> B is even more = challenging.

>

>>>>

>

>>>> Switching to the transportation analogy, one = might ask your local

> bus

>

>>>> or

>

>>>> rail company what their typical time is to get = from one city to

>

>>>> another.=C2=A0=C2=A0 If the two cities involved = happen to be on their rail

> or

>

>>>> bus

>

>>>> network, perhaps you can get an answer, but it = will still depend

> on

>

>>>> where the two endpoints are.=C2=A0 If one or = both cities are not on

> their

>

>>>> rail network, the travel time might have to = include use of other

>

>>>> "networks" - bus, rental car, = airplane, ship, etc.=C2=A0=C2=A0 How long does

> it

>

>>>> typically take for you to get from any city on = the planet to any

>

>>>> other

>

>>>> city on the = planet?

>

>>>>

>

>>>> IMHO, rules and regulations for the Internet = need to reflect how

> the

>

>>>> Internet actually works.=C2=A0 That's why I = suggested a focus on

> education

>

>>>> for the decision = makers.

>

>>>>

>

>>>> Jack Haverty

>

>>>>

>

>>>> = _______________________________________________<= /p>

>

>>>> Nnagain mailing = list

>

>>>> = Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net

>

>>>> = https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain

>

>>>

>

>>> = _______________________________________________<= /p>

>

>>> Nnagain mailing list

>

>>> = Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net

>

>>> = https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain

>

> = _______________________________________________<= /p>

>

> Nnagain mailing list

>

> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net

>

> = https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain

------=_NextPart_000_045B_01D9FC48.D5A0A460--