From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.22]) (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 72D3F3CB52 for ; Mon, 30 Oct 2023 11:55:24 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.de; s=s31663417; t=1698681322; x=1699286122; i=moeller0@gmx.de; bh=5kDeiji0DCwC6UywfF0CWZ0GWK9xDB8gmTcGRaN+RNQ=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References: To; b=oDounomS//MQtcpdsgNPZlKzuIbm6UmamsW1DftV5Ag5QRuq6gtFsWVH0Xd9xncj K2VChjtTlxN78DC4DFND17Wk1Z9K3gcCZA4zY/mnFZeF/7YqcKm3DUimcMj6LdGsQ jGCjLxVS8ESm8/wfGM2KAVVxE74/N9zKg/YxTvhFA3Y65ynFfEg3/86IoFKmf86wl BH8yWwsT1JX5pSEFrKizrRZfBKThxKIAEeqoO6sITDfTWt5SvRUelDzmV/gobPRxi DQLDIqR2FCm3tH93TULC6/HaoozXYAz1+oAywRvI0CO1xONZeMqrm0Uoq0AYdI09H UB+7uVMyLmpdwyqMRg== X-UI-Sender-Class: 724b4f7f-cbec-4199-ad4e-598c01a50d3a Received: from smtpclient.apple ([134.76.241.253]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx104 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MzhnN-1rjOCf3n4j-00vghR; Mon, 30 Oct 2023 16:55:20 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.120.41.1.4\)) From: Sebastian Moeller In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2023 16:55:20 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <201F5B9D-1715-4F5C-B0AB-40E014C69C50@gmx.de> References: <2822930F-C30B-4557-B248-78D78DF6F861@gmx.de> To: =?utf-8?Q?Network_Neutrality_is_back!_Let=C2=B4s_make_the_technical_as?= =?utf-8?Q?pects_heard_this_time!?= X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.120.41.1.4) X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:+Toysa6fMbu1Xd8ZB7YDCsEA3xpxCSW4P1BInqfsjlooc0Dr+J0 uLSiGqX6b1BC+SiNjEafYJX6wEaLcnpTip3BsI7jDFv+K+RTGzhIRUGSUsnMndOC1XPNpdI JoNDRY/5BAwKnvnGp8nl54OdHlcNAoVITUryQSxr7ELTPDJfz8DqfevmUBjbB1rf6elY9H2 cAhrtWszPbw2/gNGBCYpw== X-Spam-Flag: NO UI-OutboundReport: notjunk:1;M01:P0:MP9GAu7M5xs=;n839K6/4H0plxC7roU3QtSd2sVu /AkZRozv5acDo2dMSz6wyAi9dQghRhv0ueYG/h2I6HpFIoVxV8u8NMi0JJbrEwQQdoHOdZsiK BeOP23J48WHBiFVbcT/4yps3JmeVn4VNXPJnfK3p2IZIbwAM/KSYYxBIAF53Ye42Lk3tVCkjN r+g5Gje0/yKBXaQ+wcTz71Tymuyp98lrPYnt5FoSIgeUYFFmY/6vzr9yXbKY6bTgQ2jZLGYvs yJ9t6+fO1suAXGCOEIMvLK8IlZBu/8nCc9WzRL86qv6XkygK2S5MBE7RKURbo0XtwBT/3OZIS WMlZ5EaYatOpZNm0nb6tI8kdNFneVs/rDwhOrIWMhHMgPBoE6IAjy6vGXYvVLNZ2KJgqqpzXd sNDf1t+yfJZYeVYG8Gq+02MJe6jitYfHeXjcm24i4Rqqzeg1HW/+OM3cdYFAsDOb6jXAjQ1MR sye83R0WmqW2uTMxTHahUiPyhF2KCtPuoevPV1T70/DMqDKXcn/V2/SwGROOY1AIBauaI33AP oiw4ifibzfUuonZvAvQZDex+/ntx6uJwnzc3WXSfczlm2MUuyuAkVJX5Gs3bhGiYoaS7rRG48 sKMDy30AYWmf5T2xkHCLBYn+/1rk/KaCcEUDdHVBATb1rw1Bd0xTodnSqYRM8maboM3a6qr1W pJMEwDFpLa8YwtrMO9a5dvnL4gNwZBtygZQWHJVuswCNbRFR7pxlcr9u5qklHguDg6YR8CNZl Liz1LrkZsmx3dd1frtJxqE+Qp0MVCwiY3gNUbXxKofCVpVweWRN7O0Gj9bARtwYy/rohpAdvT 2n Subject: Re: [NNagain] NN review in the UK 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: Mon, 30 Oct 2023 15:55:24 -0000 Regards I wonder somewhat to what degree VF's motivation was closer to its own = bottom line (so having an additional service dimension to monetize) than = trying to help achieve its end-users latency desires... And that is to a degree fine with me as an end-user... an ISP might as = well bill me (a bit) for proper download traffic shaping on my ingress, = as long as the attractiveness of that service is not artificially = enhanced by making the normal service worse... (that is if I can decide = to run my own download shaping/scheduling/AQM or for similar = responsiveness to off-load that to the ISP, I am game). But as I understand, such a service is already permissible under = existing EU and UK rules (as stated by Ofcom, they can not make new law, = all they do is clarify how the existing rules are going to be = enforced/interpreted by them in their role as NRA). Regards Sebastian > On Oct 30, 2023, at 16:12, Mike Conlow via Nnagain = wrote: >=20 > +1. My understanding is the origins of this item in the NN review in = the UK is that ISPs requested it because of lack of clarity around = whether "premium quality service" offerings violated NN rules. [SM] Thanks for that piece of information, that makes a ton of = sense and explains IMHO the tone of the document... (all the details I = looked at are such that I might not have picked the precise positions = but all seem pretty defensible and almost boringly balanced ;) ) Thanks & Regards Sebastian > See page 63-64 here. Screenshot below: >=20 > >=20 > On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 10:26=E2=80=AFAM Livingood, Jason via Nnagain = wrote: > On 10/28/23, 06:01, "Nnagain on behalf of Sebastian Moeller via = Nnagain" > For example, people who use high quality virtual reality = applications may want to buy a premium quality service, while users who = mainly stream and browse the internet can buy a cheaper package. Our = updated guidance clarifies that ISPs can offer premium packages, for = example offering low latency, as long as they are sufficiently clear to = customers about what they can expect from the services they buy. >=20 > Sigh. Wish more regulators knew about modern AQMs - we can have our = cake and eat it too. The solution above seems to pre-suppose the need = for QoS but this isn't a capacity problem.=20 >=20 > JL >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Nnagain mailing list > Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain > _______________________________________________ > Nnagain mailing list > Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain