From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.18]) (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 B22A63B29E for ; Thu, 15 Aug 2024 11:58:18 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmx.de; s=s31663417; t=1723737485; x=1724342285; i=moeller0@gmx.de; bh=V3gwAfMQiEkuCO9oyYTg6qoI1VeYWOLUc5GmHBBnWY0=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Date:From:To:CC:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:cc: content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:message-id: mime-version:reply-to:subject:to; b=Gc7lHFTyigACCqr7lcT5cjq2ObaKZUjKIttvfsEDGqdXjn/xhzz0fwNm/AnoFoJj gM+3CeaFPkpNd+IJ/vhGndo7U5vGIOw9Mk29CmcnhB54Qt+oKmdBVVF7tssM57KUZ 4vxQFb2ayTD5yoFIeG4I1FI/DLk2QyyZVSRp2xtyg2VyEBqTMLjDz9z1cky0nkFir 8r5cf6QxhrQ9KJnYV6bo6MFNczavPBbq/W1kVki3pPhvN+4CPc6MuF5nzO95xtRXG 36b0hKIdQVIVEu78Fb7xFnAS/RZMx8wa9O43nW6NOi/UOKz0KRDOuqXtAQZj/WqJx tyjh68dYLu8oaVYRHg== X-UI-Sender-Class: 724b4f7f-cbec-4199-ad4e-598c01a50d3a Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([80.187.113.99]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx005 [212.227.17.190]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MWASe-1sgL2t0UjS-00R91W; Thu, 15 Aug 2024 17:58:05 +0200 Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 17:58:01 +0200 From: Sebastian Moeller To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Network_Neutrality_is_back!_Let=B4s_mak?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?e_the_technical_aspects_heard_this_time!?= , Dave Taht via Nnagain , "Livingood, Jason" User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: References: <9F54B8F8-3B2B-4F45-A197-E6137A74F492@comcast.com> Message-ID: <47247967-DA81-4F5C-A471-767C4C721095@gmx.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:3xxEZqR2/lcdtP+c8LM3ZdOmUgolWTc3wxZ7dUWwTa9NjXbgXsu GHg13GejCJtqKj1tijRcVa3qKsmwzL/dr9nGIt3okWWRkFKpkEPOVkDm+W8QtcEgqgc5tOD k9R6iGKFTXASLi2rwrt6298grWvX9aySQlWI+VrqS+ZbPJlFbgrLP0IuQSBLugbimcvO96v boGUZRuv9HwKiPyb7oAqQ== X-Spam-Flag: NO UI-OutboundReport: notjunk:1;M01:P0:kevZbJGt/Ro=;7knKZUOIPuSzKT5et/SnNHenwAX +r0VaLZ+MfIG9uaEt1P/UrE26AGSNu1cEaGvH0zJU1FmRlQPnybU8JBbl37AWL3bUsZBGIVCn 9qcXo08QgY1gzyGn1g0Aq6a9aAgG6p0tVVbgpEISCMFF3V+0zZ6KiYaCoK1+UdrJZMuAav/Iq 9wa8OjZ8qmSugnliBSuMKvzfsRZukl+a52KfP2QmckdQgcemyFnPM8dKge0YZ0eacobpNLOsS 6jOU1fvJ9OngtPcwHa5bF8XHx9NC9Q71i/kuob6WF4vPuhp3sZz8bF0WQV70+TgTPWXv658K9 vvo6lumlapRAGTXS/xrt1XOBLE/KHO9h6rRRTH1fFfze9V+r1SwV9o0o3eCA5CVetuR8M7VDj pCvkRnRBexmHvurQDGYiDEcRmbSnC3oFWA2VfsuS3xay3piAo3qy35frpGO6D7tIorGnGxTSu hSAw5gK+rc2Ep5bKbHWyG0F3bVhVHKvrPngWuI7RoKt7JT5ga/MVEvsfUywyZPkm4PF7iMD06 TasxTG6abGZmzxwPo4lKfvoI+13sVA7a+IbI/bRQ4zUn5Fi1JqxYnUPzbWcT3105NZcTi2Cpe 0kBOsFS3Z2Z48X8GOmLuSWDwF2Ihjxw86SD35553D06P6n1fTemcduFxxswV+nvoP5Rcl3UFD PVIFa1LXOgbYdDFz5SBCkCwkCe1GSNRZ6q6OXmT+DOV8FJnoDqFkLpt6sGMRJ5WzS7vPVJrg2 M1k2WQ1F0r3Mrff/hJ1asQ4meXCl+kfJdY3dqcQYfWsWmmnLmhJ9r2BlP1tSfWjwa37TSZWqi /ojfrj20MzUmUBmPOEmso6Uw== Subject: Re: [NNagain] nn back in the news 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: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 15:58:19 -0000 Hi Dave, On 15 August 2024 16:16:52 CEST, Dave Taht via Nnagain wrote: >Perhaps it would have been better to say that "one of the sites I read >regularly just put out an update on it=2E" :) > >I like to think that bufferbloat=2Enet's NOI filing did a bit of good, >getting cited 16 times, but not changing the top level conclusions one >iota=2E Doing another one this year is on my mind in followup, but aside = from >harping on our latency points,=20 [SM] So I believe/think that we need (or rather I need to convince my Nati= onal Regulatory Agency that mandating a OWD to a national reference point <= 150ms, so an RTT <=3D 300ms) some clear study showing the effect of loaded = latency/jitter on some measurable variable of obvious relevance=2E That is,= I think we should make a scientifically backed claim that shitty latency c= auses shitty productivity=2E We as a group IMHO intuitively seem to accept = that as a given (based on some evidence), but to convince regulators we nee= d better examples then e=2Eg=2E L4S' on-line switching between different li= ve camera feeds, or showing that page completion time scales linearly with = latency=2E=2E=2E Stuart's, remote desktop example might serve as good starting point, if we= can show that productivity suffers significantly as a function of latency = and jitter=2E I mention abstract productivity simply because I believe maki= ng remote work more efficient would be a case in the public's interest and = hence might catch the regulator's attention=2E So if anybody on this list has an idea for an experiment or better yet an = already existing paper describing such an experiment, that would be great= =2E pointing to progress, and the need for more >IXPs, I don't know what top level items could be addressed, again? I'd ha= ve >to buckle down and re-read what resonated, and what didn't=2E > >Perhaps something might come out of the DNC? > >I have been enjoying Carr's negative posts on BEAD, but there must be som= e >bright news in that program somewhere by now? > >I am perhaps reading too much into it, but with a potentially younger cro= wd >moving into office, perhaps more technical clue is arriving? I'm very hap= py >to see mudge make CIO at darpa=2E The white house got a cto yet? The FCC? > >PS Ms Shotwell did a great fireside chat at Mountain Connect: >https://www=2Ebroadband=2Eio/c/broadband-community-events/shotwell > > >On Thu, Aug 15, 2024 at 6:27=E2=80=AFAM Livingood, Jason < >jason_livingood@comcast=2Ecom> wrote: > >> I would say it is not =E2=80=9Cback=E2=80=9D in the news =E2=80=93 it h= as continuously been in the >> news since the Loper Bright SCOTUS ruling that impacts =E2=80=9CChevron= deference=E2=80=9D >> as well the major questions doctrine issue raised in W VA vs EPA=2E As = many >> people have long said, this will be tied up in the courts for several >> years=2E >> >> Personal take =E2=80=93 in the long-term it will be better to have legi= slation >> that codifies this (as well as a national cross-sector privacy law)=2E >> >> >> >> JL >> >> >> >> *From: *Nnagain on behalf o= f Dave >> Taht via Nnagain >> *Reply-To: *Network Neutrality is back! Let=C2=B4s make the technical a= spects >> heard this time! >> *Date: *Thursday, August 15, 2024 at 07:41 >> *To: *Network Neutrality is back! Let=C2=B4s make the technical aspects= heard >> this time! >> *Cc: *Dave Taht >> *Subject: *[NNagain] nn back in the news >> >> >> >> >> >> https://arstechnica=2Ecom/tech-policy/2024/08/isps-ask-supreme-court-to= -kill-new-york-law-that-requires-15-broadband-plans/ >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> Dave T=C3=A4ht CSO, LibreQos >> > > --=20 Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail=2E Please excuse my brevity=2E