From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.19]) (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 6D0CE3B2A4 for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2023 03:30:10 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.de; s=s31663417; t=1696404608; x=1697009408; i=moeller0@gmx.de; bh=cYGDuqdN2S3UbdrxzJSYZVa12lLbO2JlqcUbR0RWPCI=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=L8mgDvIyBNhE7b9NTv2gWK0jSCc1XsdMNZ8bdE+9t+6c3+hFkk9OXQOjCjMelJCpzbRf2YiXWJr 58z+Jfec6GCnzgV/35LUbYMwzBBhjhMnTVN7Q9xi4MIFB+PYDTbH9t8SUg7aSfMUOVeJko8aQkKHZ f1gbviGehZdKPseawf2P7kn8MCamMJNuNkv838nbhitj55VBwgHefQyln9ID8i1qZfcW8nWI5uO8J S586dob1WrkTRitbMENY5RZ0NzaoOESC3O2FvHrp+8a8WNz20nblbHywbhYs6ek99T1cFz0hCO3h0 4CPiEUizgSra7/g27v/uwQzxfVIA2yptT6JA== X-UI-Sender-Class: 724b4f7f-cbec-4199-ad4e-598c01a50d3a Received: from smtpclient.apple ([134.76.241.253]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx004 [212.227.17.190]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1N0X8o-1rZQBg1lCu-00wS4R; Wed, 04 Oct 2023 09:30:08 +0200 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: Wed, 4 Oct 2023 09:30:06 +0200 Cc: =?utf-8?Q?Network_Neutrality_is_back!_Let=C2=B4s_make_the_technical_as?= =?utf-8?Q?pects_heard_this_time!?= Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <63DC1B30-4FAB-4570-989A-5DF00403E994@gmx.de> References: <85FEF89F-966F-46D0-A957-84A07C51B2D0@gmx.de> To: dan X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.120.41.1.4) X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:u47xBG0o0qSQwr09EHfiMDzxC1AYnPYeL3AVVMWkDY0NTgxPN4+ oly56B12fpInoObI3AFqJ2SoURBCZyJ3qrHS/2E2H6XyufBTr9bEnoYWSTTinI7lhmCrho/ 0Bmb0iyVjdRUA9ECdlKY2mgsDeFwZCWvT9Xw96tlik/yos2OT8cXFxVYYezw730kDnl9Z+G QyQ/OpccU5umVt5hp/zQQ== X-Spam-Flag: NO UI-OutboundReport: notjunk:1;M01:P0:YuIlPi7Mivc=;Geq3m91MF2joe5qJLYCMOU69Veu /bBPezCzTfwL6tEFQmsPUQfY2uaM+pZfsdU9IPgoohBzgQvWyuYkgT8jyVKx4nD1MI/kKtolU nMar2/mJcjZCNped8UzyAwN3XXu5B/1J69FgU8CyqUJiDLc1LOeNA4c+zaFJIn93x1mPz1r6k F38A+imhYqYkwOGGasqDxNiKAsgfrUCbHqwXOdnNIJfhFC328DpbghdGvL5NwXRxejQUROyUA 2oW5nxBYXoDG7yB2lbOeIDHXLE1tZrQUbHgRwa9+IDfWS/NPOPcQz0NwVXNkMzVmCzykfWk4C S0mMzM7maGFhHTJ6gj4J54vc4q+brK3bFAYC+G+IvM5uBBxOGtgYHn9sIFtwju90lVoU5Xlkd ibXQDG4fTpdtZr/TpF5mEsq8UqnMi9BtKNNyu0xULHBliNur6DKUAImgpK4ccWBHiaHmljc2u hxIxfinnk40btZaHkdi7bDeTP8ARNAVM1p27xJIMI5rmT9GrZm20OVt6rxcfdmD68kKg8Ln7E c7PQnl9eYhGomWXsnhPMNdrYn+4rjKfhJrjXf+zvBl+/koVzJ9I78eiakIA0pIduxB4s0KaZG L4hm4FDOP5z3lDKAabiQNjmBdmpQ08tog5khEzG0XON7mBbmM4/ni7sdsl2Ok7yOfQaqMLhIs M5apqRXsqlqtDidq/gAdfIFPv2Vt35XmBphXq+2JW/LaLruL0Qesv+G29QBuXe519BQq1GC/7 Z0H3iCD7Asw3SGVFBt/f2o9TVe92pu/ohTFp2f08uSRLZIvVH2AYPjS0I+Fo7PcFv/vuGNRMq u//x70woGch6lwuJAHpdJ9BdHKEQAbr+Z6q8UymcqXAyTksAEzgGoQQJfg1KWso6d1OhwKTFg sBLmixdIP+uB1HzOlInIVss+vmFPzJhQ5vyU2S4fPSof5TSzaHwVnrgFrbie0KXOa1j6kgpYC rFaT0n9eTImXJC1gUmmXyfGjCxw= Subject: Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors 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, 04 Oct 2023 07:30:10 -0000 Hi Dan, please see [SM2] below... > On Oct 2, 2023, at 18:29, dan wrote: >=20 >=20 >=20 > On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 1:28=E2=80=AFAM Sebastian Moeller = wrote: > Hi Dan, >=20 >=20 >=20 > > On Oct 2, 2023, at 03:34, dan via Nnagain = wrote: > >=20 > > I think a big problem with Net Neutrality is it's sort of a topic = for providers and not for end users. >=20 > [SM] I respectfully disagree. If my ISP sells me access to the = internet, I expect being able to access the whole internet, at least as = far it is with the reasonable power of my ISP. So I would argue it is a = topic for both parties. >=20 > You missed my point. That's a practical concern of the end user, not = a technical one. End users (~99% of them) want to 'turn on internet and = it works as advertised'=20 [SM2] Ah, yes, I agree, end-sers IMHO are interested to = experience no noticeable discrimination, but really do not care all that = much how that is implemented. E.g. an ISP might use QoS/priority = scheduling for VoIP (or FQ scheduling as long as VoIP flows stay well = below the 1/N capacity share for N flows) and hence treat discriminate = on a technical level without violating end-user expectations. I add = however that such a scheme would also be in-line with well-balanced NN = regulations. (But see Roland's example how this might result in less = in-the-clear situations when an ISP only does this for their own VoIP = traffic; though there are considerable obstacles to do this generally = (though VoIP traffic has pretty clear patterns so one could simply do = behavioral classification here, not that that is all that easy either)). >=20 > =20 > > Most end users have no concept of what it is, why it's good or bad, = and if they have a compliant service or not. They confuse 'speed' with = packet loss and latency. >=20 > [SM] I would agree that the majority of users might not have = actionable concepts of how the internet works, let alone what to expect = precisely, but I predict if we ask them whether they think it a good = idea for their ISP to pick winners and losers of content providers I = expect most of them to say no. > I agree, again, the end user wants it to work 'as advertised'. If = they buy 100M service, they want to see 100M service.=20 [SM2] +1; this is BTW why the European regulators opted for = recommending to implement "official" capacity-tests (erroneously called = speed tests) as IP/TCP/HTTPS goodput tests over a small number of = parallel flows to well connected measurement servers outside of all = ISAP-ASs, as that is the number that end-users expect and are accustomed = to compared to something like gross throughput (which would be harder to = measure anyways). Side-note, they also recommend to use IPv6 if = available... This initially raised quite some objections by ISPs (all = technical in nature mostly concerning the precision and accuracy of such = measurements) but at least in Germany in spite of the objections the = system simply works and as far as I know neither end-users or ISPs are = unhappy. > =20 >=20 >=20 > > This is why my arguments are primarily from a consumer protection = perspective of forcing providers to be transparent in their NN or non-NN = activities. >=20 > [SM] Transparency is indded an important factor, but IMHO not = sufficient. > I'm being pragmatic. Building up a NEW legal infrastructure means new = challenges. Any laws around internet access and NN have to co-exist = with all the unrelated laws. Codifying transparency connects that = transparency to existing legal infrastructures. "I bought 100M you gave = me 10M when I used a service" falls to a number of legal precedents = already such as bait and switch, false advertising. [SM2] I agree that trransparency is an important building block = here. >=20 > > If they are going to shape streaming video down, they should have = to put that in the big print on the plan. In doing this, customers = would get some practical information that doesn't rely on heavy = technical details and various opinions. Consumers will understand the = 100x20 w/ 1080p streams. This could be on the broadband nutrition label = *but* I would say you need to have that up-to-date for the times with = key information on there and with strikethrough text. ie, Download [ = 100 ], Upload [ 20 ], streaming [ 720 1080p 4k ] and that list can be = updated yearly during the BDC process or whatever. =20 >=20 > [SM] Here we get into the weeds: > a) for customers only having access to a single (broadband) ISP this = information would hardly be actionable > b) personally I could agree to this, but e.g. Netflix [720], Amazon = [4K], GoogleTV [720] (or what ever google calls this service right now) = would IMHO be problematic. > c) I think that this gets really hard to enforce unless the ISP also = throttled VPN/encrypted traffic and there I see a line crossed, no = amount of transparency would make it palatable if an ISP would heavily = throttle all encrypted traffic. >=20 > I agree, this one muddies the waters.=20 > a) except that this can trigger other competitors, RDOF, BEAD, etc. =20= [SM2] Ah, I guess we agree that local access network competition = is necessary (either via different competing infrastructures, but IMHO = even more important via multiple ISPs competing on the same access = network; I base this on the fact that the later will much more = competition than the former). > b) I would simplify this and categorize 'streaming = video/entertainment' together and disallow any brand preferences. = Granted, limited JUST netflix (in my model) would allow Netflix to sue = the provider if they really wanted. =20 [SM2] As long as this affects a whole traffic-class without = exemptions (at least purposeful exemptions based on a profit motive by = the ISP) I am less concerned about this... This also matches with what = the EU did during the covid10 lock-downs, gave explicit interpretation = that prioritization of vide conferencing/VoIP over video streaming was = permissable with in the rules (I think that this was not stated as = general interpretation but specific to the congestion experienced during = the lock downs, but still it gives some precedence how NN rules can be = adaptive and IMHO reasonable). > c) VPN traffic is another beast and since it more or less bypasses DPI = (to some degree, encrypted netflix still behaves like netflix) but this = would be an easy carve out to say "once you're in a VPN, it's the wild = west" because frankly it is, you have at least 2 internet providers in = the mix in some way. > =20 [SM2] True. However it is the one way end-users can use to do = their own traffic engineering; e.g. for that otherwise pretty competent = german ISP that decided to let its links from other T1-ISPs run too hot = during primetime: users affected by this (which is not all that many, at = least not all that many notice and correctly root-cause the observed = issues) can use VPNs that are both well connected to the ISP as well as = the target servers/AS that are consciously under-peered by the main ISP. = However the fraction of users doing this will be miniscule. >=20 > >=20 > > I'm really a proponent of creating a competitive environment, not = controlling the technical details of those products. >=20 > [SM] +1; but that only ever helps in a competitive market = environment and that means there need to be enough buyers and sellers on = both sides that no single one gets an undue influence over the market. = At least in Germany we at best have an oligopoly market for internet = access, so the "free market" by itself does not solve the discrimination = problem. That might well be different in other parts of the world. > We mostly have a competitive market in the US. Really the only thing = interfering with that is government funded monopoly either in funding = designed to create monopoly or city franchise monopolies. [SM2] And this is why discussions like this here are so = important, they help widen the perspective outside of one's own = environment. Now back in 2009-12 when I lived in CA I did not have the = feeling of really broad ISP alternatives, but I admit there were more = than one option. > > And making sure key parts of the rules require transparency, = because that can help drive competition. If a local competitor is = running a DPI's QoE box shaping down streaming, I think they should have = to share that conspicuously with the end user. I can then market = directly against that if I want. >=20 > [SM] Again I fully endorse that, but feel that by itself would = not be enough. >=20 > I'm of the opinion that market tampering is 2 steps forward and then a = full stop for a decade+. The less (without ignoring ) the government = gets involved in individual markets the better those markets are over = time. [SM2] Mmh, I think this might be more subtle than we are = treating it here, almost all markets depend on the government to act as = referee to make sure "players" stick to the rules. Governments ince the = neo-liberal explosion in the 90s have IMHO not done the best job as = referees, but are slowly improving and are the only option anyway ;) > Yes, gov money can get build outs done, but in the US we've seen it = time and time again that those build outs come and then absolutely = nothing happens for a decade as those same companies wait for their next = round of funding. [SM2] I might be too naive here, but if public intervention ends = up financing FTTH to all premises with a reasonable topology (PtP or = PtMP both with reasonably short distances) I would not care much if = those build put would be stuck with e.g. 2.4/1.2 segment capacity GPON = for the next decade. The big thing is going to get the old copper = network replaced with something suitable fr the coming decades. > This holds true is basically all markets, not just internet. It's = been a foundational argument in American economics since basically the = beginning. It's very hard for startups or small companies to form up in = markets that were built by government money and those markets stagnate. = It's accidental protectionism essentially. =20 [SM] Well, look at the content provider market, as an example = where government does not interfere all that much, here we see the big = players use active measures to side-step a functioning market (like = swooping up potential competitor early only to ket their products = whimper and die). I happen to believe (based on some evidence like = Amsterdam, Zuerich, Stockholm?) that it is possible to combine = fair/equitable internet access (publicly financed and owned access = networks) with a thriving market of access services where real = competition keeps the providers honest and on their feet. >=20 > > I would say that I think that any government money should require NN = plans. If a company is taking government bribes for 100x20 speed, that = should be a NN 100x20. They can offer 100x20 w/ 1080p streaming also, = but that gov money should have NN baked into what they/we are paying = for. >=20 > [SM] Interesting approach that I agree with, but again do not = think it to be enough. >=20 >=20 > >=20 > > I know that one of the initial ideas of NN was to say that there are = no fast lanes, but that's ridiculous because just having different speed = plans IS having fast lanes for premium pricing. >=20 > [SM] I think this is a misunderstanding. NN is not against = ISPs offering different access capacity tiers at different prices, but = that within the transparent customer-known "capacity-limit" the ISP does = not pick winners or losers amount flows and especially not based on = financial considerations. If an ISPs sells internet access they better = do so, and they better not try to sell the same traffic a second time to = the content provider. So the fast lane "fast lane" argument really means = that the ISP does not built an unfair fast-lane for content provider A = (capA) over content provider B (capB), and even that is subtle, if cabA = puts caching nodes with the ISPs network, but capB does not a result in = accessibility is not "on the ISP" however if the ISP would additionally = slow down capB traffic that would be a problem. In a sense the thing = that is problematic is building fast-lanes by slowing down all the rest. > devils advocate (yes, non-NN is the device here haha) What's the = practical difference between selling someone a 100M plan with 1080p = streaming vs a 10Mbps plan for the same price? Marketability mostly = right? ie, 100M looks better than 10M even though the customer = practically only gets 10M for the streaming they are buying the = connection primarily for.=20 [SM2] Technically you are right and game theory tells us the = "rational" choice would be the 100M option. But game theory only works = as long as you accept the premise, the moment you offer the alternative = "change the rules" it is less clear what the best individual option = would be, no?=20 > If the ISP is primarily providing that 10Mbps '24x7' for streaming, = then most of the cost to deliver this is in that first 10M of service. = Throwing in 90M of 'other internet stuff' is very cheap for the ISP. [SM2] That probably is a bit of a gamble by the ISP. A typical = user will not actually create noticeable more traffic on average just = because the access speed would be higher. Yet, networks are not tightly = tailored for average speed anyway, as that will not help much during = prime time and I believe inter-ISP traffic is typically not priced by = the average but more like peak usage capacity (95%-ile billing). But I = am rambling mostly, while you know real numbers so I accept your = premise. > So which plan is actually better for the consumer? 100M w/ 1080p = streaming or 10M NN? 100M NN would certainly cost the ISP more on = average as more and more people pull 4k streams.=20 > So if the plans are $100 100M NN, $65 100M w/ 1080p streaming, and $65 = 10M NN, is this better or worse for the consumer than $100 100M NN & $65 = 10M NN? [SM2] I guess that really depends on the consumer in question, = some will cherish 4K over 1K enough to shell out more per month, some = will not. > I would argue that having the transparently shaped 100M w/ 1080p = streaming in the mix is likely better for the consumer. I will bring = back your single provider area statement above as the weakness in this = particular argument though. [SM2] Real options are always good. As an end-user however I am = not unhappy if the options are less drastic (like with or without = telephony flat rate) ;) >=20 >=20 >=20 > > The only possible way around this is the allow or even enforce a = price per Mbps and make it like a utility which I don't think anyone = wants. Any other model eliminates the sane enforcement of a 'no fast = lanes' policy. =20 >=20 > [SM] I think this is an attempt at reductio ad absurdum, that = does not really cover the NN position well enough to be useful here. = Think about it that wat, ISPs are not supposed to pick winners and = losers (or rather tilt the table to create winners and losers). > This statement was meant to tie with the 'no fast lanes' reductionism = above. If you can pay for faster service, then there are fast lanes = based on money. And if there are fast lanes based on money, why is a = hybrid of 2 plans worse. Buy the cheap plan for your streaming and the = fast plan for your everything else. [SM2] I think "fast-lane" implies the wrong thing... it is HOVs = that are the problem, users can still decide whether they want to access = the internet via country roads or interstates as they should, but if = push comes to shove a user paying for a service should be the one = deciding how to prioritize traffic (the user already pays for the = delivery), not the ISP and especially not the ISP selling the same = traffic twice ;) >=20 > > I believe that transparency is the key here. >=20 > [SM] THe EU actually agrees., an impoertant part of the = NN-relevant EU regulation covers transparency. >=20 >=20 > > Transparency in how bits are delivered and managed to the end user = allows the consumer to make choices without demanding unrealistic = education of those consumers. [SM2] Transparency is good and is actually a precondition for = markets to operate as efficient resource allocation tools.... >=20 > [SM] That however seems quite a challenge... though it is not = unheard of to offer multiple parallel explanations at different levels = of abstraction/complexity... > Sometimes you need to layer your analogies or simplify things down to = receivables. Finding the best language for the consumer for the bold = print is difficult.=20 [SM2] I agree, also there will not be one-size-fits-all = explanation here, different user sets can "digest" different level of = detail. >=20 >=20 > > They know if they want more than 1080p streaming. They know if = they want a gamer or home work focused service that does that by shaping = streaming down to 1080p. There are consumer benefits to a non-NN = service. =20 >=20 > [SM] Really only if the "unfairness" of that service are = exactly tailored to a specific users needs and desires, not sure that = any single such a policy would be desirable for the majority of = end-users, but I might be insufficiently creative here. > That's basically my claim, if an ISP can offer a 'bespoke' shaping = model for the customer's goals then non-NN is better for them. [SM2] If it is bespoke and under user-control, it is not a NN = violation anyway as NN does not affect what end-users do in their own = networks ;) > This context came to be through servicing a ton of migrating work = from home people. They really want their zoom and voip and VPN sessions = to work and they've had to ban their children from watching Disney+ = while the work. [SM2] Yes, in that context offering VC over DASH is a marketable = maybe even monetizable feature for an ISP to offer, it is also IMHO not = an NN issue as the gist of NN is while not having the ISP pick winners = and losers, end-users are free to do so (and the actual implementation = of such a policy might well be outsourced to the ISP). > I have a number of customers with mikrotik routers as their dmark and = wired ports and completely separate plans for their home office for this = reason. We don't offer any DPI shaping, trying to be NN-in-spirit with = AQM. Cake has met 90% of this need for us but there are circumstances = where there's just too much demand by a houseful of kids for cake to = really make this common scenario work well.=20 [SM2] My observation as well, when ever reasonably fair is = suitable cake hits it out of the park, but once targeted unfairness is = desired/required we need other tools to at least complement cake. >=20 > > Those benefits dont outweigh the harm from secret shaping, but if = all of this is clearly shown in a conspicuous way like the broadband = nutrition label and there were teeth in that label, then NN is a feature = that can be advertised and DPI shaped is another feature that must be = advertised. >=20 > [SM] The only way I see DPI shaping ever to be in the = end-users interesst is if that feature is under the end-users control. = E.g. on a very slow link the administrator might decide that interactive = VCs are more important than streaming video and might desire ways t = achieve this policy and might appreciate if the ISPs offers such = de-prioritization as a self-serve option > I like the idea of a customer portal to set the DPI shaping to their = preferences. ie, sell them 100M service 'cooked to preference'. = outside the scope here but I wouldn't want NN legislation to prevent = this option. [SM2] My understanding of European NN regulations make me = believe you could offer such plans without any NN problems at all, as NN = is not supposed to interfere with end-user (as in operators of private = leaf networks) choice, but make it possible for end-users to chose by = not having someone else make choices. > =20 >=20 >=20 > > Now for my ISP version of this. >=20 > [SM] And now it gets interesting ;) >=20 >=20 > >=20 > > I WANT to compete against the companies that have to put 1080p and = no 4k in their advertisements. I want to offer full NN packages for the = same price as their 'only 1080p' package. I want the competitive = environment and I want to know if the service area next to mine with = just 1 or 2 providers doesn't offer NN packages so I can move in on them = and offer them. =20 >=20 > [SM] I wish all ISPs would have such a "bring it on" let's = duke it out on the merits attitude! Yest the big mass-market ISPs in my = home market do not really qualify for that all they compete about are = nominal "speed"/price (really capacity/price) and some additional = features like flat rate for telephony to fixed line and/or mobile = networks. No details given about specific properties... for these one = needs to scour rge internet fora to figure out what a specific ISPs = customers mainly kvetch about (and then one needs to abstract over the = fact that not all complaints are created equal and some say more about a = user's deficiency in expectation than about the ISP's service delivery). > Facebook and google reviews are awesome for figuring out where to = expand. Transparency rules and nutrition labels would open up bad ISPs = to competition. To be fair it would open up good ISP to competition by = great ISPs also.... [SM2] Over here the observation is that a lot of customers will = stick to their ISP (often the incumbent ex-monopoly telco) even if that = is more expensive than the competition... it seems some users really do = not want to think much about telephony/internet and just have it work = well enough. > >=20 > > So from my perspective, transparency in shaping is all I really = think should be done. And teeth in resolving a lie, ie false = advertising, with a rulebook already in place for that so no new legal = theory needs worked out. "I bought the 1G NN package and I'm running = the NN test suite and it says I'm shaped to 1080p video", rectify this = ISP or I'm going to throw a legal tantrum to FTC, FCC, and maybe my own = lawyer and get some penalty claims. And that test suite is pretty darn = simple. speed test, 1G. Netflix, 1080p. DPI shaped. >=20 > [SM] Alas, that NN test suit is currently made of unobtainium. = Though some individual parts exist already. For example kudos to netflix = for fast.com, which as far as I understand uses essentially the same of = its CDN nodes for speedtests it would likely pick for content delivery = so these are pretty "realistic" testing conditions. Alas the other big = streaming platform have as far as I know not followed suit. > As I tried to brain storm in a different context, what we would need = at the very least would be speedtests that houses its servers in at = least the networks of the big transit providers and runs comparative = tests against these (either all or random pairs selected for each test). = And while this would already be pretty ambitious to implement this would = only scratch the surface of what would be required. However one = redeeming fact is IMHO that NN-violations that achieve financial goals, = by necessity need to be perceivable by the eye-balls so the thing we are = looking for is likely not subtle but "in your face". >=20 > >=20 > > End rant. >=20 > [SM] I rally wish more ISPs would have your spirit (and that = we had more ISPs competing for eye-balls)! Also I think that your stance = let the market settle this is conceptually in-line with our current = macroeconomic system and theory (I am just not sure whether yje internet = access market generally is healthy enough to relat on this mechanism to = sort out bad apples). >=20 > Regards > Sebastian >=20 >=20 >=20 > I think that you and I have a different level of faith in capitalism. = Your 'Not Enoughs' suggest this to me, though I might be reading too = deeply between the lines.=20 [SM2] Looks like we do differ ;) I note that I am an end-user = only so my influence on companies is negligible while for = local/state/federal government I least have a vote.... > I've worked in a number of industries from being near the top of the = technical bits of a fortune 500 to running my own startups. The softer = and wider the net government rules casts, the less effective and more = intrusive they seem to be with more non-sense. The simpler and sharper = toothed rules allow for a more vibrant level of competition. =20 [SM2] I generally agree, simpler, clearer rules are easier to = follow/interpret, so the goal should be as simple as acceptable. > I want very simple and clean rules with a very small service area and = a lot of clamping force when necessary... so ISPs obey the rules because = consequences are capital but have the freedom to innovate and expand. [SM2] I think we agree, the idea behind NN to me is not about = hindering innovation at all, but I also see no macro-economic utility in = "innovation" in the direction of more discrimination by ISPs (unless = implemented as opt-in service for the end-user).