Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors

Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors

[Livingood, Jason]

From: Dick Roy <dickroy@alum.mit.edu> on behalf of Dick Roy <dickroy@alum.mit.edu>
>>  To take the example of throttling - all that would do is (1) prompt customer contacts
> [RR] Did you mean “contracts”?

No, I meant contacts. In an ISP support context, that means a telephone call or chat with a customer care agent. Those activities are closely monitored for quality/cost/time and so at scale a phone contact will cost $X, chat $Y, social media interaction like Reddit or Twitter $Z, etc. 

Jason

Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors

[Dick Roy]

-----Original Message-----
From: Livingood, Jason [mailto:Jason_Livingood@comcast.com] 
Sent: Monday, October 2, 2023 1:18 PM
To: dickroy@alum.mit.edu; 'Network Neutrality is back! Let´s make the
technical aspects heard this time!'
Subject: RE: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors

From: Dick Roy <dickroy@alum.mit.edu> on behalf of Dick Roy
<dickroy@alum.mit.edu>
>>  To take the example of throttling - all that would do is (1) prompt
customer contacts
> [RR] Did you mean “contracts”?

No, I meant contacts. In an ISP support context, that means a telephone call
or chat with a customer care agent. Those activities are closely monitored
for quality/cost/time and so at scale a phone contact will cost $X, chat $Y,
social media interaction like Reddit or Twitter $Z, etc. 

[RR] Exactly what I was wondering :)  Thanks for the clarification!

RR

Jason

Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors

[rjmcmahon]

While far from a complete analysis, a 100Gb/s fiber SFP (DSP & optics) 
is under 1W over 2Km, more like 800mW today. And optics powers are being 
driven down further to increase the MTBF, mostly driven by data center 
markets where electricity costs matter.

The DSP and the power amplifiers per front end module and radios for a 
WiFi wireless system is much higher. That's part of my argument for 
fiber through the home to remote radio heads with FiWi.

Bob
> I admittedly know little about the service from the radio out in FWA
> deployments like this but have done a lot of work in the aggregation
> and backhaul arenas in both environments. The advantage the FWA folks
> have is that it is significantly more financially viable to not
> oversubscribe (or oversubscribe less) when you deliver more users from
> a more centralized next hop location. In other words, it’s easier
> and cheaper to have 100 Gbps serving 1000 users from a single location
> than it is to have 1 Gbps serving 10 users from 100 different
> locations. Which is not to say that there aren’t other challenges in
> FWA environments relative to FTTx environments, but system capacity
> (you can always add more radios, with enough available spectrum, at
> least) isn’t one of them.
> 
> Dave Cohen
> craetdave@gmail.com
> 
>> On Oct 5, 2023, at 6:17 PM, Dick Roy via Nnagain
>> <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> Has anyone done an analysis of the capacity of FWA systems (in
>> bits/sec/Hz/km^3)????  I am suspicious that the capacity falls way
>> short of that which cable guys have at their disposal, and that as
>> the FWA networks get loaded, performance is going to degrade
>> dramatically ultimately resulting in churn back to the cable guys.
>> It's very expensive to compete with already sunk FTTH or even FTTC.
>> 
>> 
>> RR
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Nnagain [mailto:nnagain-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net] On
>> Behalf Of Livingood, Jason via Nnagain
>> Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2023 1:25 PM
>> To: Network Neutrality is back! Let´s make the technical aspects
>> heard this time!
>> Cc: Livingood, Jason
>> Subject: Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors
>> 
>>> On 10/4/23, 13:45, "Nnagain on behalf of David Lang via Nnagain"
>> <nnagain-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> <mailto:nnagain-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> on behalf of
>> nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> <mailto:nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net>> wrote:
>> 
>>> It's an unfortunate fact of reality that the enviornment in the US
>> is one where
>> 
>> there is very little competition in the ISP space
>> 
>> The SEC 10-K filings of ISPs no longer support that. Most wireline
>> ISPs are losing subscribers (at material levels) to one of the three
>> new national 5G FWA ISPs (Verizon, T-Mobile, AT&T). In addition, we
>> will in a few years see the effects of $45B+ of grant money
>> dedicated to underwrite new broadband access network construction -
>> that is also pretty material.
>> 
>> Per
>> 
> https://telecoms.com/523519/growth-in-5g-fwa-kit-matches-operator-hype/
>> 
>> 
>> - " 5G FWA customer premises equipment shipments more than doubled
>> to 7.4 million last year and should reach 13.8 million – that’s
>> 86% growth – this year "
>> 
>> - " The GSA survey shows overall FWA CPE shipments of 25.5 million
>> units last year, "
>> 
>> - " Statistics shared by Leichtman Research Group recently showed
>> that T-Mobile and Verizon together recorded the best part of 900,000
>> 5G FWA net adds in the second quarter of this year, significantly
>> more than the virtually flat cable segment and ahead of the wireline
>> broadband market, which lost almost 62,000 customers in the three
>> months. "
>> 
>> JL
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 
>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Nnagain mailing list
> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain

Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors

[Dick Roy]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5400 bytes --]

 

 

  _____  

From: Dave Cohen [mailto:craetdave@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2023 3:54 PM
To: dickroy@alum.mit.edu; Network Neutrality is back! Let´s make the technical aspects heard this time!
Cc: Livingood, Jason
Subject: Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors

 

I admittedly know little about the service from the radio out in FWA deployments like this but have done a lot of work in the aggregation and backhaul arenas in both environments. The advantage the FWA folks have is that it is significantly more financially viable to not oversubscribe (or oversubscribe less) when you deliver more users from a more centralized next hop location. In other words, it’s easier and cheaper to have 100 Gbps serving 1000 users from a single location than it is to have 1 Gbps serving 10 users from 100 different locations. Which is not to say that there aren’t other challenges in FWA environments relative to FTTx environments, but system capacity (you can always add more radios, with enough available spectrum, at least) isn’t one of them.

[RR] Well, yes and no.  Turns out this is a convex optimization problem (or at least can be converted in to one) that involves things like amount of spectrum, density of let’s call them access points (or APs), the capabilities of each AP in terms of tx power, number of antennas, how sophisticated the signal processing is that can be supported in those APs, and a few other things like adjacent channels and their pollution and constraints placed on the APs because they are secondary users of the band …

OK, with that as background  the question becomes at it’s simplest (leaving out for the moment things like OPEX, property leases, etc.):

“How many customers can I serve with X amount of infrastructure investment and Y amount of spectrum available to me (purchased or otherwise).  I am somewhat suspicious, though I have not done the analysis yet which is why I asked the question actually, that to use your example, supplying 100Gbps aggregate service to 1000 customers using FWA is not within the feasible region of the optimization space and therefore something has to give! :-) :-) :-)  FTR, FWA has been around for 3 decades or more (the company I started was selling such units in the mid-90’s, albeit largely for voice services since that what was wanted back then).  The systems that are still operational (and that’s a large number of them) have been upgraded to offer data services, however the number of subscribers needs to be capped well below that which ISPs using other newer technologies can support.  This is why I am interested to find out what the “state-of-ply” is today! :-) :-)

Cheers,

RR

Dave Cohen

craetdave@gmail.com





On Oct 5, 2023, at 6:17 PM, Dick Roy via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:

 

Has anyone done an analysis of the capacity of FWA systems (in bits/sec/Hz/km^3)????  I am suspicious that the capacity falls way short of that which cable guys have at their disposal, and that as the FWA networks get loaded, performance is going to degrade dramatically ultimately resulting in churn back to the cable guys.  It's very expensive to compete with already sunk FTTH or even FTTC.  

 

RR

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Nnagain [mailto:nnagain-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net] On Behalf Of Livingood, Jason via Nnagain
Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2023 1:25 PM
To: Network Neutrality is back! Let´s make the technical aspects heard this time!
Cc: Livingood, Jason
Subject: Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors

 

> On 10/4/23, 13:45, "Nnagain on behalf of David Lang via Nnagain" <nnagain-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:nnagain-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> on behalf of nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net>> wrote:

 

> It's an unfortunate fact of reality that the enviornment in the US is one where 

there is very little competition in the ISP space 

 

The SEC 10-K filings of ISPs no longer support that. Most wireline ISPs are losing subscribers (at material levels) to one of the three new national 5G FWA ISPs (Verizon, T-Mobile, AT&T). In addition, we will in a few years see the effects of $45B+ of grant money dedicated to underwrite new broadband access network construction - that is also pretty material. 

 

Per https://telecoms.com/523519/growth-in-5g-fwa-kit-matches-operator-hype/

- " 5G FWA customer premises equipment shipments more than doubled to 7.4 million last year and should reach 13.8 million – that’s 86% growth – this year "

- " The GSA survey shows overall FWA CPE shipments of 25.5 million units last year, "

- " Statistics shared by Leichtman Research Group recently showed that T-Mobile and Verizon together recorded the best part of 900,000 5G FWA net adds in the second quarter of this year, significantly more than the virtually flat cable segment and ahead of the wireline broadband market, which lost almost 62,000 customers in the three months. "

 

JL

 

_______________________________________________

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




[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 16102 bytes --]

Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors

[Dave Cohen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3458 bytes --]

I admittedly know little about the service from the radio out in FWA deployments like this but have done a lot of work in the aggregation and backhaul arenas in both environments. The advantage the FWA folks have is that it is significantly more financially viable to not oversubscribe (or oversubscribe less) when you deliver more users from a more centralized next hop location. In other words, it’s easier and cheaper to have 100 Gbps serving 1000 users from a single location than it is to have 1 Gbps serving 10 users from 100 different locations. Which is not to say that there aren’t other challenges in FWA environments relative to FTTx environments, but system capacity (you can always add more radios, with enough available spectrum, at least) isn’t one of them.

Dave Cohen
craetdave@gmail.com

> On Oct 5, 2023, at 6:17 PM, Dick Roy via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> Has anyone done an analysis of the capacity of FWA systems (in bits/sec/Hz/km^3)????  I am suspicious that the capacity falls way short of that which cable guys have at their disposal, and that as the FWA networks get loaded, performance is going to degrade dramatically ultimately resulting in churn back to the cable guys.  It's very expensive to compete with already sunk FTTH or even FTTC.  
>  
> RR
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nnagain [mailto:nnagain-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net] On Behalf Of Livingood, Jason via Nnagain
> Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2023 1:25 PM
> To: Network Neutrality is back! Let´s make the technical aspects heard this time!
> Cc: Livingood, Jason
> Subject: Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors
>  
> > On 10/4/23, 13:45, "Nnagain on behalf of David Lang via Nnagain" <nnagain-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:nnagain-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> on behalf of nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net>> wrote:
>  
> > It's an unfortunate fact of reality that the enviornment in the US is one where
> there is very little competition in the ISP space
>  
> The SEC 10-K filings of ISPs no longer support that. Most wireline ISPs are losing subscribers (at material levels) to one of the three new national 5G FWA ISPs (Verizon, T-Mobile, AT&T). In addition, we will in a few years see the effects of $45B+ of grant money dedicated to underwrite new broadband access network construction - that is also pretty material.
>  
> Per https://telecoms.com/523519/growth-in-5g-fwa-kit-matches-operator-hype/
> - " 5G FWA customer premises equipment shipments more than doubled to 7.4 million last year and should reach 13.8 million – that’s 86% growth – this year "
> - " The GSA survey shows overall FWA CPE shipments of 25.5 million units last year, "
> - " Statistics shared by Leichtman Research Group recently showed that T-Mobile and Verizon together recorded the best part of 900,000 5G FWA net adds in the second quarter of this year, significantly more than the virtually flat cable segment and ahead of the wireline broadband market, which lost almost 62,000 customers in the three months. "
>  
> JL
>  
> _______________________________________________
> 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

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 7876 bytes --]

Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors

[Jeremy Austin]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1266 bytes --]

On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 2:17 PM Dick Roy via Nnagain <
nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:

> Has anyone done an analysis of the capacity of FWA systems (in
> bits/sec/Hz/km^3)????  I am suspicious that the capacity falls way short of
> that which cable guys have at their disposal, and that as the FWA networks
> get loaded, performance is going to degrade dramatically ultimately
> resulting in churn back to the cable guys.  It's very expensive to compete
> with already sunk FTTH or even FTTC.
>

I have done this, and blogged on it. What I have not done fully, and what
ignites the FWA-vs-fiber argument re BEAD, is add one more term to that
string of divisors. The term is $.

WISPA’s argument, for example, is not that fiber is cheaper per bit over 30
years, but that FWA is cheaper *now*.

If you build planning for a useful life of 7 years, you are reasonably safe
today if you include enough overhead for annual growth of 20%, or so
history would lead us to believe. If your technology allows average of 10
megabits per user at peak busy hour (generous today), you need
approximately 200% headroom to survive without compression, assuming no new
technologies radically change user behavior. Risky gamble.

Jeremy Austin

>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2334 bytes --]

Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors

[Dick Roy]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2389 bytes --]

Has anyone done an analysis of the capacity of FWA systems (in
bits/sec/Hz/km^3)????  I am suspicious that the capacity falls way short of
that which cable guys have at their disposal, and that as the FWA networks
get loaded, performance is going to degrade dramatically ultimately
resulting in churn back to the cable guys.  It's very expensive to compete
with already sunk FTTH or even FTTC.  

 

RR

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Nnagain [mailto:nnagain-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net] On Behalf Of
Livingood, Jason via Nnagain
Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2023 1:25 PM
To: Network Neutrality is back! Let´s make the technical aspects heard this
time!
Cc: Livingood, Jason
Subject: Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors

 

> On 10/4/23, 13:45, "Nnagain on behalf of David Lang via Nnagain"
<nnagain-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net
<mailto:nnagain-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> on behalf of
nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net>> wrote:

 

> It's an unfortunate fact of reality that the enviornment in the US is one
where 

there is very little competition in the ISP space 

 

The SEC 10-K filings of ISPs no longer support that. Most wireline ISPs are
losing subscribers (at material levels) to one of the three new national 5G
FWA ISPs (Verizon, T-Mobile, AT&T). In addition, we will in a few years see
the effects of $45B+ of grant money dedicated to underwrite new broadband
access network construction - that is also pretty material. 

 

Per https://telecoms.com/523519/growth-in-5g-fwa-kit-matches-operator-hype/

- " 5G FWA customer premises equipment shipments more than doubled to 7.4
million last year and should reach 13.8 million – that’s 86% growth – this
year "

- " The GSA survey shows overall FWA CPE shipments of 25.5 million units
last year, "

- " Statistics shared by Leichtman Research Group recently showed that
T-Mobile and Verizon together recorded the best part of 900,000 5G FWA net
adds in the second quarter of this year, significantly more than the
virtually flat cable segment and ahead of the wireline broadband market,
which lost almost 62,000 customers in the three months. "

 

JL

 

_______________________________________________

Nnagain mailing list

Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net

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


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6750 bytes --]

Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors

[Livingood, Jason]

> On 10/4/23, 13:45, "Nnagain on behalf of David Lang via Nnagain" <nnagain-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:nnagain-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> on behalf of nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net>> wrote:

> It's an unfortunate fact of reality that the enviornment in the US is one where 
there is very little competition in the ISP space 

The SEC 10-K filings of ISPs no longer support that. Most wireline ISPs are losing subscribers (at material levels) to one of the three new national 5G FWA ISPs (Verizon, T-Mobile, AT&T). In addition, we will in a few years see the effects of $45B+ of grant money dedicated to underwrite new broadband access network construction - that is also pretty material. 

Per https://telecoms.com/523519/growth-in-5g-fwa-kit-matches-operator-hype/
- " 5G FWA customer premises equipment shipments more than doubled to 7.4 million last year and should reach 13.8 million – that’s 86% growth – this year "
- " The GSA survey shows overall FWA CPE shipments of 25.5 million units last year, "
- " Statistics shared by Leichtman Research Group recently showed that T-Mobile and Verizon together recorded the best part of 900,000 5G FWA net adds in the second quarter of this year, significantly more than the virtually flat cable segment and ahead of the wireline broadband market, which lost almost 62,000 customers in the three months. "

JL

Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors

[David Lang]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4245 bytes --]

On Thu, 5 Oct 2023, Sebastian Moeller via Nnagain wrote:

> I started composing a long reply to a previous post, but realized that due a philosophical difference that was not going in a productive direction, so instead, let's discuss our preconceptions first, as these clearly have bearing on our positions in the NN discussion? Or not, if you prefer not to go down this rabbit hole that is also fine ;)
>
>
>> On Oct 4, 2023, at 17:53, Colin Higbie <colin@higbie.name> wrote:
>> 
>> I suspect we are all after similar long-term goals – open access to as many people as possible with performance metrics that users appreciate (as opposed to raw bandwidth marketing claims that can mask buffer bloat problems).
>> 
>> What I fear many here are missing in this discussion is the damage regulations cause. There is an assumption in this response that humans can architect rational legislation that will make things better. The preponderance of evidence is that regulations don’t do that.
>
> 	[SM] I see a lot of evidence for harm caused by lack of regulations or lack of enforcement of regulations, e.g.:
> a) the Enron scandal (at its base fraud and the attempt to hide that fraud)
> b) the Lehmann brother sub-prime market scandal, "innovations" in debt reselling resulted in a massive almost global crisis where in many countries the tax payer ended up paying for the damage caused by under-regulated finance-product-innovation.
> c) anti-competitive behavior of tech companies, be it purchase of potential competitors with attractive products only to let these whimper and die, be it collusion on hiring to artificially restrict the employment supply side, ...
>
> In these cases either stricter regulations and/or stricter enforcement of regulations could have saved us (as society) a lot of cost... 
>
> But I mighr be looking at this too single-minded, if you want, please give examples of where regulations strangled innovation... I will however likely not accept pure hypotheticals of the kind "with less regulation we would have seen more innovation", as that is simply not provable one way or the other.

try to run a business and you will run into a TON of regulations that make it 
hard to exist without providing significant value.

>> I also support legislation specifically around busting the regional and local 
>> monopoly contracts that cable companies use. Those currently prevent much of 
>> the competition that I embrace as the rapid driver for commercial 
>> improvement.
>
> 	[SM] That is not going to help, there is not a queue of folks that are 
> just waiting for local monopolies to end to throw fiber cables into the ground 
> and hook up whole neighborhoods... IMHO what would work better is to force 
> local monopolies to carry bit stream traffic for competing ISPs at a price 
> close to the incurred cost (as if the monopolist would need to hire its own 
> access lines, with a smudge of surplus on top)... I base this on what happens 
> in my own home market, where the incumbent is forced to offer wholesale 
> products for other ISPs, with regulated prices that such competitors (if 
> acting efficiently) can still make a profit when offering internet access 
> below the price of the incumbent. This while heavy on regulatory intervention 
> works reasonably well and means that in the incumbents foot print consumers 
> can actually chose between a few different ISPs.

in the telco/DSL space there actually is such a regulation and for the last 
couple of decades I've had such an ISP (until monday when the local telco 
discontinued the type of DSL that will reach me and I got shut off)


Here in California there is also a similar regulation for Electical power, you 
can purchase your power from specialty providers, delivered through the local 
monopoly lines

The municipal fiber being put in in my town will be run by one company, with 
several ISPs providing access over it (according to the plan anyway)

It's just not cost effective to have multiple companies running wires/fibers 
past every house, and doing so for a new ISP is a huge investment with very 
little return. Google tried it in the fact of hostile ISPs and even eith their 
deep pockets, had trouble making it work

David Lang

Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors

[Sebastian Moeller]

Hi Colin,


I started composing a long reply to a previous post, but realized that due a philosophical difference that was not going in a productive direction, so instead, let's discuss our preconceptions first, as these clearly have bearing on our positions in the NN discussion? Or not, if you prefer not to go down this rabbit hole that is also fine ;)


> On Oct 4, 2023, at 17:53, Colin Higbie <colin@higbie.name> wrote:
> 
> I suspect we are all after similar long-term goals – open access to as many people as possible with performance metrics that users appreciate (as opposed to raw bandwidth marketing claims that can mask buffer bloat problems).
>  
> What I fear many here are missing in this discussion is the damage regulations cause. There is an assumption in this response that humans can architect rational legislation that will make things better. The preponderance of evidence is that regulations don’t do that.

	[SM] I see a lot of evidence for harm caused by lack of regulations or lack of enforcement of regulations, e.g.:
a) the Enron scandal (at its base fraud and the attempt to hide that fraud)
b) the Lehmann brother sub-prime market scandal, "innovations" in debt reselling resulted in a massive almost global crisis where in many countries the tax payer ended up paying for the damage caused by under-regulated finance-product-innovation.
c) anti-competitive behavior of tech companies, be it purchase of potential competitors with attractive products only to let these whimper and die, be it collusion on hiring to artificially restrict the employment supply side, ...

In these cases either stricter regulations and/or stricter enforcement of regulations could have saved us (as society) a lot of cost... 

But I mighr be looking at this too single-minded, if you want, please give examples of where regulations strangled innovation... I will however likely not accept pure hypotheticals of the kind "with less regulation we would have seen more innovation", as that is simply not provable one way or the other.



> They serve as a starting point for a new bureaucracy that grows, taxes, and crushes innovation out of whatever is being regulated. Because politics.

	[SM] Unlike corporate policy, public policy is shapeable, that is people can vote and be voted for and hence influence local policies and if they convince enough folks of their positions also state or federal government activities. Now, laws are often made as compromises, which is both bad (compromises tend to not result in simple principled statements, but lots of seemingly unrelated give-and-take) and good (as long as it is not clear that one side is completely in the rough a compromise will end up being generally more tempered and acceptable to a larger fraction of the population, which is the conceptual difference that makes liberal democracy so distinct fron the alternative systems).


>  
> I agree that there are cases where regulation is needed, because the market can’t drive the same effect because it’s too easy to push the costs elsewhere (e.g., pollution). I agree that there are historic cases where regulations have helped make things better (like with some public safety measures). 

	[SM] The IMHO clear problem with markets is, that those in a fair market tend to try to change that into a lop-sided market (so into a supply or demand side oligo- or monopoly) to gain advantages over others and under such regimes markets do not operate as efficient resource allocation optimizers, but really as profit optimizers for the oligo- or monopolist. None of this is novel insight, and all of this is happening out in the clear and can be observed in real time.



>  
> What I urge is we recognize that there should be a very high bar for regulations. In this case, where there is negligible evidence they are needed, we are nowhere near that bar.

	[SM] I respectfully disagree, NN regulations popped up, exactly because some ISPs where openly abusing their position as natural gate-keepers; as so often regulation is reactive and only happens after somebody abused the freedom offered by the older regulatory regime. That is not to say that all regulations are perfect or that all historical regulations need to be carried ad infinitum, but simply that regulations do rarely happen pro-actively, and simply dumping regulations without first checking which problem they tackled and whether that problem still exists, is an act of ideology and not of good governance. (Nobody here proposed blindly dumping existing regulations, but that idea is out there in the US and the UK and also in Germany, and probably other places as well*)

*) This often ties into the paragraph above, those that feel unhappy in a fair market seek to get those regulations relaxed/removed they consider obstacles in getting more control over their market. The sad irony is that often the same corporations lobbying for relaxaion od regulations at the same time consider everything not explicitly denied as "fair game", and sometimes even more (see e.g. the libor scandal) where they simnply factor potential fines as "cost of doing business", but I digress again.



> Absent a critical need, we are better served, at least in the long-run, in letting the market fight it out. This will no doubt lead to some bad outcomes for some people, primarily investors who back the wrong horses, but also some customers who end up with less performant connections.

	[SM] Performance isn't the issue here (most end-users would likely judge: access rate == performance) it is wll established that different rate-tiers can be proced differently. What is at issue here is that those paying for transport services can expect that they will get the transport services they pay for. If I hire a trucking company to transport a shipping container from say NY to LA, I expect them to do that and charge me a price which allows them to make a living, what I do not expect is that in LA they start extorting the receiver (we will only deliver in time if you pay us extra, or worse unless you pay extra we will not deliver at all). Internet access service is IMHO a sort of transport service, and I see very little need for any fancy "innovation" here, sure faster more efficient techniques will be appreciated, but these really only affect the cost/price structure and change nothing on the underlaying contract structure.


> However, that free-for-all drives things forward en-masse and the poor options die off. That’s the product and service evolution, or Darwinism if you prefer, that drives optimal outcomes.

	[SM] Let's leave natural evolution out of this please, never a good analogy if looked at closely... (I am a biologist by education and profession)



> Faith in someone’s intelligent design (no matter how good you think it is) will not yield positive results, or at least not as positive in the long-run. Even if it starts out well, it will get twisted by political horse trading and bureaucratic control into something worse than you envision, never better.

	[SM] I hear/read this quite oftem, what you call "political horse trading" is essentially what policy is supposed to do, make compromises over a set of acceptable positions such that a majority can stomach the resulting hodgepodge... Now, this is not always perfect and often these compromises contain hard to swallow components not designed for the greater good, but that does not invalidate the process of finding positions that a majority can tolerate or even support.


>  
> Now, if you want to talk about forming a voluntary organization to make technical recommendations and perhaps standardize some language (like the Wi-Fi and USB consortiums), I think that’s fine and would support that fully. If done well (e.g., the latest USB C was not, with a lot of uncertainty around what USB C means and unlabeled cables more than the connectors determining power delivery capacity and bandwidth), the language around this and a standard means of testing and communicating bandwidth, latency, buffer bloat, etc. assists the better solutions to dominate in the market.

	[SM] I can only speak from limited experience in the IETF, and I am not convinced that the IETF process is in the same league as political consensus finding (with all its "horse-trading" and sausage making), heck it is not even playing the same game. IETF process has no real accountability and is based on the laudable idea that with enough good-faith acceptable compromises can be struck without politics and horse-trading. The problem is that in reality that process can only work like intended if everyday acts responsibly with the "greater good" in mind. That might happen occasionally, but what I observe is closer to horse-trading, sausage making and consensus by attrition, but I digress. My point is the existing political process, for all its warts and potential for improvement is IMHO not as bad as you seem to imply.


> I also support legislation specifically around busting the regional and local monopoly contracts that cable companies use. Those currently prevent much of the competition that I embrace as the rapid driver for commercial improvement.

	[SM] That is not going to help, there is not a queue of folks that are just waiting for local monopolies to end to throw fiber cables into the ground and hook up whole neighborhoods... IMHO what would work better is to force local monopolies to carry bit stream traffic for competing ISPs at a price close to the incurred cost (as if the monopolist would need to hire its own access lines, with a smudge of surplus on top)... I base this on what happens in my own home market, where the incumbent is forced to offer wholesale products for other ISPs, with regulated prices that such competitors (if acting efficiently) can still make a profit when offering internet access below the price of the incumbent. This while heavy on regulatory intervention works reasonably well and means that in the incumbents foot print consumers can actually chose between a few different ISPs.


Regards
	Sebastian


>  
> Cheers,
> Colin
>  
>  
> From: dan <dandenson@gmail.com> 
> Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 5:41 PM
> To: Network Neutrality is back! Let´s make the technical aspects heard this time! <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> Cc: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>; Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
> Subject: Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors
>  
> I know we're well off on a tangent here, but it's all somewhat related.  The competitive landscape really dictates how much regulation needs to be involved.  The less the competition, the more the government needs to take a roll to keep that small pool or single vendor in check.  Government really must take a regulatory rule here in my opinion because there are bad actors and so much of America relies on them for mediocre services.
> 
> The who's and how of previous monopolies really do matter because we can't take a true lesson if we don't have the facts.  I continue to stand by my stance that the virtual monopolies in many markets is why we really need NN or near-NN and soon.  I do really appreciate everyone's perspectives though.  Lots of great stuff here.
> 
> The problem I see is that from my perspective, we need a 2 pronged attack.  As Gene says above, presenting a post analysed solution to the powers that be might be helpful.  
> prong 1 is to clarify what NN is in legal terms and build transparency in.  If a service is NN they can choose to say so, if they are not they have to say they are not.  I might lose this battle and all services may have to be NN, IDK, I'm just presenting my thoughts.  That's the main purpose of this thread but I think a lot of members of the mailing list also have an interest in the second:
> prong 2 is to identify 'what went wrong and how to fix it'.  Why do so many people have poor service when we have so much infrastructure?  No access.  As an operator in multiple states I assure you all that access to existing fibers that were built by government money is minimum, even at splice huts getting services can be impossible.  I literally ran fiber through my current service area on contract in the late 90's that I cannot purchase services off of today. it sits there dark.  I know it's there, I feel like I still have the blisters.  I would suggest the microIX somehow, maybe pushing for schools to have a microIX hanging off of them or city halls or something.  Heck, the schools could get 100G and x dark fibers delivered to the nearest IX and let them sell ports off of that for a tariffed rate.  I'm sure we could come up with 2 dozen all for the public good models to get microIXs all over the place to solve this.  I promise that access to high capacity data will spur competition like crazy.  We have a school in our area that we didn't bid out but has a 100M fixed wireless link from a competitor as their only service and word on the street is that it doesn't deliver.  It's crazy.
>  
> On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 2:26 PM Colin_Higbie via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> Sebastian,
> 
> Good points and thanks for the conversation. I agree with you on the INTENT of the NN regulations as proposed and that most of the non-content provider supporters had what you stated as the goal. However, the money driving the politicians, paying for those ads and social media campaigns, etc. came from the content providers who wanted government support and protection. This doesn't make the carriers right (or wrong), just know that the big supporters were the content providers and for obvious business reasons – they wanted to get their content to customers for free.
> 
> There are plenty of good and valid arguments on both sides that issue, but history shows that in the long run, government interference in the form of controlling regulations on what business may and may not do with each other, outside matters of public safety and perhaps establishing and mandating some measuring standards, is always destructive to innovation. That in turn hurts consumers in the end. 
> 
> On the Google point, I respect that you disagree that Google's offering in my hypothetical where it's bound to their own services would not have been as good as open 20Mbps Internet access. I would probably feel the same way. But that's not the point. The point is that if Google came in OFFERING that, it would have been disruptive. As long as customers had THE CHOICE of 1G content-controlled vs 20M open (or whatever they had access to), then Google's offering is only beneficial in the long run. The entrenched competitors would need to up their game or lose at least some customers. They would either increase their capacity and available bandwidth or tout the benefits of their open access or something else or some combination. That's how customers win from competition – it's not just price, or just bandwidth, or just access freedom, or any one thing. It's the unpredictable freedom to innovate and find new niches that customers want to pay for. And the market is ALWAYS better at determining which is the better value for customers. None of us as individuals (as much as Xi Jinping might disagree) can out-predict the crowd-sourcing power and wisdom of the entire free market.
> 
> I completely agree with you that my saying "it might have spawned significant investment..." is speculative. The core of that is the fundamental point of economics though: individuals making choices for their own self-interest is what drives innovation and advancement in a way that ultimately helps everyone. In other words, the regulation would also have been speculative that it would help more than not having that regulation. And it would have assumed BOTH that innovation won't solve current problems AND that customers are too stupid to choose the service that's of value to them. 
> 
> Given a choice between speculating that future innovations might solve problems or speculating that we're doomed without government protection from companies who have not yet really done the bad-Google-hypothetical-thing I described, I would much rather err on the side of letting the market and innovation continue to run with things. After all, that's what took the Internet from a military and academic network into the most impactful economic force of the past decades, and one infused by a culture of innovation and entrepreneurship.
> 
> Tying that together with your point on the government policies protecting local monopolies: Why did Verizon start to build FiOS? Because they thought they could attract customers and earn a strong profit by providing a better, faster Internet via FTTH. On paper, this was a slam dunk. Why did they stop building it out? Because they ran into too many localities who blocked them with legislative and regulatory hurdles. 
> 
> That FiOS example is one of the best case studies of exactly how government regulation primarily stifles and harms end user experience with respect to Internet access speeds.
> 
> I also agree with your concluding points that if carrier access were regulated, business would do their thing, adapt, and find a way forward. The world would not end. All true. No dispute on that. However, I would say that if we look 20 or 50 or 100 years out, the state of human communications and computing technology would be further advanced in unpredictable ways by not removing some of those axes of freedom from the entrepreneurs as they innovate. The gains are only in the very short term. Protecting my Netflix access today is nice, but getting 1Tbps access (or sub 0.1ms latency for radically different levels of computation interactivity, or something else we don't even realize matters yet) to be commonplace in 20 years might be even better.
> 
> Taking all of the above together, this is why if we're looking for a STARTING point (and to be fair to your points, maybe more would be needed after that, but let's tackle the biggest, most indisputable problem first), START with dismantling those government-protected monopolies. Maybe, that will be enough. Given that innovation-crushing regulations tend to grow and are rarely ever retracted, better safe than sorry on this.
> 
> By the way, I say this as a guy on the content-providing side of the problem. So, to the extent that I have business bias, it would be in favor of forcing equal access. However, I also believe that the same regulations that would force equal access today would also stymie the development of 10G and 1T networks and beyond in the future (not their engineering, but the actual commercial deployment). Advancement and innovative growth occur when innovators and entrepreneurs have the freedom of the open sky (with all the confusion and wrong turns and failures that admittedly come with that), not under a smothering tarp of regulation. 
> 
> Cheers,
> Colin
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de> 
> Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 3:50 AM
> To: Network Neutrality is back! Let´s make the technical aspects heard this time! <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> Cc: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
> Subject: Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors
> 
> Hi Colin,
> 
> > On Oct 2, 2023, at 22:34, Colin_Higbie via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> > 
> > While product and service innovation often originates from pure R&D or work performed in academic labs, in virtually all cases, converting that into commercially viable products and services is the result of profit incentives. A company won’t invest in doing something new with attendant risks unless they can expect a return on that investment greater than the alternatives (or they believe it will provide strategic support to some other product or service). For that reason, we want to be extremely careful about regulating how companies can implement innovations, including the use of potentially distasteful business practices. None of us who want to see the Internet become better over time and more accessible should want anything resembling NN regulation.
> 
>         [SM] At its core NN regulations really just say that who is selling internet access services is supposed to do exactly that and not try to act as gate-keeper picking winners and losers. I might be insufficiently creative here, but I do not think a simple "do not discriminate" directive really restricts the space of potential innovations in any meaningful way.
> 
> 
> > The regulatory side of this is largely not a technical discussion because future innovation, by definition, may exceed technical considerations we can conceive of today.
> 
>         [SM] Indded, prediction is hard, especially predictions about the future ;)
> 
> 
> > It's easy to conceive of examples where an ISP wants to prioritize or penalize certain kinds of traffic. And while that may seem superficially bad, it’s an important part of the very competition that drives innovation and cost reductions over time. E.g., recall when Google Fiber had been willing to install Gbps fiber in places at a time when most of the rest of the country was struggling to get 20Mbps connections. If Google had wanted to limit that to Google services, that still might have been a boon to those customers.
> 
>         [SM] I respectfully disagree, that would not have been meaningful internet access. An unrestricted 20M internet access link has more general utility that even a 10G gate-keeper only link (who that gate-keeper is is irrelevant). (I am not saying the 20M would be without issues)
> 
> 
> > Further, it could have shown the uses and values of what was then considered limitless bandwidth for a home or small business user.
> 
>         [SM] Yeah, on that question we are still waiting even though >= 1 Gbps services are not all that rare anymore. As far as I can see it we still lack use-cases that strictly require fast links that go above simple "more parallel" or "faster".
> 
> 
> > Even though this would clearly have been in violation of the tenets of NN, it would have provided important data that might have spawned significant investment by others and advanced the state of connectivity across the board.
> 
>         [SM] This is purely speculative though, it might as well had shown nothing of that kind by the sheer fact that google fiber roll-out was so small as to be not representative of anything, no?
> 
> >  
> > I know the counter argument to this is that local ISP monopolies already break innovation, and those companies, especially the big cable companies, therefore have no incentive to provide a good service. I largely agree with that (there is still some small incentive, in that if they are too terrible, customer outcry will turn to voter outcry and demand breaking those monopolies, and they don’t want to risk that).
> >  
> > Therefore, the legal issue to address is NOT how they treat or prioritize data, whether by content or protocol – which they should be allowed to do, EVEN WHEN IT’S BAD FOR CUSTOMERS – but, at least referring to the U.S. specifically with our federal/state system, to put federal limits on durations of regional monopoly durations. I believe this is within the scope of what FCC can mandate (some would debate this and it may take the courts to sort it out). These need not be purely # of years, they can be a function of time to recoup deployment costs. If a company negotiated a local monopoly as part of covering their deployment costs, I would personally say that they should be given an opportunity to recoup those, but then after that, they need to open up their lines for use by competing firms, similar to what happened with the RBOCs and the old telephone lines.
> 
>         [SM] The problem is that access networks often are not legal monopolies, but natural monopolies where if company A has a high-speed capable network deployed it becomes economically unattractive for other companies to deploy their own network (the competitor can torpedo such a deployment by lowering prices such that too few customers change to make the whole thing stay in the "loss" region for a long time). So leaving the access network to market players will always result in the incentive to monetize the gate-keeper role that is inherent in the network's structure. 
> One solution to this problem (not the only one) is to put the access network into the public hands, like other important infrastructure. The idea would then be like in Amsterdam, Zuerich and a few other places to have a local access network provider that in turn "concentrates" access links in COs local IXs where interested ISPs con connect to and then offer all end-users in that access network internet access services. That still leaves the natural monopoly of the access network untouched, but puts it under management of en entity that is not likely to exploit this (as fully as private entities are).
>         This is however pretty orthogonal to direct NN concerns, and I am sure not a generally accepted model. (Say if I would be operating a small ISP and would differentiate myself by how well I manage my access network, I likely would detest such ideas, and if I would operate a big ISP I would detest them for other reasons ;) so this is ver end-user centric and also relies on some modicum of faith in local government)
> 
> 
> > This is also the legal logic behind patents: give a company a 20 year monopoly on the invention in exchange for making it public to everyone and showing them how to do it (the patent must provide clear instructions). We deem the temporary monopoly worthwhile to incent the innovation, provided the inventor makes it public. This is the right philosophy to consider for something like bandwidth innovation, investment, and access.
> >  
> > In short, with ISP’s the open-ended government protected monopolies are the problem,
> 
>         [SM] Again these often are not legal monopolies where nobody else is permitted to build a competing network, but natural monopolies where the expected return of investment falls with the number of already existing networks, while the cost stays constant. AND the number of ISPs tgat might actually bite the bullet and set diggers in motion is still so small that in the end, we might change from a monopoly to an oligopoly situation, bith are regimes in which the free market does not really deliver on its promises.
> 
> 
> > not the providers’ ability to overcharge customers or prioritize some data over others. Competition will fix that over time, as long as competition is allowed to occur. And while it may be faster to force it through regulation, that has dangerous long-term consequences with respect to future innovation.
> 
>         [SM] Yes, meaningful competition could help, but IMHO an oligopoly likely would not result in meaningful enough competition. This is where the access network in public hand ideas comes in, it makes the cost to enter a market for ISPs relatively cheap, they really only need to pull/rent fibers to the local IX and maybe deploy OLTs/DSLAMs/CMTSs there (depending) on the local network tech, and can start offer services, without having to deal with the access network.
> 
> > Starlink is one example of innovation. FTTH is another. Cellular-based Internet is another.
> 
>         [SM] All of which are orthogonal to NN regulations, neither depended on violating the "do not discriminate" rule, no?
> 
> 
> > Simply buying bulk access on existing lines and repackaging it under different terms could be yet another. Those all seem obvious, because they’re the ones we know. The real danger in unforeseen consequences is the dampening effect NN-style regulations have on yet-to-be-seen innovations, the innovations that never come to fruition because of the regulations.
> 
>         [SM] I claim that rules and regulations always set the stage for which business decisions are acceptable/profitable and which are not, that is true whether we add the NN mandates to the mix or not, so I really do not see how these will have a meaningful influence on future expected innovation (unless that innovation really is all about active discrimination, but in that case I see no real loss).
> 
> Side-note: The thing is "discrimination" is still permitted under most NN rules, as long as it is under active control of the end-users, not the ISP. So I am sure some end-users would appreciate an "prioritize vide conferencing and VoIP over video streaming and gaming under load" option offered by their ISP and might even be willing to pay a little, as long as the end user can toggle this option at will it will not be subject to NN regulations as far as I understand. This clearly leaves some innovation space available even for active discrimination.
> 
> Regards
>         Sebastian
> 
> 
> >  
> > Cheers,
> > Colin Higbie
> >  
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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

Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors

[Dick Roy]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 25252 bytes --]

 

 

  _____  

From: Nnagain [mailto:nnagain-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net] On Behalf Of Colin_Higbie via Nnagain
Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2023 8:57 AM
To: Network Neutrality is back! Let´s make the technical aspects heard this time!
Cc: Colin_Higbie
Subject: Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors

 

I suspect we are all after similar long-term goals – open access to as many people as possible with performance metrics that users appreciate (as opposed to raw bandwidth marketing claims that can mask buffer bloat problems). 

 

What I fear many here are missing in this discussion is the damage regulations cause. There is an assumption in this response that humans can architect rational legislation that will make things better. The preponderance of evidence is that regulations don’t do that. They serve as a starting point for a new bureaucracy that grows, taxes, and crushes innovation out of whatever is being regulated. Because politics.

 

I agree that there are cases where regulation is needed, because the market can’t drive the same effect because it’s too easy to push the costs elsewhere (e.g., pollution). I agree that there are historic cases where regulations have helped make things better (like with some public safety measures). 

[RR] Especially where safety of life and property is concerned. Lack of high quality internet access is generally not going to result in death or disaster.  Lack of sufficient spectrum to deploy (regulated) life-saving technologies on the roads of America does result in death and disaster.  Just to give one example of where regulations are necessary. :-) 

 

What I urge is we recognize that there should be a very high bar for regulations. In this case, where there is negligible evidence they are needed, we are nowhere near that bar. Absent a critical need, we are better served, at least in the long-run, in letting the market fight it out. This will no doubt lead to some bad outcomes for some people, primarily investors who back the wrong horses, but also some customers who end up with less performant connections. However, that free-for-all drives things forward en-masse and the poor options die off. That’s the product and service evolution, or Darwinism if you prefer, that drives optimal outcomes.

[RR] Yes, this may be true, however more often than not it’s on the Darwinian evolutionary time scale … multiple generations which can translate to a century or more.  The problem is “amoral capitalism” and the havoc it can wreak all for the sake of short-term profits. Here’s a simple example of what I am talking about.  Over 30 years ago a small company called Qualcomm was in desperate need of a market for a technology that it believed it had the lion’s share of IPR.  It was called CDMA (aka IS-95/CDMA-2000). Through a number of dubious business practices coupled with outright lies about CDMA’s capabilities, they managed to “CON”-vince a large number of people in high places that CDMA was the best technology for cellular, ever!  It was all lies as it turns out.  Qualcomm is today a multi-billion dollar organization and CDMA is no longer around as a cellular technology!  Neither is Alcatel-Lucent, nor Motorola Infrastructure, nor Nortel … all road kill while Qualcomm padded its bottom line with license and royalty fees, a practice which continues to this day (but that’s a story for another day:-)).  It is this debacle that explains why the US is on par with Third World countries when it comes to low-cost, ubiquitous, high-speed wireless data access for its citizens as is well-known!   The Europeans did not suffer this fate largely because the regulators made the decision to stick with GSM and not go down the CDMA rathole.  Good fortune … maybe.  Rational thinking based on verifiable technological arguments … most likely.  Will the US ultimately join the rest of the First World? … yes … probably … but not before I am long gone :-( :-(

 Faith in someone’s intelligent design (no matter how good you think it is) will not yield positive results, or at least not as positive in the long-run. Even if it starts out well, it will get twisted by political horse trading and bureaucratic control into something worse than you envision, never better.

[RR] While I am very sympathetic to these arguments/positions, simply relying on “the best man wins” only works well when all the “men” in the game play by the same rules and as importantly, understand that it is NOT a zero-sum game! :-) :-) Unfortunately, there are too many examples to the contrary over the last 50 years and to think that going forward this is going to change is how fools are defined … “those who do the same thing over and over, expecting different results!” I do not know how to teach corporate morality to large corporations.  I do know that until they are taught and adopt that philosophy, good luck letting the foxes in the henhouse, and do not be surprised when the next “CDMA” debacle befalls us all! And lest you think that it couldn’t possibly happen again, let me assure you that another one is being perpetrated on us all right now, and those who did not learn from this history are in the process of repeating it and tens of thousands of lives are being lost every year, needlessly. 

 

Cheers,

 

RR

 

Now, if you want to talk about forming a voluntary organization to make technical recommendations and perhaps standardize some language (like the Wi-Fi and USB consortiums), I think that’s fine and would support that fully. If done well (e.g., the latest USB C was not, with a lot of uncertainty around what USB C means and unlabeled cables more than the connectors determining power delivery capacity and bandwidth), the language around this and a standard means of testing and communicating bandwidth, latency, buffer bloat, etc. assists the better solutions to dominate in the market.

 

I also support legislation specifically around busting the regional and local monopoly contracts that cable companies use. Those currently prevent much of the competition that I embrace as the rapid driver for commercial improvement. 

 

Cheers,

Colin

 

 

From: dan <dandenson@gmail.com> 
Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 5:41 PM
To: Network Neutrality is back! Let´s make the technical aspects heard this time! <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Cc: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>; Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
Subject: Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors

 

I know we're well off on a tangent here, but it's all somewhat related.  The competitive landscape really dictates how much regulation needs to be involved.  The less the competition, the more the government needs to take a roll to keep that small pool or single vendor in check.  Government really must take a regulatory rule here in my opinion because there are bad actors and so much of America relies on them for mediocre services.

The who's and how of previous monopolies really do matter because we can't take a true lesson if we don't have the facts.  I continue to stand by my stance that the virtual monopolies in many markets is why we really need NN or near-NN and soon.  I do really appreciate everyone's perspectives though.  Lots of great stuff here.

The problem I see is that from my perspective, we need a 2 pronged attack.  As Gene says above, presenting a post analysed solution to the powers that be might be helpful.  
prong 1 is to clarify what NN is in legal terms and build transparency in.  If a service is NN they can choose to say so, if they are not they have to say they are not.  I might lose this battle and all services may have to be NN, IDK, I'm just presenting my thoughts.  That's the main purpose of this thread but I think a lot of members of the mailing list also have an interest in the second:
prong 2 is to identify 'what went wrong and how to fix it'.  Why do so many people have poor service when we have so much infrastructure?  No access.  As an operator in multiple states I assure you all that access to existing fibers that were built by government money is minimum, even at splice huts getting services can be impossible.  I literally ran fiber through my current service area on contract in the late 90's that I cannot purchase services off of today. it sits there dark.  I know it's there, I feel like I still have the blisters.  I would suggest the microIX somehow, maybe pushing for schools to have a microIX hanging off of them or city halls or something.  Heck, the schools could get 100G and x dark fibers delivered to the nearest IX and let them sell ports off of that for a tariffed rate.  I'm sure we could come up with 2 dozen all for the public good models to get microIXs all over the place to solve this.  I promise that access to high capacity data will spur competition like crazy.  We have a school in our area that we didn't bid out but has a 100M fixed wireless link from a competitor as their only service and word on the street is that it doesn't deliver.  It's crazy.

 

On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 2:26 PM Colin_Higbie via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:

Sebastian,

Good points and thanks for the conversation. I agree with you on the INTENT of the NN regulations as proposed and that most of the non-content provider supporters had what you stated as the goal. However, the money driving the politicians, paying for those ads and social media campaigns, etc. came from the content providers who wanted government support and protection. This doesn't make the carriers right (or wrong), just know that the big supporters were the content providers and for obvious business reasons – they wanted to get their content to customers for free.

There are plenty of good and valid arguments on both sides that issue, but history shows that in the long run, government interference in the form of controlling regulations on what business may and may not do with each other, outside matters of public safety and perhaps establishing and mandating some measuring standards, is always destructive to innovation. That in turn hurts consumers in the end. 

On the Google point, I respect that you disagree that Google's offering in my hypothetical where it's bound to their own services would not have been as good as open 20Mbps Internet access. I would probably feel the same way. But that's not the point. The point is that if Google came in OFFERING that, it would have been disruptive. As long as customers had THE CHOICE of 1G content-controlled vs 20M open (or whatever they had access to), then Google's offering is only beneficial in the long run. The entrenched competitors would need to up their game or lose at least some customers. They would either increase their capacity and available bandwidth or tout the benefits of their open access or something else or some combination. That's how customers win from competition – it's not just price, or just bandwidth, or just access freedom, or any one thing. It's the unpredictable freedom to innovate and find new niches that customers want to pay for. And the market is ALWAYS better at determining which is the better value for customers. None of us as individuals (as much as Xi Jinping might disagree) can out-predict the crowd-sourcing power and wisdom of the entire free market.

I completely agree with you that my saying "it might have spawned significant investment..." is speculative. The core of that is the fundamental point of economics though: individuals making choices for their own self-interest is what drives innovation and advancement in a way that ultimately helps everyone. In other words, the regulation would also have been speculative that it would help more than not having that regulation. And it would have assumed BOTH that innovation won't solve current problems AND that customers are too stupid to choose the service that's of value to them. 

Given a choice between speculating that future innovations might solve problems or speculating that we're doomed without government protection from companies who have not yet really done the bad-Google-hypothetical-thing I described, I would much rather err on the side of letting the market and innovation continue to run with things. After all, that's what took the Internet from a military and academic network into the most impactful economic force of the past decades, and one infused by a culture of innovation and entrepreneurship.

Tying that together with your point on the government policies protecting local monopolies: Why did Verizon start to build FiOS? Because they thought they could attract customers and earn a strong profit by providing a better, faster Internet via FTTH. On paper, this was a slam dunk. Why did they stop building it out? Because they ran into too many localities who blocked them with legislative and regulatory hurdles. 

That FiOS example is one of the best case studies of exactly how government regulation primarily stifles and harms end user experience with respect to Internet access speeds.

I also agree with your concluding points that if carrier access were regulated, business would do their thing, adapt, and find a way forward. The world would not end. All true. No dispute on that. However, I would say that if we look 20 or 50 or 100 years out, the state of human communications and computing technology would be further advanced in unpredictable ways by not removing some of those axes of freedom from the entrepreneurs as they innovate. The gains are only in the very short term. Protecting my Netflix access today is nice, but getting 1Tbps access (or sub 0.1ms latency for radically different levels of computation interactivity, or something else we don't even realize matters yet) to be commonplace in 20 years might be even better.

Taking all of the above together, this is why if we're looking for a STARTING point (and to be fair to your points, maybe more would be needed after that, but let's tackle the biggest, most indisputable problem first), START with dismantling those government-protected monopolies. Maybe, that will be enough. Given that innovation-crushing regulations tend to grow and are rarely ever retracted, better safe than sorry on this.

By the way, I say this as a guy on the content-providing side of the problem. So, to the extent that I have business bias, it would be in favor of forcing equal access. However, I also believe that the same regulations that would force equal access today would also stymie the development of 10G and 1T networks and beyond in the future (not their engineering, but the actual commercial deployment). Advancement and innovative growth occur when innovators and entrepreneurs have the freedom of the open sky (with all the confusion and wrong turns and failures that admittedly come with that), not under a smothering tarp of regulation. 

Cheers,
Colin


-----Original Message-----
From: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de> 
Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 3:50 AM
To: Network Neutrality is back! Let´s make the technical aspects heard this time! <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Cc: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
Subject: Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors

Hi Colin,

> On Oct 2, 2023, at 22:34, Colin_Higbie via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> 
> While product and service innovation often originates from pure R&D or work performed in academic labs, in virtually all cases, converting that into commercially viable products and services is the result of profit incentives. A company won’t invest in doing something new with attendant risks unless they can expect a return on that investment greater than the alternatives (or they believe it will provide strategic support to some other product or service). For that reason, we want to be extremely careful about regulating how companies can implement innovations, including the use of potentially distasteful business practices. None of us who want to see the Internet become better over time and more accessible should want anything resembling NN regulation.

        [SM] At its core NN regulations really just say that who is selling internet access services is supposed to do exactly that and not try to act as gate-keeper picking winners and losers. I might be insufficiently creative here, but I do not think a simple "do not discriminate" directive really restricts the space of potential innovations in any meaningful way.


> The regulatory side of this is largely not a technical discussion because future innovation, by definition, may exceed technical considerations we can conceive of today.

        [SM] Indded, prediction is hard, especially predictions about the future ;)


> It's easy to conceive of examples where an ISP wants to prioritize or penalize certain kinds of traffic. And while that may seem superficially bad, it’s an important part of the very competition that drives innovation and cost reductions over time. E.g., recall when Google Fiber had been willing to install Gbps fiber in places at a time when most of the rest of the country was struggling to get 20Mbps connections. If Google had wanted to limit that to Google services, that still might have been a boon to those customers.

        [SM] I respectfully disagree, that would not have been meaningful internet access. An unrestricted 20M internet access link has more general utility that even a 10G gate-keeper only link (who that gate-keeper is is irrelevant). (I am not saying the 20M would be without issues)


> Further, it could have shown the uses and values of what was then considered limitless bandwidth for a home or small business user.

        [SM] Yeah, on that question we are still waiting even though >= 1 Gbps services are not all that rare anymore. As far as I can see it we still lack use-cases that strictly require fast links that go above simple "more parallel" or "faster".


> Even though this would clearly have been in violation of the tenets of NN, it would have provided important data that might have spawned significant investment by others and advanced the state of connectivity across the board.

        [SM] This is purely speculative though, it might as well had shown nothing of that kind by the sheer fact that google fiber roll-out was so small as to be not representative of anything, no?

>  
> I know the counter argument to this is that local ISP monopolies already break innovation, and those companies, especially the big cable companies, therefore have no incentive to provide a good service. I largely agree with that (there is still some small incentive, in that if they are too terrible, customer outcry will turn to voter outcry and demand breaking those monopolies, and they don’t want to risk that).
>  
> Therefore, the legal issue to address is NOT how they treat or prioritize data, whether by content or protocol – which they should be allowed to do, EVEN WHEN IT’S BAD FOR CUSTOMERS – but, at least referring to the U.S. specifically with our federal/state system, to put federal limits on durations of regional monopoly durations. I believe this is within the scope of what FCC can mandate (some would debate this and it may take the courts to sort it out). These need not be purely # of years, they can be a function of time to recoup deployment costs. If a company negotiated a local monopoly as part of covering their deployment costs, I would personally say that they should be given an opportunity to recoup those, but then after that, they need to open up their lines for use by competing firms, similar to what happened with the RBOCs and the old telephone lines.

        [SM] The problem is that access networks often are not legal monopolies, but natural monopolies where if company A has a high-speed capable network deployed it becomes economically unattractive for other companies to deploy their own network (the competitor can torpedo such a deployment by lowering prices such that too few customers change to make the whole thing stay in the "loss" region for a long time). So leaving the access network to market players will always result in the incentive to monetize the gate-keeper role that is inherent in the network's structure. 
One solution to this problem (not the only one) is to put the access network into the public hands, like other important infrastructure. The idea would then be like in Amsterdam, Zuerich and a few other places to have a local access network provider that in turn "concentrates" access links in COs local IXs where interested ISPs con connect to and then offer all end-users in that access network internet access services. That still leaves the natural monopoly of the access network untouched, but puts it under management of en entity that is not likely to exploit this (as fully as private entities are).
        This is however pretty orthogonal to direct NN concerns, and I am sure not a generally accepted model. (Say if I would be operating a small ISP and would differentiate myself by how well I manage my access network, I likely would detest such ideas, and if I would operate a big ISP I would detest them for other reasons ;) so this is ver end-user centric and also relies on some modicum of faith in local government)


> This is also the legal logic behind patents: give a company a 20 year monopoly on the invention in exchange for making it public to everyone and showing them how to do it (the patent must provide clear instructions). We deem the temporary monopoly worthwhile to incent the innovation, provided the inventor makes it public. This is the right philosophy to consider for something like bandwidth innovation, investment, and access.
>  
> In short, with ISP’s the open-ended government protected monopolies are the problem,

        [SM] Again these often are not legal monopolies where nobody else is permitted to build a competing network, but natural monopolies where the expected return of investment falls with the number of already existing networks, while the cost stays constant. AND the number of ISPs tgat might actually bite the bullet and set diggers in motion is still so small that in the end, we might change from a monopoly to an oligopoly situation, bith are regimes in which the free market does not really deliver on its promises.


> not the providers’ ability to overcharge customers or prioritize some data over others. Competition will fix that over time, as long as competition is allowed to occur. And while it may be faster to force it through regulation, that has dangerous long-term consequences with respect to future innovation.

        [SM] Yes, meaningful competition could help, but IMHO an oligopoly likely would not result in meaningful enough competition. This is where the access network in public hand ideas comes in, it makes the cost to enter a market for ISPs relatively cheap, they really only need to pull/rent fibers to the local IX and maybe deploy OLTs/DSLAMs/CMTSs there (depending) on the local network tech, and can start offer services, without having to deal with the access network.

> Starlink is one example of innovation. FTTH is another. Cellular-based Internet is another.

        [SM] All of which are orthogonal to NN regulations, neither depended on violating the "do not discriminate" rule, no?


> Simply buying bulk access on existing lines and repackaging it under different terms could be yet another. Those all seem obvious, because they’re the ones we know. The real danger in unforeseen consequences is the dampening effect NN-style regulations have on yet-to-be-seen innovations, the innovations that never come to fruition because of the regulations.

        [SM] I claim that rules and regulations always set the stage for which business decisions are acceptable/profitable and which are not, that is true whether we add the NN mandates to the mix or not, so I really do not see how these will have a meaningful influence on future expected innovation (unless that innovation really is all about active discrimination, but in that case I see no real loss).

Side-note: The thing is "discrimination" is still permitted under most NN rules, as long as it is under active control of the end-users, not the ISP. So I am sure some end-users would appreciate an "prioritize vide conferencing and VoIP over video streaming and gaming under load" option offered by their ISP and might even be willing to pay a little, as long as the end user can toggle this option at will it will not be subject to NN regulations as far as I understand. This clearly leaves some innovation space available even for active discrimination.

Regards
        Sebastian


>  
> Cheers,
> Colin Higbie
>  
> _______________________________________________
> 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


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 37831 bytes --]

Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors

[rjmcmahon]

Agreed, regulators can't typically regulate the futures in technology 
for multiple reasons. We now have some proof of that.

A primary goal of the 1996 Telco Act was to enable competition over the 
PSTN local loops per new entities like competitive local exchange 
carriers (CLECs.) The base assumption by regulators was that the local 
exchange & loop had long term viability and access to it create 
profitability. Instead what happened was that the local exchange was 
completely abandoned because twisted pair as the waveguide wasn't viable 
long them for internet & wireless or mobile services. (This was also 
seen in corporate parks where the twisted pair was replaced by Cat 5 
cables, which enabled full duplex, point to point ethernet and ethernet 
switching.)

Per the OSP, what actually occurred, in the U.S.;

1) Cable Cos invested heavily in HFC and now are doing a second round in 
things like DOCSIS 4.0 & FDX, DAAC, fiber, etc
2) The local exchange cos shifted to wireless and contract carriage 
(deregulation included the removal of special access regulation which 
set pricing for tower backhauls)
3) The mobile computer (iPhone) was invented and sold through the 
wireless carriers (even though it went against Steve Job's instincts). 
It also is dual network per WiFi.
4) Some local exchange carriers in high density areas deployed fiber via 
xPON, e.g. FiOS
5) Broadcast media consolidation as ad dollars shifted to internet 
social networks & one dominant search engine, and to app stores
6) More erosion of journalism and an insurrection against the Republic

Then there were a few smaller things too:
1) Some small rural regions sold their local loops to small ISPs for DSL 
offerings (which are substandard compared to cable's HFC or fiber 
offerings like xPON)
2) Google deployed a triple play offering with Google fiber with minimal 
penetration, suggesting that even a highly capitalized new entrance is 
challenged

Also, in 2008, per quantitative easing, the cost of debt went to 
historically low levels for over a decade

The high sunk costs and shift to newer packet, stochastic networks & yet 
to be invented devices really are the driving factors. On the OSP side, 
these are driven by labor rates, and the access and cost of money. Both 
are going in the wrong direction to help alleviate the high sunk costs 
of newer build outs.

Bob

> I suspect we are all after similar long-term goals – open access to
> as many people as possible with performance metrics that users
> appreciate (as opposed to raw bandwidth marketing claims that can mask
> buffer bloat problems).
> 
> What I fear many here are missing in this discussion is the damage
> regulations cause. There is an assumption in this response that humans
> can architect rational legislation that will make things better. The
> preponderance of evidence is that regulations don’t do that. They
> serve as a starting point for a new bureaucracy that grows, taxes, and
> crushes innovation out of whatever is being regulated. Because
> politics.
> 
> I agree that there are cases where regulation is needed, because the
> market can’t drive the same effect because it’s too easy to push
> the costs elsewhere (e.g., pollution). I agree that there are historic
> cases where regulations have helped make things better (like with some
> public safety measures).
> 
> What I urge is we recognize that there should be a very high bar for
> regulations. In this case, where there is negligible evidence they are
> needed, we are nowhere near that bar. Absent a critical need, we are
> better served, at least in the long-run, in letting the market fight
> it out. This will no doubt lead to some bad outcomes for some people,
> primarily investors who back the wrong horses, but also some customers
> who end up with less performant connections. However, that
> free-for-all drives things forward en-masse and the poor options die
> off. That’s the product and service evolution, or Darwinism if you
> prefer, that drives optimal outcomes. Faith in someone’s intelligent
> design (no matter how good you think it is) will not yield positive
> results, or at least not as positive in the long-run. Even if it
> starts out well, it will get twisted by political horse trading and
> bureaucratic control into something worse than you envision, never
> better.
> 
> Now, if you want to talk about forming a voluntary organization to
> make technical recommendations and perhaps standardize some language
> (like the Wi-Fi and USB consortiums), I think that’s fine and would
> support that fully. If done well (e.g., the latest USB C was not, with
> a lot of uncertainty around what USB C means and unlabeled cables more
> than the connectors determining power delivery capacity and
> bandwidth), the language around this and a standard means of testing
> and communicating bandwidth, latency, buffer bloat, etc. assists the
> better solutions to dominate in the market.
> 
> I also support legislation specifically around busting the regional
> and local monopoly contracts that cable companies use. Those currently
> prevent much of the competition that I embrace as the rapid driver for
> commercial improvement.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Colin
> 
> From: dan <dandenson@gmail.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 5:41 PM
> To: Network Neutrality is back! Let´s make the technical aspects
> heard this time! <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> Cc: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>; Colin_Higbie
> <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
> Subject: Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors
> 
> I know we're well off on a tangent here, but it's all somewhat
> related.  The competitive landscape really dictates how much
> regulation needs to be involved.  The less the competition, the more
> the government needs to take a roll to keep that small pool or single
> vendor in check.  Government really must take a regulatory rule here
> in my opinion because there are bad actors and so much of America
> relies on them for mediocre services.
> 
> The who's and how of previous monopolies really do matter because we
> can't take a true lesson if we don't have the facts.  I continue to
> stand by my stance that the virtual monopolies in many markets is why
> we really need NN or near-NN and soon.  I do really appreciate
> everyone's perspectives though.  Lots of great stuff here.
> 
> The problem I see is that from my perspective, we need a 2 pronged
> attack.  As Gene says above, presenting a post analysed solution to
> the powers that be might be helpful.
> prong 1 is to clarify what NN is in legal terms and build transparency
> in.  If a service is NN they can choose to say so, if they are not
> they have to say they are not.  I might lose this battle and all
> services may have to be NN, IDK, I'm just presenting my thoughts.
> That's the main purpose of this thread but I think a lot of members of
> the mailing list also have an interest in the second:
> prong 2 is to identify 'what went wrong and how to fix it'.  Why do so
> many people have poor service when we have so much infrastructure?  No
> access.  As an operator in multiple states I assure you all that
> access to existing fibers that were built by government money is
> minimum, even at splice huts getting services can be impossible.  I
> literally ran fiber through my current service area on contract in the
> late 90's that I cannot purchase services off of today. it sits there
> dark.  I know it's there, I feel like I still have the blisters.  I
> would suggest the microIX somehow, maybe pushing for schools to have a
> microIX hanging off of them or city halls or something.  Heck, the
> schools could get 100G and x dark fibers delivered to the nearest IX
> and let them sell ports off of that for a tariffed rate.  I'm sure we
> could come up with 2 dozen all for the public good models to get
> microIXs all over the place to solve this.  I promise that access to
> high capacity data will spur competition like crazy.  We have a school
> in our area that we didn't bid out but has a 100M fixed wireless link
> from a competitor as their only service and word on the street is that
> it doesn't deliver.  It's crazy.
> 
> On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 2:26 PM Colin_Higbie via Nnagain
> <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> 
>> Sebastian,
>> 
>> Good points and thanks for the conversation. I agree with you on the
>> INTENT of the NN regulations as proposed and that most of the
>> non-content provider supporters had what you stated as the goal.
>> However, the money driving the politicians, paying for those ads and
>> social media campaigns, etc. came from the content providers who
>> wanted government support and protection. This doesn't make the
>> carriers right (or wrong), just know that the big supporters were
>> the content providers and for obvious business reasons – they
>> wanted to get their content to customers for free.
>> 
>> There are plenty of good and valid arguments on both sides that
>> issue, but history shows that in the long run, government
>> interference in the form of controlling regulations on what business
>> may and may not do with each other, outside matters of public safety
>> and perhaps establishing and mandating some measuring standards, is
>> always destructive to innovation. That in turn hurts consumers in
>> the end.
>> 
>> On the Google point, I respect that you disagree that Google's
>> offering in my hypothetical where it's bound to their own services
>> would not have been as good as open 20Mbps Internet access. I would
>> probably feel the same way. But that's not the point. The point is
>> that if Google came in OFFERING that, it would have been disruptive.
>> As long as customers had THE CHOICE of 1G content-controlled vs 20M
>> open (or whatever they had access to), then Google's offering is
>> only beneficial in the long run. The entrenched competitors would
>> need to up their game or lose at least some customers. They would
>> either increase their capacity and available bandwidth or tout the
>> benefits of their open access or something else or some combination.
>> That's how customers win from competition – it's not just price,
>> or just bandwidth, or just access freedom, or any one thing. It's
>> the unpredictable freedom to innovate and find new niches that
>> customers want to pay for. And the market is ALWAYS better at
>> determining which is the better value for customers. None of us as
>> individuals (as much as Xi Jinping might disagree) can out-predict
>> the crowd-sourcing power and wisdom of the entire free market.
>> 
>> I completely agree with you that my saying "it might have spawned
>> significant investment..." is speculative. The core of that is the
>> fundamental point of economics though: individuals making choices
>> for their own self-interest is what drives innovation and
>> advancement in a way that ultimately helps everyone. In other words,
>> the regulation would also have been speculative that it would help
>> more than not having that regulation. And it would have assumed BOTH
>> that innovation won't solve current problems AND that customers are
>> too stupid to choose the service that's of value to them.
>> 
>> Given a choice between speculating that future innovations might
>> solve problems or speculating that we're doomed without government
>> protection from companies who have not yet really done the
>> bad-Google-hypothetical-thing I described, I would much rather err
>> on the side of letting the market and innovation continue to run
>> with things. After all, that's what took the Internet from a
>> military and academic network into the most impactful economic force
>> of the past decades, and one infused by a culture of innovation and
>> entrepreneurship.
>> 
>> Tying that together with your point on the government policies
>> protecting local monopolies: Why did Verizon start to build FiOS?
>> Because they thought they could attract customers and earn a strong
>> profit by providing a better, faster Internet via FTTH. On paper,
>> this was a slam dunk. Why did they stop building it out? Because
>> they ran into too many localities who blocked them with legislative
>> and regulatory hurdles.
>> 
>> That FiOS example is one of the best case studies of exactly how
>> government regulation primarily stifles and harms end user
>> experience with respect to Internet access speeds.
>> 
>> I also agree with your concluding points that if carrier access were
>> regulated, business would do their thing, adapt, and find a way
>> forward. The world would not end. All true. No dispute on that.
>> However, I would say that if we look 20 or 50 or 100 years out, the
>> state of human communications and computing technology would be
>> further advanced in unpredictable ways by not removing some of those
>> axes of freedom from the entrepreneurs as they innovate. The gains
>> are only in the very short term. Protecting my Netflix access today
>> is nice, but getting 1Tbps access (or sub 0.1ms latency for
>> radically different levels of computation interactivity, or
>> something else we don't even realize matters yet) to be commonplace
>> in 20 years might be even better.
>> 
>> Taking all of the above together, this is why if we're looking for a
>> STARTING point (and to be fair to your points, maybe more would be
>> needed after that, but let's tackle the biggest, most indisputable
>> problem first), START with dismantling those government-protected
>> monopolies. Maybe, that will be enough. Given that
>> innovation-crushing regulations tend to grow and are rarely ever
>> retracted, better safe than sorry on this.
>> 
>> By the way, I say this as a guy on the content-providing side of the
>> problem. So, to the extent that I have business bias, it would be in
>> favor of forcing equal access. However, I also believe that the same
>> regulations that would force equal access today would also stymie
>> the development of 10G and 1T networks and beyond in the future (not
>> their engineering, but the actual commercial deployment).
>> Advancement and innovative growth occur when innovators and
>> entrepreneurs have the freedom of the open sky (with all the
>> confusion and wrong turns and failures that admittedly come with
>> that), not under a smothering tarp of regulation.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Colin
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 3:50 AM
>> To: Network Neutrality is back! Let´s make the technical aspects
>> heard this time! <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>> Cc: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
>> Subject: Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors
>> 
>> Hi Colin,
>> 
>>> On Oct 2, 2023, at 22:34, Colin_Higbie via Nnagain
>> <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> While product and service innovation often originates from pure
>> R&D or work performed in academic labs, in virtually all cases,
>> converting that into commercially viable products and services is
>> the result of profit incentives. A company won’t invest in doing
>> something new with attendant risks unless they can expect a return
>> on that investment greater than the alternatives (or they believe it
>> will provide strategic support to some other product or service).
>> For that reason, we want to be extremely careful about regulating
>> how companies can implement innovations, including the use of
>> potentially distasteful business practices. None of us who want to
>> see the Internet become better over time and more accessible should
>> want anything resembling NN regulation.
>> 
>> [SM] At its core NN regulations really just say that who is
>> selling internet access services is supposed to do exactly that and
>> not try to act as gate-keeper picking winners and losers. I might be
>> insufficiently creative here, but I do not think a simple "do not
>> discriminate" directive really restricts the space of potential
>> innovations in any meaningful way.
>> 
>>> The regulatory side of this is largely not a technical discussion
>> because future innovation, by definition, may exceed technical
>> considerations we can conceive of today.
>> 
>> [SM] Indded, prediction is hard, especially predictions
>> about the future ;)
>> 
>>> It's easy to conceive of examples where an ISP wants to prioritize
>> or penalize certain kinds of traffic. And while that may seem
>> superficially bad, it’s an important part of the very competition
>> that drives innovation and cost reductions over time. E.g., recall
>> when Google Fiber had been willing to install Gbps fiber in places
>> at a time when most of the rest of the country was struggling to get
>> 20Mbps connections. If Google had wanted to limit that to Google
>> services, that still might have been a boon to those customers.
>> 
>> [SM] I respectfully disagree, that would not have been
>> meaningful internet access. An unrestricted 20M internet access link
>> has more general utility that even a 10G gate-keeper only link (who
>> that gate-keeper is is irrelevant). (I am not saying the 20M would
>> be without issues)
>> 
>>> Further, it could have shown the uses and values of what was then
>> considered limitless bandwidth for a home or small business user.
>> 
>> [SM] Yeah, on that question we are still waiting even though
>>> = 1 Gbps services are not all that rare anymore. As far as I can
>> see it we still lack use-cases that strictly require fast links that
>> go above simple "more parallel" or "faster".
>> 
>>> Even though this would clearly have been in violation of the
>> tenets of NN, it would have provided important data that might have
>> spawned significant investment by others and advanced the state of
>> connectivity across the board.
>> 
>> [SM] This is purely speculative though, it might as well had
>> shown nothing of that kind by the sheer fact that google fiber
>> roll-out was so small as to be not representative of anything, no?
>> 
>>> 
>>> I know the counter argument to this is that local ISP monopolies
>> already break innovation, and those companies, especially the big
>> cable companies, therefore have no incentive to provide a good
>> service. I largely agree with that (there is still some small
>> incentive, in that if they are too terrible, customer outcry will
>> turn to voter outcry and demand breaking those monopolies, and they
>> don’t want to risk that).
>>> 
>>> Therefore, the legal issue to address is NOT how they treat or
>> prioritize data, whether by content or protocol – which they
>> should be allowed to do, EVEN WHEN IT’S BAD FOR CUSTOMERS – but,
>> at least referring to the U.S. specifically with our federal/state
>> system, to put federal limits on durations of regional monopoly
>> durations. I believe this is within the scope of what FCC can
>> mandate (some would debate this and it may take the courts to sort
>> it out). These need not be purely # of years, they can be a function
>> of time to recoup deployment costs. If a company negotiated a local
>> monopoly as part of covering their deployment costs, I would
>> personally say that they should be given an opportunity to recoup
>> those, but then after that, they need to open up their lines for use
>> by competing firms, similar to what happened with the RBOCs and the
>> old telephone lines.
>> 
>> [SM] The problem is that access networks often are not legal
>> monopolies, but natural monopolies where if company A has a
>> high-speed capable network deployed it becomes economically
>> unattractive for other companies to deploy their own network (the
>> competitor can torpedo such a deployment by lowering prices such
>> that too few customers change to make the whole thing stay in the
>> "loss" region for a long time). So leaving the access network to
>> market players will always result in the incentive to monetize the
>> gate-keeper role that is inherent in the network's structure.
>> One solution to this problem (not the only one) is to put the access
>> network into the public hands, like other important infrastructure.
>> The idea would then be like in Amsterdam, Zuerich and a few other
>> places to have a local access network provider that in turn
>> "concentrates" access links in COs local IXs where interested ISPs
>> con connect to and then offer all end-users in that access network
>> internet access services. That still leaves the natural monopoly of
>> the access network untouched, but puts it under management of en
>> entity that is not likely to exploit this (as fully as private
>> entities are).
>> This is however pretty orthogonal to direct NN concerns, and
>> I am sure not a generally accepted model. (Say if I would be
>> operating a small ISP and would differentiate myself by how well I
>> manage my access network, I likely would detest such ideas, and if I
>> would operate a big ISP I would detest them for other reasons ;) so
>> this is ver end-user centric and also relies on some modicum of
>> faith in local government)
>> 
>>> This is also the legal logic behind patents: give a company a 20
>> year monopoly on the invention in exchange for making it public to
>> everyone and showing them how to do it (the patent must provide
>> clear instructions). We deem the temporary monopoly worthwhile to
>> incent the innovation, provided the inventor makes it public. This
>> is the right philosophy to consider for something like bandwidth
>> innovation, investment, and access.
>>> 
>>> In short, with ISP’s the open-ended government protected
>> monopolies are the problem,
>> 
>> [SM] Again these often are not legal monopolies where nobody
>> else is permitted to build a competing network, but natural
>> monopolies where the expected return of investment falls with the
>> number of already existing networks, while the cost stays constant.
>> AND the number of ISPs tgat might actually bite the bullet and set
>> diggers in motion is still so small that in the end, we might change
>> from a monopoly to an oligopoly situation, bith are regimes in which
>> the free market does not really deliver on its promises.
>> 
>>> not the providers’ ability to overcharge customers or prioritize
>> some data over others. Competition will fix that over time, as long
>> as competition is allowed to occur. And while it may be faster to
>> force it through regulation, that has dangerous long-term
>> consequences with respect to future innovation.
>> 
>> [SM] Yes, meaningful competition could help, but IMHO an
>> oligopoly likely would not result in meaningful enough competition.
>> This is where the access network in public hand ideas comes in, it
>> makes the cost to enter a market for ISPs relatively cheap, they
>> really only need to pull/rent fibers to the local IX and maybe
>> deploy OLTs/DSLAMs/CMTSs there (depending) on the local network
>> tech, and can start offer services, without having to deal with the
>> access network.
>> 
>>> Starlink is one example of innovation. FTTH is another.
>> Cellular-based Internet is another.
>> 
>> [SM] All of which are orthogonal to NN regulations, neither
>> depended on violating the "do not discriminate" rule, no?
>> 
>>> Simply buying bulk access on existing lines and repackaging it
>> under different terms could be yet another. Those all seem obvious,
>> because they’re the ones we know. The real danger in unforeseen
>> consequences is the dampening effect NN-style regulations have on
>> yet-to-be-seen innovations, the innovations that never come to
>> fruition because of the regulations.
>> 
>> [SM] I claim that rules and regulations always set the stage
>> for which business decisions are acceptable/profitable and which are
>> not, that is true whether we add the NN mandates to the mix or not,
>> so I really do not see how these will have a meaningful influence on
>> future expected innovation (unless that innovation really is all
>> about active discrimination, but in that case I see no real loss).
>> 
>> Side-note: The thing is "discrimination" is still permitted under
>> most NN rules, as long as it is under active control of the
>> end-users, not the ISP. So I am sure some end-users would appreciate
>> an "prioritize vide conferencing and VoIP over video streaming and
>> gaming under load" option offered by their ISP and might even be
>> willing to pay a little, as long as the end user can toggle this
>> option at will it will not be subject to NN regulations as far as I
>> understand. This clearly leaves some innovation space available even
>> for active discrimination.
>> 
>> Regards
>> Sebastian
>> 
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Colin Higbie
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Nnagain mailing list
> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain

Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors

[David Lang]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 22926 bytes --]

I think just about everyone here is reluctant to involve regulators. It's 
important to recognize that we aren't the ones bringing to topic up, we are 
reacting to it coming up again and wanting to get the best possible results from 
whatever regulations end up in place rather than just saying 'there should be no 
regulations' (there's not much to discuss with that stance)

It's an unfortunate fact of reality that the enviornment in the US is one where 
there is very little competition in the ISP space, even (especially??) in the 
built-up areas and that many of the players in the space have a history of 'not 
playing well with others'. We've tried the voluntary groups, technical 
recommendations, and even public shaming with little success (not no success, 
they have backed down from some of their worst behavior, at least a bit).

David Lang


On Wed, 4 Oct 2023, Colin_Higbie via Nnagain wrote:

> I suspect we are all after similar long-term goals – open access to as many people as possible with performance metrics that users appreciate (as opposed to raw bandwidth marketing claims that can mask buffer bloat problems).
>
> What I fear many here are missing in this discussion is the damage regulations cause. There is an assumption in this response that humans can architect rational legislation that will make things better. The preponderance of evidence is that regulations don’t do that. They serve as a starting point for a new bureaucracy that grows, taxes, and crushes innovation out of whatever is being regulated. Because politics.
>
> I agree that there are cases where regulation is needed, because the market can’t drive the same effect because it’s too easy to push the costs elsewhere (e.g., pollution). I agree that there are historic cases where regulations have helped make things better (like with some public safety measures).
>
> What I urge is we recognize that there should be a very high bar for regulations. In this case, where there is negligible evidence they are needed, we are nowhere near that bar. Absent a critical need, we are better served, at least in the long-run, in letting the market fight it out. This will no doubt lead to some bad outcomes for some people, primarily investors who back the wrong horses, but also some customers who end up with less performant connections. However, that free-for-all drives things forward en-masse and the poor options die off. That’s the product and service evolution, or Darwinism if you prefer, that drives optimal outcomes. Faith in someone’s intelligent design (no matter how good you think it is) will not yield positive results, or at least not as positive in the long-run. Even if it starts out well, it will get twisted by political horse trading and bureaucratic control into something worse than you envision, never better.
>
> Now, if you want to talk about forming a voluntary organization to make technical recommendations and perhaps standardize some language (like the Wi-Fi and USB consortiums), I think that’s fine and would support that fully. If done well (e.g., the latest USB C was not, with a lot of uncertainty around what USB C means and unlabeled cables more than the connectors determining power delivery capacity and bandwidth), the language around this and a standard means of testing and communicating bandwidth, latency, buffer bloat, etc. assists the better solutions to dominate in the market.
>
> I also support legislation specifically around busting the regional and local monopoly contracts that cable companies use. Those currently prevent much of the competition that I embrace as the rapid driver for commercial improvement.
>
> Cheers,
> Colin
>
>
> From: dan <dandenson@gmail.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 5:41 PM
> To: Network Neutrality is back! Let´s make the technical aspects heard this time! <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> Cc: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>; Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
> Subject: Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors
>
> I know we're well off on a tangent here, but it's all somewhat related.  The competitive landscape really dictates how much regulation needs to be involved.  The less the competition, the more the government needs to take a roll to keep that small pool or single vendor in check.  Government really must take a regulatory rule here in my opinion because there are bad actors and so much of America relies on them for mediocre services.
>
> The who's and how of previous monopolies really do matter because we can't take a true lesson if we don't have the facts.  I continue to stand by my stance that the virtual monopolies in many markets is why we really need NN or near-NN and soon.  I do really appreciate everyone's perspectives though.  Lots of great stuff here.
>
> The problem I see is that from my perspective, we need a 2 pronged attack.  As Gene says above, presenting a post analysed solution to the powers that be might be helpful.
> prong 1 is to clarify what NN is in legal terms and build transparency in.  If a service is NN they can choose to say so, if they are not they have to say they are not.  I might lose this battle and all services may have to be NN, IDK, I'm just presenting my thoughts.  That's the main purpose of this thread but I think a lot of members of the mailing list also have an interest in the second:
> prong 2 is to identify 'what went wrong and how to fix it'.  Why do so many people have poor service when we have so much infrastructure?  No access.  As an operator in multiple states I assure you all that access to existing fibers that were built by government money is minimum, even at splice huts getting services can be impossible.  I literally ran fiber through my current service area on contract in the late 90's that I cannot purchase services off of today. it sits there dark.  I know it's there, I feel like I still have the blisters.  I would suggest the microIX somehow, maybe pushing for schools to have a microIX hanging off of them or city halls or something.  Heck, the schools could get 100G and x dark fibers delivered to the nearest IX and let them sell ports off of that for a tariffed rate.  I'm sure we could come up with 2 dozen all for the public good models to get microIXs all over the place to solve this.  I promise that access to high capacity data will spur competi
 tion like crazy.  We have a school in our area that we didn't bid out but has a 100M fixed wireless link from a competitor as their only service and word on the street is that it doesn't deliver.  It's crazy.
>
> On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 2:26 PM Colin_Higbie via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net<mailto:nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net>> wrote:
> Sebastian,
>
> Good points and thanks for the conversation. I agree with you on the INTENT of the NN regulations as proposed and that most of the non-content provider supporters had what you stated as the goal. However, the money driving the politicians, paying for those ads and social media campaigns, etc. came from the content providers who wanted government support and protection. This doesn't make the carriers right (or wrong), just know that the big supporters were the content providers and for obvious business reasons – they wanted to get their content to customers for free.
>
> There are plenty of good and valid arguments on both sides that issue, but history shows that in the long run, government interference in the form of controlling regulations on what business may and may not do with each other, outside matters of public safety and perhaps establishing and mandating some measuring standards, is always destructive to innovation. That in turn hurts consumers in the end.
>
> On the Google point, I respect that you disagree that Google's offering in my hypothetical where it's bound to their own services would not have been as good as open 20Mbps Internet access. I would probably feel the same way. But that's not the point. The point is that if Google came in OFFERING that, it would have been disruptive. As long as customers had THE CHOICE of 1G content-controlled vs 20M open (or whatever they had access to), then Google's offering is only beneficial in the long run. The entrenched competitors would need to up their game or lose at least some customers. They would either increase their capacity and available bandwidth or tout the benefits of their open access or something else or some combination. That's how customers win from competition – it's not just price, or just bandwidth, or just access freedom, or any one thing. It's the unpredictable freedom to innovate and find new niches that customers want to pay for. And the market is ALWAYS better at det
 ermining which is the better value for customers. None of us as individuals (as much as Xi Jinping might disagree) can out-predict the crowd-sourcing power and wisdom of the entire free market.
>
> I completely agree with you that my saying "it might have spawned significant investment..." is speculative. The core of that is the fundamental point of economics though: individuals making choices for their own self-interest is what drives innovation and advancement in a way that ultimately helps everyone. In other words, the regulation would also have been speculative that it would help more than not having that regulation. And it would have assumed BOTH that innovation won't solve current problems AND that customers are too stupid to choose the service that's of value to them.
>
> Given a choice between speculating that future innovations might solve problems or speculating that we're doomed without government protection from companies who have not yet really done the bad-Google-hypothetical-thing I described, I would much rather err on the side of letting the market and innovation continue to run with things. After all, that's what took the Internet from a military and academic network into the most impactful economic force of the past decades, and one infused by a culture of innovation and entrepreneurship.
>
> Tying that together with your point on the government policies protecting local monopolies: Why did Verizon start to build FiOS? Because they thought they could attract customers and earn a strong profit by providing a better, faster Internet via FTTH. On paper, this was a slam dunk. Why did they stop building it out? Because they ran into too many localities who blocked them with legislative and regulatory hurdles.
>
> That FiOS example is one of the best case studies of exactly how government regulation primarily stifles and harms end user experience with respect to Internet access speeds.
>
> I also agree with your concluding points that if carrier access were regulated, business would do their thing, adapt, and find a way forward. The world would not end. All true. No dispute on that. However, I would say that if we look 20 or 50 or 100 years out, the state of human communications and computing technology would be further advanced in unpredictable ways by not removing some of those axes of freedom from the entrepreneurs as they innovate. The gains are only in the very short term. Protecting my Netflix access today is nice, but getting 1Tbps access (or sub 0.1ms latency for radically different levels of computation interactivity, or something else we don't even realize matters yet) to be commonplace in 20 years might be even better.
>
> Taking all of the above together, this is why if we're looking for a STARTING point (and to be fair to your points, maybe more would be needed after that, but let's tackle the biggest, most indisputable problem first), START with dismantling those government-protected monopolies. Maybe, that will be enough. Given that innovation-crushing regulations tend to grow and are rarely ever retracted, better safe than sorry on this.
>
> By the way, I say this as a guy on the content-providing side of the problem. So, to the extent that I have business bias, it would be in favor of forcing equal access. However, I also believe that the same regulations that would force equal access today would also stymie the development of 10G and 1T networks and beyond in the future (not their engineering, but the actual commercial deployment). Advancement and innovative growth occur when innovators and entrepreneurs have the freedom of the open sky (with all the confusion and wrong turns and failures that admittedly come with that), not under a smothering tarp of regulation.
>
> Cheers,
> Colin
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de<mailto:moeller0@gmx.de>>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 3:50 AM
> To: Network Neutrality is back! Let´s make the technical aspects heard this time! <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net<mailto:nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net>>
> Cc: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name<mailto:CHigbie1@Higbie.name>>
> Subject: Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors
>
> Hi Colin,
>
>> On Oct 2, 2023, at 22:34, Colin_Higbie via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net<mailto:nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net>> wrote:
>>
>> While product and service innovation often originates from pure R&D or work performed in academic labs, in virtually all cases, converting that into commercially viable products and services is the result of profit incentives. A company won’t invest in doing something new with attendant risks unless they can expect a return on that investment greater than the alternatives (or they believe it will provide strategic support to some other product or service). For that reason, we want to be extremely careful about regulating how companies can implement innovations, including the use of potentially distasteful business practices. None of us who want to see the Internet become better over time and more accessible should want anything resembling NN regulation.
>
>        [SM] At its core NN regulations really just say that who is selling internet access services is supposed to do exactly that and not try to act as gate-keeper picking winners and losers. I might be insufficiently creative here, but I do not think a simple "do not discriminate" directive really restricts the space of potential innovations in any meaningful way.
>
>
>> The regulatory side of this is largely not a technical discussion because future innovation, by definition, may exceed technical considerations we can conceive of today.
>
>        [SM] Indded, prediction is hard, especially predictions about the future ;)
>
>
>> It's easy to conceive of examples where an ISP wants to prioritize or penalize certain kinds of traffic. And while that may seem superficially bad, it’s an important part of the very competition that drives innovation and cost reductions over time. E.g., recall when Google Fiber had been willing to install Gbps fiber in places at a time when most of the rest of the country was struggling to get 20Mbps connections. If Google had wanted to limit that to Google services, that still might have been a boon to those customers.
>
>        [SM] I respectfully disagree, that would not have been meaningful internet access. An unrestricted 20M internet access link has more general utility that even a 10G gate-keeper only link (who that gate-keeper is is irrelevant). (I am not saying the 20M would be without issues)
>
>
>> Further, it could have shown the uses and values of what was then considered limitless bandwidth for a home or small business user.
>
>        [SM] Yeah, on that question we are still waiting even though >= 1 Gbps services are not all that rare anymore. As far as I can see it we still lack use-cases that strictly require fast links that go above simple "more parallel" or "faster".
>
>
>> Even though this would clearly have been in violation of the tenets of NN, it would have provided important data that might have spawned significant investment by others and advanced the state of connectivity across the board.
>
>        [SM] This is purely speculative though, it might as well had shown nothing of that kind by the sheer fact that google fiber roll-out was so small as to be not representative of anything, no?
>
>>
>> I know the counter argument to this is that local ISP monopolies already break innovation, and those companies, especially the big cable companies, therefore have no incentive to provide a good service. I largely agree with that (there is still some small incentive, in that if they are too terrible, customer outcry will turn to voter outcry and demand breaking those monopolies, and they don’t want to risk that).
>>
>> Therefore, the legal issue to address is NOT how they treat or prioritize data, whether by content or protocol – which they should be allowed to do, EVEN WHEN IT’S BAD FOR CUSTOMERS – but, at least referring to the U.S. specifically with our federal/state system, to put federal limits on durations of regional monopoly durations. I believe this is within the scope of what FCC can mandate (some would debate this and it may take the courts to sort it out). These need not be purely # of years, they can be a function of time to recoup deployment costs. If a company negotiated a local monopoly as part of covering their deployment costs, I would personally say that they should be given an opportunity to recoup those, but then after that, they need to open up their lines for use by competing firms, similar to what happened with the RBOCs and the old telephone lines.
>
>        [SM] The problem is that access networks often are not legal monopolies, but natural monopolies where if company A has a high-speed capable network deployed it becomes economically unattractive for other companies to deploy their own network (the competitor can torpedo such a deployment by lowering prices such that too few customers change to make the whole thing stay in the "loss" region for a long time). So leaving the access network to market players will always result in the incentive to monetize the gate-keeper role that is inherent in the network's structure.
> One solution to this problem (not the only one) is to put the access network into the public hands, like other important infrastructure. The idea would then be like in Amsterdam, Zuerich and a few other places to have a local access network provider that in turn "concentrates" access links in COs local IXs where interested ISPs con connect to and then offer all end-users in that access network internet access services. That still leaves the natural monopoly of the access network untouched, but puts it under management of en entity that is not likely to exploit this (as fully as private entities are).
>        This is however pretty orthogonal to direct NN concerns, and I am sure not a generally accepted model. (Say if I would be operating a small ISP and would differentiate myself by how well I manage my access network, I likely would detest such ideas, and if I would operate a big ISP I would detest them for other reasons ;) so this is ver end-user centric and also relies on some modicum of faith in local government)
>
>
>> This is also the legal logic behind patents: give a company a 20 year monopoly on the invention in exchange for making it public to everyone and showing them how to do it (the patent must provide clear instructions). We deem the temporary monopoly worthwhile to incent the innovation, provided the inventor makes it public. This is the right philosophy to consider for something like bandwidth innovation, investment, and access.
>>
>> In short, with ISP’s the open-ended government protected monopolies are the problem,
>
>        [SM] Again these often are not legal monopolies where nobody else is permitted to build a competing network, but natural monopolies where the expected return of investment falls with the number of already existing networks, while the cost stays constant. AND the number of ISPs tgat might actually bite the bullet and set diggers in motion is still so small that in the end, we might change from a monopoly to an oligopoly situation, bith are regimes in which the free market does not really deliver on its promises.
>
>
>> not the providers’ ability to overcharge customers or prioritize some data over others. Competition will fix that over time, as long as competition is allowed to occur. And while it may be faster to force it through regulation, that has dangerous long-term consequences with respect to future innovation.
>
>        [SM] Yes, meaningful competition could help, but IMHO an oligopoly likely would not result in meaningful enough competition. This is where the access network in public hand ideas comes in, it makes the cost to enter a market for ISPs relatively cheap, they really only need to pull/rent fibers to the local IX and maybe deploy OLTs/DSLAMs/CMTSs there (depending) on the local network tech, and can start offer services, without having to deal with the access network.
>
>> Starlink is one example of innovation. FTTH is another. Cellular-based Internet is another.
>
>        [SM] All of which are orthogonal to NN regulations, neither depended on violating the "do not discriminate" rule, no?
>
>
>> Simply buying bulk access on existing lines and repackaging it under different terms could be yet another. Those all seem obvious, because they’re the ones we know. The real danger in unforeseen consequences is the dampening effect NN-style regulations have on yet-to-be-seen innovations, the innovations that never come to fruition because of the regulations.
>
>        [SM] I claim that rules and regulations always set the stage for which business decisions are acceptable/profitable and which are not, that is true whether we add the NN mandates to the mix or not, so I really do not see how these will have a meaningful influence on future expected innovation (unless that innovation really is all about active discrimination, but in that case I see no real loss).
>
> Side-note: The thing is "discrimination" is still permitted under most NN rules, as long as it is under active control of the end-users, not the ISP. So I am sure some end-users would appreciate an "prioritize vide conferencing and VoIP over video streaming and gaming under load" option offered by their ISP and might even be willing to pay a little, as long as the end user can toggle this option at will it will not be subject to NN regulations as far as I understand. This clearly leaves some innovation space available even for active discrimination.
>
> Regards
>        Sebastian
>
>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Colin Higbie
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Nnagain mailing list
>> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net<mailto:Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
>
> _______________________________________________
> Nnagain mailing list
> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net<mailto:Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
>

Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors

[Colin_Higbie]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 21965 bytes --]

I suspect we are all after similar long-term goals – open access to as many people as possible with performance metrics that users appreciate (as opposed to raw bandwidth marketing claims that can mask buffer bloat problems).

What I fear many here are missing in this discussion is the damage regulations cause. There is an assumption in this response that humans can architect rational legislation that will make things better. The preponderance of evidence is that regulations don’t do that. They serve as a starting point for a new bureaucracy that grows, taxes, and crushes innovation out of whatever is being regulated. Because politics.

I agree that there are cases where regulation is needed, because the market can’t drive the same effect because it’s too easy to push the costs elsewhere (e.g., pollution). I agree that there are historic cases where regulations have helped make things better (like with some public safety measures).

What I urge is we recognize that there should be a very high bar for regulations. In this case, where there is negligible evidence they are needed, we are nowhere near that bar. Absent a critical need, we are better served, at least in the long-run, in letting the market fight it out. This will no doubt lead to some bad outcomes for some people, primarily investors who back the wrong horses, but also some customers who end up with less performant connections. However, that free-for-all drives things forward en-masse and the poor options die off. That’s the product and service evolution, or Darwinism if you prefer, that drives optimal outcomes. Faith in someone’s intelligent design (no matter how good you think it is) will not yield positive results, or at least not as positive in the long-run. Even if it starts out well, it will get twisted by political horse trading and bureaucratic control into something worse than you envision, never better.

Now, if you want to talk about forming a voluntary organization to make technical recommendations and perhaps standardize some language (like the Wi-Fi and USB consortiums), I think that’s fine and would support that fully. If done well (e.g., the latest USB C was not, with a lot of uncertainty around what USB C means and unlabeled cables more than the connectors determining power delivery capacity and bandwidth), the language around this and a standard means of testing and communicating bandwidth, latency, buffer bloat, etc. assists the better solutions to dominate in the market.

I also support legislation specifically around busting the regional and local monopoly contracts that cable companies use. Those currently prevent much of the competition that I embrace as the rapid driver for commercial improvement.

Cheers,
Colin


From: dan <dandenson@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 5:41 PM
To: Network Neutrality is back! Let´s make the technical aspects heard this time! <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Cc: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>; Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
Subject: Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors

I know we're well off on a tangent here, but it's all somewhat related.  The competitive landscape really dictates how much regulation needs to be involved.  The less the competition, the more the government needs to take a roll to keep that small pool or single vendor in check.  Government really must take a regulatory rule here in my opinion because there are bad actors and so much of America relies on them for mediocre services.

The who's and how of previous monopolies really do matter because we can't take a true lesson if we don't have the facts.  I continue to stand by my stance that the virtual monopolies in many markets is why we really need NN or near-NN and soon.  I do really appreciate everyone's perspectives though.  Lots of great stuff here.

The problem I see is that from my perspective, we need a 2 pronged attack.  As Gene says above, presenting a post analysed solution to the powers that be might be helpful.
prong 1 is to clarify what NN is in legal terms and build transparency in.  If a service is NN they can choose to say so, if they are not they have to say they are not.  I might lose this battle and all services may have to be NN, IDK, I'm just presenting my thoughts.  That's the main purpose of this thread but I think a lot of members of the mailing list also have an interest in the second:
prong 2 is to identify 'what went wrong and how to fix it'.  Why do so many people have poor service when we have so much infrastructure?  No access.  As an operator in multiple states I assure you all that access to existing fibers that were built by government money is minimum, even at splice huts getting services can be impossible.  I literally ran fiber through my current service area on contract in the late 90's that I cannot purchase services off of today. it sits there dark.  I know it's there, I feel like I still have the blisters.  I would suggest the microIX somehow, maybe pushing for schools to have a microIX hanging off of them or city halls or something.  Heck, the schools could get 100G and x dark fibers delivered to the nearest IX and let them sell ports off of that for a tariffed rate.  I'm sure we could come up with 2 dozen all for the public good models to get microIXs all over the place to solve this.  I promise that access to high capacity data will spur competition like crazy.  We have a school in our area that we didn't bid out but has a 100M fixed wireless link from a competitor as their only service and word on the street is that it doesn't deliver.  It's crazy.

On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 2:26 PM Colin_Higbie via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net<mailto:nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net>> wrote:
Sebastian,

Good points and thanks for the conversation. I agree with you on the INTENT of the NN regulations as proposed and that most of the non-content provider supporters had what you stated as the goal. However, the money driving the politicians, paying for those ads and social media campaigns, etc. came from the content providers who wanted government support and protection. This doesn't make the carriers right (or wrong), just know that the big supporters were the content providers and for obvious business reasons – they wanted to get their content to customers for free.

There are plenty of good and valid arguments on both sides that issue, but history shows that in the long run, government interference in the form of controlling regulations on what business may and may not do with each other, outside matters of public safety and perhaps establishing and mandating some measuring standards, is always destructive to innovation. That in turn hurts consumers in the end.

On the Google point, I respect that you disagree that Google's offering in my hypothetical where it's bound to their own services would not have been as good as open 20Mbps Internet access. I would probably feel the same way. But that's not the point. The point is that if Google came in OFFERING that, it would have been disruptive. As long as customers had THE CHOICE of 1G content-controlled vs 20M open (or whatever they had access to), then Google's offering is only beneficial in the long run. The entrenched competitors would need to up their game or lose at least some customers. They would either increase their capacity and available bandwidth or tout the benefits of their open access or something else or some combination. That's how customers win from competition – it's not just price, or just bandwidth, or just access freedom, or any one thing. It's the unpredictable freedom to innovate and find new niches that customers want to pay for. And the market is ALWAYS better at determining which is the better value for customers. None of us as individuals (as much as Xi Jinping might disagree) can out-predict the crowd-sourcing power and wisdom of the entire free market.

I completely agree with you that my saying "it might have spawned significant investment..." is speculative. The core of that is the fundamental point of economics though: individuals making choices for their own self-interest is what drives innovation and advancement in a way that ultimately helps everyone. In other words, the regulation would also have been speculative that it would help more than not having that regulation. And it would have assumed BOTH that innovation won't solve current problems AND that customers are too stupid to choose the service that's of value to them.

Given a choice between speculating that future innovations might solve problems or speculating that we're doomed without government protection from companies who have not yet really done the bad-Google-hypothetical-thing I described, I would much rather err on the side of letting the market and innovation continue to run with things. After all, that's what took the Internet from a military and academic network into the most impactful economic force of the past decades, and one infused by a culture of innovation and entrepreneurship.

Tying that together with your point on the government policies protecting local monopolies: Why did Verizon start to build FiOS? Because they thought they could attract customers and earn a strong profit by providing a better, faster Internet via FTTH. On paper, this was a slam dunk. Why did they stop building it out? Because they ran into too many localities who blocked them with legislative and regulatory hurdles.

That FiOS example is one of the best case studies of exactly how government regulation primarily stifles and harms end user experience with respect to Internet access speeds.

I also agree with your concluding points that if carrier access were regulated, business would do their thing, adapt, and find a way forward. The world would not end. All true. No dispute on that. However, I would say that if we look 20 or 50 or 100 years out, the state of human communications and computing technology would be further advanced in unpredictable ways by not removing some of those axes of freedom from the entrepreneurs as they innovate. The gains are only in the very short term. Protecting my Netflix access today is nice, but getting 1Tbps access (or sub 0.1ms latency for radically different levels of computation interactivity, or something else we don't even realize matters yet) to be commonplace in 20 years might be even better.

Taking all of the above together, this is why if we're looking for a STARTING point (and to be fair to your points, maybe more would be needed after that, but let's tackle the biggest, most indisputable problem first), START with dismantling those government-protected monopolies. Maybe, that will be enough. Given that innovation-crushing regulations tend to grow and are rarely ever retracted, better safe than sorry on this.

By the way, I say this as a guy on the content-providing side of the problem. So, to the extent that I have business bias, it would be in favor of forcing equal access. However, I also believe that the same regulations that would force equal access today would also stymie the development of 10G and 1T networks and beyond in the future (not their engineering, but the actual commercial deployment). Advancement and innovative growth occur when innovators and entrepreneurs have the freedom of the open sky (with all the confusion and wrong turns and failures that admittedly come with that), not under a smothering tarp of regulation.

Cheers,
Colin


-----Original Message-----
From: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de<mailto:moeller0@gmx.de>>
Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 3:50 AM
To: Network Neutrality is back! Let´s make the technical aspects heard this time! <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net<mailto:nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net>>
Cc: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name<mailto:CHigbie1@Higbie.name>>
Subject: Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors

Hi Colin,

> On Oct 2, 2023, at 22:34, Colin_Higbie via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net<mailto:nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net>> wrote:
>
> While product and service innovation often originates from pure R&D or work performed in academic labs, in virtually all cases, converting that into commercially viable products and services is the result of profit incentives. A company won’t invest in doing something new with attendant risks unless they can expect a return on that investment greater than the alternatives (or they believe it will provide strategic support to some other product or service). For that reason, we want to be extremely careful about regulating how companies can implement innovations, including the use of potentially distasteful business practices. None of us who want to see the Internet become better over time and more accessible should want anything resembling NN regulation.

        [SM] At its core NN regulations really just say that who is selling internet access services is supposed to do exactly that and not try to act as gate-keeper picking winners and losers. I might be insufficiently creative here, but I do not think a simple "do not discriminate" directive really restricts the space of potential innovations in any meaningful way.


> The regulatory side of this is largely not a technical discussion because future innovation, by definition, may exceed technical considerations we can conceive of today.

        [SM] Indded, prediction is hard, especially predictions about the future ;)


> It's easy to conceive of examples where an ISP wants to prioritize or penalize certain kinds of traffic. And while that may seem superficially bad, it’s an important part of the very competition that drives innovation and cost reductions over time. E.g., recall when Google Fiber had been willing to install Gbps fiber in places at a time when most of the rest of the country was struggling to get 20Mbps connections. If Google had wanted to limit that to Google services, that still might have been a boon to those customers.

        [SM] I respectfully disagree, that would not have been meaningful internet access. An unrestricted 20M internet access link has more general utility that even a 10G gate-keeper only link (who that gate-keeper is is irrelevant). (I am not saying the 20M would be without issues)


> Further, it could have shown the uses and values of what was then considered limitless bandwidth for a home or small business user.

        [SM] Yeah, on that question we are still waiting even though >= 1 Gbps services are not all that rare anymore. As far as I can see it we still lack use-cases that strictly require fast links that go above simple "more parallel" or "faster".


> Even though this would clearly have been in violation of the tenets of NN, it would have provided important data that might have spawned significant investment by others and advanced the state of connectivity across the board.

        [SM] This is purely speculative though, it might as well had shown nothing of that kind by the sheer fact that google fiber roll-out was so small as to be not representative of anything, no?

>
> I know the counter argument to this is that local ISP monopolies already break innovation, and those companies, especially the big cable companies, therefore have no incentive to provide a good service. I largely agree with that (there is still some small incentive, in that if they are too terrible, customer outcry will turn to voter outcry and demand breaking those monopolies, and they don’t want to risk that).
>
> Therefore, the legal issue to address is NOT how they treat or prioritize data, whether by content or protocol – which they should be allowed to do, EVEN WHEN IT’S BAD FOR CUSTOMERS – but, at least referring to the U.S. specifically with our federal/state system, to put federal limits on durations of regional monopoly durations. I believe this is within the scope of what FCC can mandate (some would debate this and it may take the courts to sort it out). These need not be purely # of years, they can be a function of time to recoup deployment costs. If a company negotiated a local monopoly as part of covering their deployment costs, I would personally say that they should be given an opportunity to recoup those, but then after that, they need to open up their lines for use by competing firms, similar to what happened with the RBOCs and the old telephone lines.

        [SM] The problem is that access networks often are not legal monopolies, but natural monopolies where if company A has a high-speed capable network deployed it becomes economically unattractive for other companies to deploy their own network (the competitor can torpedo such a deployment by lowering prices such that too few customers change to make the whole thing stay in the "loss" region for a long time). So leaving the access network to market players will always result in the incentive to monetize the gate-keeper role that is inherent in the network's structure.
One solution to this problem (not the only one) is to put the access network into the public hands, like other important infrastructure. The idea would then be like in Amsterdam, Zuerich and a few other places to have a local access network provider that in turn "concentrates" access links in COs local IXs where interested ISPs con connect to and then offer all end-users in that access network internet access services. That still leaves the natural monopoly of the access network untouched, but puts it under management of en entity that is not likely to exploit this (as fully as private entities are).
        This is however pretty orthogonal to direct NN concerns, and I am sure not a generally accepted model. (Say if I would be operating a small ISP and would differentiate myself by how well I manage my access network, I likely would detest such ideas, and if I would operate a big ISP I would detest them for other reasons ;) so this is ver end-user centric and also relies on some modicum of faith in local government)


> This is also the legal logic behind patents: give a company a 20 year monopoly on the invention in exchange for making it public to everyone and showing them how to do it (the patent must provide clear instructions). We deem the temporary monopoly worthwhile to incent the innovation, provided the inventor makes it public. This is the right philosophy to consider for something like bandwidth innovation, investment, and access.
>
> In short, with ISP’s the open-ended government protected monopolies are the problem,

        [SM] Again these often are not legal monopolies where nobody else is permitted to build a competing network, but natural monopolies where the expected return of investment falls with the number of already existing networks, while the cost stays constant. AND the number of ISPs tgat might actually bite the bullet and set diggers in motion is still so small that in the end, we might change from a monopoly to an oligopoly situation, bith are regimes in which the free market does not really deliver on its promises.


> not the providers’ ability to overcharge customers or prioritize some data over others. Competition will fix that over time, as long as competition is allowed to occur. And while it may be faster to force it through regulation, that has dangerous long-term consequences with respect to future innovation.

        [SM] Yes, meaningful competition could help, but IMHO an oligopoly likely would not result in meaningful enough competition. This is where the access network in public hand ideas comes in, it makes the cost to enter a market for ISPs relatively cheap, they really only need to pull/rent fibers to the local IX and maybe deploy OLTs/DSLAMs/CMTSs there (depending) on the local network tech, and can start offer services, without having to deal with the access network.

> Starlink is one example of innovation. FTTH is another. Cellular-based Internet is another.

        [SM] All of which are orthogonal to NN regulations, neither depended on violating the "do not discriminate" rule, no?


> Simply buying bulk access on existing lines and repackaging it under different terms could be yet another. Those all seem obvious, because they’re the ones we know. The real danger in unforeseen consequences is the dampening effect NN-style regulations have on yet-to-be-seen innovations, the innovations that never come to fruition because of the regulations.

        [SM] I claim that rules and regulations always set the stage for which business decisions are acceptable/profitable and which are not, that is true whether we add the NN mandates to the mix or not, so I really do not see how these will have a meaningful influence on future expected innovation (unless that innovation really is all about active discrimination, but in that case I see no real loss).

Side-note: The thing is "discrimination" is still permitted under most NN rules, as long as it is under active control of the end-users, not the ISP. So I am sure some end-users would appreciate an "prioritize vide conferencing and VoIP over video streaming and gaming under load" option offered by their ISP and might even be willing to pay a little, as long as the end user can toggle this option at will it will not be subject to NN regulations as far as I understand. This clearly leaves some innovation space available even for active discrimination.

Regards
        Sebastian


>
> Cheers,
> Colin Higbie
>
> _______________________________________________
> Nnagain mailing list
> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net<mailto:Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain

_______________________________________________
Nnagain mailing list
Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net<mailto:Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net>
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 26263 bytes --]

Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors

[Sebastian Moeller]

Hi Mark,


> On Oct 4, 2023, at 01:17, Mark Steckel <mjs@phillywisper.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> ---- On Tue, 03 Oct 2023 16:26:24 -0400  Colin_Higbie via Nnagain  wrote --- 
> [snip...]
>> There are plenty of good and valid arguments on both sides that issue, but history shows that in the long run, government interference in the form of controlling regulations on what business may and may not do with each other, outside matters of public safety and perhaps establishing and mandating some measuring standards, is always destructive to innovation. That in turn hurts consumers in the end. 
> 
> I disagree with this on two dimensions:
> 
> 1) There are multiple ways to evalute outcomes and while innovation is important, it is not the only one to optimize for. What is best for the public may by necessity limit some forms of innovation. Wall Street has been "innovating" like crazy over the last 40+ years which has been extremely good for them, but not so much for the public.
> 
> 2) Antitrust law traditionally focused on the concentration of market power. Laws and regulations to minimize market consolidation and abuse of economic choke points is a good thing IMO. 
> 
> Over the last 40+ years, the original antitrust approach, thinking and enforcement switched to "consumer benefit" which focuses primarily on pricing to purchasers while largely ignoring market consolidation and power.

	[SM] This arguably was/is driven by an desire to work-around the existing regulations; as it turns out "consumer benefit" or "consumer harm" is hard to measure and even harder to root-cause back to acquisitions/mergers, so in a way this new focus really was never intended to reduce market consolidation, but to allow more of it. Whether one like's it or not, this approach was quite successful (in enabling more consolidation).


> This policy changed also impacted and expanded the range of permitted company mergers and acquisitions. If AT&T was not allowed to by Time-Warner, or Comcast to buy NBC, et al, the need to worry about ISPs self-dealing would be much less of an issue.

	[SM] Yes, yet even an ISP without its own media section still can offer paid prioritization for 3rd party content providers (see e.g. zero-rating of specific audio/video streaming services on mobile networks of some European carriers).


> 
> An example - The pharmaceutical industry prefers to innovate treatments over cures. Treatments generate recurring revenue, while cures generate a one time payment. What is best for the pharmaceutical industry is not always what is best for the public and human welfare.

	[SM] Great and scary example....

Regards
	Sebastian

[...]

Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors

[Sebastian Moeller]

Hi Dan,

please see [SM2] below...


> On Oct 2, 2023, at 18:29, dan <dandenson@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 1:28 AM Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de> wrote:
> Hi Dan,
> 
> 
> 
> > On Oct 2, 2023, at 03:34, dan via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> > 
> > I think a big problem with Net Neutrality is it's sort of a topic for providers and not for end users.
> 
>         [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.
> 
> 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' 

	[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)).


> 
>  
> >  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.
> 
>         [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. 

	[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.


>  
> 
> 
> > 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.
> 
>         [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.


> 
> >  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.  
> 
>         [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.
> 
> I agree, this one muddies the waters. 
> a) except that this can trigger other competitors, RDOF, BEAD, etc.  

	[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.  

	[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.
>  
	[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.


> 
> > 
> > I'm really a proponent of creating a competitive environment, not controlling the technical details of those products.
> 
>         [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.
> 
>         [SM] Again I fully endorse that, but feel that by itself would not be enough.
> 
> 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.  

	[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.


> 
> > 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.
> 
>         [SM] Interesting approach that I agree with, but again do not think it to be enough.
> 
> 
> > 
> > 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.
> 
>         [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. 

	[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? 


> 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. 
> 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) ;)


> 
> 
> 
> >  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.  
> 
>         [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 ;)

> 
> > I believe that transparency is the key here.
> 
>         [SM] THe EU actually agrees., an impoertant part of the NN-relevant EU regulation covers transparency.
> 
> 
> >  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....


> 
>         [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. 

	[SM2] I agree, also there will not be one-size-fits-all explanation here, different user sets can "digest" different level of detail.


> 
> 
> >  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.  
> 
>         [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. 

	[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.


> 
> > 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.
> 
>         [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.


>  
> 
> 
> > Now for my ISP version of this.
> 
>         [SM] And now it gets interesting ;)
> 
> 
> > 
> > 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.  
> 
>         [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.


> > 
> > 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.
> 
>         [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".
> 
> > 
> > End rant.
> 
>         [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).
> 
> Regards
>         Sebastian
> 
> 
> 
> 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. 

	[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.  

	[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).

Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors

[David Lang]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1106 bytes --]

On Tue, 3 Oct 2023, dan via Nnagain wrote:

>>> The U.S. railroads were natural monopolies. They were given massive land
>> grants to build out. They ran as private companies for about one century.
>> They lost their monopoly position after third generations who inherited
>> them used these monopolies to price guoge government during WWI and WWII.
>> That's part of the reason most DoT type govt agencies today are "roads &
>> airports" vs "roads, rail & airports." Rail has been re privatized and
>> under invested - perfect for Warren Buffett but no so good for everyone
>> else nor for the climate.
>>
> I don't know that this is an appropriate conclusion.  I don't think that
> any railroads were monopolies  until the government gave out land grants
> and monies to build those monopolies and now they are absolutely government
> backed monopolies.  Yes, railroads gouged for use of their lines, but that
> was more price collusion than monopoly.

They were monopolies within their area of operation pretty quickly. the time of 
railroads competing to the same places was extremely short

David Lang

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 146 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Nnagain mailing list
Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain

Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors

[David Lang]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 10394 bytes --]

like telephone, electricity, water, sewer and roads, there is so much 
infrastructure cost that scales on distance, rather than on number of customers 
(or even speed of service), Internet last-mile service is either a 'natural 
monopoly' or at the very least, a market where it's extremely hard for a new 
player to break in. There's no 'start out small and grow'

I've lived in fairly densly populated areas (LA suburbs) for the last few 
decades, and it's frequently been the case that I had no real choice of ISPs, or 
at best the choice between cablemodem and DSL (neither one very good) and I just 
had the local telco (separate from my ISP) shut off my DSL permanently yesterday 
because they don't want to support it any longer. My DSL took 2 phone lines to 
provide me with 8mb/1mb service (supposed to be 10/2 but wasn't reliable enough 
to actually do so, it also cost me $300/month). I'm literally in the middle of 
town and only a little over a mile away from what used to be the AT&T central 
switching facility before they were broken up.


I agree that the problem is lack of competition, I just don't see competition 
happening absent government intervention. Here, that may happen with municipal 
paid for fiber, we'll see how it goes. They were supposed to cover my area Q2 of 
2023, but now are saying 'spring 2024'

David Lang

  On Mon, 2 Oct 2023, Colin_Higbie via Nnagain wrote:

> Well, if that were the case, I believe that would support my thesis: the problem is lack of competition. The reason for the lack of competition is a mix of local contracts and legislative problems. Especially in more rural areas, one can understand how getting a cable company to build out the infrastructure may have required a promise of exclusivity – otherwise, they would not have been willing to incur the substantial cost of building out the capacity, especially in a low-density area. As the smaller local cable companies were acquired by the modern behemoths, they maintained the monopolistic control over those regions. Some do automatically time-out to allow competition eventually. Many do not.
>
> In reality, there are alternatives in most places, just not generally very good alternatives:
>
> DSL is available in most places (I suspect more broadly available that cable Internet). Unfortunately, and I suspect many here can speak more knowledgeably than I on the underlying technology, DSL is often limited to lower speeds than the cable offerings, due to its extreme distance sensitivity and relatively short range. Where I live, I had 3 DSL lines and dual T1's combined via SD-WAN as the only way to get sufficient bandwidth for video conferencing from home until Starlink came along and saved the day at a fraction of the cost. There is no cable option here – we're too rural to be worth a cable company's efforts. On the other hand, in addition to DSL we also have another wired option: our electric company is running Gbps fiber all over rural parts of NH now, which should become available here in another 1-2 months.
>
> Just north of Philly, I had FiOS fiber as an option in addition to traditional cable. When that arrived, anecdotally, I can report that cable customers talked about her their service improved too (due to the competition, I am confident).
>
> And obviously not wired (to your point), but cellular connectivity is also available in most places that support cable. Starlink, and other wireless options also exist and may benefit from being able to limit certain kinds of traffic.
>
> My point is more general than these specifics though. I caution against regulating an industry where we depend on innovation to radically improve performance over the upcoming decades. Forcing specific behavior will slow the pace of innovation on connectivity infrastructure. To be fair, it may speed certain other areas of innovation or help with customer experience around streaming services. These were the original champions of NN, because it's to their benefit, at the cost of the carriers.
>
> Again, the problem is with the forced monopolies for cable service. Break that up and history shows that the rest will largely solve itself. Not immediately (which is why Google and Netflix pushed the original NN model rather than busting the regional carrier exclusive locks), but in way that's stronger in the long-run.
>
> Or, to put it another way, the original NN push (not suggesting that's what anyone's doing here) would have just been the US government choosing one set of companies to support over another.
>
> Cheers,
> Colin
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rjmcmahon <rjmcmahon@rjmcmahon.com>
> Sent: Monday, October 2, 2023 5:08 PM
> To: Network Neutrality is back! Let´s make the technical aspects heard this time! <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> Cc: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
> Subject: Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors
>
> I see it quite differently. The cable cos in the U.S. are the primary
> (only?) companies providing wired access.  The common carriage fixed wires co and their regulators abandoned communities to go to FWA as Noam predicted in 1994. (They turned off my, 48V battery backed up in the CO, landline without even letting me know. No 911, no dial tone, no
> nothing.)
>
> I think waveguides, e.g. fiber, to and inside premises are the only long term answer and we seem to keep bashing the companies actually helping.
>
> Bob
>> While product and service innovation often originates from pure R&D or
>> work performed in academic labs, in virtually all cases, converting
>> that into commercially viable products and services is the result of
>> profit incentives. A company won’t invest in doing something new with
>> attendant risks unless they can expect a return on that investment
>> greater than the alternatives (or they believe it will provide
>> strategic support to some other product or service). For that reason,
>> we want to be extremely careful about regulating how companies can
>> implement innovations, including the use of potentially distasteful
>> business practices. None of us who want to see the Internet become
>> better over time and more accessible should want anything resembling
>> NN regulation.
>>
>> The regulatory side of this is largely not a technical discussion
>> because future innovation, by definition, may exceed technical
>> considerations we can conceive of today.
>>
>> It's easy to conceive of examples where an ISP wants to prioritize or
>> penalize certain kinds of traffic. And while that may seem
>> superficially bad, it’s an important part of the very competition that
>> drives innovation and cost reductions over time. E.g., recall when
>> Google Fiber had been willing to install Gbps fiber in places at a
>> time when most of the rest of the country was struggling to get 20Mbps
>> connections. If Google had wanted to limit that to Google services,
>> that still might have been a boon to those customers.
>> Further, it could have shown the uses and values of what was then
>> considered limitless bandwidth for a home or small business user. Even
>> though this would clearly have been in violation of the tenets of NN,
>> it would have provided important data that might have spawned
>> significant investment by others and advanced the state of
>> connectivity across the board.
>>
>> I know the counter argument to this is that local ISP monopolies
>> already break innovation, and those companies, especially the big
>> cable companies, therefore have no incentive to provide a good
>> service. I largely agree with that (there is still some small
>> incentive, in that if they are too terrible, customer outcry will turn
>> to voter outcry and demand breaking those monopolies, and they don’t
>> want to risk that).
>>
>> Therefore, the legal issue to address is NOT how they treat or
>> prioritize data, whether by content or protocol – which they should be
>> allowed to do, EVEN WHEN IT’S BAD FOR CUSTOMERS – but, at least
>> referring to the U.S. specifically with our federal/state system, to
>> put federal limits on durations of regional monopoly durations. I
>> believe this is within the scope of what FCC can mandate (some would
>> debate this and it may take the courts to sort it out). These need not
>> be purely # of years, they can be a function of time to recoup
>> deployment costs. If a company negotiated a local monopoly as part of
>> covering their deployment costs, I would personally say that they
>> should be given an opportunity to recoup those, but then after that,
>> they need to open up their lines for use by competing firms, similar
>> to what happened with the RBOCs and the old telephone lines.
>>
>> This is also the legal logic behind patents: give a company a 20 year
>> monopoly on the invention in exchange for making it public to everyone
>> and showing them how to do it (the patent must provide clear
>> instructions). We deem the temporary monopoly worthwhile to incent the
>> innovation, provided the inventor makes it public. This is the right
>> philosophy to consider for something like bandwidth innovation,
>> investment, and access.
>>
>> In short, with ISP’s the open-ended government protected monopolies
>> are the problem, not the providers’ ability to overcharge customers or
>> prioritize some data over others. Competition will fix that over time,
>> as long as competition is allowed to occur. And while it may be faster
>> to force it through regulation, that has dangerous long-term
>> consequences with respect to future innovation.
>>
>> Starlink is one example of innovation. FTTH is another. Cellular-based
>> Internet is another. Simply buying bulk access on existing lines and
>> repackaging it under different terms could be yet another. Those all
>> seem obvious, because they’re the ones we know. The real danger in
>> unforeseen consequences is the dampening effect NN-style regulations
>> have on yet-to-be-seen innovations, the innovations that never come to
>> fruition because of the regulations.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Colin Higbie
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors

[David Lang]

On Tue, 3 Oct 2023, Sebastian Moeller via Nnagain wrote:

>> On Oct 3, 2023, at 18:54, rjmcmahon <rjmcmahon@rjmcmahon.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Natural monopolies are things with high sunk costs. Things with high sunk costs don't necessarily exist (like electrified roads) even though they add huge value to society and can help curb climate impacts. A natural monopoly exists unrelated to a provider already having an infrastructure in place per that monopoly.
>> 
>> Fiber with up gradable optics to hundreds of millions of buildings that can leverage the NRE from data centers are natural monopolies and don't really exist in most places, even though they are critical to mitigating climate impact.
>> 
>> The idea of municipal ownership of access networks in the U.S. was pushed in 2000 after the 1996 Telco act. It didn't work out.
>
> 	[SM] I only monitored this cursory (not living in the US any longer), 
> but I seem to recall quite a number of questionable plays against municipal 
> ownership by the existing ISPs; I would book this as "never really tried", and 
> not as we gave it an honest try but it fell short. That said many 
> municipalities (in many parts of the world) are hardly in the shape required 
> to built new costly infrastructure as they are having troubles maintaining the 
> infrastructure on their hands with the available funds.

I would say that it failed in many high-profile locations, succeded in a few 
others, and isn't a dead idea.

My city (LA suburb of >125k) is in the process of rolling out fiber everywhere. 
They are well behind, so probably a 3-4 year process rather than a 2-3 year 
process (now saying spring of next year for my location), so I can't say how 
well it will end up working. But they are avoiding the 'space on the poles' 
fight by having them trench up every street (~4" wide trench)

In some other states, the ISPs were able to get state laws passed to prohibit 
community owned networks (on the claim that they were anti-competitive)

David Lang

Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors

[Mark Steckel]

 ---- On Tue, 03 Oct 2023 16:26:24 -0400  Colin_Higbie via Nnagain  wrote --- 
[snip...]
 > There are plenty of good and valid arguments on both sides that issue, but history shows that in the long run, government interference in the form of controlling regulations on what business may and may not do with each other, outside matters of public safety and perhaps establishing and mandating some measuring standards, is always destructive to innovation. That in turn hurts consumers in the end. 

I disagree with this on two dimensions:

1) There are multiple ways to evalute outcomes and while innovation is important, it is not the only one to optimize for. What is best for the public may by necessity limit some forms of innovation. Wall Street has been "innovating" like crazy over the last 40+ years which has been extremely good for them, but not so much for the public.

2) Antitrust law traditionally focused on the concentration of market power. Laws and regulations to minimize market consolidation and abuse of economic choke points is a good thing IMO. 

Over the last 40+ years, the original antitrust approach, thinking and enforcement switched to "consumer benefit" which focuses primarily on pricing to purchasers while largely ignoring market consolidation and power. This policy changed also impacted and expanded the range of permitted company mergers and acquisitions. If AT&T was not allowed to by Time-Warner, or Comcast to buy NBC, et al, the need to worry about ISPs self-dealing would be much less of an issue.

An example - The pharmaceutical industry prefers to innovate treatments over cures. Treatments generate recurring revenue, while cures generate a one time payment. What is best for the pharmaceutical industry is not always what is best for the public and human welfare.



[snip...]
 > 
 > Cheers,
 > Colin
 > 
 > 
 > -----Original Message-----
 > From: Sebastian Moeller moeller0@gmx.de> 
 > Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 3:50 AM
 > To: Network Neutrality is back! Let´s make the technical aspects heard this time! nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net>
 > Cc: Colin_Higbie CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
 > Subject: Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors
 > 
 > Hi Colin,
 > 
 > > On Oct 2, 2023, at 22:34, Colin_Higbie via Nnagain nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
 > > 
 > > While product and service innovation often originates from pure R&D or work performed in academic labs, in virtually all cases, converting that into commercially viable products and services is the result of profit incentives. A company won’t invest in doing something new with attendant risks unless they can expect a return on that investment greater than the alternatives (or they believe it will provide strategic support to some other product or service). For that reason, we want to be extremely careful about regulating how companies can implement innovations, including the use of potentially distasteful business practices. None of us who want to see the Internet become better over time and more accessible should want anything resembling NN regulation.
 > 
 >     [SM] At its core NN regulations really just say that who is selling internet access services is supposed to do exactly that and not try to act as gate-keeper picking winners and losers. I might be insufficiently creative here, but I do not think a simple "do not discriminate" directive really restricts the space of potential innovations in any meaningful way.
 > 
 > 
 > > The regulatory side of this is largely not a technical discussion because future innovation, by definition, may exceed technical considerations we can conceive of today.
 > 
 >     [SM] Indded, prediction is hard, especially predictions about the future ;)
 > 
 > 
 > > It's easy to conceive of examples where an ISP wants to prioritize or penalize certain kinds of traffic. And while that may seem superficially bad, it’s an important part of the very competition that drives innovation and cost reductions over time. E.g., recall when Google Fiber had been willing to install Gbps fiber in places at a time when most of the rest of the country was struggling to get 20Mbps connections. If Google had wanted to limit that to Google services, that still might have been a boon to those customers.
 > 
 >     [SM] I respectfully disagree, that would not have been meaningful internet access. An unrestricted 20M internet access link has more general utility that even a 10G gate-keeper only link (who that gate-keeper is is irrelevant). (I am not saying the 20M would be without issues)
 > 
 > 
 > > Further, it could have shown the uses and values of what was then considered limitless bandwidth for a home or small business user.
 > 
 >     [SM] Yeah, on that question we are still waiting even though >= 1 Gbps services are not all that rare anymore. As far as I can see it we still lack use-cases that strictly require fast links that go above simple "more parallel" or "faster".
 > 
 > 
 > > Even though this would clearly have been in violation of the tenets of NN, it would have provided important data that might have spawned significant investment by others and advanced the state of connectivity across the board.
 > 
 >     [SM] This is purely speculative though, it might as well had shown nothing of that kind by the sheer fact that google fiber roll-out was so small as to be not representative of anything, no?
 > 
 > >  
 > > I know the counter argument to this is that local ISP monopolies already break innovation, and those companies, especially the big cable companies, therefore have no incentive to provide a good service. I largely agree with that (there is still some small incentive, in that if they are too terrible, customer outcry will turn to voter outcry and demand breaking those monopolies, and they don’t want to risk that).
 > >  
 > > Therefore, the legal issue to address is NOT how they treat or prioritize data, whether by content or protocol – which they should be allowed to do, EVEN WHEN IT’S BAD FOR CUSTOMERS – but, at least referring to the U.S. specifically with our federal/state system, to put federal limits on durations of regional monopoly durations. I believe this is within the scope of what FCC can mandate (some would debate this and it may take the courts to sort it out). These need not be purely # of years, they can be a function of time to recoup deployment costs. If a company negotiated a local monopoly as part of covering their deployment costs, I would personally say that they should be given an opportunity to recoup those, but then after that, they need to open up their lines for use by competing firms, similar to what happened with the RBOCs and the old telephone lines.
 > 
 >     [SM] The problem is that access networks often are not legal monopolies, but natural monopolies where if company A has a high-speed capable network deployed it becomes economically unattractive for other companies to deploy their own network (the competitor can torpedo such a deployment by lowering prices such that too few customers change to make the whole thing stay in the "loss" region for a long time). So leaving the access network to market players will always result in the incentive to monetize the gate-keeper role that is inherent in the network's structure. 
 > One solution to this problem (not the only one) is to put the access network into the public hands, like other important infrastructure. The idea would then be like in Amsterdam, Zuerich and a few other places to have a local access network provider that in turn "concentrates" access links in COs local IXs where interested ISPs con connect to and then offer all end-users in that access network internet access services. That still leaves the natural monopoly of the access network untouched, but puts it under management of en entity that is not likely to exploit this (as fully as private entities are).
 >     This is however pretty orthogonal to direct NN concerns, and I am sure not a generally accepted model. (Say if I would be operating a small ISP and would differentiate myself by how well I manage my access network, I likely would detest such ideas, and if I would operate a big ISP I would detest them for other reasons ;) so this is ver end-user centric and also relies on some modicum of faith in local government)
 > 
 > 
 > > This is also the legal logic behind patents: give a company a 20 year monopoly on the invention in exchange for making it public to everyone and showing them how to do it (the patent must provide clear instructions). We deem the temporary monopoly worthwhile to incent the innovation, provided the inventor makes it public. This is the right philosophy to consider for something like bandwidth innovation, investment, and access.
 > >  
 > > In short, with ISP’s the open-ended government protected monopolies are the problem,
 > 
 >     [SM] Again these often are not legal monopolies where nobody else is permitted to build a competing network, but natural monopolies where the expected return of investment falls with the number of already existing networks, while the cost stays constant. AND the number of ISPs tgat might actually bite the bullet and set diggers in motion is still so small that in the end, we might change from a monopoly to an oligopoly situation, bith are regimes in which the free market does not really deliver on its promises.
 > 
 > 
 > > not the providers’ ability to overcharge customers or prioritize some data over others. Competition will fix that over time, as long as competition is allowed to occur. And while it may be faster to force it through regulation, that has dangerous long-term consequences with respect to future innovation.
 > 
 >     [SM] Yes, meaningful competition could help, but IMHO an oligopoly likely would not result in meaningful enough competition. This is where the access network in public hand ideas comes in, it makes the cost to enter a market for ISPs relatively cheap, they really only need to pull/rent fibers to the local IX and maybe deploy OLTs/DSLAMs/CMTSs there (depending) on the local network tech, and can start offer services, without having to deal with the access network.
 > 
 > > Starlink is one example of innovation. FTTH is another. Cellular-based Internet is another.
 > 
 >     [SM] All of which are orthogonal to NN regulations, neither depended on violating the "do not discriminate" rule, no?
 > 
 > 
 > > Simply buying bulk access on existing lines and repackaging it under different terms could be yet another. Those all seem obvious, because they’re the ones we know. The real danger in unforeseen consequences is the dampening effect NN-style regulations have on yet-to-be-seen innovations, the innovations that never come to fruition because of the regulations.
 > 
 >     [SM] I claim that rules and regulations always set the stage for which business decisions are acceptable/profitable and which are not, that is true whether we add the NN mandates to the mix or not, so I really do not see how these will have a meaningful influence on future expected innovation (unless that innovation really is all about active discrimination, but in that case I see no real loss).
 > 
 > Side-note: The thing is "discrimination" is still permitted under most NN rules, as long as it is under active control of the end-users, not the ISP. So I am sure some end-users would appreciate an "prioritize vide conferencing and VoIP over video streaming and gaming under load" option offered by their ISP and might even be willing to pay a little, as long as the end user can toggle this option at will it will not be subject to NN regulations as far as I understand. This clearly leaves some innovation space available even for active discrimination.
 > 
 > Regards
 >     Sebastian
 > 
 > 
 > >  
 > > Cheers,
 > > Colin Higbie
 > >  
 > > _______________________________________________
 > > 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
 > 

Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors

[dan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 19402 bytes --]

I know we're well off on a tangent here, but it's all somewhat related.
The competitive landscape really dictates how much regulation needs to be
involved.  The less the competition, the more the government needs to take
a roll to keep that small pool or single vendor in check.  Government
really must take a regulatory rule here in my opinion because there are bad
actors and so much of America relies on them for mediocre services.

The who's and how of previous monopolies really do matter because we can't
take a true lesson if we don't have the facts.  I continue to stand by my
stance that the virtual monopolies in many markets is why we really need NN
or near-NN and soon.  I do really appreciate everyone's perspectives
though.  Lots of great stuff here.

The problem I see is that from my perspective, we need a 2 pronged attack.
As Gene says above, presenting a post analysed solution to the powers that
be might be helpful.
prong 1 is to clarify what NN is in legal terms and build transparency in.
If a service is NN they can choose to say so, if they are not they have to
say they are not.  I might lose this battle and all services may have to be
NN, IDK, I'm just presenting my thoughts.  That's the main purpose of this
thread but I think a lot of members of the mailing list also have an
interest in the second:
prong 2 is to identify 'what went wrong and how to fix it'.  Why do so many
people have poor service when we have so much infrastructure?  No access.
As an operator in multiple states I assure you all that access to existing
fibers that were built by government money is minimum, even at splice huts
getting services can be impossible.  I literally ran fiber through my
current service area on contract in the late 90's that I cannot purchase
services off of today. it sits there dark.  I know it's there, I feel like
I still have the blisters.  I would suggest the microIX somehow, maybe
pushing for schools to have a microIX hanging off of them or city halls or
something.  Heck, the schools could get 100G and x dark fibers delivered to
the nearest IX and let them sell ports off of that for a tariffed rate.
I'm sure we could come up with 2 dozen all for the public good models to
get microIXs all over the place to solve this.  I promise that access to
high capacity data will spur competition like crazy.  We have a school in
our area that we didn't bid out but has a 100M fixed wireless link from a
competitor as their only service and word on the street is that it doesn't
deliver.  It's crazy.

On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 2:26 PM Colin_Higbie via Nnagain <
nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:

> Sebastian,
>
> Good points and thanks for the conversation. I agree with you on the
> INTENT of the NN regulations as proposed and that most of the non-content
> provider supporters had what you stated as the goal. However, the money
> driving the politicians, paying for those ads and social media campaigns,
> etc. came from the content providers who wanted government support and
> protection. This doesn't make the carriers right (or wrong), just know that
> the big supporters were the content providers and for obvious business
> reasons – they wanted to get their content to customers for free.
>
> There are plenty of good and valid arguments on both sides that issue, but
> history shows that in the long run, government interference in the form of
> controlling regulations on what business may and may not do with each
> other, outside matters of public safety and perhaps establishing and
> mandating some measuring standards, is always destructive to innovation.
> That in turn hurts consumers in the end.
>
> On the Google point, I respect that you disagree that Google's offering in
> my hypothetical where it's bound to their own services would not have been
> as good as open 20Mbps Internet access. I would probably feel the same way.
> But that's not the point. The point is that if Google came in OFFERING
> that, it would have been disruptive. As long as customers had THE CHOICE of
> 1G content-controlled vs 20M open (or whatever they had access to), then
> Google's offering is only beneficial in the long run. The entrenched
> competitors would need to up their game or lose at least some customers.
> They would either increase their capacity and available bandwidth or tout
> the benefits of their open access or something else or some combination.
> That's how customers win from competition – it's not just price, or just
> bandwidth, or just access freedom, or any one thing. It's the unpredictable
> freedom to innovate and find new niches that customers want to pay for. And
> the market is ALWAYS better at determining which is the better value for
> customers. None of us as individuals (as much as Xi Jinping might disagree)
> can out-predict the crowd-sourcing power and wisdom of the entire free
> market.
>
> I completely agree with you that my saying "it might have spawned
> significant investment..." is speculative. The core of that is the
> fundamental point of economics though: individuals making choices for their
> own self-interest is what drives innovation and advancement in a way that
> ultimately helps everyone. In other words, the regulation would also have
> been speculative that it would help more than not having that regulation.
> And it would have assumed BOTH that innovation won't solve current problems
> AND that customers are too stupid to choose the service that's of value to
> them.
>
> Given a choice between speculating that future innovations might solve
> problems or speculating that we're doomed without government protection
> from companies who have not yet really done the
> bad-Google-hypothetical-thing I described, I would much rather err on the
> side of letting the market and innovation continue to run with things.
> After all, that's what took the Internet from a military and academic
> network into the most impactful economic force of the past decades, and one
> infused by a culture of innovation and entrepreneurship.
>
> Tying that together with your point on the government policies protecting
> local monopolies: Why did Verizon start to build FiOS? Because they thought
> they could attract customers and earn a strong profit by providing a
> better, faster Internet via FTTH. On paper, this was a slam dunk. Why did
> they stop building it out? Because they ran into too many localities who
> blocked them with legislative and regulatory hurdles.
>
> That FiOS example is one of the best case studies of exactly how
> government regulation primarily stifles and harms end user experience with
> respect to Internet access speeds.
>
> I also agree with your concluding points that if carrier access were
> regulated, business would do their thing, adapt, and find a way forward.
> The world would not end. All true. No dispute on that. However, I would say
> that if we look 20 or 50 or 100 years out, the state of human
> communications and computing technology would be further advanced in
> unpredictable ways by not removing some of those axes of freedom from the
> entrepreneurs as they innovate. The gains are only in the very short term.
> Protecting my Netflix access today is nice, but getting 1Tbps access (or
> sub 0.1ms latency for radically different levels of computation
> interactivity, or something else we don't even realize matters yet) to be
> commonplace in 20 years might be even better.
>
> Taking all of the above together, this is why if we're looking for a
> STARTING point (and to be fair to your points, maybe more would be needed
> after that, but let's tackle the biggest, most indisputable problem first),
> START with dismantling those government-protected monopolies. Maybe, that
> will be enough. Given that innovation-crushing regulations tend to grow and
> are rarely ever retracted, better safe than sorry on this.
>
> By the way, I say this as a guy on the content-providing side of the
> problem. So, to the extent that I have business bias, it would be in favor
> of forcing equal access. However, I also believe that the same regulations
> that would force equal access today would also stymie the development of
> 10G and 1T networks and beyond in the future (not their engineering, but
> the actual commercial deployment). Advancement and innovative growth occur
> when innovators and entrepreneurs have the freedom of the open sky (with
> all the confusion and wrong turns and failures that admittedly come with
> that), not under a smothering tarp of regulation.
>
> Cheers,
> Colin
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 3:50 AM
> To: Network Neutrality is back! Let´s make the technical aspects heard
> this time! <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> Cc: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
> Subject: Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors
>
> Hi Colin,
>
> > On Oct 2, 2023, at 22:34, Colin_Higbie via Nnagain <
> nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> >
> > While product and service innovation often originates from pure R&D or
> work performed in academic labs, in virtually all cases, converting that
> into commercially viable products and services is the result of profit
> incentives. A company won’t invest in doing something new with attendant
> risks unless they can expect a return on that investment greater than the
> alternatives (or they believe it will provide strategic support to some
> other product or service). For that reason, we want to be extremely careful
> about regulating how companies can implement innovations, including the use
> of potentially distasteful business practices. None of us who want to see
> the Internet become better over time and more accessible should want
> anything resembling NN regulation.
>
>         [SM] At its core NN regulations really just say that who is
> selling internet access services is supposed to do exactly that and not try
> to act as gate-keeper picking winners and losers. I might be insufficiently
> creative here, but I do not think a simple "do not discriminate" directive
> really restricts the space of potential innovations in any meaningful way.
>
>
> > The regulatory side of this is largely not a technical discussion
> because future innovation, by definition, may exceed technical
> considerations we can conceive of today.
>
>         [SM] Indded, prediction is hard, especially predictions about the
> future ;)
>
>
> > It's easy to conceive of examples where an ISP wants to prioritize or
> penalize certain kinds of traffic. And while that may seem superficially
> bad, it’s an important part of the very competition that drives innovation
> and cost reductions over time. E.g., recall when Google Fiber had been
> willing to install Gbps fiber in places at a time when most of the rest of
> the country was struggling to get 20Mbps connections. If Google had wanted
> to limit that to Google services, that still might have been a boon to
> those customers.
>
>         [SM] I respectfully disagree, that would not have been meaningful
> internet access. An unrestricted 20M internet access link has more general
> utility that even a 10G gate-keeper only link (who that gate-keeper is is
> irrelevant). (I am not saying the 20M would be without issues)
>
>
> > Further, it could have shown the uses and values of what was then
> considered limitless bandwidth for a home or small business user.
>
>         [SM] Yeah, on that question we are still waiting even though >= 1
> Gbps services are not all that rare anymore. As far as I can see it we
> still lack use-cases that strictly require fast links that go above simple
> "more parallel" or "faster".
>
>
> > Even though this would clearly have been in violation of the tenets of
> NN, it would have provided important data that might have spawned
> significant investment by others and advanced the state of connectivity
> across the board.
>
>         [SM] This is purely speculative though, it might as well had shown
> nothing of that kind by the sheer fact that google fiber roll-out was so
> small as to be not representative of anything, no?
>
> >
> > I know the counter argument to this is that local ISP monopolies already
> break innovation, and those companies, especially the big cable companies,
> therefore have no incentive to provide a good service. I largely agree with
> that (there is still some small incentive, in that if they are too
> terrible, customer outcry will turn to voter outcry and demand breaking
> those monopolies, and they don’t want to risk that).
> >
> > Therefore, the legal issue to address is NOT how they treat or
> prioritize data, whether by content or protocol – which they should be
> allowed to do, EVEN WHEN IT’S BAD FOR CUSTOMERS – but, at least referring
> to the U.S. specifically with our federal/state system, to put federal
> limits on durations of regional monopoly durations. I believe this is
> within the scope of what FCC can mandate (some would debate this and it may
> take the courts to sort it out). These need not be purely # of years, they
> can be a function of time to recoup deployment costs. If a company
> negotiated a local monopoly as part of covering their deployment costs, I
> would personally say that they should be given an opportunity to recoup
> those, but then after that, they need to open up their lines for use by
> competing firms, similar to what happened with the RBOCs and the old
> telephone lines.
>
>         [SM] The problem is that access networks often are not legal
> monopolies, but natural monopolies where if company A has a high-speed
> capable network deployed it becomes economically unattractive for other
> companies to deploy their own network (the competitor can torpedo such a
> deployment by lowering prices such that too few customers change to make
> the whole thing stay in the "loss" region for a long time). So leaving the
> access network to market players will always result in the incentive to
> monetize the gate-keeper role that is inherent in the network's structure.
> One solution to this problem (not the only one) is to put the access
> network into the public hands, like other important infrastructure. The
> idea would then be like in Amsterdam, Zuerich and a few other places to
> have a local access network provider that in turn "concentrates" access
> links in COs local IXs where interested ISPs con connect to and then offer
> all end-users in that access network internet access services. That still
> leaves the natural monopoly of the access network untouched, but puts it
> under management of en entity that is not likely to exploit this (as fully
> as private entities are).
>         This is however pretty orthogonal to direct NN concerns, and I am
> sure not a generally accepted model. (Say if I would be operating a small
> ISP and would differentiate myself by how well I manage my access network,
> I likely would detest such ideas, and if I would operate a big ISP I would
> detest them for other reasons ;) so this is ver end-user centric and also
> relies on some modicum of faith in local government)
>
>
> > This is also the legal logic behind patents: give a company a 20 year
> monopoly on the invention in exchange for making it public to everyone and
> showing them how to do it (the patent must provide clear instructions). We
> deem the temporary monopoly worthwhile to incent the innovation, provided
> the inventor makes it public. This is the right philosophy to consider for
> something like bandwidth innovation, investment, and access.
> >
> > In short, with ISP’s the open-ended government protected monopolies are
> the problem,
>
>         [SM] Again these often are not legal monopolies where nobody else
> is permitted to build a competing network, but natural monopolies where the
> expected return of investment falls with the number of already existing
> networks, while the cost stays constant. AND the number of ISPs tgat might
> actually bite the bullet and set diggers in motion is still so small that
> in the end, we might change from a monopoly to an oligopoly situation, bith
> are regimes in which the free market does not really deliver on its
> promises.
>
>
> > not the providers’ ability to overcharge customers or prioritize some
> data over others. Competition will fix that over time, as long as
> competition is allowed to occur. And while it may be faster to force it
> through regulation, that has dangerous long-term consequences with respect
> to future innovation.
>
>         [SM] Yes, meaningful competition could help, but IMHO an oligopoly
> likely would not result in meaningful enough competition. This is where the
> access network in public hand ideas comes in, it makes the cost to enter a
> market for ISPs relatively cheap, they really only need to pull/rent fibers
> to the local IX and maybe deploy OLTs/DSLAMs/CMTSs there (depending) on the
> local network tech, and can start offer services, without having to deal
> with the access network.
>
> > Starlink is one example of innovation. FTTH is another. Cellular-based
> Internet is another.
>
>         [SM] All of which are orthogonal to NN regulations, neither
> depended on violating the "do not discriminate" rule, no?
>
>
> > Simply buying bulk access on existing lines and repackaging it under
> different terms could be yet another. Those all seem obvious, because
> they’re the ones we know. The real danger in unforeseen consequences is the
> dampening effect NN-style regulations have on yet-to-be-seen innovations,
> the innovations that never come to fruition because of the regulations.
>
>         [SM] I claim that rules and regulations always set the stage for
> which business decisions are acceptable/profitable and which are not, that
> is true whether we add the NN mandates to the mix or not, so I really do
> not see how these will have a meaningful influence on future expected
> innovation (unless that innovation really is all about active
> discrimination, but in that case I see no real loss).
>
> Side-note: The thing is "discrimination" is still permitted under most NN
> rules, as long as it is under active control of the end-users, not the ISP.
> So I am sure some end-users would appreciate an "prioritize vide
> conferencing and VoIP over video streaming and gaming under load" option
> offered by their ISP and might even be willing to pay a little, as long as
> the end user can toggle this option at will it will not be subject to NN
> regulations as far as I understand. This clearly leaves some innovation
> space available even for active discrimination.
>
> Regards
>         Sebastian
>
>
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Colin Higbie
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 20311 bytes --]

Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors

[Colin_Higbie]

Sebastian,

Good points and thanks for the conversation. I agree with you on the INTENT of the NN regulations as proposed and that most of the non-content provider supporters had what you stated as the goal. However, the money driving the politicians, paying for those ads and social media campaigns, etc. came from the content providers who wanted government support and protection. This doesn't make the carriers right (or wrong), just know that the big supporters were the content providers and for obvious business reasons – they wanted to get their content to customers for free.

There are plenty of good and valid arguments on both sides that issue, but history shows that in the long run, government interference in the form of controlling regulations on what business may and may not do with each other, outside matters of public safety and perhaps establishing and mandating some measuring standards, is always destructive to innovation. That in turn hurts consumers in the end. 

On the Google point, I respect that you disagree that Google's offering in my hypothetical where it's bound to their own services would not have been as good as open 20Mbps Internet access. I would probably feel the same way. But that's not the point. The point is that if Google came in OFFERING that, it would have been disruptive. As long as customers had THE CHOICE of 1G content-controlled vs 20M open (or whatever they had access to), then Google's offering is only beneficial in the long run. The entrenched competitors would need to up their game or lose at least some customers. They would either increase their capacity and available bandwidth or tout the benefits of their open access or something else or some combination. That's how customers win from competition – it's not just price, or just bandwidth, or just access freedom, or any one thing. It's the unpredictable freedom to innovate and find new niches that customers want to pay for. And the market is ALWAYS better at determining which is the better value for customers. None of us as individuals (as much as Xi Jinping might disagree) can out-predict the crowd-sourcing power and wisdom of the entire free market.

I completely agree with you that my saying "it might have spawned significant investment..." is speculative. The core of that is the fundamental point of economics though: individuals making choices for their own self-interest is what drives innovation and advancement in a way that ultimately helps everyone. In other words, the regulation would also have been speculative that it would help more than not having that regulation. And it would have assumed BOTH that innovation won't solve current problems AND that customers are too stupid to choose the service that's of value to them. 

Given a choice between speculating that future innovations might solve problems or speculating that we're doomed without government protection from companies who have not yet really done the bad-Google-hypothetical-thing I described, I would much rather err on the side of letting the market and innovation continue to run with things. After all, that's what took the Internet from a military and academic network into the most impactful economic force of the past decades, and one infused by a culture of innovation and entrepreneurship.

Tying that together with your point on the government policies protecting local monopolies: Why did Verizon start to build FiOS? Because they thought they could attract customers and earn a strong profit by providing a better, faster Internet via FTTH. On paper, this was a slam dunk. Why did they stop building it out? Because they ran into too many localities who blocked them with legislative and regulatory hurdles. 

That FiOS example is one of the best case studies of exactly how government regulation primarily stifles and harms end user experience with respect to Internet access speeds.

I also agree with your concluding points that if carrier access were regulated, business would do their thing, adapt, and find a way forward. The world would not end. All true. No dispute on that. However, I would say that if we look 20 or 50 or 100 years out, the state of human communications and computing technology would be further advanced in unpredictable ways by not removing some of those axes of freedom from the entrepreneurs as they innovate. The gains are only in the very short term. Protecting my Netflix access today is nice, but getting 1Tbps access (or sub 0.1ms latency for radically different levels of computation interactivity, or something else we don't even realize matters yet) to be commonplace in 20 years might be even better.

Taking all of the above together, this is why if we're looking for a STARTING point (and to be fair to your points, maybe more would be needed after that, but let's tackle the biggest, most indisputable problem first), START with dismantling those government-protected monopolies. Maybe, that will be enough. Given that innovation-crushing regulations tend to grow and are rarely ever retracted, better safe than sorry on this.

By the way, I say this as a guy on the content-providing side of the problem. So, to the extent that I have business bias, it would be in favor of forcing equal access. However, I also believe that the same regulations that would force equal access today would also stymie the development of 10G and 1T networks and beyond in the future (not their engineering, but the actual commercial deployment). Advancement and innovative growth occur when innovators and entrepreneurs have the freedom of the open sky (with all the confusion and wrong turns and failures that admittedly come with that), not under a smothering tarp of regulation. 

Cheers,
Colin


-----Original Message-----
From: Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de> 
Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 3:50 AM
To: Network Neutrality is back! Let´s make the technical aspects heard this time! <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Cc: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
Subject: Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors

Hi Colin,

> On Oct 2, 2023, at 22:34, Colin_Higbie via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> 
> While product and service innovation often originates from pure R&D or work performed in academic labs, in virtually all cases, converting that into commercially viable products and services is the result of profit incentives. A company won’t invest in doing something new with attendant risks unless they can expect a return on that investment greater than the alternatives (or they believe it will provide strategic support to some other product or service). For that reason, we want to be extremely careful about regulating how companies can implement innovations, including the use of potentially distasteful business practices. None of us who want to see the Internet become better over time and more accessible should want anything resembling NN regulation.

	[SM] At its core NN regulations really just say that who is selling internet access services is supposed to do exactly that and not try to act as gate-keeper picking winners and losers. I might be insufficiently creative here, but I do not think a simple "do not discriminate" directive really restricts the space of potential innovations in any meaningful way.


> The regulatory side of this is largely not a technical discussion because future innovation, by definition, may exceed technical considerations we can conceive of today.

	[SM] Indded, prediction is hard, especially predictions about the future ;)


> It's easy to conceive of examples where an ISP wants to prioritize or penalize certain kinds of traffic. And while that may seem superficially bad, it’s an important part of the very competition that drives innovation and cost reductions over time. E.g., recall when Google Fiber had been willing to install Gbps fiber in places at a time when most of the rest of the country was struggling to get 20Mbps connections. If Google had wanted to limit that to Google services, that still might have been a boon to those customers.

	[SM] I respectfully disagree, that would not have been meaningful internet access. An unrestricted 20M internet access link has more general utility that even a 10G gate-keeper only link (who that gate-keeper is is irrelevant). (I am not saying the 20M would be without issues)


> Further, it could have shown the uses and values of what was then considered limitless bandwidth for a home or small business user.

	[SM] Yeah, on that question we are still waiting even though >= 1 Gbps services are not all that rare anymore. As far as I can see it we still lack use-cases that strictly require fast links that go above simple "more parallel" or "faster".


> Even though this would clearly have been in violation of the tenets of NN, it would have provided important data that might have spawned significant investment by others and advanced the state of connectivity across the board.

	[SM] This is purely speculative though, it might as well had shown nothing of that kind by the sheer fact that google fiber roll-out was so small as to be not representative of anything, no?

>  
> I know the counter argument to this is that local ISP monopolies already break innovation, and those companies, especially the big cable companies, therefore have no incentive to provide a good service. I largely agree with that (there is still some small incentive, in that if they are too terrible, customer outcry will turn to voter outcry and demand breaking those monopolies, and they don’t want to risk that).
>  
> Therefore, the legal issue to address is NOT how they treat or prioritize data, whether by content or protocol – which they should be allowed to do, EVEN WHEN IT’S BAD FOR CUSTOMERS – but, at least referring to the U.S. specifically with our federal/state system, to put federal limits on durations of regional monopoly durations. I believe this is within the scope of what FCC can mandate (some would debate this and it may take the courts to sort it out). These need not be purely # of years, they can be a function of time to recoup deployment costs. If a company negotiated a local monopoly as part of covering their deployment costs, I would personally say that they should be given an opportunity to recoup those, but then after that, they need to open up their lines for use by competing firms, similar to what happened with the RBOCs and the old telephone lines.

	[SM] The problem is that access networks often are not legal monopolies, but natural monopolies where if company A has a high-speed capable network deployed it becomes economically unattractive for other companies to deploy their own network (the competitor can torpedo such a deployment by lowering prices such that too few customers change to make the whole thing stay in the "loss" region for a long time). So leaving the access network to market players will always result in the incentive to monetize the gate-keeper role that is inherent in the network's structure. 
One solution to this problem (not the only one) is to put the access network into the public hands, like other important infrastructure. The idea would then be like in Amsterdam, Zuerich and a few other places to have a local access network provider that in turn "concentrates" access links in COs local IXs where interested ISPs con connect to and then offer all end-users in that access network internet access services. That still leaves the natural monopoly of the access network untouched, but puts it under management of en entity that is not likely to exploit this (as fully as private entities are).
	This is however pretty orthogonal to direct NN concerns, and I am sure not a generally accepted model. (Say if I would be operating a small ISP and would differentiate myself by how well I manage my access network, I likely would detest such ideas, and if I would operate a big ISP I would detest them for other reasons ;) so this is ver end-user centric and also relies on some modicum of faith in local government)


> This is also the legal logic behind patents: give a company a 20 year monopoly on the invention in exchange for making it public to everyone and showing them how to do it (the patent must provide clear instructions). We deem the temporary monopoly worthwhile to incent the innovation, provided the inventor makes it public. This is the right philosophy to consider for something like bandwidth innovation, investment, and access.
>  
> In short, with ISP’s the open-ended government protected monopolies are the problem,

	[SM] Again these often are not legal monopolies where nobody else is permitted to build a competing network, but natural monopolies where the expected return of investment falls with the number of already existing networks, while the cost stays constant. AND the number of ISPs tgat might actually bite the bullet and set diggers in motion is still so small that in the end, we might change from a monopoly to an oligopoly situation, bith are regimes in which the free market does not really deliver on its promises.


> not the providers’ ability to overcharge customers or prioritize some data over others. Competition will fix that over time, as long as competition is allowed to occur. And while it may be faster to force it through regulation, that has dangerous long-term consequences with respect to future innovation.

	[SM] Yes, meaningful competition could help, but IMHO an oligopoly likely would not result in meaningful enough competition. This is where the access network in public hand ideas comes in, it makes the cost to enter a market for ISPs relatively cheap, they really only need to pull/rent fibers to the local IX and maybe deploy OLTs/DSLAMs/CMTSs there (depending) on the local network tech, and can start offer services, without having to deal with the access network.

> Starlink is one example of innovation. FTTH is another. Cellular-based Internet is another.

	[SM] All of which are orthogonal to NN regulations, neither depended on violating the "do not discriminate" rule, no?


> Simply buying bulk access on existing lines and repackaging it under different terms could be yet another. Those all seem obvious, because they’re the ones we know. The real danger in unforeseen consequences is the dampening effect NN-style regulations have on yet-to-be-seen innovations, the innovations that never come to fruition because of the regulations.

	[SM] I claim that rules and regulations always set the stage for which business decisions are acceptable/profitable and which are not, that is true whether we add the NN mandates to the mix or not, so I really do not see how these will have a meaningful influence on future expected innovation (unless that innovation really is all about active discrimination, but in that case I see no real loss).

Side-note: The thing is "discrimination" is still permitted under most NN rules, as long as it is under active control of the end-users, not the ISP. So I am sure some end-users would appreciate an "prioritize vide conferencing and VoIP over video streaming and gaming under load" option offered by their ISP and might even be willing to pay a little, as long as the end user can toggle this option at will it will not be subject to NN regulations as far as I understand. This clearly leaves some innovation space available even for active discrimination.

Regards
	Sebastian


>  
> Cheers,
> Colin Higbie
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Nnagain mailing list
> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain

Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors

[rjmcmahon]

Patents & copyrights are state sanctioned monopolies. Few argue against 
those.

An irony is that facts can't be copyrighted per SCOTUS, I think in 1934. 
Opinions can be copyrighted. So it seems the state has created "opinion 
news" and "social network news" vs supporting a knowledge & fact based 
news.

Nothing is black or white. When we create false dichotomies like "bad" 
and "good" we can lose site of the goals which here, to me, are to 
provide essential information & knowledge "services" cost effectively, 
accepting reality of contract carriage until at least after the massive 
gouging, and try to enforce common carriage goals enumerated by Noam 
after it's obvious they're not being achieved by investor owned 
companies.

My opinion, the first causality of contract carriage was trading a 
community access channel for the mandate of producing news, a mandate 
previously imposed per the use of public airways.

Sadly, this generation only sees a world where the producers of facts 
and news don't get paid, which means they don't understand how to fix a 
most important function like journalism. They've never seen it before 
and are easily duped by ChatGPT & Elon Musk (and by what they read on 
the internet like iperf 3 is better than iperf 2 because 3 > 2, yet 
they're not the same code at all.)

Bob

> Bob,
> 
> That's an interesting take on monopolies being sometimes-OK. It's the
> old "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." No one
> can have absolute power (even a dictator worries about being
> overthrown if his people become too angry), which I suppose is a
> corollary to a "benevolent monopoly."
> 
> I partially agree with your premise, but maybe get there by different 
> reasons:
> 
> To be clear, my concern is not with monopolies that form naturally
> from customer preferences and business success, but rather
> specifically those that exist only because of legislative or regulator
> controls. In other words, I don't fear the monopoly that earned its
> way to dominance, because as long as it's not protected by government,
> it needs to remain customer-focused or clever entrepreneurial upstarts
> will take its place in time. There may be some niche cases, but in all
> the big industries, there has never been a sustained natural monopoly.
> Even steel and rail industries were not total monopolies.
> 
> The typical problem is that as companies get large enough to have a
> lobbying budget, they tend to influence those in government to pass
> protective laws. In this discussion, it was laws like Net Neutrality
> to help the content providers by forcing their distributors (the
> carriers) to adhere to rules beneficial to the content providers. In
> many cases, these laws do help some portion of consumers (maybe even a
> majority) in the short run, but they ALWAYS do harm in the long run by
> discouraging innovation.
> 
> Cheers,
> Colin
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rjmcmahon <rjmcmahon@rjmcmahon.com>
> Sent: Monday, October 2, 2023 5:55 PM
> To: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
> Cc: Network Neutrality is back! Let´s make the technical aspects heard
> this time! <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> Subject: Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors
> 
> Competition in a natural monopoly is a myth. There are a few places
> that competition in the OSP may survive, e.g. NYC, but otherwise it's
> like water, electric, sanitation, sea ports etc.
> 
> There of course is FWA competition, but that's likely a transient, or
> just along freeways (no freeways, no FWA) as we move to 100Gbs and
> beyond and less energy. But that assumes we do the work.
> 
> The belief of "monopoly as always bad" miss that without the land
> grants and railroads, the U.S. economy would have developed like
> Russia, who decided against funding RRs for over a century and, in
> turn, missed the industrial revolution. It's ironic that the U.S.
> "capitalist" state provided the land grants while the yet to be
> "communists" didn't.
> 
> Bob
>> Well, if that were the case, I believe that would support my thesis:
>> the problem is lack of competition. The reason for the lack of
>> competition is a mix of local contracts and legislative problems.
>> Especially in more rural areas, one can understand how getting a cable
>> company to build out the infrastructure may have required a promise of
>> exclusivity – otherwise, they would not have been willing to incur the
>> substantial cost of building out the capacity, especially in a
>> low-density area. As the smaller local cable companies were acquired
>> by the modern behemoths, they maintained the monopolistic control over
>> those regions. Some do automatically time-out to allow competition
>> eventually. Many do not.
>> 
>> In reality, there are alternatives in most places, just not generally
>> very good alternatives:
>> 
>> DSL is available in most places (I suspect more broadly available that
>> cable Internet). Unfortunately, and I suspect many here can speak more
>> knowledgeably than I on the underlying technology, DSL is often
>> limited to lower speeds than the cable offerings, due to its extreme
>> distance sensitivity and relatively short range. Where I live, I had 3
>> DSL lines and dual T1's combined via SD-WAN as the only way to get
>> sufficient bandwidth for video conferencing from home until Starlink
>> came along and saved the day at a fraction of the cost. There is no
>> cable option here – we're too rural to be worth a cable company's
>> efforts. On the other hand, in addition to DSL we also have another
>> wired option: our electric company is running Gbps fiber all over
>> rural parts of NH now, which should become available here in another
>> 1-2 months.
>> 
>> Just north of Philly, I had FiOS fiber as an option in addition to
>> traditional cable. When that arrived, anecdotally, I can report that
>> cable customers talked about her their service improved too (due to
>> the competition, I am confident).
>> 
>> And obviously not wired (to your point), but cellular connectivity is
>> also available in most places that support cable. Starlink, and other
>> wireless options also exist and may benefit from being able to limit
>> certain kinds of traffic.
>> 
>> My point is more general than these specifics though. I caution
>> against regulating an industry where we depend on innovation to
>> radically improve performance over the upcoming decades. Forcing
>> specific behavior will slow the pace of innovation on connectivity
>> infrastructure. To be fair, it may speed certain other areas of
>> innovation or help with customer experience around streaming services.
>> These were the original champions of NN, because it's to their
>> benefit, at the cost of the carriers.
>> 
>> Again, the problem is with the forced monopolies for cable service.
>> Break that up and history shows that the rest will largely solve
>> itself. Not immediately (which is why Google and Netflix pushed the
>> original NN model rather than busting the regional carrier exclusive
>> locks), but in way that's stronger in the long-run.
>> 
>> Or, to put it another way, the original NN push (not suggesting that's
>> what anyone's doing here) would have just been the US government
>> choosing one set of companies to support over another.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Colin
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: rjmcmahon <rjmcmahon@rjmcmahon.com>
>> Sent: Monday, October 2, 2023 5:08 PM
>> To: Network Neutrality is back! Let´s make the technical aspects heard
>> this time! <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>> Cc: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
>> Subject: Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors
>> 
>> I see it quite differently. The cable cos in the U.S. are the primary
>> (only?) companies providing wired access.  The common carriage fixed
>> wires co and their regulators abandoned communities to go to FWA as
>> Noam predicted in 1994. (They turned off my, 48V battery backed up in
>> the CO, landline without even letting me know. No 911, no dial tone,
>> no
>> nothing.)
>> 
>> I think waveguides, e.g. fiber, to and inside premises are the only
>> long term answer and we seem to keep bashing the companies actually
>> helping.
>> 
>> Bob
>>> While product and service innovation often originates from pure R&D 
>>> or
>>> work performed in academic labs, in virtually all cases, converting
>>> that into commercially viable products and services is the result of
>>> profit incentives. A company won’t invest in doing something new with
>>> attendant risks unless they can expect a return on that investment
>>> greater than the alternatives (or they believe it will provide
>>> strategic support to some other product or service). For that reason,
>>> we want to be extremely careful about regulating how companies can
>>> implement innovations, including the use of potentially distasteful
>>> business practices. None of us who want to see the Internet become
>>> better over time and more accessible should want anything resembling
>>> NN regulation.
>>> 
>>> The regulatory side of this is largely not a technical discussion
>>> because future innovation, by definition, may exceed technical
>>> considerations we can conceive of today.
>>> 
>>> It's easy to conceive of examples where an ISP wants to prioritize or
>>> penalize certain kinds of traffic. And while that may seem
>>> superficially bad, it’s an important part of the very competition 
>>> that
>>> drives innovation and cost reductions over time. E.g., recall when
>>> Google Fiber had been willing to install Gbps fiber in places at a
>>> time when most of the rest of the country was struggling to get 
>>> 20Mbps
>>> connections. If Google had wanted to limit that to Google services,
>>> that still might have been a boon to those customers.
>>> Further, it could have shown the uses and values of what was then
>>> considered limitless bandwidth for a home or small business user. 
>>> Even
>>> though this would clearly have been in violation of the tenets of NN,
>>> it would have provided important data that might have spawned
>>> significant investment by others and advanced the state of
>>> connectivity across the board.
>>> 
>>> I know the counter argument to this is that local ISP monopolies
>>> already break innovation, and those companies, especially the big
>>> cable companies, therefore have no incentive to provide a good
>>> service. I largely agree with that (there is still some small
>>> incentive, in that if they are too terrible, customer outcry will 
>>> turn
>>> to voter outcry and demand breaking those monopolies, and they don’t
>>> want to risk that).
>>> 
>>> Therefore, the legal issue to address is NOT how they treat or
>>> prioritize data, whether by content or protocol – which they should 
>>> be
>>> allowed to do, EVEN WHEN IT’S BAD FOR CUSTOMERS – but, at least
>>> referring to the U.S. specifically with our federal/state system, to
>>> put federal limits on durations of regional monopoly durations. I
>>> believe this is within the scope of what FCC can mandate (some would
>>> debate this and it may take the courts to sort it out). These need 
>>> not
>>> be purely # of years, they can be a function of time to recoup
>>> deployment costs. If a company negotiated a local monopoly as part of
>>> covering their deployment costs, I would personally say that they
>>> should be given an opportunity to recoup those, but then after that,
>>> they need to open up their lines for use by competing firms, similar
>>> to what happened with the RBOCs and the old telephone lines.
>>> 
>>> This is also the legal logic behind patents: give a company a 20 year
>>> monopoly on the invention in exchange for making it public to 
>>> everyone
>>> and showing them how to do it (the patent must provide clear
>>> instructions). We deem the temporary monopoly worthwhile to incent 
>>> the
>>> innovation, provided the inventor makes it public. This is the right
>>> philosophy to consider for something like bandwidth innovation,
>>> investment, and access.
>>> 
>>> In short, with ISP’s the open-ended government protected monopolies
>>> are the problem, not the providers’ ability to overcharge customers 
>>> or
>>> prioritize some data over others. Competition will fix that over 
>>> time,
>>> as long asto and through all buildings.
  competition is allowed to occur. And while it may be faster
>>> to force it through regulation, that has dangerous long-term
>>> consequences with respect to future innovation.
>>> 
>>> Starlink is one example of innovation. FTTH is another. 
>>> Cellular-based
>>> Internet is another. Simply buying bulk access on existing lines and
>>> repackaging it under different terms could be yet another. Those all
>>> seem obvious, because they’re the ones we know. The real danger in
>>> unforeseen consequences is the dampening effect NN-style regulations
>>> have on yet-to-be-seen innovations, the innovations that never come 
>>> to
>>> fruition because of the regulations.
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> 
>>> Colin Higbie
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Nnagain mailing list
>>> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain

Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors

[Dick Roy]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 14905 bytes --]

 

 

  _____  

From: Nnagain [mailto:nnagain-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net] On Behalf Of Frantisek Borsik via Nnagain
Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2023 11:10 AM
To: Network Neutrality is back! Let´s make the technical aspects heard this time!; rjmcmahon
Cc: Frantisek Borsik
Subject: Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors

 

Bob - "beyond FWA which is limited by physics and is energy inefficient, a net negative to climate mitigations" - why FWA should be energy inefficient and net negative to climate mitigation?

 

I know that I'm drifting this conversation off again, but I strongly disagree with this statement.

[RR] If by “this statement” you mean the claim that FWA is energy inefficient compared to ANY “wired” connection, the laws of physics are clear.  Any energy sent that is NOT received is lost, and FWA “loses” orders of magnitude more energy than any communication medium that confines the energy to flow between a transmitter and a receiver.  Therein, only radiative and resistive loses matter, and they are again orders of magnitude less than RF trasmissions trough the atmosphere.  The path-loss models for both types of media can be used to quantify the differences! :-)

 

RR 

 




All the best,

 

Frank

Frantisek (Frank) Borsik

 

 <https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik> https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik

Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714 

iMessage, mobile: +420775230885

Skype: casioa5302ca

 <mailto:frantisek.borsik@gmail.com> frantisek.borsik@gmail.com

 

 

On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 7:55 PM Sebastian Moeller via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:

Hi Bob,


> On Oct 3, 2023, at 18:54, rjmcmahon <rjmcmahon@rjmcmahon.com> wrote:
> 
> Natural monopolies are things with high sunk costs. Things with high sunk costs don't necessarily exist (like electrified roads) even though they add huge value to society and can help curb climate impacts. A natural monopoly exists unrelated to a provider already having an infrastructure in place per that monopoly.
> 
> Fiber with up gradable optics to hundreds of millions of buildings that can leverage the NRE from data centers are natural monopolies and don't really exist in most places, even though they are critical to mitigating climate impact.
> 
> The idea of municipal ownership of access networks in the U.S. was pushed in 2000 after the 1996 Telco act. It didn't work out.

        [SM] I only monitored this cursory (not living in the US any longer), but I seem to recall quite a number of questionable plays against municipal ownership by the existing ISPs; I would book this as "never really tried", and not as we gave it an honest try but it fell short. That said many municipalities (in many parts of the world) are hardly in the shape required to built new costly infrastructure as they are having troubles maintaining the infrastructure on their hands with the available funds.

> The primary companies that invested in access networks were the cable cos and they redid it for HFC in 2000s (along with some roll ups.) They are likely the only U.S. companies that will upgrade again (beyond FWA which is limited by physics and is energy inefficient, a net negative to climate mitigations.)
> 
> The U.S. railroads were natural monopolies. They were given massive land grants to build out. They ran as private companies for about one century. They lost their monopoly position after third generations who inherited them used these monopolies to price guoge government during WWI and WWII. That's part of the reason most DoT type govt agencies today are "roads & airports" vs "roads, rail & airports." Rail has been re privatized and under invested - perfect for Warren Buffett but no so good for everyone else nor for the climate.
> 
> Governments will respond to monopoly abuse after it occurs, not before.

        [SM] Indeed, that is often the case...

> First, the infrastructure needs massive funding to be installed, however that can get done. Municipal revenue bonds & networks sound nice in theory but haven't worked over the last two decades. Time to try something different.

        [SM] Again I argue that has not really been tried, but unless there is going to be a big change in DC it is not going ot be tried for real in the future either, so in essence we might agree ;)

Regards
        Sebastian

> 
> Bob
> 
> https://www.electrichybridvehicletechnology.com/news/charging-technology/us-to-build-its-first-ever-electric-road-that-wirelessly-charges-evs-as-they-drive.html
> 
>> Hi Colin,
>>> On Oct 2, 2023, at 22:34, Colin_Higbie via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>> While product and service innovation often originates from pure R&D or work performed in academic labs, in virtually all cases, converting that into commercially viable products and services is the result of profit incentives. A company won’t invest in doing something new with attendant risks unless they can expect a return on that investment greater than the alternatives (or they believe it will provide strategic support to some other product or service). For that reason, we want to be extremely careful about regulating how companies can implement innovations, including the use of potentially distasteful business practices. None of us who want to see the Internet become better over time and more accessible should want anything resembling NN regulation.
>>      [SM] At its core NN regulations really just say that who is selling
>> internet access services is supposed to do exactly that and not try to
>> act as gate-keeper picking winners and losers. I might be
>> insufficiently creative here, but I do not think a simple "do not
>> discriminate" directive really restricts the space of potential
>> innovations in any meaningful way.
>>> The regulatory side of this is largely not a technical discussion because future innovation, by definition, may exceed technical considerations we can conceive of today.
>>      [SM] Indded, prediction is hard, especially predictions about the future ;)
>>> It's easy to conceive of examples where an ISP wants to prioritize or penalize certain kinds of traffic. And while that may seem superficially bad, it’s an important part of the very competition that drives innovation and cost reductions over time. E.g., recall when Google Fiber had been willing to install Gbps fiber in places at a time when most of the rest of the country was struggling to get 20Mbps connections. If Google had wanted to limit that to Google services, that still might have been a boon to those customers.
>>      [SM] I respectfully disagree, that would not have been meaningful
>> internet access. An unrestricted 20M internet access link has more
>> general utility that even a 10G gate-keeper only link (who that
>> gate-keeper is is irrelevant). (I am not saying the 20M would be
>> without issues)
>>> Further, it could have shown the uses and values of what was then considered limitless bandwidth for a home or small business user.
>>      [SM] Yeah, on that question we are still waiting even though >= 1
>> Gbps services are not all that rare anymore. As far as I can see it we
>> still lack use-cases that strictly require fast links that go above
>> simple "more parallel" or "faster".
>>> Even though this would clearly have been in violation of the tenets of NN, it would have provided important data that might have spawned significant investment by others and advanced the state of connectivity across the board.
>>      [SM] This is purely speculative though, it might as well had shown
>> nothing of that kind by the sheer fact that google fiber roll-out was
>> so small as to be not representative of anything, no?
>>> I know the counter argument to this is that local ISP monopolies already break innovation, and those companies, especially the big cable companies, therefore have no incentive to provide a good service. I largely agree with that (there is still some small incentive, in that if they are too terrible, customer outcry will turn to voter outcry and demand breaking those monopolies, and they don’t want to risk that).
>>> Therefore, the legal issue to address is NOT how they treat or prioritize data, whether by content or protocol – which they should be allowed to do, EVEN WHEN IT’S BAD FOR CUSTOMERS – but, at least referring to the U.S. specifically with our federal/state system, to put federal limits on durations of regional monopoly durations. I believe this is within the scope of what FCC can mandate (some would debate this and it may take the courts to sort it out). These need not be purely # of years, they can be a function of time to recoup deployment costs. If a company negotiated a local monopoly as part of covering their deployment costs, I would personally say that they should be given an opportunity to recoup those, but then after that, they need to open up their lines for use by competing firms, similar to what happened with the RBOCs and the old telephone lines.
>>      [SM] The problem is that access networks often are not legal
>> monopolies, but natural monopolies where if company A has a high-speed
>> capable network deployed it becomes economically unattractive for
>> other companies to deploy their own network (the competitor can
>> torpedo such a deployment by lowering prices such that too few
>> customers change to make the whole thing stay in the "loss" region for
>> a long time). So leaving the access network to market players will
>> always result in the incentive to monetize the gate-keeper role that
>> is inherent in the network's structure.
>> One solution to this problem (not the only one) is to put the access
>> network into the public hands, like other important infrastructure.
>> The idea would then be like in Amsterdam, Zuerich and a few other
>> places to have a local access network provider that in turn
>> "concentrates" access links in COs local IXs where interested ISPs con
>> connect to and then offer all end-users in that access network
>> internet access services. That still leaves the natural monopoly of
>> the access network untouched, but puts it under management of en
>> entity that is not likely to exploit this (as fully as private
>> entities are).
>>      This is however pretty orthogonal to direct NN concerns, and I am
>> sure not a generally accepted model. (Say if I would be operating a
>> small ISP and would differentiate myself by how well I manage my
>> access network, I likely would detest such ideas, and if I would
>> operate a big ISP I would detest them for other reasons ;) so this is
>> ver end-user centric and also relies on some modicum of faith in local
>> government)
>>> This is also the legal logic behind patents: give a company a 20 year monopoly on the invention in exchange for making it public to everyone and showing them how to do it (the patent must provide clear instructions). We deem the temporary monopoly worthwhile to incent the innovation, provided the inventor makes it public. This is the right philosophy to consider for something like bandwidth innovation, investment, and access.
>>> In short, with ISP’s the open-ended government protected monopolies are the problem,
>>      [SM] Again these often are not legal monopolies where nobody else is
>> permitted to build a competing network, but natural monopolies where
>> the expected return of investment falls with the number of already
>> existing networks, while the cost stays constant. AND the number of
>> ISPs tgat might actually bite the bullet and set diggers in motion is
>> still so small that in the end, we might change from a monopoly to an
>> oligopoly situation, bith are regimes in which the free market does
>> not really deliver on its promises.
>>> not the providers’ ability to overcharge customers or prioritize some data over others. Competition will fix that over time, as long as competition is allowed to occur. And while it may be faster to force it through regulation, that has dangerous long-term consequences with respect to future innovation.
>>      [SM] Yes, meaningful competition could help, but IMHO an oligopoly
>> likely would not result in meaningful enough competition. This is
>> where the access network in public hand ideas comes in, it makes the
>> cost to enter a market for ISPs relatively cheap, they really only
>> need to pull/rent fibers to the local IX and maybe deploy
>> OLTs/DSLAMs/CMTSs there (depending) on the local network tech, and can
>> start offer services, without having to deal with the access network.
>>> Starlink is one example of innovation. FTTH is another. Cellular-based Internet is another.
>>      [SM] All of which are orthogonal to NN regulations, neither depended
>> on violating the "do not discriminate" rule, no?
>>> Simply buying bulk access on existing lines and repackaging it under different terms could be yet another. Those all seem obvious, because they’re the ones we know. The real danger in unforeseen consequences is the dampening effect NN-style regulations have on yet-to-be-seen innovations, the innovations that never come to fruition because of the regulations.
>>      [SM] I claim that rules and regulations always set the stage for
>> which business decisions are acceptable/profitable and which are not,
>> that is true whether we add the NN mandates to the mix or not, so I
>> really do not see how these will have a meaningful influence on future
>> expected innovation (unless that innovation really is all about active
>> discrimination, but in that case I see no real loss).
>> Side-note: The thing is "discrimination" is still permitted under most
>> NN rules, as long as it is under active control of the end-users, not
>> the ISP. So I am sure some end-users would appreciate an "prioritize
>> vide conferencing and VoIP over video streaming and gaming under load"
>> option offered by their ISP and might even be willing to pay a little,
>> as long as the end user can toggle this option at will it will not be
>> subject to NN regulations as far as I understand. This clearly leaves
>> some innovation space available even for active discrimination.
>> Regards
>>      Sebastian
>>> Cheers,
>>> Colin Higbie
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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

_______________________________________________
Nnagain mailing list
Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 25723 bytes --]

Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors

[Colin_Higbie]

Bob,

That's an interesting take on monopolies being sometimes-OK. It's the old "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." No one can have absolute power (even a dictator worries about being overthrown if his people become too angry), which I suppose is a corollary to a "benevolent monopoly." 

I partially agree with your premise, but maybe get there by different reasons:

To be clear, my concern is not with monopolies that form naturally from customer preferences and business success, but rather specifically those that exist only because of legislative or regulator controls. In other words, I don't fear the monopoly that earned its way to dominance, because as long as it's not protected by government, it needs to remain customer-focused or clever entrepreneurial upstarts will take its place in time. There may be some niche cases, but in all the big industries, there has never been a sustained natural monopoly. Even steel and rail industries were not total monopolies. 

The typical problem is that as companies get large enough to have a lobbying budget, they tend to influence those in government to pass protective laws. In this discussion, it was laws like Net Neutrality to help the content providers by forcing their distributors (the carriers) to adhere to rules beneficial to the content providers. In many cases, these laws do help some portion of consumers (maybe even a majority) in the short run, but they ALWAYS do harm in the long run by discouraging innovation.

Cheers,
Colin



-----Original Message-----
From: rjmcmahon <rjmcmahon@rjmcmahon.com> 
Sent: Monday, October 2, 2023 5:55 PM
To: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
Cc: Network Neutrality is back! Let´s make the technical aspects heard this time! <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors

Competition in a natural monopoly is a myth. There are a few places that competition in the OSP may survive, e.g. NYC, but otherwise it's like water, electric, sanitation, sea ports etc.

There of course is FWA competition, but that's likely a transient, or just along freeways (no freeways, no FWA) as we move to 100Gbs and beyond and less energy. But that assumes we do the work.

The belief of "monopoly as always bad" miss that without the land grants and railroads, the U.S. economy would have developed like Russia, who decided against funding RRs for over a century and, in turn, missed the industrial revolution. It's ironic that the U.S. "capitalist" state provided the land grants while the yet to be "communists" didn't.

Bob
> Well, if that were the case, I believe that would support my thesis:
> the problem is lack of competition. The reason for the lack of
> competition is a mix of local contracts and legislative problems.
> Especially in more rural areas, one can understand how getting a cable
> company to build out the infrastructure may have required a promise of
> exclusivity – otherwise, they would not have been willing to incur the
> substantial cost of building out the capacity, especially in a
> low-density area. As the smaller local cable companies were acquired
> by the modern behemoths, they maintained the monopolistic control over
> those regions. Some do automatically time-out to allow competition
> eventually. Many do not.
> 
> In reality, there are alternatives in most places, just not generally
> very good alternatives:
> 
> DSL is available in most places (I suspect more broadly available that
> cable Internet). Unfortunately, and I suspect many here can speak more
> knowledgeably than I on the underlying technology, DSL is often
> limited to lower speeds than the cable offerings, due to its extreme
> distance sensitivity and relatively short range. Where I live, I had 3
> DSL lines and dual T1's combined via SD-WAN as the only way to get
> sufficient bandwidth for video conferencing from home until Starlink
> came along and saved the day at a fraction of the cost. There is no
> cable option here – we're too rural to be worth a cable company's
> efforts. On the other hand, in addition to DSL we also have another
> wired option: our electric company is running Gbps fiber all over
> rural parts of NH now, which should become available here in another
> 1-2 months.
> 
> Just north of Philly, I had FiOS fiber as an option in addition to
> traditional cable. When that arrived, anecdotally, I can report that
> cable customers talked about her their service improved too (due to
> the competition, I am confident).
> 
> And obviously not wired (to your point), but cellular connectivity is
> also available in most places that support cable. Starlink, and other
> wireless options also exist and may benefit from being able to limit
> certain kinds of traffic.
> 
> My point is more general than these specifics though. I caution
> against regulating an industry where we depend on innovation to
> radically improve performance over the upcoming decades. Forcing
> specific behavior will slow the pace of innovation on connectivity
> infrastructure. To be fair, it may speed certain other areas of
> innovation or help with customer experience around streaming services.
> These were the original champions of NN, because it's to their
> benefit, at the cost of the carriers.
> 
> Again, the problem is with the forced monopolies for cable service.
> Break that up and history shows that the rest will largely solve
> itself. Not immediately (which is why Google and Netflix pushed the
> original NN model rather than busting the regional carrier exclusive
> locks), but in way that's stronger in the long-run.
> 
> Or, to put it another way, the original NN push (not suggesting that's
> what anyone's doing here) would have just been the US government
> choosing one set of companies to support over another.
> 
> Cheers,
> Colin
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rjmcmahon <rjmcmahon@rjmcmahon.com>
> Sent: Monday, October 2, 2023 5:08 PM
> To: Network Neutrality is back! Let´s make the technical aspects heard
> this time! <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> Cc: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
> Subject: Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors
> 
> I see it quite differently. The cable cos in the U.S. are the primary
> (only?) companies providing wired access.  The common carriage fixed
> wires co and their regulators abandoned communities to go to FWA as
> Noam predicted in 1994. (They turned off my, 48V battery backed up in
> the CO, landline without even letting me know. No 911, no dial tone,
> no
> nothing.)
> 
> I think waveguides, e.g. fiber, to and inside premises are the only
> long term answer and we seem to keep bashing the companies actually
> helping.
> 
> Bob
>> While product and service innovation often originates from pure R&D or
>> work performed in academic labs, in virtually all cases, converting
>> that into commercially viable products and services is the result of
>> profit incentives. A company won’t invest in doing something new with
>> attendant risks unless they can expect a return on that investment
>> greater than the alternatives (or they believe it will provide
>> strategic support to some other product or service). For that reason,
>> we want to be extremely careful about regulating how companies can
>> implement innovations, including the use of potentially distasteful
>> business practices. None of us who want to see the Internet become
>> better over time and more accessible should want anything resembling
>> NN regulation.
>> 
>> The regulatory side of this is largely not a technical discussion
>> because future innovation, by definition, may exceed technical
>> considerations we can conceive of today.
>> 
>> It's easy to conceive of examples where an ISP wants to prioritize or
>> penalize certain kinds of traffic. And while that may seem
>> superficially bad, it’s an important part of the very competition that
>> drives innovation and cost reductions over time. E.g., recall when
>> Google Fiber had been willing to install Gbps fiber in places at a
>> time when most of the rest of the country was struggling to get 20Mbps
>> connections. If Google had wanted to limit that to Google services,
>> that still might have been a boon to those customers.
>> Further, it could have shown the uses and values of what was then
>> considered limitless bandwidth for a home or small business user. Even
>> though this would clearly have been in violation of the tenets of NN,
>> it would have provided important data that might have spawned
>> significant investment by others and advanced the state of
>> connectivity across the board.
>> 
>> I know the counter argument to this is that local ISP monopolies
>> already break innovation, and those companies, especially the big
>> cable companies, therefore have no incentive to provide a good
>> service. I largely agree with that (there is still some small
>> incentive, in that if they are too terrible, customer outcry will turn
>> to voter outcry and demand breaking those monopolies, and they don’t
>> want to risk that).
>> 
>> Therefore, the legal issue to address is NOT how they treat or
>> prioritize data, whether by content or protocol – which they should be
>> allowed to do, EVEN WHEN IT’S BAD FOR CUSTOMERS – but, at least
>> referring to the U.S. specifically with our federal/state system, to
>> put federal limits on durations of regional monopoly durations. I
>> believe this is within the scope of what FCC can mandate (some would
>> debate this and it may take the courts to sort it out). These need not
>> be purely # of years, they can be a function of time to recoup
>> deployment costs. If a company negotiated a local monopoly as part of
>> covering their deployment costs, I would personally say that they
>> should be given an opportunity to recoup those, but then after that,
>> they need to open up their lines for use by competing firms, similar
>> to what happened with the RBOCs and the old telephone lines.
>> 
>> This is also the legal logic behind patents: give a company a 20 year
>> monopoly on the invention in exchange for making it public to everyone
>> and showing them how to do it (the patent must provide clear
>> instructions). We deem the temporary monopoly worthwhile to incent the
>> innovation, provided the inventor makes it public. This is the right
>> philosophy to consider for something like bandwidth innovation,
>> investment, and access.
>> 
>> In short, with ISP’s the open-ended government protected monopolies
>> are the problem, not the providers’ ability to overcharge customers or
>> prioritize some data over others. Competition will fix that over time,
>> as long as competition is allowed to occur. And while it may be faster
>> to force it through regulation, that has dangerous long-term
>> consequences with respect to future innovation.
>> 
>> Starlink is one example of innovation. FTTH is another. Cellular-based
>> Internet is another. Simply buying bulk access on existing lines and
>> repackaging it under different terms could be yet another. Those all
>> seem obvious, because they’re the ones we know. The real danger in
>> unforeseen consequences is the dampening effect NN-style regulations
>> have on yet-to-be-seen innovations, the innovations that never come to
>> fruition because of the regulations.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> Colin Higbie
>> _______________________________________________
>> Nnagain mailing list
>> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain

Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors

[rjmcmahon]

It doesn't matter who is to blame. What matters is that it didn't work 
at scale despite the political, regulatory and legal attempts per the 
federal 1996 Telco Act which proved to be a naive Act even with all the 
experts, including tech leaders, trying their best.

There aren't fiber cables over the last 100 meters (or more) in the OSP 
and none inside buildings (other than data centers.)

Cat copper cable tops out at 10Gb/s and 100m, and 4M for 100Gb/s. We're 
already releasing 200Gb/s SERDES today. And optics NRE are driving power 
down to increase MTBF. The last NRE spent on 10G was done over a decade 
ago. Years in technology are like dog years.

Today, for 1Gb/s it's 300 times the energy per meter using copper CAT vs 
fiber. No comparison at 100G because 4M is too short for most things 
except for a data center rack.

China has basically banned copper and is going fiber to and through all 
buildings.

Bob
> On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 11:55 AM Sebastian Moeller via Nnagain
> <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> 
>> ...
>>> 
>>> The idea of municipal ownership of access networks in the U.S. was
>> pushed in 2000 after the 1996 Telco act. It didn't work out.
> 
> My state specifically bans municipalities from building or owning
> networks involved in internet delivery.  I think about a dozen states
> do this.  In my state, I think this was a specific charity by the
> governor to his buddies at spectrum so cities didn't compete against
> spectrum....
> 
>>> 
>>> The U.S. railroads were natural monopolies. They were given
>> massive land grants to build out. They ran as private companies for
>> about one century. They lost their monopoly position after third
>> generations who inherited them used these monopolies to price guoge
>> government during WWI and WWII. That's part of the reason most DoT
>> type govt agencies today are "roads & airports" vs "roads, rail &
>> airports." Rail has been re privatized and under invested - perfect
>> for Warren Buffett but no so good for everyone else nor for the
>> climate.
> 
> I don't know that this is an appropriate conclusion.  I don't think
> that any railroads were monopolies  until the government gave out land
> grants and monies to build those monopolies and now they are
> absolutely government backed monopolies.  Yes, railroads gouged for
> use of their lines, but that was more price collusion than monopoly.
> 
>>> 
>>> Governments will respond to monopoly abuse after it occurs, not
>> before.
>> 
>> [SM] Indeed, that is often the case...
> 
> and often WAY after and only when the government itself feels the pain
> of it.
> 
>>> First, the infrastructure needs massive funding to be installed
> 
>> , however that can get done. Municipal revenue bonds & networks
>> sound nice in theory but haven't worked over the last two decades.
>> Time to try something different.
> 
> There is existing dark fiber through or within a few miles of
> something like 95% of US towns, down to tiny villages.  The government
> has already paid lots of money out to get fiber everywhere, but then
> that fiber is not readily available to purchase.  This goes back to
> the microIX model discussed on the bufferbloat list and matrix chat.
> We only need to find a way to require this fiber be sold and at
> reasonable rates to allow for competition.  This really isn't a big
> infrastructure spend because that was spent 2 decades ago.

Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors

[dan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 900 bytes --]

On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 12:10 PM Frantisek Borsik via Nnagain <
nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:

> Bob - *"beyond FWA which is limited by physics and is energy inefficient,
> a net negative to climate mitigations"* - why FWA should be energy
> inefficient and net negative to climate mitigation?
>
> I know that I'm drifting this conversation off again, but I strongly
> disagree with this statement.
>
>
100%.   Some of this group may be sick of seeing my solar builds in the
matrix chat...   we're running FWA radios that run 3-9W, less power than a
typical cable modem or ONU.  We're running sites with hundreds of customers
burning up 100W on solar power.   We've built 2 new sites this week running
entirely on solar power.  I don't know how much greener you get...  We
don't even run generators there, just add more solar so we can run the site
on overcast production.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1383 bytes --]

Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors

[dan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2481 bytes --]

On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 11:55 AM Sebastian Moeller via Nnagain <
nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:

> ...
> >
> > The idea of municipal ownership of access networks in the U.S. was
> pushed in 2000 after the 1996 Telco act. It didn't work out.
>

My state specifically bans municipalities from building or owning networks
involved in internet delivery.  I think about a dozen states do this.  In
my state, I think this was a specific charity by the governor to his
buddies at spectrum so cities didn't compete against spectrum....



>
> >
> > The U.S. railroads were natural monopolies. They were given massive land
> grants to build out. They ran as private companies for about one century.
> They lost their monopoly position after third generations who inherited
> them used these monopolies to price guoge government during WWI and WWII.
> That's part of the reason most DoT type govt agencies today are "roads &
> airports" vs "roads, rail & airports." Rail has been re privatized and
> under invested - perfect for Warren Buffett but no so good for everyone
> else nor for the climate.
>
I don't know that this is an appropriate conclusion.  I don't think that
any railroads were monopolies  until the government gave out land grants
and monies to build those monopolies and now they are absolutely government
backed monopolies.  Yes, railroads gouged for use of their lines, but that
was more price collusion than monopoly.

>
> > Governments will respond to monopoly abuse after it occurs, not before.
>
>         [SM] Indeed, that is often the case...
>
and often WAY after and only when the government itself feels the pain of
it.


>
> > First, the infrastructure needs massive funding to be installed

, however that can get done. Municipal revenue bonds & networks sound nice
> in theory but haven't worked over the last two decades. Time to try
> something different.
>

There is existing dark fiber through or within a few miles of something
like 95% of US towns, down to tiny villages.  The government has already
paid lots of money out to get fiber everywhere, but then that fiber is not
readily available to purchase.  This goes back to the microIX model
discussed on the bufferbloat list and matrix chat.   We only need to find a
way to require this fiber be sold and at reasonable rates to allow for
competition.  This really isn't a big infrastructure spend because that was
spent 2 decades ago.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3457 bytes --]

Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors

[Frantisek Borsik]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 14394 bytes --]

Bob - *"beyond FWA which is limited by physics and is energy inefficient, a
net negative to climate mitigations"* - why FWA should be energy
inefficient and net negative to climate mitigation?

I know that I'm drifting this conversation off again, but I strongly
disagree with this statement.


All the best,

Frank

Frantisek (Frank) Borsik



https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik

Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714

iMessage, mobile: +420775230885

Skype: casioa5302ca

frantisek.borsik@gmail.com


On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 7:55 PM Sebastian Moeller via Nnagain <
nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:

> Hi Bob,
>
>
> > On Oct 3, 2023, at 18:54, rjmcmahon <rjmcmahon@rjmcmahon.com> wrote:
> >
> > Natural monopolies are things with high sunk costs. Things with high
> sunk costs don't necessarily exist (like electrified roads) even though
> they add huge value to society and can help curb climate impacts. A natural
> monopoly exists unrelated to a provider already having an infrastructure in
> place per that monopoly.
> >
> > Fiber with up gradable optics to hundreds of millions of buildings that
> can leverage the NRE from data centers are natural monopolies and don't
> really exist in most places, even though they are critical to mitigating
> climate impact.
> >
> > The idea of municipal ownership of access networks in the U.S. was
> pushed in 2000 after the 1996 Telco act. It didn't work out.
>
>         [SM] I only monitored this cursory (not living in the US any
> longer), but I seem to recall quite a number of questionable plays against
> municipal ownership by the existing ISPs; I would book this as "never
> really tried", and not as we gave it an honest try but it fell short. That
> said many municipalities (in many parts of the world) are hardly in the
> shape required to built new costly infrastructure as they are having
> troubles maintaining the infrastructure on their hands with the available
> funds.
>
> > The primary companies that invested in access networks were the cable
> cos and they redid it for HFC in 2000s (along with some roll ups.) They are
> likely the only U.S. companies that will upgrade again (beyond FWA which is
> limited by physics and is energy inefficient, a net negative to climate
> mitigations.)
> >
> > The U.S. railroads were natural monopolies. They were given massive land
> grants to build out. They ran as private companies for about one century.
> They lost their monopoly position after third generations who inherited
> them used these monopolies to price guoge government during WWI and WWII.
> That's part of the reason most DoT type govt agencies today are "roads &
> airports" vs "roads, rail & airports." Rail has been re privatized and
> under invested - perfect for Warren Buffett but no so good for everyone
> else nor for the climate.
> >
> > Governments will respond to monopoly abuse after it occurs, not before.
>
>         [SM] Indeed, that is often the case...
>
> > First, the infrastructure needs massive funding to be installed, however
> that can get done. Municipal revenue bonds & networks sound nice in theory
> but haven't worked over the last two decades. Time to try something
> different.
>
>         [SM] Again I argue that has not really been tried, but unless
> there is going to be a big change in DC it is not going ot be tried for
> real in the future either, so in essence we might agree ;)
>
> Regards
>         Sebastian
>
> >
> > Bob
> >
> >
> https://www.electrichybridvehicletechnology.com/news/charging-technology/us-to-build-its-first-ever-electric-road-that-wirelessly-charges-evs-as-they-drive.html
> >
> >> Hi Colin,
> >>> On Oct 2, 2023, at 22:34, Colin_Higbie via Nnagain <
> nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> >>> While product and service innovation often originates from pure R&D or
> work performed in academic labs, in virtually all cases, converting that
> into commercially viable products and services is the result of profit
> incentives. A company won’t invest in doing something new with attendant
> risks unless they can expect a return on that investment greater than the
> alternatives (or they believe it will provide strategic support to some
> other product or service). For that reason, we want to be extremely careful
> about regulating how companies can implement innovations, including the use
> of potentially distasteful business practices. None of us who want to see
> the Internet become better over time and more accessible should want
> anything resembling NN regulation.
> >>      [SM] At its core NN regulations really just say that who is selling
> >> internet access services is supposed to do exactly that and not try to
> >> act as gate-keeper picking winners and losers. I might be
> >> insufficiently creative here, but I do not think a simple "do not
> >> discriminate" directive really restricts the space of potential
> >> innovations in any meaningful way.
> >>> The regulatory side of this is largely not a technical discussion
> because future innovation, by definition, may exceed technical
> considerations we can conceive of today.
> >>      [SM] Indded, prediction is hard, especially predictions about the
> future ;)
> >>> It's easy to conceive of examples where an ISP wants to prioritize or
> penalize certain kinds of traffic. And while that may seem superficially
> bad, it’s an important part of the very competition that drives innovation
> and cost reductions over time. E.g., recall when Google Fiber had been
> willing to install Gbps fiber in places at a time when most of the rest of
> the country was struggling to get 20Mbps connections. If Google had wanted
> to limit that to Google services, that still might have been a boon to
> those customers.
> >>      [SM] I respectfully disagree, that would not have been meaningful
> >> internet access. An unrestricted 20M internet access link has more
> >> general utility that even a 10G gate-keeper only link (who that
> >> gate-keeper is is irrelevant). (I am not saying the 20M would be
> >> without issues)
> >>> Further, it could have shown the uses and values of what was then
> considered limitless bandwidth for a home or small business user.
> >>      [SM] Yeah, on that question we are still waiting even though >= 1
> >> Gbps services are not all that rare anymore. As far as I can see it we
> >> still lack use-cases that strictly require fast links that go above
> >> simple "more parallel" or "faster".
> >>> Even though this would clearly have been in violation of the tenets of
> NN, it would have provided important data that might have spawned
> significant investment by others and advanced the state of connectivity
> across the board.
> >>      [SM] This is purely speculative though, it might as well had shown
> >> nothing of that kind by the sheer fact that google fiber roll-out was
> >> so small as to be not representative of anything, no?
> >>> I know the counter argument to this is that local ISP monopolies
> already break innovation, and those companies, especially the big cable
> companies, therefore have no incentive to provide a good service. I largely
> agree with that (there is still some small incentive, in that if they are
> too terrible, customer outcry will turn to voter outcry and demand breaking
> those monopolies, and they don’t want to risk that).
> >>> Therefore, the legal issue to address is NOT how they treat or
> prioritize data, whether by content or protocol – which they should be
> allowed to do, EVEN WHEN IT’S BAD FOR CUSTOMERS – but, at least referring
> to the U.S. specifically with our federal/state system, to put federal
> limits on durations of regional monopoly durations. I believe this is
> within the scope of what FCC can mandate (some would debate this and it may
> take the courts to sort it out). These need not be purely # of years, they
> can be a function of time to recoup deployment costs. If a company
> negotiated a local monopoly as part of covering their deployment costs, I
> would personally say that they should be given an opportunity to recoup
> those, but then after that, they need to open up their lines for use by
> competing firms, similar to what happened with the RBOCs and the old
> telephone lines.
> >>      [SM] The problem is that access networks often are not legal
> >> monopolies, but natural monopolies where if company A has a high-speed
> >> capable network deployed it becomes economically unattractive for
> >> other companies to deploy their own network (the competitor can
> >> torpedo such a deployment by lowering prices such that too few
> >> customers change to make the whole thing stay in the "loss" region for
> >> a long time). So leaving the access network to market players will
> >> always result in the incentive to monetize the gate-keeper role that
> >> is inherent in the network's structure.
> >> One solution to this problem (not the only one) is to put the access
> >> network into the public hands, like other important infrastructure.
> >> The idea would then be like in Amsterdam, Zuerich and a few other
> >> places to have a local access network provider that in turn
> >> "concentrates" access links in COs local IXs where interested ISPs con
> >> connect to and then offer all end-users in that access network
> >> internet access services. That still leaves the natural monopoly of
> >> the access network untouched, but puts it under management of en
> >> entity that is not likely to exploit this (as fully as private
> >> entities are).
> >>      This is however pretty orthogonal to direct NN concerns, and I am
> >> sure not a generally accepted model. (Say if I would be operating a
> >> small ISP and would differentiate myself by how well I manage my
> >> access network, I likely would detest such ideas, and if I would
> >> operate a big ISP I would detest them for other reasons ;) so this is
> >> ver end-user centric and also relies on some modicum of faith in local
> >> government)
> >>> This is also the legal logic behind patents: give a company a 20 year
> monopoly on the invention in exchange for making it public to everyone and
> showing them how to do it (the patent must provide clear instructions). We
> deem the temporary monopoly worthwhile to incent the innovation, provided
> the inventor makes it public. This is the right philosophy to consider for
> something like bandwidth innovation, investment, and access.
> >>> In short, with ISP’s the open-ended government protected monopolies
> are the problem,
> >>      [SM] Again these often are not legal monopolies where nobody else
> is
> >> permitted to build a competing network, but natural monopolies where
> >> the expected return of investment falls with the number of already
> >> existing networks, while the cost stays constant. AND the number of
> >> ISPs tgat might actually bite the bullet and set diggers in motion is
> >> still so small that in the end, we might change from a monopoly to an
> >> oligopoly situation, bith are regimes in which the free market does
> >> not really deliver on its promises.
> >>> not the providers’ ability to overcharge customers or prioritize some
> data over others. Competition will fix that over time, as long as
> competition is allowed to occur. And while it may be faster to force it
> through regulation, that has dangerous long-term consequences with respect
> to future innovation.
> >>      [SM] Yes, meaningful competition could help, but IMHO an oligopoly
> >> likely would not result in meaningful enough competition. This is
> >> where the access network in public hand ideas comes in, it makes the
> >> cost to enter a market for ISPs relatively cheap, they really only
> >> need to pull/rent fibers to the local IX and maybe deploy
> >> OLTs/DSLAMs/CMTSs there (depending) on the local network tech, and can
> >> start offer services, without having to deal with the access network.
> >>> Starlink is one example of innovation. FTTH is another. Cellular-based
> Internet is another.
> >>      [SM] All of which are orthogonal to NN regulations, neither
> depended
> >> on violating the "do not discriminate" rule, no?
> >>> Simply buying bulk access on existing lines and repackaging it under
> different terms could be yet another. Those all seem obvious, because
> they’re the ones we know. The real danger in unforeseen consequences is the
> dampening effect NN-style regulations have on yet-to-be-seen innovations,
> the innovations that never come to fruition because of the regulations.
> >>      [SM] I claim that rules and regulations always set the stage for
> >> which business decisions are acceptable/profitable and which are not,
> >> that is true whether we add the NN mandates to the mix or not, so I
> >> really do not see how these will have a meaningful influence on future
> >> expected innovation (unless that innovation really is all about active
> >> discrimination, but in that case I see no real loss).
> >> Side-note: The thing is "discrimination" is still permitted under most
> >> NN rules, as long as it is under active control of the end-users, not
> >> the ISP. So I am sure some end-users would appreciate an "prioritize
> >> vide conferencing and VoIP over video streaming and gaming under load"
> >> option offered by their ISP and might even be willing to pay a little,
> >> as long as the end user can toggle this option at will it will not be
> >> subject to NN regulations as far as I understand. This clearly leaves
> >> some innovation space available even for active discrimination.
> >> Regards
> >>      Sebastian
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Colin Higbie
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Nnagain mailing list
> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 17760 bytes --]

Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors

[Sebastian Moeller]

Hi Bob,


> On Oct 3, 2023, at 18:54, rjmcmahon <rjmcmahon@rjmcmahon.com> wrote:
> 
> Natural monopolies are things with high sunk costs. Things with high sunk costs don't necessarily exist (like electrified roads) even though they add huge value to society and can help curb climate impacts. A natural monopoly exists unrelated to a provider already having an infrastructure in place per that monopoly.
> 
> Fiber with up gradable optics to hundreds of millions of buildings that can leverage the NRE from data centers are natural monopolies and don't really exist in most places, even though they are critical to mitigating climate impact.
> 
> The idea of municipal ownership of access networks in the U.S. was pushed in 2000 after the 1996 Telco act. It didn't work out.

	[SM] I only monitored this cursory (not living in the US any longer), but I seem to recall quite a number of questionable plays against municipal ownership by the existing ISPs; I would book this as "never really tried", and not as we gave it an honest try but it fell short. That said many municipalities (in many parts of the world) are hardly in the shape required to built new costly infrastructure as they are having troubles maintaining the infrastructure on their hands with the available funds.

> The primary companies that invested in access networks were the cable cos and they redid it for HFC in 2000s (along with some roll ups.) They are likely the only U.S. companies that will upgrade again (beyond FWA which is limited by physics and is energy inefficient, a net negative to climate mitigations.)
> 
> The U.S. railroads were natural monopolies. They were given massive land grants to build out. They ran as private companies for about one century. They lost their monopoly position after third generations who inherited them used these monopolies to price guoge government during WWI and WWII. That's part of the reason most DoT type govt agencies today are "roads & airports" vs "roads, rail & airports." Rail has been re privatized and under invested - perfect for Warren Buffett but no so good for everyone else nor for the climate.
> 
> Governments will respond to monopoly abuse after it occurs, not before.

	[SM] Indeed, that is often the case...

> First, the infrastructure needs massive funding to be installed, however that can get done. Municipal revenue bonds & networks sound nice in theory but haven't worked over the last two decades. Time to try something different.

	[SM] Again I argue that has not really been tried, but unless there is going to be a big change in DC it is not going ot be tried for real in the future either, so in essence we might agree ;)

Regards
	Sebastian

> 
> Bob
> 
> https://www.electrichybridvehicletechnology.com/news/charging-technology/us-to-build-its-first-ever-electric-road-that-wirelessly-charges-evs-as-they-drive.html
> 
>> Hi Colin,
>>> On Oct 2, 2023, at 22:34, Colin_Higbie via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>> While product and service innovation often originates from pure R&D or work performed in academic labs, in virtually all cases, converting that into commercially viable products and services is the result of profit incentives. A company won’t invest in doing something new with attendant risks unless they can expect a return on that investment greater than the alternatives (or they believe it will provide strategic support to some other product or service). For that reason, we want to be extremely careful about regulating how companies can implement innovations, including the use of potentially distasteful business practices. None of us who want to see the Internet become better over time and more accessible should want anything resembling NN regulation.
>> 	[SM] At its core NN regulations really just say that who is selling
>> internet access services is supposed to do exactly that and not try to
>> act as gate-keeper picking winners and losers. I might be
>> insufficiently creative here, but I do not think a simple "do not
>> discriminate" directive really restricts the space of potential
>> innovations in any meaningful way.
>>> The regulatory side of this is largely not a technical discussion because future innovation, by definition, may exceed technical considerations we can conceive of today.
>> 	[SM] Indded, prediction is hard, especially predictions about the future ;)
>>> It's easy to conceive of examples where an ISP wants to prioritize or penalize certain kinds of traffic. And while that may seem superficially bad, it’s an important part of the very competition that drives innovation and cost reductions over time. E.g., recall when Google Fiber had been willing to install Gbps fiber in places at a time when most of the rest of the country was struggling to get 20Mbps connections. If Google had wanted to limit that to Google services, that still might have been a boon to those customers.
>> 	[SM] I respectfully disagree, that would not have been meaningful
>> internet access. An unrestricted 20M internet access link has more
>> general utility that even a 10G gate-keeper only link (who that
>> gate-keeper is is irrelevant). (I am not saying the 20M would be
>> without issues)
>>> Further, it could have shown the uses and values of what was then considered limitless bandwidth for a home or small business user.
>> 	[SM] Yeah, on that question we are still waiting even though >= 1
>> Gbps services are not all that rare anymore. As far as I can see it we
>> still lack use-cases that strictly require fast links that go above
>> simple "more parallel" or "faster".
>>> Even though this would clearly have been in violation of the tenets of NN, it would have provided important data that might have spawned significant investment by others and advanced the state of connectivity across the board.
>> 	[SM] This is purely speculative though, it might as well had shown
>> nothing of that kind by the sheer fact that google fiber roll-out was
>> so small as to be not representative of anything, no?
>>> I know the counter argument to this is that local ISP monopolies already break innovation, and those companies, especially the big cable companies, therefore have no incentive to provide a good service. I largely agree with that (there is still some small incentive, in that if they are too terrible, customer outcry will turn to voter outcry and demand breaking those monopolies, and they don’t want to risk that).
>>> Therefore, the legal issue to address is NOT how they treat or prioritize data, whether by content or protocol – which they should be allowed to do, EVEN WHEN IT’S BAD FOR CUSTOMERS – but, at least referring to the U.S. specifically with our federal/state system, to put federal limits on durations of regional monopoly durations. I believe this is within the scope of what FCC can mandate (some would debate this and it may take the courts to sort it out). These need not be purely # of years, they can be a function of time to recoup deployment costs. If a company negotiated a local monopoly as part of covering their deployment costs, I would personally say that they should be given an opportunity to recoup those, but then after that, they need to open up their lines for use by competing firms, similar to what happened with the RBOCs and the old telephone lines.
>> 	[SM] The problem is that access networks often are not legal
>> monopolies, but natural monopolies where if company A has a high-speed
>> capable network deployed it becomes economically unattractive for
>> other companies to deploy their own network (the competitor can
>> torpedo such a deployment by lowering prices such that too few
>> customers change to make the whole thing stay in the "loss" region for
>> a long time). So leaving the access network to market players will
>> always result in the incentive to monetize the gate-keeper role that
>> is inherent in the network's structure.
>> One solution to this problem (not the only one) is to put the access
>> network into the public hands, like other important infrastructure.
>> The idea would then be like in Amsterdam, Zuerich and a few other
>> places to have a local access network provider that in turn
>> "concentrates" access links in COs local IXs where interested ISPs con
>> connect to and then offer all end-users in that access network
>> internet access services. That still leaves the natural monopoly of
>> the access network untouched, but puts it under management of en
>> entity that is not likely to exploit this (as fully as private
>> entities are).
>> 	This is however pretty orthogonal to direct NN concerns, and I am
>> sure not a generally accepted model. (Say if I would be operating a
>> small ISP and would differentiate myself by how well I manage my
>> access network, I likely would detest such ideas, and if I would
>> operate a big ISP I would detest them for other reasons ;) so this is
>> ver end-user centric and also relies on some modicum of faith in local
>> government)
>>> This is also the legal logic behind patents: give a company a 20 year monopoly on the invention in exchange for making it public to everyone and showing them how to do it (the patent must provide clear instructions). We deem the temporary monopoly worthwhile to incent the innovation, provided the inventor makes it public. This is the right philosophy to consider for something like bandwidth innovation, investment, and access.
>>> In short, with ISP’s the open-ended government protected monopolies are the problem,
>> 	[SM] Again these often are not legal monopolies where nobody else is
>> permitted to build a competing network, but natural monopolies where
>> the expected return of investment falls with the number of already
>> existing networks, while the cost stays constant. AND the number of
>> ISPs tgat might actually bite the bullet and set diggers in motion is
>> still so small that in the end, we might change from a monopoly to an
>> oligopoly situation, bith are regimes in which the free market does
>> not really deliver on its promises.
>>> not the providers’ ability to overcharge customers or prioritize some data over others. Competition will fix that over time, as long as competition is allowed to occur. And while it may be faster to force it through regulation, that has dangerous long-term consequences with respect to future innovation.
>> 	[SM] Yes, meaningful competition could help, but IMHO an oligopoly
>> likely would not result in meaningful enough competition. This is
>> where the access network in public hand ideas comes in, it makes the
>> cost to enter a market for ISPs relatively cheap, they really only
>> need to pull/rent fibers to the local IX and maybe deploy
>> OLTs/DSLAMs/CMTSs there (depending) on the local network tech, and can
>> start offer services, without having to deal with the access network.
>>> Starlink is one example of innovation. FTTH is another. Cellular-based Internet is another.
>> 	[SM] All of which are orthogonal to NN regulations, neither depended
>> on violating the "do not discriminate" rule, no?
>>> Simply buying bulk access on existing lines and repackaging it under different terms could be yet another. Those all seem obvious, because they’re the ones we know. The real danger in unforeseen consequences is the dampening effect NN-style regulations have on yet-to-be-seen innovations, the innovations that never come to fruition because of the regulations.
>> 	[SM] I claim that rules and regulations always set the stage for
>> which business decisions are acceptable/profitable and which are not,
>> that is true whether we add the NN mandates to the mix or not, so I
>> really do not see how these will have a meaningful influence on future
>> expected innovation (unless that innovation really is all about active
>> discrimination, but in that case I see no real loss).
>> Side-note: The thing is "discrimination" is still permitted under most
>> NN rules, as long as it is under active control of the end-users, not
>> the ISP. So I am sure some end-users would appreciate an "prioritize
>> vide conferencing and VoIP over video streaming and gaming under load"
>> option offered by their ISP and might even be willing to pay a little,
>> as long as the end user can toggle this option at will it will not be
>> subject to NN regulations as far as I understand. This clearly leaves
>> some innovation space available even for active discrimination.
>> Regards
>> 	Sebastian
>>> Cheers,
>>> Colin Higbie
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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

Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors

[rjmcmahon]

Natural monopolies are things with high sunk costs. Things with high 
sunk costs don't necessarily exist (like electrified roads) even though 
they add huge value to society and can help curb climate impacts. A 
natural monopoly exists unrelated to a provider already having an 
infrastructure in place per that monopoly.

Fiber with up gradable optics to hundreds of millions of buildings that 
can leverage the NRE from data centers are natural monopolies and don't 
really exist in most places, even though they are critical to mitigating 
climate impact.

The idea of municipal ownership of access networks in the U.S. was 
pushed in 2000 after the 1996 Telco act. It didn't work out. The primary 
companies that invested in access networks were the cable cos and they 
redid it for HFC in 2000s (along with some roll ups.) They are likely 
the only U.S. companies that will upgrade again (beyond FWA which is 
limited by physics and is energy inefficient, a net negative to climate 
mitigations.)

The U.S. railroads were natural monopolies. They were given massive land 
grants to build out. They ran as private companies for about one 
century. They lost their monopoly position after third generations who 
inherited them used these monopolies to price guoge government during 
WWI and WWII. That's part of the reason most DoT type govt agencies 
today are "roads & airports" vs "roads, rail & airports." Rail has been 
re privatized and under invested - perfect for Warren Buffett but no so 
good for everyone else nor for the climate.

Governments will respond to monopoly abuse after it occurs, not before. 
First, the infrastructure needs massive funding to be installed, however 
that can get done. Municipal revenue bonds & networks sound nice in 
theory but haven't worked over the last two decades. Time to try 
something different.

Bob

https://www.electrichybridvehicletechnology.com/news/charging-technology/us-to-build-its-first-ever-electric-road-that-wirelessly-charges-evs-as-they-drive.html

> Hi Colin,
> 
>> On Oct 2, 2023, at 22:34, Colin_Higbie via Nnagain 
>> <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>> 
>> While product and service innovation often originates from pure R&D or 
>> work performed in academic labs, in virtually all cases, converting 
>> that into commercially viable products and services is the result of 
>> profit incentives. A company won’t invest in doing something new with 
>> attendant risks unless they can expect a return on that investment 
>> greater than the alternatives (or they believe it will provide 
>> strategic support to some other product or service). For that reason, 
>> we want to be extremely careful about regulating how companies can 
>> implement innovations, including the use of potentially distasteful 
>> business practices. None of us who want to see the Internet become 
>> better over time and more accessible should want anything resembling 
>> NN regulation.
> 
> 	[SM] At its core NN regulations really just say that who is selling
> internet access services is supposed to do exactly that and not try to
> act as gate-keeper picking winners and losers. I might be
> insufficiently creative here, but I do not think a simple "do not
> discriminate" directive really restricts the space of potential
> innovations in any meaningful way.
> 
> 
>> The regulatory side of this is largely not a technical discussion 
>> because future innovation, by definition, may exceed technical 
>> considerations we can conceive of today.
> 
> 	[SM] Indded, prediction is hard, especially predictions about the 
> future ;)
> 
> 
>> It's easy to conceive of examples where an ISP wants to prioritize or 
>> penalize certain kinds of traffic. And while that may seem 
>> superficially bad, it’s an important part of the very competition that 
>> drives innovation and cost reductions over time. E.g., recall when 
>> Google Fiber had been willing to install Gbps fiber in places at a 
>> time when most of the rest of the country was struggling to get 20Mbps 
>> connections. If Google had wanted to limit that to Google services, 
>> that still might have been a boon to those customers.
> 
> 	[SM] I respectfully disagree, that would not have been meaningful
> internet access. An unrestricted 20M internet access link has more
> general utility that even a 10G gate-keeper only link (who that
> gate-keeper is is irrelevant). (I am not saying the 20M would be
> without issues)
> 
> 
>> Further, it could have shown the uses and values of what was then 
>> considered limitless bandwidth for a home or small business user.
> 
> 	[SM] Yeah, on that question we are still waiting even though >= 1
> Gbps services are not all that rare anymore. As far as I can see it we
> still lack use-cases that strictly require fast links that go above
> simple "more parallel" or "faster".
> 
> 
>> Even though this would clearly have been in violation of the tenets of 
>> NN, it would have provided important data that might have spawned 
>> significant investment by others and advanced the state of 
>> connectivity across the board.
> 
> 	[SM] This is purely speculative though, it might as well had shown
> nothing of that kind by the sheer fact that google fiber roll-out was
> so small as to be not representative of anything, no?
> 
>> 
>> I know the counter argument to this is that local ISP monopolies 
>> already break innovation, and those companies, especially the big 
>> cable companies, therefore have no incentive to provide a good 
>> service. I largely agree with that (there is still some small 
>> incentive, in that if they are too terrible, customer outcry will turn 
>> to voter outcry and demand breaking those monopolies, and they don’t 
>> want to risk that).
>> 
>> Therefore, the legal issue to address is NOT how they treat or 
>> prioritize data, whether by content or protocol – which they should be 
>> allowed to do, EVEN WHEN IT’S BAD FOR CUSTOMERS – but, at least 
>> referring to the U.S. specifically with our federal/state system, to 
>> put federal limits on durations of regional monopoly durations. I 
>> believe this is within the scope of what FCC can mandate (some would 
>> debate this and it may take the courts to sort it out). These need not 
>> be purely # of years, they can be a function of time to recoup 
>> deployment costs. If a company negotiated a local monopoly as part of 
>> covering their deployment costs, I would personally say that they 
>> should be given an opportunity to recoup those, but then after that, 
>> they need to open up their lines for use by competing firms, similar 
>> to what happened with the RBOCs and the old telephone lines.
> 
> 	[SM] The problem is that access networks often are not legal
> monopolies, but natural monopolies where if company A has a high-speed
> capable network deployed it becomes economically unattractive for
> other companies to deploy their own network (the competitor can
> torpedo such a deployment by lowering prices such that too few
> customers change to make the whole thing stay in the "loss" region for
> a long time). So leaving the access network to market players will
> always result in the incentive to monetize the gate-keeper role that
> is inherent in the network's structure.
> One solution to this problem (not the only one) is to put the access
> network into the public hands, like other important infrastructure.
> The idea would then be like in Amsterdam, Zuerich and a few other
> places to have a local access network provider that in turn
> "concentrates" access links in COs local IXs where interested ISPs con
> connect to and then offer all end-users in that access network
> internet access services. That still leaves the natural monopoly of
> the access network untouched, but puts it under management of en
> entity that is not likely to exploit this (as fully as private
> entities are).
> 	This is however pretty orthogonal to direct NN concerns, and I am
> sure not a generally accepted model. (Say if I would be operating a
> small ISP and would differentiate myself by how well I manage my
> access network, I likely would detest such ideas, and if I would
> operate a big ISP I would detest them for other reasons ;) so this is
> ver end-user centric and also relies on some modicum of faith in local
> government)
> 
> 
>> This is also the legal logic behind patents: give a company a 20 year 
>> monopoly on the invention in exchange for making it public to everyone 
>> and showing them how to do it (the patent must provide clear 
>> instructions). We deem the temporary monopoly worthwhile to incent the 
>> innovation, provided the inventor makes it public. This is the right 
>> philosophy to consider for something like bandwidth innovation, 
>> investment, and access.
>> 
>> In short, with ISP’s the open-ended government protected monopolies 
>> are the problem,
> 
> 	[SM] Again these often are not legal monopolies where nobody else is
> permitted to build a competing network, but natural monopolies where
> the expected return of investment falls with the number of already
> existing networks, while the cost stays constant. AND the number of
> ISPs tgat might actually bite the bullet and set diggers in motion is
> still so small that in the end, we might change from a monopoly to an
> oligopoly situation, bith are regimes in which the free market does
> not really deliver on its promises.
> 
> 
>> not the providers’ ability to overcharge customers or prioritize some 
>> data over others. Competition will fix that over time, as long as 
>> competition is allowed to occur. And while it may be faster to force 
>> it through regulation, that has dangerous long-term consequences with 
>> respect to future innovation.
> 
> 	[SM] Yes, meaningful competition could help, but IMHO an oligopoly
> likely would not result in meaningful enough competition. This is
> where the access network in public hand ideas comes in, it makes the
> cost to enter a market for ISPs relatively cheap, they really only
> need to pull/rent fibers to the local IX and maybe deploy
> OLTs/DSLAMs/CMTSs there (depending) on the local network tech, and can
> start offer services, without having to deal with the access network.
> 
>> Starlink is one example of innovation. FTTH is another. Cellular-based 
>> Internet is another.
> 
> 	[SM] All of which are orthogonal to NN regulations, neither depended
> on violating the "do not discriminate" rule, no?
> 
> 
>> Simply buying bulk access on existing lines and repackaging it under 
>> different terms could be yet another. Those all seem obvious, because 
>> they’re the ones we know. The real danger in unforeseen consequences 
>> is the dampening effect NN-style regulations have on yet-to-be-seen 
>> innovations, the innovations that never come to fruition because of 
>> the regulations.
> 
> 	[SM] I claim that rules and regulations always set the stage for
> which business decisions are acceptable/profitable and which are not,
> that is true whether we add the NN mandates to the mix or not, so I
> really do not see how these will have a meaningful influence on future
> expected innovation (unless that innovation really is all about active
> discrimination, but in that case I see no real loss).
> 
> Side-note: The thing is "discrimination" is still permitted under most
> NN rules, as long as it is under active control of the end-users, not
> the ISP. So I am sure some end-users would appreciate an "prioritize
> vide conferencing and VoIP over video streaming and gaming under load"
> option offered by their ISP and might even be willing to pay a little,
> as long as the end user can toggle this option at will it will not be
> subject to NN regulations as far as I understand. This clearly leaves
> some innovation space available even for active discrimination.
> 
> Regards
> 	Sebastian
> 
> 
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Colin Higbie
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors

[dan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6591 bytes --]

>
>
>         [SM] At its core NN regulations really just say that who is
> selling internet access services is supposed to do exactly that and not try
> to act as gate-keeper picking winners and losers. I might be insufficiently
> creative here, but I do not think a simple "do not discriminate" directive
> really restricts the space of potential innovations in any meaningful way.
>
I agree, even considering my pitch that non-NN but transparently advertised
services should be allowed.  No ISP, even in my example, should get to pick
which services are allowed to be used.  To the point, no ISP should be
allowed to block Netflix.


>
>
> > The regulatory side of this is largely not a technical discussion
> because future innovation, by definition, may exceed technical
> considerations we can conceive of today.
>
>         [SM] Indded, prediction is hard, especially predictions about the
> future ;)
>

I'd say it's easier to predict capabilities than we're giving ourselves
credit for.  AI versions of DPI shaping types of content but also the
content itself... NN could be a reasonable tool to disallow AI manipulation
of internet flows...


>
>         [SM] I respectfully disagree, that would not have been meaningful
> internet access. An unrestricted 20M internet access link has more general
> utility that even a 10G gate-keeper only link (who that gate-keeper is is
> irrelevant). (I am not saying the 20M would be without issues)
>

I also agree.  there is a different from offering a shaped experience that
is transparent to the customer and offering an effective walled garden and
claiming it as internet access.  Sure, if google dropped fiber to your home
and said "here's a connection to google services" but never said internet
then that's fine, but that's also part of transparency.



>
> > Further, it could have shown the uses and values of what was then
> considered limitless bandwidth for a home or small business user.
>
>         [SM] Yeah, on that question we are still waiting even though >= 1
> Gbps services are not all that rare anymore. As far as I can see it we
> still lack use-cases that strictly require fast links that go above simple
> "more parallel" or "faster".
>

The biggest use case for the >=1G downloads is catering to gamers.  140GB
game updates are a reality now and full throttle that's ~20 minutes on a 1G
link.  These are often the experiences that gains you social media kudos.
 Gamers saying how fast their game downloads are is a big win for an ISP in
the 'advice for better internet' facebook posts.

very high (100M-1G) upload though... This is luxury but this means a lot
more practically for most people.  They can only really consume at xMbps
for video and a 50MB massive website and so on, but uploading their
onedrive and icloud ( this one in particular ) from their devices makes
that process seamless and saves their battery and makes their devices feel
faster because that background process is done far sooner.  When I moved up
from a 35M upload to a 800M FDX at home EVERYTHING feels smoother.  I had a
940x35M spectrum copper service and I finally got my home linked to my
network via mmwave.  Batteries last longer because radios aren't on as
much.   I honestly had never even considered how dramatically faster
uploads would impact 'non upload' things in my home.


> I know the counter argument to this is that local ISP monopolies already
break innovation, and those companies, especially the big cable companies,
therefore have no incentive to provide a good service. I largely agree with
that (there is still some small incentive, in that if they are too
terrible, customer outcry will turn to voter outcry and demand breaking
those monopolies, and they don’t want to risk that).

To my knowledge, this really has never happened.  Low ISP speeds have never
been a topic on a ballot, nor any other industry that I can think of short
of US Steel and terrible labor conditions and STILL I don't think people
went to the polls over it.


>
> > Therefore, the legal issue to address is NOT how they treat or
> prioritize data, whether by content or protocol – which they should be
> allowed to do, EVEN WHEN IT’S BAD FOR CUSTOMERS – but, at least referring
> to the U.S. specifically with our federal/state system, to put federal
> limits on durations of regional monopoly durations. I believe this is
> within the scope of what FCC can mandate (some would debate this and it may
> take the courts to sort it out). These need not be purely # of years, they
> can be a function of time to recoup deployment costs. If a company
> negotiated a local monopoly as part of covering their deployment costs, I
> would personally say that they should be given an opportunity to recoup
> those, but then after that, they need to open up their lines for use by
> competing firms, similar to what happened with the RBOCs and the old
> telephone lines.
>
>         [SM] The problem is that access networks often are not legal
> monopolies, but natural monopolies where if company A has a high-speed
> capable network deployed it becomes economically unattractive for other
> companies to deploy their own network ...


In the US, there are virtually no natural monopolies in cities.  These are
all government created through franchising agreements and subsidies.   In
rural areas even more so these are not natural monopolies, they were
entirely funded by government money that created defacto monopolies because
they funded just one company to do it.  It's exactly what the current
funding is doing.  First come first serve, means for come gets the monopoly.

Basically, no telecom or ISP has innovated a new technology that they had
exclusive access to, so the only thing holding back competition is funding
or franchise/gov-monopoly rules.  I can build a docsis plant just as easily
as Comcast but I have to do it out of pocket and get a second cable
franchise which is explicitly banned in a lot of places.

It is orthogonal to NN *BUT* the creation of monopolies and removal of
competition is the cause driving the need for some sort of fair internet
access legislation whether that's a very pure NN or something else.  I'll
stand by my claim that making efforts to expand competition is best for
consumers as a baseline economic 'rule' and that in doing that, only
transparency rules need to be implemented and NN needs defined.


> ...  truncating for readability and time management

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 7627 bytes --]

Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors

[Sebastian Moeller]

Hi Karl,


> On Oct 3, 2023, at 10:10, Karl Auerbach via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> 
> Extremely minor comment:
> 
> I see the phrase "access to the Internet" being used.  That rubs me the wrong way because nearly everything we do on the net is "access *across* the Internet".  The difference may seem subtle; but to me it is important because the former phrase tends to make me overlook that from a user point of view, what matters is the full-path, the full end-to-end experience.

	[SM] Indeed, I agree that end-users are interested in the full path, so across the internet. The ISP however that I pay for internet access services can hardly be held responsible for the full path, as that ISP can only affect how he/she connects end-users like me to their own internal network and how their own network is connected to upstream or equal partners. For example if I buy a 100M internet access link from my ISP and try to download from a server connected to another AS with only 10 Mbps, I could hardly fault my ISP for that? In comparison if the bottleneck to that server is caused by some discrimination in my ISPs network I can go talk to my ISP about the rationale behind that.

Regards
	Sebastian


> 
>         --karl--
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Nnagain mailing list
> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain

Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors

[Karl Auerbach]

Extremely minor comment:

I see the phrase "access to the Internet" being used.  That rubs me the 
wrong way because nearly everything we do on the net is "access *across* 
the Internet".  The difference may seem subtle; but to me it is 
important because the former phrase tends to make me overlook that from 
a user point of view, what matters is the full-path, the full end-to-end 
experience.

         --karl--

Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors

[Sebastian Moeller]

Hi Colin,

> On Oct 2, 2023, at 22:34, Colin_Higbie via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> 
> While product and service innovation often originates from pure R&D or work performed in academic labs, in virtually all cases, converting that into commercially viable products and services is the result of profit incentives. A company won’t invest in doing something new with attendant risks unless they can expect a return on that investment greater than the alternatives (or they believe it will provide strategic support to some other product or service). For that reason, we want to be extremely careful about regulating how companies can implement innovations, including the use of potentially distasteful business practices. None of us who want to see the Internet become better over time and more accessible should want anything resembling NN regulation.

	[SM] At its core NN regulations really just say that who is selling internet access services is supposed to do exactly that and not try to act as gate-keeper picking winners and losers. I might be insufficiently creative here, but I do not think a simple "do not discriminate" directive really restricts the space of potential innovations in any meaningful way.


> The regulatory side of this is largely not a technical discussion because future innovation, by definition, may exceed technical considerations we can conceive of today.

	[SM] Indded, prediction is hard, especially predictions about the future ;)


> It's easy to conceive of examples where an ISP wants to prioritize or penalize certain kinds of traffic. And while that may seem superficially bad, it’s an important part of the very competition that drives innovation and cost reductions over time. E.g., recall when Google Fiber had been willing to install Gbps fiber in places at a time when most of the rest of the country was struggling to get 20Mbps connections. If Google had wanted to limit that to Google services, that still might have been a boon to those customers.

	[SM] I respectfully disagree, that would not have been meaningful internet access. An unrestricted 20M internet access link has more general utility that even a 10G gate-keeper only link (who that gate-keeper is is irrelevant). (I am not saying the 20M would be without issues)


> Further, it could have shown the uses and values of what was then considered limitless bandwidth for a home or small business user.

	[SM] Yeah, on that question we are still waiting even though >= 1 Gbps services are not all that rare anymore. As far as I can see it we still lack use-cases that strictly require fast links that go above simple "more parallel" or "faster".


> Even though this would clearly have been in violation of the tenets of NN, it would have provided important data that might have spawned significant investment by others and advanced the state of connectivity across the board.

	[SM] This is purely speculative though, it might as well had shown nothing of that kind by the sheer fact that google fiber roll-out was so small as to be not representative of anything, no?

>  
> I know the counter argument to this is that local ISP monopolies already break innovation, and those companies, especially the big cable companies, therefore have no incentive to provide a good service. I largely agree with that (there is still some small incentive, in that if they are too terrible, customer outcry will turn to voter outcry and demand breaking those monopolies, and they don’t want to risk that).
>  
> Therefore, the legal issue to address is NOT how they treat or prioritize data, whether by content or protocol – which they should be allowed to do, EVEN WHEN IT’S BAD FOR CUSTOMERS – but, at least referring to the U.S. specifically with our federal/state system, to put federal limits on durations of regional monopoly durations. I believe this is within the scope of what FCC can mandate (some would debate this and it may take the courts to sort it out). These need not be purely # of years, they can be a function of time to recoup deployment costs. If a company negotiated a local monopoly as part of covering their deployment costs, I would personally say that they should be given an opportunity to recoup those, but then after that, they need to open up their lines for use by competing firms, similar to what happened with the RBOCs and the old telephone lines.

	[SM] The problem is that access networks often are not legal monopolies, but natural monopolies where if company A has a high-speed capable network deployed it becomes economically unattractive for other companies to deploy their own network (the competitor can torpedo such a deployment by lowering prices such that too few customers change to make the whole thing stay in the "loss" region for a long time). So leaving the access network to market players will always result in the incentive to monetize the gate-keeper role that is inherent in the network's structure. 
One solution to this problem (not the only one) is to put the access network into the public hands, like other important infrastructure. The idea would then be like in Amsterdam, Zuerich and a few other places to have a local access network provider that in turn "concentrates" access links in COs local IXs where interested ISPs con connect to and then offer all end-users in that access network internet access services. That still leaves the natural monopoly of the access network untouched, but puts it under management of en entity that is not likely to exploit this (as fully as private entities are).
	This is however pretty orthogonal to direct NN concerns, and I am sure not a generally accepted model. (Say if I would be operating a small ISP and would differentiate myself by how well I manage my access network, I likely would detest such ideas, and if I would operate a big ISP I would detest them for other reasons ;) so this is ver end-user centric and also relies on some modicum of faith in local government)


> This is also the legal logic behind patents: give a company a 20 year monopoly on the invention in exchange for making it public to everyone and showing them how to do it (the patent must provide clear instructions). We deem the temporary monopoly worthwhile to incent the innovation, provided the inventor makes it public. This is the right philosophy to consider for something like bandwidth innovation, investment, and access.
>  
> In short, with ISP’s the open-ended government protected monopolies are the problem,

	[SM] Again these often are not legal monopolies where nobody else is permitted to build a competing network, but natural monopolies where the expected return of investment falls with the number of already existing networks, while the cost stays constant. AND the number of ISPs tgat might actually bite the bullet and set diggers in motion is still so small that in the end, we might change from a monopoly to an oligopoly situation, bith are regimes in which the free market does not really deliver on its promises.


> not the providers’ ability to overcharge customers or prioritize some data over others. Competition will fix that over time, as long as competition is allowed to occur. And while it may be faster to force it through regulation, that has dangerous long-term consequences with respect to future innovation.

	[SM] Yes, meaningful competition could help, but IMHO an oligopoly likely would not result in meaningful enough competition. This is where the access network in public hand ideas comes in, it makes the cost to enter a market for ISPs relatively cheap, they really only need to pull/rent fibers to the local IX and maybe deploy OLTs/DSLAMs/CMTSs there (depending) on the local network tech, and can start offer services, without having to deal with the access network.

> Starlink is one example of innovation. FTTH is another. Cellular-based Internet is another.

	[SM] All of which are orthogonal to NN regulations, neither depended on violating the "do not discriminate" rule, no?


> Simply buying bulk access on existing lines and repackaging it under different terms could be yet another. Those all seem obvious, because they’re the ones we know. The real danger in unforeseen consequences is the dampening effect NN-style regulations have on yet-to-be-seen innovations, the innovations that never come to fruition because of the regulations.

	[SM] I claim that rules and regulations always set the stage for which business decisions are acceptable/profitable and which are not, that is true whether we add the NN mandates to the mix or not, so I really do not see how these will have a meaningful influence on future expected innovation (unless that innovation really is all about active discrimination, but in that case I see no real loss).

Side-note: The thing is "discrimination" is still permitted under most NN rules, as long as it is under active control of the end-users, not the ISP. So I am sure some end-users would appreciate an "prioritize vide conferencing and VoIP over video streaming and gaming under load" option offered by their ISP and might even be willing to pay a little, as long as the end user can toggle this option at will it will not be subject to NN regulations as far as I understand. This clearly leaves some innovation space available even for active discrimination.

Regards
	Sebastian


>  
> Cheers,
> Colin Higbie
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Nnagain mailing list
> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain

Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors

[rjmcmahon]

Competition in a natural monopoly is a myth. There are a few places that 
competition in the OSP may survive, e.g. NYC, but otherwise it's like 
water, electric, sanitation, sea ports etc.

There of course is FWA competition, but that's likely a transient, or 
just along freeways (no freeways, no FWA) as we move to 100Gbs and 
beyond and less energy. But that assumes we do the work.

The belief of "monopoly as always bad" miss that without the land grants 
and railroads, the U.S. economy would have developed like Russia, who 
decided against funding RRs for over a century and, in turn, missed the 
industrial revolution. It's ironic that the U.S. "capitalist" state 
provided the land grants while the yet to be "communists" didn't.

Bob
> Well, if that were the case, I believe that would support my thesis:
> the problem is lack of competition. The reason for the lack of
> competition is a mix of local contracts and legislative problems.
> Especially in more rural areas, one can understand how getting a cable
> company to build out the infrastructure may have required a promise of
> exclusivity – otherwise, they would not have been willing to incur the
> substantial cost of building out the capacity, especially in a
> low-density area. As the smaller local cable companies were acquired
> by the modern behemoths, they maintained the monopolistic control over
> those regions. Some do automatically time-out to allow competition
> eventually. Many do not.
> 
> In reality, there are alternatives in most places, just not generally
> very good alternatives:
> 
> DSL is available in most places (I suspect more broadly available that
> cable Internet). Unfortunately, and I suspect many here can speak more
> knowledgeably than I on the underlying technology, DSL is often
> limited to lower speeds than the cable offerings, due to its extreme
> distance sensitivity and relatively short range. Where I live, I had 3
> DSL lines and dual T1's combined via SD-WAN as the only way to get
> sufficient bandwidth for video conferencing from home until Starlink
> came along and saved the day at a fraction of the cost. There is no
> cable option here – we're too rural to be worth a cable company's
> efforts. On the other hand, in addition to DSL we also have another
> wired option: our electric company is running Gbps fiber all over
> rural parts of NH now, which should become available here in another
> 1-2 months.
> 
> Just north of Philly, I had FiOS fiber as an option in addition to
> traditional cable. When that arrived, anecdotally, I can report that
> cable customers talked about her their service improved too (due to
> the competition, I am confident).
> 
> And obviously not wired (to your point), but cellular connectivity is
> also available in most places that support cable. Starlink, and other
> wireless options also exist and may benefit from being able to limit
> certain kinds of traffic.
> 
> My point is more general than these specifics though. I caution
> against regulating an industry where we depend on innovation to
> radically improve performance over the upcoming decades. Forcing
> specific behavior will slow the pace of innovation on connectivity
> infrastructure. To be fair, it may speed certain other areas of
> innovation or help with customer experience around streaming services.
> These were the original champions of NN, because it's to their
> benefit, at the cost of the carriers.
> 
> Again, the problem is with the forced monopolies for cable service.
> Break that up and history shows that the rest will largely solve
> itself. Not immediately (which is why Google and Netflix pushed the
> original NN model rather than busting the regional carrier exclusive
> locks), but in way that's stronger in the long-run.
> 
> Or, to put it another way, the original NN push (not suggesting that's
> what anyone's doing here) would have just been the US government
> choosing one set of companies to support over another.
> 
> Cheers,
> Colin
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rjmcmahon <rjmcmahon@rjmcmahon.com>
> Sent: Monday, October 2, 2023 5:08 PM
> To: Network Neutrality is back! Let´s make the technical aspects heard
> this time! <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> Cc: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
> Subject: Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors
> 
> I see it quite differently. The cable cos in the U.S. are the primary
> (only?) companies providing wired access.  The common carriage fixed
> wires co and their regulators abandoned communities to go to FWA as
> Noam predicted in 1994. (They turned off my, 48V battery backed up in
> the CO, landline without even letting me know. No 911, no dial tone,
> no
> nothing.)
> 
> I think waveguides, e.g. fiber, to and inside premises are the only
> long term answer and we seem to keep bashing the companies actually
> helping.
> 
> Bob
>> While product and service innovation often originates from pure R&D or
>> work performed in academic labs, in virtually all cases, converting
>> that into commercially viable products and services is the result of
>> profit incentives. A company won’t invest in doing something new with
>> attendant risks unless they can expect a return on that investment
>> greater than the alternatives (or they believe it will provide
>> strategic support to some other product or service). For that reason,
>> we want to be extremely careful about regulating how companies can
>> implement innovations, including the use of potentially distasteful
>> business practices. None of us who want to see the Internet become
>> better over time and more accessible should want anything resembling
>> NN regulation.
>> 
>> The regulatory side of this is largely not a technical discussion
>> because future innovation, by definition, may exceed technical
>> considerations we can conceive of today.
>> 
>> It's easy to conceive of examples where an ISP wants to prioritize or
>> penalize certain kinds of traffic. And while that may seem
>> superficially bad, it’s an important part of the very competition that
>> drives innovation and cost reductions over time. E.g., recall when
>> Google Fiber had been willing to install Gbps fiber in places at a
>> time when most of the rest of the country was struggling to get 20Mbps
>> connections. If Google had wanted to limit that to Google services,
>> that still might have been a boon to those customers.
>> Further, it could have shown the uses and values of what was then
>> considered limitless bandwidth for a home or small business user. Even
>> though this would clearly have been in violation of the tenets of NN,
>> it would have provided important data that might have spawned
>> significant investment by others and advanced the state of
>> connectivity across the board.
>> 
>> I know the counter argument to this is that local ISP monopolies
>> already break innovation, and those companies, especially the big
>> cable companies, therefore have no incentive to provide a good
>> service. I largely agree with that (there is still some small
>> incentive, in that if they are too terrible, customer outcry will turn
>> to voter outcry and demand breaking those monopolies, and they don’t
>> want to risk that).
>> 
>> Therefore, the legal issue to address is NOT how they treat or
>> prioritize data, whether by content or protocol – which they should be
>> allowed to do, EVEN WHEN IT’S BAD FOR CUSTOMERS – but, at least
>> referring to the U.S. specifically with our federal/state system, to
>> put federal limits on durations of regional monopoly durations. I
>> believe this is within the scope of what FCC can mandate (some would
>> debate this and it may take the courts to sort it out). These need not
>> be purely # of years, they can be a function of time to recoup
>> deployment costs. If a company negotiated a local monopoly as part of
>> covering their deployment costs, I would personally say that they
>> should be given an opportunity to recoup those, but then after that,
>> they need to open up their lines for use by competing firms, similar
>> to what happened with the RBOCs and the old telephone lines.
>> 
>> This is also the legal logic behind patents: give a company a 20 year
>> monopoly on the invention in exchange for making it public to everyone
>> and showing them how to do it (the patent must provide clear
>> instructions). We deem the temporary monopoly worthwhile to incent the
>> innovation, provided the inventor makes it public. This is the right
>> philosophy to consider for something like bandwidth innovation,
>> investment, and access.
>> 
>> In short, with ISP’s the open-ended government protected monopolies
>> are the problem, not the providers’ ability to overcharge customers or
>> prioritize some data over others. Competition will fix that over time,
>> as long as competition is allowed to occur. And while it may be faster
>> to force it through regulation, that has dangerous long-term
>> consequences with respect to future innovation.
>> 
>> Starlink is one example of innovation. FTTH is another. Cellular-based
>> Internet is another. Simply buying bulk access on existing lines and
>> repackaging it under different terms could be yet another. Those all
>> seem obvious, because they’re the ones we know. The real danger in
>> unforeseen consequences is the dampening effect NN-style regulations
>> have on yet-to-be-seen innovations, the innovations that never come to
>> fruition because of the regulations.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> Colin Higbie
>> _______________________________________________
>> Nnagain mailing list
>> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain

Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors

[Colin_Higbie]

Well, if that were the case, I believe that would support my thesis: the problem is lack of competition. The reason for the lack of competition is a mix of local contracts and legislative problems. Especially in more rural areas, one can understand how getting a cable company to build out the infrastructure may have required a promise of exclusivity – otherwise, they would not have been willing to incur the substantial cost of building out the capacity, especially in a low-density area. As the smaller local cable companies were acquired by the modern behemoths, they maintained the monopolistic control over those regions. Some do automatically time-out to allow competition eventually. Many do not.

In reality, there are alternatives in most places, just not generally very good alternatives: 

DSL is available in most places (I suspect more broadly available that cable Internet). Unfortunately, and I suspect many here can speak more knowledgeably than I on the underlying technology, DSL is often limited to lower speeds than the cable offerings, due to its extreme distance sensitivity and relatively short range. Where I live, I had 3 DSL lines and dual T1's combined via SD-WAN as the only way to get sufficient bandwidth for video conferencing from home until Starlink came along and saved the day at a fraction of the cost. There is no cable option here – we're too rural to be worth a cable company's efforts. On the other hand, in addition to DSL we also have another wired option: our electric company is running Gbps fiber all over rural parts of NH now, which should become available here in another 1-2 months.

Just north of Philly, I had FiOS fiber as an option in addition to traditional cable. When that arrived, anecdotally, I can report that cable customers talked about her their service improved too (due to the competition, I am confident).

And obviously not wired (to your point), but cellular connectivity is also available in most places that support cable. Starlink, and other wireless options also exist and may benefit from being able to limit certain kinds of traffic.

My point is more general than these specifics though. I caution against regulating an industry where we depend on innovation to radically improve performance over the upcoming decades. Forcing specific behavior will slow the pace of innovation on connectivity infrastructure. To be fair, it may speed certain other areas of innovation or help with customer experience around streaming services. These were the original champions of NN, because it's to their benefit, at the cost of the carriers. 

Again, the problem is with the forced monopolies for cable service. Break that up and history shows that the rest will largely solve itself. Not immediately (which is why Google and Netflix pushed the original NN model rather than busting the regional carrier exclusive locks), but in way that's stronger in the long-run. 

Or, to put it another way, the original NN push (not suggesting that's what anyone's doing here) would have just been the US government choosing one set of companies to support over another. 

Cheers,
Colin



-----Original Message-----
From: rjmcmahon <rjmcmahon@rjmcmahon.com> 
Sent: Monday, October 2, 2023 5:08 PM
To: Network Neutrality is back! Let´s make the technical aspects heard this time! <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Cc: Colin_Higbie <CHigbie1@Higbie.name>
Subject: Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors

I see it quite differently. The cable cos in the U.S. are the primary
(only?) companies providing wired access.  The common carriage fixed wires co and their regulators abandoned communities to go to FWA as Noam predicted in 1994. (They turned off my, 48V battery backed up in the CO, landline without even letting me know. No 911, no dial tone, no
nothing.)

I think waveguides, e.g. fiber, to and inside premises are the only long term answer and we seem to keep bashing the companies actually helping.

Bob
> While product and service innovation often originates from pure R&D or 
> work performed in academic labs, in virtually all cases, converting 
> that into commercially viable products and services is the result of 
> profit incentives. A company won’t invest in doing something new with 
> attendant risks unless they can expect a return on that investment 
> greater than the alternatives (or they believe it will provide 
> strategic support to some other product or service). For that reason, 
> we want to be extremely careful about regulating how companies can 
> implement innovations, including the use of potentially distasteful 
> business practices. None of us who want to see the Internet become 
> better over time and more accessible should want anything resembling 
> NN regulation.
> 
> The regulatory side of this is largely not a technical discussion 
> because future innovation, by definition, may exceed technical 
> considerations we can conceive of today.
> 
> It's easy to conceive of examples where an ISP wants to prioritize or 
> penalize certain kinds of traffic. And while that may seem 
> superficially bad, it’s an important part of the very competition that 
> drives innovation and cost reductions over time. E.g., recall when 
> Google Fiber had been willing to install Gbps fiber in places at a 
> time when most of the rest of the country was struggling to get 20Mbps 
> connections. If Google had wanted to limit that to Google services, 
> that still might have been a boon to those customers.
> Further, it could have shown the uses and values of what was then 
> considered limitless bandwidth for a home or small business user. Even 
> though this would clearly have been in violation of the tenets of NN, 
> it would have provided important data that might have spawned 
> significant investment by others and advanced the state of 
> connectivity across the board.
> 
> I know the counter argument to this is that local ISP monopolies 
> already break innovation, and those companies, especially the big 
> cable companies, therefore have no incentive to provide a good 
> service. I largely agree with that (there is still some small 
> incentive, in that if they are too terrible, customer outcry will turn 
> to voter outcry and demand breaking those monopolies, and they don’t 
> want to risk that).
> 
> Therefore, the legal issue to address is NOT how they treat or 
> prioritize data, whether by content or protocol – which they should be 
> allowed to do, EVEN WHEN IT’S BAD FOR CUSTOMERS – but, at least 
> referring to the U.S. specifically with our federal/state system, to 
> put federal limits on durations of regional monopoly durations. I 
> believe this is within the scope of what FCC can mandate (some would 
> debate this and it may take the courts to sort it out). These need not 
> be purely # of years, they can be a function of time to recoup 
> deployment costs. If a company negotiated a local monopoly as part of 
> covering their deployment costs, I would personally say that they 
> should be given an opportunity to recoup those, but then after that, 
> they need to open up their lines for use by competing firms, similar 
> to what happened with the RBOCs and the old telephone lines.
> 
> This is also the legal logic behind patents: give a company a 20 year 
> monopoly on the invention in exchange for making it public to everyone 
> and showing them how to do it (the patent must provide clear 
> instructions). We deem the temporary monopoly worthwhile to incent the 
> innovation, provided the inventor makes it public. This is the right 
> philosophy to consider for something like bandwidth innovation, 
> investment, and access.
> 
> In short, with ISP’s the open-ended government protected monopolies 
> are the problem, not the providers’ ability to overcharge customers or 
> prioritize some data over others. Competition will fix that over time, 
> as long as competition is allowed to occur. And while it may be faster 
> to force it through regulation, that has dangerous long-term 
> consequences with respect to future innovation.
> 
> Starlink is one example of innovation. FTTH is another. Cellular-based 
> Internet is another. Simply buying bulk access on existing lines and 
> repackaging it under different terms could be yet another. Those all 
> seem obvious, because they’re the ones we know. The real danger in 
> unforeseen consequences is the dampening effect NN-style regulations 
> have on yet-to-be-seen innovations, the innovations that never come to 
> fruition because of the regulations.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Colin Higbie
> _______________________________________________
> Nnagain mailing list
> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain

Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors

[rjmcmahon]

I see it quite differently. The cable cos in the U.S. are the primary 
(only?) companies providing wired access.  The common carriage fixed 
wires co and their regulators abandoned communities to go to FWA as Noam 
predicted in 1994. (They turned off my, 48V battery backed up in the CO, 
landline without even letting me know. No 911, no dial tone, no 
nothing.)

I think waveguides, e.g. fiber, to and inside premises are the only long 
term answer and we seem to keep bashing the companies actually helping.

Bob
> While product and service innovation often originates from pure R&D or
> work performed in academic labs, in virtually all cases, converting
> that into commercially viable products and services is the result of
> profit incentives. A company won’t invest in doing something new
> with attendant risks unless they can expect a return on that
> investment greater than the alternatives (or they believe it will
> provide strategic support to some other product or service). For that
> reason, we want to be extremely careful about regulating how companies
> can implement innovations, including the use of potentially
> distasteful business practices. None of us who want to see the
> Internet become better over time and more accessible should want
> anything resembling NN regulation.
> 
> The regulatory side of this is largely not a technical discussion
> because future innovation, by definition, may exceed technical
> considerations we can conceive of today.
> 
> It's easy to conceive of examples where an ISP wants to prioritize or
> penalize certain kinds of traffic. And while that may seem
> superficially bad, it’s an important part of the very competition
> that drives innovation and cost reductions over time. E.g., recall
> when Google Fiber had been willing to install Gbps fiber in places at
> a time when most of the rest of the country was struggling to get
> 20Mbps connections. If Google had wanted to limit that to Google
> services, that still might have been a boon to those customers.
> Further, it could have shown the uses and values of what was then
> considered limitless bandwidth for a home or small business user. Even
> though this would clearly have been in violation of the tenets of NN,
> it would have provided important data that might have spawned
> significant investment by others and advanced the state of
> connectivity across the board.
> 
> I know the counter argument to this is that local ISP monopolies
> already break innovation, and those companies, especially the big
> cable companies, therefore have no incentive to provide a good
> service. I largely agree with that (there is still some small
> incentive, in that if they are too terrible, customer outcry will turn
> to voter outcry and demand breaking those monopolies, and they don’t
> want to risk that).
> 
> Therefore, the legal issue to address is NOT how they treat or
> prioritize data, whether by content or protocol – which they should
> be allowed to do, EVEN WHEN IT’S BAD FOR CUSTOMERS – but, at least
> referring to the U.S. specifically with our federal/state system, to
> put federal limits on durations of regional monopoly durations. I
> believe this is within the scope of what FCC can mandate (some would
> debate this and it may take the courts to sort it out). These need not
> be purely # of years, they can be a function of time to recoup
> deployment costs. If a company negotiated a local monopoly as part of
> covering their deployment costs, I would personally say that they
> should be given an opportunity to recoup those, but then after that,
> they need to open up their lines for use by competing firms, similar
> to what happened with the RBOCs and the old telephone lines.
> 
> This is also the legal logic behind patents: give a company a 20 year
> monopoly on the invention in exchange for making it public to everyone
> and showing them how to do it (the patent must provide clear
> instructions). We deem the temporary monopoly worthwhile to incent the
> innovation, provided the inventor makes it public. This is the right
> philosophy to consider for something like bandwidth innovation,
> investment, and access.
> 
> In short, with ISP’s the open-ended government protected monopolies
> are the problem, not the providers’ ability to overcharge customers
> or prioritize some data over others. Competition will fix that over
> time, as long as competition is allowed to occur. And while it may be
> faster to force it through regulation, that has dangerous long-term
> consequences with respect to future innovation.
> 
> Starlink is one example of innovation. FTTH is another. Cellular-based
> Internet is another. Simply buying bulk access on existing lines and
> repackaging it under different terms could be yet another. Those all
> seem obvious, because they’re the ones we know. The real danger in
> unforeseen consequences is the dampening effect NN-style regulations
> have on yet-to-be-seen innovations, the innovations that never come to
> fruition because of the regulations.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Colin Higbie
> _______________________________________________
> Nnagain mailing list
> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain

Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors

[Dave Cohen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5879 bytes --]

I agree fulsomely with 95% of this point - the persistence of local
monopolies is the proximal cause of this debate. I don't, however, believe
that eliminating a local monopoly structure inherently precludes the need
to consider the "actual issues". For one thing, we've all borne witness to
cycles of expansion and consolidation in the ISP/telco space - there's no
reason to expect that after a cycle of competitive expansion, additional
consolidation leads us right back to a similar issue of competitive
imbalance some years later. For another, I think answering some of the more
philosophical questions in this debate remains relevant regardless - not
the least of which because it seems inevitable that those who desire to
maintain regulatory oversight of these things will maintain regulatory
oversight of these things.

On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 4:34 PM Colin_Higbie via Nnagain <
nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:

> While product and service innovation often originates from pure R&D or
> work performed in academic labs, in virtually all cases, converting that
> into commercially viable products and services is the result of profit
> incentives. A company won’t invest in doing something new with attendant
> risks unless they can expect a return on that investment greater than the
> alternatives (or they believe it will provide strategic support to some
> other product or service). For that reason, we want to be extremely careful
> about regulating how companies can implement innovations, including the use
> of potentially distasteful business practices. None of us who want to see
> the Internet become better over time and more accessible should want
> anything resembling NN regulation.
>
>
>
> The regulatory side of this is largely not a technical discussion because
> future innovation, by definition, may exceed technical considerations we
> can conceive of today.
>
>
>
> It's easy to conceive of examples where an ISP wants to prioritize or
> penalize certain kinds of traffic. And while that may seem superficially
> bad, it’s an important part of the very competition that drives innovation
> and cost reductions over time. E.g., recall when Google Fiber had been
> willing to install Gbps fiber in places at a time when most of the rest of
> the country was struggling to get 20Mbps connections. If Google had wanted
> to limit that to Google services, that still might have been a boon to
> those customers. Further, it could have shown the uses and values of what
> was then considered limitless bandwidth for a home or small business user.
> Even though this would clearly have been in violation of the tenets of NN,
> it would have provided important data that might have spawned significant
> investment by others and advanced the state of connectivity across the
> board.
>
>
>
> I know the counter argument to this is that local ISP monopolies already
> break innovation, and those companies, especially the big cable companies,
> therefore have no incentive to provide a good service. I largely agree with
> that (there is still some small incentive, in that if they are too
> terrible, customer outcry will turn to voter outcry and demand breaking
> those monopolies, and they don’t want to risk that).
>
>
>
> Therefore, the legal issue to address is NOT how they treat or prioritize
> data, whether by content or protocol – which they should be allowed to do,
> EVEN WHEN IT’S BAD FOR CUSTOMERS – but, at least referring to the U.S.
> specifically with our federal/state system, to put federal limits on
> durations of regional monopoly durations. I believe this is within the
> scope of what FCC can mandate (some would debate this and it may take the
> courts to sort it out). These need not be purely # of years, they can be a
> function of time to recoup deployment costs. If a company negotiated a
> local monopoly as part of covering their deployment costs, I would
> personally say that they should be given an opportunity to recoup those,
> but then after that, they need to open up their lines for use by competing
> firms, similar to what happened with the RBOCs and the old telephone lines.
>
>
>
> This is also the legal logic behind patents: give a company a 20 year
> monopoly on the invention in exchange for making it public to everyone and
> showing them how to do it (the patent must provide clear instructions). We
> deem the temporary monopoly worthwhile to incent the innovation, provided
> the inventor makes it public. This is the right philosophy to consider for
> something like bandwidth innovation, investment, and access.
>
>
>
> In short, with ISP’s the open-ended government protected monopolies are
> the problem, not the providers’ ability to overcharge customers or
> prioritize some data over others. Competition will fix that over time, as
> long as competition is allowed to occur. And while it may be faster to
> force it through regulation, that has dangerous long-term consequences with
> respect to future innovation.
>
>
>
> Starlink is one example of innovation. FTTH is another. Cellular-based
> Internet is another. Simply buying bulk access on existing lines and
> repackaging it under different terms could be yet another. Those all seem
> obvious, because they’re the ones we know. The real danger in unforeseen
> consequences is the dampening effect NN-style regulations have on
> yet-to-be-seen innovations, the innovations that never come to fruition
> because of the regulations.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Colin Higbie
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Nnagain mailing list
> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
>


-- 
- Dave Cohen
craetdave@gmail.com
@dCoSays
www.venicesunlight.com

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 7346 bytes --]

Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors

[Colin_Higbie]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4447 bytes --]

While product and service innovation often originates from pure R&D or work performed in academic labs, in virtually all cases, converting that into commercially viable products and services is the result of profit incentives. A company won’t invest in doing something new with attendant risks unless they can expect a return on that investment greater than the alternatives (or they believe it will provide strategic support to some other product or service). For that reason, we want to be extremely careful about regulating how companies can implement innovations, including the use of potentially distasteful business practices. None of us who want to see the Internet become better over time and more accessible should want anything resembling NN regulation.

The regulatory side of this is largely not a technical discussion because future innovation, by definition, may exceed technical considerations we can conceive of today.

It's easy to conceive of examples where an ISP wants to prioritize or penalize certain kinds of traffic. And while that may seem superficially bad, it’s an important part of the very competition that drives innovation and cost reductions over time. E.g., recall when Google Fiber had been willing to install Gbps fiber in places at a time when most of the rest of the country was struggling to get 20Mbps connections. If Google had wanted to limit that to Google services, that still might have been a boon to those customers. Further, it could have shown the uses and values of what was then considered limitless bandwidth for a home or small business user. Even though this would clearly have been in violation of the tenets of NN, it would have provided important data that might have spawned significant investment by others and advanced the state of connectivity across the board.

I know the counter argument to this is that local ISP monopolies already break innovation, and those companies, especially the big cable companies, therefore have no incentive to provide a good service. I largely agree with that (there is still some small incentive, in that if they are too terrible, customer outcry will turn to voter outcry and demand breaking those monopolies, and they don’t want to risk that).

Therefore, the legal issue to address is NOT how they treat or prioritize data, whether by content or protocol – which they should be allowed to do, EVEN WHEN IT’S BAD FOR CUSTOMERS – but, at least referring to the U.S. specifically with our federal/state system, to put federal limits on durations of regional monopoly durations. I believe this is within the scope of what FCC can mandate (some would debate this and it may take the courts to sort it out). These need not be purely # of years, they can be a function of time to recoup deployment costs. If a company negotiated a local monopoly as part of covering their deployment costs, I would personally say that they should be given an opportunity to recoup those, but then after that, they need to open up their lines for use by competing firms, similar to what happened with the RBOCs and the old telephone lines.

This is also the legal logic behind patents: give a company a 20 year monopoly on the invention in exchange for making it public to everyone and showing them how to do it (the patent must provide clear instructions). We deem the temporary monopoly worthwhile to incent the innovation, provided the inventor makes it public. This is the right philosophy to consider for something like bandwidth innovation, investment, and access.

In short, with ISP’s the open-ended government protected monopolies are the problem, not the providers’ ability to overcharge customers or prioritize some data over others. Competition will fix that over time, as long as competition is allowed to occur. And while it may be faster to force it through regulation, that has dangerous long-term consequences with respect to future innovation.

Starlink is one example of innovation. FTTH is another. Cellular-based Internet is another. Simply buying bulk access on existing lines and repackaging it under different terms could be yet another. Those all seem obvious, because they’re the ones we know. The real danger in unforeseen consequences is the dampening effect NN-style regulations have on yet-to-be-seen innovations, the innovations that never come to fruition because of the regulations.

Cheers,
Colin Higbie


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 8090 bytes --]

Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors

[Dick Roy]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1853 bytes --]

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Nnagain [mailto:nnagain-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net] On Behalf Of
Livingood, Jason via Nnagain
Sent: Monday, October 2, 2023 11:10 AM
To: Network Neutrality is back! Let´s make the technical aspects heard this
time!
Cc: Livingood, Jason
Subject: Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors

 

On 10/2/23, 10:51, "Nnagain on behalf of Mark Steckel via Nnagain"
<nnagain-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net
<mailto:nnagain-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> on behalf of
nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net>> wrote:

 

> In both cases it is rational for the ISPs to favor this content over other
content. This can be done by zero tier ratings, throttling, etc.

 

What I have observed in practice is the businesses of connectivity and
content are separately run & tend to act with a very high degree of
independence. To take the example of throttling - all that would do is (1)
prompt customer contacts

[RR] Did you mean “contracts”?

 - driving cost to the ISP, or (2) prompt churn - also driving cost +
reducing revenue. My personal view is that the whole notion of throttling
streaming video (or whatever) is a non-issue to any large ISP. That is why I
think there is consensus support for 'no throttling or blocking' in the ISP
community.   

 

> While there are numerous issues around NN, the core of it starts with
whether the public and companies that use the Internet are entitled to
transparent, fair and and equal access to the Internet. 

 

That is likely why I think industry writ large agrees with the notion of no
blocking/throttling/prioritization.

 

JL

 

_______________________________________________

Nnagain mailing list

Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net

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


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5581 bytes --]

Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors

[Nathan Loofbourrow]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1905 bytes --]

We don’t really need to look that far to understand the risks — all you need to do is look at the “zero rate” plans that Facebook and Google rolled out in countries outside the US, where heavily discounted plans provided free access exclusively to their services, and charging only to reach other Internet destinations.

On Mon, Oct 2, 2023, at 08:30, Andy Ringsmuth via Nnagain wrote:
> 
> 
> > On Oct 1, 2023, at 8:34 PM, dan via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> > 
> > I think a big problem with Net Neutrality is it's sort of a topic for providers and not for end users.  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.
> 
> Except that’s not true. During the Obama years when this was being talked about, TPTB (the powers that be) were able to get a significant number of end users all whipped into a frenzy over it, legitimately or not, and it was being hammered all over the media and social networks.
> 
> Agreed, end users don’t generally understand it on a technical level or the nuances of implementing it and all that, but boy can they be vocal about it. It VERY QUICKLY delved into “Waaahhh, we need it because Trump will take away CNN!!!” or “Waahhhh, we need it because Biden will take away Fox News!!!"
> 
> ----
> Andy Ringsmuth
> 5609 Harding Drive
> Lincoln, NE 68521-5831
> (402) 202-1230
> andy@andyring.com <mailto:andy@andyring.com>
> 
> “A private central bank issuing the public currency is a greater menace to the liberties of the people than a standing army. We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt.” -Thomas Jefferson
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Nnagain mailing list
> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
> 

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2690 bytes --]

Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors

[Patrick Maupin]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1914 bytes --]

> That is likely why I think industry writ large agrees with the notion of
no blocking/throttling/prioritization.

In that case, there should be no problems with getting agreement with
properly worded transparency and behavioral regulations.  It will be
interesting to see how this plays out in the real world.

On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 1:10 PM Livingood, Jason via Nnagain <
nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:

> On 10/2/23, 10:51, "Nnagain on behalf of Mark Steckel via Nnagain" <
> nnagain-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:
> nnagain-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> on behalf of
> nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net>>
> wrote:
>
> > In both cases it is rational for the ISPs to favor this content over
> other content. This can be done by zero tier ratings, throttling, etc.
>
> What I have observed in practice is the businesses of connectivity and
> content are separately run & tend to act with a very high degree of
> independence. To take the example of throttling - all that would do is (1)
> prompt customer contacts - driving cost to the ISP, or (2) prompt churn -
> also driving cost + reducing revenue. My personal view is that the whole
> notion of throttling streaming video (or whatever) is a non-issue to any
> large ISP. That is why I think there is consensus support for 'no
> throttling or blocking' in the ISP community.
>
> > While there are numerous issues around NN, the core of it starts with
> whether the public and companies that use the Internet are entitled to
> transparent, fair and and equal access to the Internet.
>
> That is likely why I think industry writ large agrees with the notion of
> no blocking/throttling/prioritization.
>
> JL
>
> _______________________________________________
> Nnagain mailing list
> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2752 bytes --]

Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors

[Livingood, Jason]

On 10/2/23, 10:51, "Nnagain on behalf of Mark Steckel via Nnagain" <nnagain-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:nnagain-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> on behalf of nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net>> wrote:

> In both cases it is rational for the ISPs to favor this content over other content. This can be done by zero tier ratings, throttling, etc.

What I have observed in practice is the businesses of connectivity and content are separately run & tend to act with a very high degree of independence. To take the example of throttling - all that would do is (1) prompt customer contacts - driving cost to the ISP, or (2) prompt churn - also driving cost + reducing revenue. My personal view is that the whole notion of throttling streaming video (or whatever) is a non-issue to any large ISP. That is why I think there is consensus support for 'no throttling or blocking' in the ISP community.   

> While there are numerous issues around NN, the core of it starts with whether the public and companies that use the Internet are entitled to transparent, fair and and equal access to the Internet. 

That is likely why I think industry writ large agrees with the notion of no blocking/throttling/prioritization.

JL

Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors

[dan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 16734 bytes --]

On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 1:28 AM Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de> wrote:

> Hi Dan,
>
>
>
> > On Oct 2, 2023, at 03:34, dan via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > I think a big problem with Net Neutrality is it's sort of a topic for
> providers and not for end users.
>
>         [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.
>
> 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'



> >  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.
>
>         [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.


>
>
> > 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.
>
>         [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.


>
> >  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.
>
>         [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.
>

I agree, this one muddies the waters.
a) except that this can trigger other competitors, RDOF, BEAD, etc.
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.
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.


>
> >
> > I'm really a proponent of creating a competitive environment, not
> controlling the technical details of those products.
>
>         [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.


> >  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.
>
>         [SM] Again I fully endorse that, but feel that by itself would not
> be enough.
>

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.
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. 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.


>
>
> > 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.
>
>         [SM] Interesting approach that I agree with, but again do not
> think it to be enough.
>
>
> >
> > 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.
>
>         [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.
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.  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.
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?

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.


>
> >  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.
>
>         [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.


>
>
> > I believe that transparency is the key here.
>
>         [SM] THe EU actually agrees., an impoertant part of the
> NN-relevant EU regulation covers transparency.
>
>
> >  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.
>
>         [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.

>
>
> >  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.
>
>         [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.  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.  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.


>
>
> > 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.
>
>         [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.


>
>
> > Now for my ISP version of this.
>
>         [SM] And now it gets interesting ;)
>
>
> >
> > 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.
>
>         [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....


>
>
> >
> > 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.
>
>         [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".
>
> >
> > End rant.
>
>         [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).
>
> Regards
>         Sebastian
>
>
>
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.  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.   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.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 19339 bytes --]

Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors

[Andy Ringsmuth]

> On Oct 1, 2023, at 8:34 PM, dan via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> 
> I think a big problem with Net Neutrality is it's sort of a topic for providers and not for end users.  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.

Except that’s not true. During the Obama years when this was being talked about, TPTB (the powers that be) were able to get a significant number of end users all whipped into a frenzy over it, legitimately or not, and it was being hammered all over the media and social networks.

Agreed, end users don’t generally understand it on a technical level or the nuances of implementing it and all that, but boy can they be vocal about it. It VERY QUICKLY delved into “Waaahhh, we need it because Trump will take away CNN!!!” or “Waahhhh, we need it because Biden will take away Fox News!!!"

----
Andy Ringsmuth
5609 Harding Drive
Lincoln, NE 68521-5831
(402) 202-1230
andy@andyring.com <mailto:andy@andyring.com>

“A private central bank issuing the public currency is a greater menace to the liberties of the people than a standing army. We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt.” -Thomas Jefferson

Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors

[Mark Steckel]

Adding to some of the points that Sebastian made that I largely agree with.

Some of the big ISPs own or are affiliated with content creation and/or distribution companies. AT&T owns Time-Warner, Comcast owns NBC and produces TV shows and movies. Some other large ISPs have done deals with content providers to provide the content over their network. These latter deals are a source of revenue of the ISPs and a way for the content owners to juice the distribution and audience for their content.

In both cases it is rational for the ISPs to favor this content over other content. This can be done by zero tier ratings, throttling, etc.

All this is nearly identical to the rail road industry during the 1800's (at least in the US). One example: A rail road company became involved with a coal mining organization. The Rail road company then decided to disfavor a competing coal mining company by charging more and slowing traffic. There are many examples of this from the rail roads in the 1800's. Everyone was against this except for the companies that profited from it. Laws and regulations were created to force the rails roads to be "common carriers" (as defined in the US). [Apparently the term "common carrier" has a different meaning in Europe.]

It is reasonable to expect that large corporate ISPs will act in their self interest, and in ways that harm the public. 

While there are numerous issues around NN, the core of it starts with whether the public and companies that use the Internet are entitled to transparent, fair and and equal access to the Internet. It is not about whether things like VOIP traffic is prioritized, that is a distraction IMO. It's about whether an ISP can favor traffic to their benefit in ways that hurts consumers and other businesses. 

The experience with the rail road industry (at least in the US) provides a clear example of the abuses that occur when a company owns a choke point and decides they will exploit it. 

And finally, a few years before bittorrent brought a lot of these issues to the foreground Michael Powell (son of Colin Powell) was the chair of the FCC (appointed by pres Clinton). The cable companies had started providing Internet service over their cables during the 90's and had started looking at providing phone service. The Internet started with the traditional phone companies which were regulated under Title II. The cable companies did not want to be similarly regulated so Powell got the FCC to declare that Internet was an "informational service" which put it in a separate category which did not fall under Title II. The gist of this is Title II concerns about the Internet started well before bittorrent and bufferbloat entered the picture.








---- On Mon, 02 Oct 2023 09:43:40 -0400 Livingood, Jason via Nnagain  wrote ---

 > From: Nnagain nnagain-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> on behalf of Patrick Maupin via Nnagain nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net>
 > 
 > > If there are no would-be bad actors, no regulation is needed.  But if there are would-be bad actors, then they will attempt to be instrumental in shaping any new regulations, and many of the presumed would-be
 >  bad actors have time, money, and histories of securing significant face time with regulatory agencies such as the FCC.
 > 
 > Often the ‘bad actor’ is really just a ‘dumb actor’ that did something without thinking it through fully or understanding root causes, secondary effects of a network change, etc. In our industry (writ large)
 >  it seems like 99% of the negative stuff can be ascribed to mistakes/lack of foresight/incorrect root cause analysis/etc and 1% is due to some ‘evil genius plan’. ;-)
 > 
 > _______________________________________________
 > Nnagain mailing list
 > Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
 > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
 > 

Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors

[Livingood, Jason]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 849 bytes --]

From: Nnagain <nnagain-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> on behalf of Patrick Maupin via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net>

> If there are no would-be bad actors, no regulation is needed.  But if there are would-be bad actors, then they will attempt to be instrumental in shaping any new regulations, and many of the presumed would-be bad actors have time, money, and histories of securing significant face time with regulatory agencies such as the FCC.

Often the ‘bad actor’ is really just a ‘dumb actor’ that did something without thinking it through fully or understanding root causes, secondary effects of a network change, etc. In our industry (writ large) it seems like 99% of the negative stuff can be ascribed to mistakes/lack of foresight/incorrect root cause analysis/etc and 1% is due to some ‘evil genius plan’. ;-)

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2739 bytes --]

Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors

[Livingood, Jason]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 468 bytes --]

On 10/1/23, 15:55, "Nnagain on behalf of Dave Taht via Nnagain" <nnagain-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:nnagain-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> on behalf of nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net>> wrote:



> Throttling, using DPI or other methods, is indeed feasible.

Via https://alissacooperdotcom.files.wordpress.com/2017/12/thesis.pdf



[A white text on a white background  Description automatically generated]



[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 2753 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: image001.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 37991 bytes --]

Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors

[Sebastian Moeller]

Hi Dan,



> On Oct 2, 2023, at 03:34, dan via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> 
> I think a big problem with Net Neutrality is it's sort of a topic for providers and not for end users.

	[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.

>  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.

	[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.


> 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.

	[SM] Transparency is indded an important factor, but IMHO not sufficient.

>  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.  

	[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.


> 
> I'm really a proponent of creating a competitive environment, not controlling the technical details of those products.

	[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.


>  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.

	[SM] Again I fully endorse that, but feel that by itself would not be enough.


> 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.

	[SM] Interesting approach that I agree with, but again do not think it to be enough.


> 
> 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.

	[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.


>  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.  

	[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).


> I believe that transparency is the key here.

	[SM] THe EU actually agrees., an impoertant part of the NN-relevant EU regulation covers transparency.


>  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.

	[SM] That however seems quite a challenge... though it is not unheard of to offer multiple parallel explanations at different levels of abstraction/complexity...


>  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.  

	[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.


> 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.

	[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


> Now for my ISP version of this.

	[SM] And now it gets interesting ;)


> 
> 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.  

	[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).


> 
> 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.

	[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".

> 
> End rant.

	[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).

Regards
	Sebastian



> 
> On Sun, Oct 1, 2023 at 4:01 PM Patrick Maupin via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> > “neutrality” is framed by the experience of end users
> 
> Assuming, arguendo, that's true, then the issue becomes one of ensuring that bad actors can't slowly strangle the competition until eventually the antitrust laws have to be invoked.
> 
> Because that's always too late.
> 
> Dave Taht and others have correctly pointed out that many of the issues that have cropped up have purely technical solutions.
> 
> Maybe everything devolves to a technical issue?  I'm not sure, but it may be worthwhile to view current protocols, norms, and regulations as a system that is under security threats from bad actors*, and to enumerate some of the potential exploits and consider potential mitigations.
> 
> Bearing in mind, of course, that one of the tools available to bad actors may, in fact, be current or new regulations that impede the self-help capabilities of ISPs and other ecosystem participants, but also bearing in mind that the history of the internet as a whole (replete with cooperative endeavors) is completely different from the history of many of the rent-seeking businesses that are now aggressively monetizing it.
> 
> In any case, it's easy these days to sit out negotiations between Comcast and Netflix.  Or Comcast and Disney over football, or whatever.  Because they're all big boys.
> 
> The holy grail is, as always, to guarantee that the _next_ netflix can't be easily strangled in its crib.
> 
>  - Pat Maupin
> 
> [*] If there are no would-be bad actors, no regulation is needed.  But if there are would-be bad actors, then they will attempt to be instrumental in shaping any new regulations, and many of the presumed would-be bad actors have time, money, and histories of securing significant face time with regulatory agencies such as the FCC.
> 
> On Sun, Oct 1, 2023 at 3:51 PM Dave Cohen via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> It’s useful for us to remember here that, politics aside, “neutrality” is framed by the experience of end users, not by the experience of operators. While much of Martin’s argument that malicious treatment and incapable design cannot often be distinguished from one another is correct, I believe it to be beside the point; from the perspective of most end users, “I can’t watch Netflix because Comcast is throttling it” and “I can’t watch Netflix because Comcast doesn’t have enough capacity where Netflix traffic ingresses” may be distinguishable arguments but they’re also equally egregious. (With apologies to Jason, Comcast was my home ISP during that era of NN debates, so my specific argument here is reflexive.) Most users will be sympathetic enough to tolerate an occasional service hiccup but will not tolerate repeated issues, regardless of the cause of those issues or their personal ability to differentiate between those causes. 
> 
> Of course this is a two way street. Anyone inclined to believe that large companies are going to conspiratorially behave maliciously took a big giant victory lap when Cogent press released that they had successfully throttled Netflix traffic in a controlled experiment, when of course that commanded no such thing. 
> 
> I recall getting into a Twitter fight with Martin around this time on that point. My argument was effectively that end user perception wasn’t going to change and an ISP trying to nuance its way through how it presents its traffic management (in effect, the “Quality Floor” framework) was missing the point with its customers; throwing more bandwidth at the problem was the only way out. I’d like to think that time has proven my perspective correct, although the growth in utilization of CDN and edge networking topologies also subverted the need for bandwidth growth, at least over the public Internet, to be quite so rapid. 
> 
> Dave Cohen
> craetdave@gmail.com
> 
> > On Oct 1, 2023, at 3:52 PM, Dave Taht via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> > 
> > I kind of expect many, many forks of conversations here, and for those
> > introducing a new topic,
> > I would like to encourage using a relevant subject line, so I have
> > changed this one to suit.
> > 
> >> On Sun, Oct 1, 2023 at 11:57 AM Frantisek Borsik
> >> <frantisek.borsik@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> 
> >> OK, so I will bite the bullet! I have invited Ajit Pai and Martin Geddes to join us here and let's see if they still have some time and/or even stomach for current round of NN discussion.
> > 
> > Honestly I was hoping for some time to setup, and even perhaps, have
> > enough of us here
> > to agree on one of the definitions of NN, to start with!
> > 
> >> Anyway, here is my bullet. I will argue with Martin, that - Net Neutrality CAN'T be implemented:
> > 
> > You meant "argue along with" rather than "with". I know you are not a
> > native english speaker, but in the way you said it, it meant you were
> > arguing against what he described.
> > 
> >> 
> >>> Whilst people argue over the virtues of net neutrality as a regulatory policy, computer science tells us regulatory implementation is a fool’s errand.
> >>> Suppose for a moment that you are the victim of a wicked ISP that engages in disallowed “throttling” under a “neutral” regime for Internet access. You like to access streaming media from a particular “over the top” service provider. By coincidence, the performance of your favoured application drops at the same time your ISP launches a rival content service of its own.
> >>> You then complain to the regulator, who investigates. She finds that your ISP did indeed change their traffic management settings right at the point that the “throttling” began. A swathe of routes, including the one to your preferred “over the top” application, have been given a different packet scheduling and routing treatment.
> >>> It seems like an open-and-shut case of “throttling” resulting in a disallowed “neutrality violation”. Or is it?
> >>> Here’s why the regulator’s enforcement order will never survive the resulting court case and expert witness scrutiny:
> >> 
> >> 
> >> https://www.martingeddes.com/one-reason-net-neutrality-cant-implemented/
> > 
> > Throttling, using DPI or other methods, is indeed feasible. It is very
> > straightforward to limit flows to or from a given set of IP addresses.
> > However, there are also technical limitations, based on for example,
> > the underlying connectivity of a path be it one gbit or 10, which
> > would also show a customer problem in unwinding the difference between
> > intentionally throttling and merely being out of bandwidth across that
> > link. A lot of the netflix controversy was generated because netflix
> > suddenly ate far far more bandwidth that anyone had provisioned, and
> > was ultimately addressed by them developing and making easily
> > available a caching architecture that could be located within an ISPs
> > borders, saving an enormous amount on transit costs.  The rest of the
> > computing universe followed with enormous numbers of CDNs from the
> > bigger services being built out in the years following.
> > 
> > In part I kind of reject a few older arguments here in the face of
> > subsequent, technical improvements on how the internet works.
> > 
> > I had many discussions with martin back in the day. The reasoning in
> > this piece is pretty sound, except that "fairness" can be achieved via
> > various means (notably flow (fair) queueing), and it has always been a
> > (imperfectly implemented) goal of our e2e congestion control
> > algorithms to ultimately converge to a equal amount of bandwidth at
> > differing RTTs to different services.
> > 
> > My principal kvetch with his work was that every blog entry during
> > this period making these points then ended up linking to a "Quality
> > Floor", called "delta-something", a mathematical method that was
> > ill-documented, not available as open source and impossible, for me,
> > at least to understand. The link to that solution is broken in that
> > link, for example. That quasi-mystical jump to "the solution", I was
> > never able to make.
> > 
> > I believe something like this method lives on in Domos´s work today,
> > and despite them filing an internet draft on the subject (
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-olden-ippm-qoo/ ) I remain
> > mostly in the dark, without being able to evaluate their methods
> > against tools I already understand.
> > 
> > I like the idea of what I think a "quality floor" might provide, which
> > is something that fq-everywhere can provide, and no known e2e
> > congestion control can guarantee.
> > 
> > I would like it if instead of ISPs selling "up to X bandwidth" they
> > sold a minimum guarantee of at least Y bandwidth, which is easier to
> > reason and provision for, but harder to sell.
> > 
> > Instead:
> > 
> > In the last 14 years I focused on restoring correct behavior of the
> > well-defined congestion controls of the internet, first documented
> > here:  https://ee.lbl.gov/papers/congavoid.pdf and built on the
> > decades since, while many others made enormous advances on what was
> > possible - packet pacing, for example, is a genuine breakthrough in
> > how multiple services from multiple providers can leave sufficient
> > space for other flows to co-exist and eventually use up their fair
> > share.
> > 
> >> 
> >> I hope you will read the link ^^ before jumping to Martin's conclusion, but still, here it is:
> >> 
> >>> 
> >>> So if not “neutrality”, then what else?
> > 
> > This is the phase where his arguments began to fall into the weeds.
> > 
> >>> The only option is to focus on the end-to-end service quality.
> > 
> > I agree that achieving quality on various good metrics, especially
> > under load, is needed. The popular MOS metric for voip could use some
> > improvement, and we lack any coherent framework for measuring
> > videoconferencing well.
> > 
> >>> The local traffic management is an irrelevance and complete distraction.
> > 
> > I am not sure how to tie this to the rest of the argument. The local
> > traffic management can be as simple as short buffers, or inordinately
> > complex, as you will find complex organisations internally trying to
> > balance the needs for throughput and latency, and for example, the
> > CAKE qdisc not only does active queue management, and FQ, but
> > optionally allows additional means of differentiation for
> > voice/videoconferencing, best effort, and "bulk" traffic, in an
> > effort, ultimately to balance goals to achieve the "service quality"
> > the user desires. Then there are the side-effects of various layer 2
> > protocols - wifi tends to be batchy, 5G tends towards being hugely
> > bufferbloated - PON has a 250us lower limit, cable
> > 
> >> Terms like “throttling” are technically meaningless. The lawgeneers who have written articles and books saying otherwise are unconsciously incompetent at computer science.
> > 
> > There are use cases, both good and bad, for "throttling". It is and
> > has always been technically feasible to rate limit flows from anyone
> > to anyone. Advisable, sometimes! DDOS attacks are one case where
> > throttling is needed.
> > 
> > Breaking the user perception of being intentionally throttled vs the
> > fate of the the rest of the network would be a goodness. The side
> > effects of one service, living on a slow network, becoming suddenly
> > popular, is known as the "slashdot effect", and is mostly mediated by
> > leveraging CDN and cloud technologies, and totally out of the control
> > of the local ISP.
> > 
> >>> We computer scientists call this viable alternative “end-to-end” approach a “quality floor”.
> > 
> > In googling I have thus far been unable to find a definition of
> > "Quality floor". Cite, please?
> > 
> >> The good news is that we now have a practical means to measure it and hard science to model it.
> > 
> > Weeds, here.
> > 
> >>> Maybe we should consciously and competently try it?
> > 
> > ... if only we had running code and rough consensus.
> > 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> All the best,
> >> 
> >> Frank
> >> 
> >> Frantisek (Frank) Borsik
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik
> >> 
> >> Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714
> >> 
> >> iMessage, mobile: +420775230885
> >> 
> >> Skype: casioa5302ca
> >> 
> >> frantisek.borsik@gmail.com
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >>> On Sun, Oct 1, 2023 at 7:15 PM Dave Taht via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> I am pleased to see over 100 people have signed up for this list
> >>> already. I am not really planning on "activating" this list until
> >>> tuesday or so, after a few more people I have reached out to sign up
> >>> (or not).
> >>> 
> >>> I would like y´all to seek out people with differing opinions and
> >>> background, in the hope that one day, we can shed more light than heat
> >>> about the science and technologies that "govern" the internet, to
> >>> those that wish to regulate it. In the short term, I would like enough
> >>> of us to agree on an open letter, or NPRM filing,and to put out a
> >>> press release(s), in the hope that this time, the nn and title ii
> >>> discussion is more about real, than imagined, internet issues. [1]
> >>> 
> >>> I am basically planning to move the enormous discussion from over
> >>> here, titled "network neutrality back in the news":
> >>> 
> >>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/starlink/2023-September/thread.html
> >>> 
> >>> to here. I expect that we are going to be doing this discussion for a
> >>> long time, and many more issues besides my short term ones will be
> >>> discussed. I hope that we can cleanly isolate technical issues from
> >>> political ones, in particular, and remain civil, and factual, and
> >>> avoid hyperbole.
> >>> 
> >>> Since the FCC announcement of a proposed NPRM as of Oct 19th... my own
> >>> initial impetus was to establish why the NN debate first started in
> >>> 2005, and the conflict between the legal idea of "common carriage" vs
> >>> what the internet was actually capable of in mixing voip and
> >>> bittorrent, in
> >>> "The Bufferbloat vs Bittorrent vs Voip" phase. Jim Gettys, myself, and
> >>> Jason Livinggood have weighed in on their stories on linkedin,
> >>> twitter, and elsewhere.
> >>> 
> >>> There was a second phase, somewhat triggered by netflix, that Jonathan
> >>> Morton summarized in that thread, ending in the first establishment of
> >>> some title ii rules in 2015.
> >>> 
> >>> The third phase was when title ii was rescinded... and all that has
> >>> happened since.
> >>> 
> >>> I, for one, am fiercely proud about how our tech community rose to
> >>> meet the challenge of covid, and how, for example, videoconferencing
> >>> mostly just worked for so many, after a postage stamp sized start in
> >>> 2012[2]. The oh-too-faint-praise for that magnificent effort from
> >>> higher levels rankles me greatly, but I will try to get it under
> >>> control.
> >>> 
> >>> And this fourth phase, opening in a few weeks, is more, I think about
> >>> privacy and power than all the other phases, and harmonization with EU
> >>> legislation, perhaps. What is on the table for the industry and
> >>> internet is presently unknown.
> >>> 
> >>> So here we "NN-again". Lay your issues out!
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> [1] I have only had one fight with the FCC. Won it handily:
> >>> https://www.computerworld.com/article/2993112/vint-cerf-and-260-experts-give-fcc-a-plan-to-secure-wi-fi-routers.html
> >>> In this case this is not so much a fight, I hope, but a collaborative
> >>> effort towards a better, faster, lower latency, and more secure,
> >>> internet for everyone.
> >>> 
> >>> [2] https://archive.org/details/video1_20191129
> >>> --
> >>> Oct 30: https://netdevconf.info/0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-bof.html
> >>> Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Nnagain mailing list
> >>> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
> >>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Oct 30: https://netdevconf.info/0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-bof.html
> > Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors

[Sebastian Moeller]

Hi Patrick,


> On Oct 2, 2023, at 00:01, Patrick Maupin via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> 
> > “neutrality” is framed by the experience of end users
> 
> Assuming, arguendo, that's true, then the issue becomes one of ensuring that bad actors can't slowly strangle the competition until eventually the antitrust laws have to be invoked.
> 
> Because that's always too late.
> 
> Dave Taht and others have correctly pointed out that many of the issues that have cropped up have purely technical solutions.

	[SM] Most of the technical reasons for observed (but not intended) discrimination indeed seem to have technical solutions, ready for deployment for roughly a decade now. But the business side of trying to tilt the playing field for financial gains is not a technical problem and hence has no specific technical solution (that offenders would be willing to use); or rather the technical solution is "stop doing what you di to create the artificial shortage" situation in the first place. While we agree to call such actors, bad actors, before NN regulations became effective such behavior was not in direct violation of the law and regulations and hence seemed permitted. It is a "disease" of modern large corporation to consider any behavior not explicitly forbidden to be "fair game" (while at the same time lobbying hard to water down fail all attempts at meaningful regulation), but I digress.


> 
> Maybe everything devolves to a technical issue?  

	[SM]  I wish this was true, but alas at least in Europe there is evidence for discrimination based on economic considerations, not technical challenges.


> I'm not sure, but it may be worthwhile to view current protocols, norms, and regulations as a system that is under security threats from bad actors*, and to enumerate some of the potential exploits and consider potential mitigations.
> 
> Bearing in mind, of course, that one of the tools available to bad actors may, in fact, be current or new regulations that impede the self-help capabilities of ISPs and other ecosystem participants, but also bearing in mind that the history of the internet as a whole (replete with cooperative endeavors) is completely different from the history of many of the rent-seeking businesses that are now aggressively monetizing it.
> 
> In any case, it's easy these days to sit out negotiations between Comcast and Netflix.  Or Comcast and Disney over football, or whatever.  Because they're all big boys.

	[SM] It also has become clear that end-users can use VPNs to essentially do poor-man's traffic engineering to route-around accidentally or purposefully overloaded paths and encryption from havning an ISP use DPI for uncouth purposes...


> The holy grail is, as always, to guarantee that the _next_ netflix can't be easily strangled in its crib.

	[SM] Without endorsing a single company here, I fully agree we want the internet not to ossify and allow the continous emergence of new things that might or might not gain usage based on their own features and properties.

Regards
	Sebastian



> 
>  - Pat Maupin
> 
> [*] If there are no would-be bad actors, no regulation is needed.  But if there are would-be bad actors, then they will attempt to be instrumental in shaping any new regulations, and many of the presumed would-be bad actors have time, money, and histories of securing significant face time with regulatory agencies such as the FCC.

	[SM] Technically or an act to be objectively bad it needs to step over a clear "line in the sand", these used to be implicit and shared by a community but now a days te only thing that works is explicit rules and regulations that make clear was is and what is not permitted, no?


> 
> On Sun, Oct 1, 2023 at 3:51 PM Dave Cohen via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> It’s useful for us to remember here that, politics aside, “neutrality” is framed by the experience of end users, not by the experience of operators. While much of Martin’s argument that malicious treatment and incapable design cannot often be distinguished from one another is correct, I believe it to be beside the point; from the perspective of most end users, “I can’t watch Netflix because Comcast is throttling it” and “I can’t watch Netflix because Comcast doesn’t have enough capacity where Netflix traffic ingresses” may be distinguishable arguments but they’re also equally egregious. (With apologies to Jason, Comcast was my home ISP during that era of NN debates, so my specific argument here is reflexive.) Most users will be sympathetic enough to tolerate an occasional service hiccup but will not tolerate repeated issues, regardless of the cause of those issues or their personal ability to differentiate between those causes. 
> 
> Of course this is a two way street. Anyone inclined to believe that large companies are going to conspiratorially behave maliciously took a big giant victory lap when Cogent press released that they had successfully throttled Netflix traffic in a controlled experiment, when of course that commanded no such thing. 
> 
> I recall getting into a Twitter fight with Martin around this time on that point. My argument was effectively that end user perception wasn’t going to change and an ISP trying to nuance its way through how it presents its traffic management (in effect, the “Quality Floor” framework) was missing the point with its customers; throwing more bandwidth at the problem was the only way out. I’d like to think that time has proven my perspective correct, although the growth in utilization of CDN and edge networking topologies also subverted the need for bandwidth growth, at least over the public Internet, to be quite so rapid. 
> 
> Dave Cohen
> craetdave@gmail.com
> 
> > On Oct 1, 2023, at 3:52 PM, Dave Taht via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> > 
> > I kind of expect many, many forks of conversations here, and for those
> > introducing a new topic,
> > I would like to encourage using a relevant subject line, so I have
> > changed this one to suit.
> > 
> >> On Sun, Oct 1, 2023 at 11:57 AM Frantisek Borsik
> >> <frantisek.borsik@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> 
> >> OK, so I will bite the bullet! I have invited Ajit Pai and Martin Geddes to join us here and let's see if they still have some time and/or even stomach for current round of NN discussion.
> > 
> > Honestly I was hoping for some time to setup, and even perhaps, have
> > enough of us here
> > to agree on one of the definitions of NN, to start with!
> > 
> >> Anyway, here is my bullet. I will argue with Martin, that - Net Neutrality CAN'T be implemented:
> > 
> > You meant "argue along with" rather than "with". I know you are not a
> > native english speaker, but in the way you said it, it meant you were
> > arguing against what he described.
> > 
> >> 
> >>> Whilst people argue over the virtues of net neutrality as a regulatory policy, computer science tells us regulatory implementation is a fool’s errand.
> >>> Suppose for a moment that you are the victim of a wicked ISP that engages in disallowed “throttling” under a “neutral” regime for Internet access. You like to access streaming media from a particular “over the top” service provider. By coincidence, the performance of your favoured application drops at the same time your ISP launches a rival content service of its own.
> >>> You then complain to the regulator, who investigates. She finds that your ISP did indeed change their traffic management settings right at the point that the “throttling” began. A swathe of routes, including the one to your preferred “over the top” application, have been given a different packet scheduling and routing treatment.
> >>> It seems like an open-and-shut case of “throttling” resulting in a disallowed “neutrality violation”. Or is it?
> >>> Here’s why the regulator’s enforcement order will never survive the resulting court case and expert witness scrutiny:
> >> 
> >> 
> >> https://www.martingeddes.com/one-reason-net-neutrality-cant-implemented/
> > 
> > Throttling, using DPI or other methods, is indeed feasible. It is very
> > straightforward to limit flows to or from a given set of IP addresses.
> > However, there are also technical limitations, based on for example,
> > the underlying connectivity of a path be it one gbit or 10, which
> > would also show a customer problem in unwinding the difference between
> > intentionally throttling and merely being out of bandwidth across that
> > link. A lot of the netflix controversy was generated because netflix
> > suddenly ate far far more bandwidth that anyone had provisioned, and
> > was ultimately addressed by them developing and making easily
> > available a caching architecture that could be located within an ISPs
> > borders, saving an enormous amount on transit costs.  The rest of the
> > computing universe followed with enormous numbers of CDNs from the
> > bigger services being built out in the years following.
> > 
> > In part I kind of reject a few older arguments here in the face of
> > subsequent, technical improvements on how the internet works.
> > 
> > I had many discussions with martin back in the day. The reasoning in
> > this piece is pretty sound, except that "fairness" can be achieved via
> > various means (notably flow (fair) queueing), and it has always been a
> > (imperfectly implemented) goal of our e2e congestion control
> > algorithms to ultimately converge to a equal amount of bandwidth at
> > differing RTTs to different services.
> > 
> > My principal kvetch with his work was that every blog entry during
> > this period making these points then ended up linking to a "Quality
> > Floor", called "delta-something", a mathematical method that was
> > ill-documented, not available as open source and impossible, for me,
> > at least to understand. The link to that solution is broken in that
> > link, for example. That quasi-mystical jump to "the solution", I was
> > never able to make.
> > 
> > I believe something like this method lives on in Domos´s work today,
> > and despite them filing an internet draft on the subject (
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-olden-ippm-qoo/ ) I remain
> > mostly in the dark, without being able to evaluate their methods
> > against tools I already understand.
> > 
> > I like the idea of what I think a "quality floor" might provide, which
> > is something that fq-everywhere can provide, and no known e2e
> > congestion control can guarantee.
> > 
> > I would like it if instead of ISPs selling "up to X bandwidth" they
> > sold a minimum guarantee of at least Y bandwidth, which is easier to
> > reason and provision for, but harder to sell.
> > 
> > Instead:
> > 
> > In the last 14 years I focused on restoring correct behavior of the
> > well-defined congestion controls of the internet, first documented
> > here:  https://ee.lbl.gov/papers/congavoid.pdf and built on the
> > decades since, while many others made enormous advances on what was
> > possible - packet pacing, for example, is a genuine breakthrough in
> > how multiple services from multiple providers can leave sufficient
> > space for other flows to co-exist and eventually use up their fair
> > share.
> > 
> >> 
> >> I hope you will read the link ^^ before jumping to Martin's conclusion, but still, here it is:
> >> 
> >>> 
> >>> So if not “neutrality”, then what else?
> > 
> > This is the phase where his arguments began to fall into the weeds.
> > 
> >>> The only option is to focus on the end-to-end service quality.
> > 
> > I agree that achieving quality on various good metrics, especially
> > under load, is needed. The popular MOS metric for voip could use some
> > improvement, and we lack any coherent framework for measuring
> > videoconferencing well.
> > 
> >>> The local traffic management is an irrelevance and complete distraction.
> > 
> > I am not sure how to tie this to the rest of the argument. The local
> > traffic management can be as simple as short buffers, or inordinately
> > complex, as you will find complex organisations internally trying to
> > balance the needs for throughput and latency, and for example, the
> > CAKE qdisc not only does active queue management, and FQ, but
> > optionally allows additional means of differentiation for
> > voice/videoconferencing, best effort, and "bulk" traffic, in an
> > effort, ultimately to balance goals to achieve the "service quality"
> > the user desires. Then there are the side-effects of various layer 2
> > protocols - wifi tends to be batchy, 5G tends towards being hugely
> > bufferbloated - PON has a 250us lower limit, cable
> > 
> >> Terms like “throttling” are technically meaningless. The lawgeneers who have written articles and books saying otherwise are unconsciously incompetent at computer science.
> > 
> > There are use cases, both good and bad, for "throttling". It is and
> > has always been technically feasible to rate limit flows from anyone
> > to anyone. Advisable, sometimes! DDOS attacks are one case where
> > throttling is needed.
> > 
> > Breaking the user perception of being intentionally throttled vs the
> > fate of the the rest of the network would be a goodness. The side
> > effects of one service, living on a slow network, becoming suddenly
> > popular, is known as the "slashdot effect", and is mostly mediated by
> > leveraging CDN and cloud technologies, and totally out of the control
> > of the local ISP.
> > 
> >>> We computer scientists call this viable alternative “end-to-end” approach a “quality floor”.
> > 
> > In googling I have thus far been unable to find a definition of
> > "Quality floor". Cite, please?
> > 
> >> The good news is that we now have a practical means to measure it and hard science to model it.
> > 
> > Weeds, here.
> > 
> >>> Maybe we should consciously and competently try it?
> > 
> > ... if only we had running code and rough consensus.
> > 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> All the best,
> >> 
> >> Frank
> >> 
> >> Frantisek (Frank) Borsik
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik
> >> 
> >> Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714
> >> 
> >> iMessage, mobile: +420775230885
> >> 
> >> Skype: casioa5302ca
> >> 
> >> frantisek.borsik@gmail.com
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >>> On Sun, Oct 1, 2023 at 7:15 PM Dave Taht via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> I am pleased to see over 100 people have signed up for this list
> >>> already. I am not really planning on "activating" this list until
> >>> tuesday or so, after a few more people I have reached out to sign up
> >>> (or not).
> >>> 
> >>> I would like y´all to seek out people with differing opinions and
> >>> background, in the hope that one day, we can shed more light than heat
> >>> about the science and technologies that "govern" the internet, to
> >>> those that wish to regulate it. In the short term, I would like enough
> >>> of us to agree on an open letter, or NPRM filing,and to put out a
> >>> press release(s), in the hope that this time, the nn and title ii
> >>> discussion is more about real, than imagined, internet issues. [1]
> >>> 
> >>> I am basically planning to move the enormous discussion from over
> >>> here, titled "network neutrality back in the news":
> >>> 
> >>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/starlink/2023-September/thread.html
> >>> 
> >>> to here. I expect that we are going to be doing this discussion for a
> >>> long time, and many more issues besides my short term ones will be
> >>> discussed. I hope that we can cleanly isolate technical issues from
> >>> political ones, in particular, and remain civil, and factual, and
> >>> avoid hyperbole.
> >>> 
> >>> Since the FCC announcement of a proposed NPRM as of Oct 19th... my own
> >>> initial impetus was to establish why the NN debate first started in
> >>> 2005, and the conflict between the legal idea of "common carriage" vs
> >>> what the internet was actually capable of in mixing voip and
> >>> bittorrent, in
> >>> "The Bufferbloat vs Bittorrent vs Voip" phase. Jim Gettys, myself, and
> >>> Jason Livinggood have weighed in on their stories on linkedin,
> >>> twitter, and elsewhere.
> >>> 
> >>> There was a second phase, somewhat triggered by netflix, that Jonathan
> >>> Morton summarized in that thread, ending in the first establishment of
> >>> some title ii rules in 2015.
> >>> 
> >>> The third phase was when title ii was rescinded... and all that has
> >>> happened since.
> >>> 
> >>> I, for one, am fiercely proud about how our tech community rose to
> >>> meet the challenge of covid, and how, for example, videoconferencing
> >>> mostly just worked for so many, after a postage stamp sized start in
> >>> 2012[2]. The oh-too-faint-praise for that magnificent effort from
> >>> higher levels rankles me greatly, but I will try to get it under
> >>> control.
> >>> 
> >>> And this fourth phase, opening in a few weeks, is more, I think about
> >>> privacy and power than all the other phases, and harmonization with EU
> >>> legislation, perhaps. What is on the table for the industry and
> >>> internet is presently unknown.
> >>> 
> >>> So here we "NN-again". Lay your issues out!
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> [1] I have only had one fight with the FCC. Won it handily:
> >>> https://www.computerworld.com/article/2993112/vint-cerf-and-260-experts-give-fcc-a-plan-to-secure-wi-fi-routers.html
> >>> In this case this is not so much a fight, I hope, but a collaborative
> >>> effort towards a better, faster, lower latency, and more secure,
> >>> internet for everyone.
> >>> 
> >>> [2] https://archive.org/details/video1_20191129
> >>> --
> >>> Oct 30: https://netdevconf.info/0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-bof.html
> >>> Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Nnagain mailing list
> >>> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
> >>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Oct 30: https://netdevconf.info/0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-bof.html
> > Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> _______________________________________________
> Nnagain mailing list
> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain

Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors

[Sebastian Moeller]

Hi Dave,


> On Oct 1, 2023, at 21:51, Dave Taht via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> 
> I kind of expect many, many forks of conversations here, and for those
> introducing a new topic,
> I would like to encourage using a relevant subject line, so I have
> changed this one to suit.
> 
> On Sun, Oct 1, 2023 at 11:57 AM Frantisek Borsik
> <frantisek.borsik@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> OK, so I will bite the bullet! I have invited Ajit Pai and Martin Geddes to join us here and let's see if they still have some time and/or even stomach for current round of NN discussion.
> 
> Honestly I was hoping for some time to setup, and even perhaps, have
> enough of us here
> to agree on one of the definitions of NN, to start with!
> 
>> Anyway, here is my bullet. I will argue with Martin, that - Net Neutrality CAN'T be implemented:
> 
> You meant "argue along with" rather than "with". I know you are not a
> native english speaker, but in the way you said it, it meant you were
> arguing against what he described.
> 
>> 
>>> Whilst people argue over the virtues of net neutrality as a regulatory policy, computer science tells us regulatory implementation is a fool’s errand.
>>> Suppose for a moment that you are the victim of a wicked ISP that engages in disallowed “throttling” under a “neutral” regime for Internet access. You like to access streaming media from a particular “over the top” service provider. By coincidence, the performance of your favoured application drops at the same time your ISP launches a rival content service of its own.
>>> You then complain to the regulator, who investigates. She finds that your ISP did indeed change their traffic management settings right at the point that the “throttling” began. A swathe of routes, including the one to your preferred “over the top” application, have been given a different packet scheduling and routing treatment.
>>> It seems like an open-and-shut case of “throttling” resulting in a disallowed “neutrality violation”. Or is it?
>>> Here’s why the regulator’s enforcement order will never survive the resulting court case and expert witness scrutiny:
>> 
>> 
>> https://www.martingeddes.com/one-reason-net-neutrality-cant-implemented/
> 
> Throttling, using DPI or other methods, is indeed feasible. It is very
> straightforward to limit flows to or from a given set of IP addresses.
> However, there are also technical limitations, based on for example,
> the underlying connectivity of a path be it one gbit or 10, which
> would also show a customer problem in unwinding the difference between
> intentionally throttling and merely being out of bandwidth across that
> link. A lot of the netflix controversy was generated because netflix
> suddenly ate far far more bandwidth that anyone had provisioned, and
> was ultimately addressed by them developing and making easily
> available a caching architecture that could be located within an ISPs
> borders, saving an enormous amount on transit costs.  The rest of the
> computing universe followed with enormous numbers of CDNs from the
> bigger services being built out in the years following.
> 
> In part I kind of reject a few older arguments here in the face of
> subsequent, technical improvements on how the internet works.
> 
> I had many discussions with martin back in the day. The reasoning in
> this piece is pretty sound,

	[SM] So to me this really looks like a Nirvana fallacy, that tries to invoke the halting problem of all things and deduces all regulatory action to be futile. But in the end really proposes what NN is really all about, making sure end-customers end to end experience is not artificially biased. I guess I am misunderstanding his point and would appreciate be set straight here ;)


> except that "fairness" can be achieved via
> various means (notably flow (fair) queueing), and it has always been a
> (imperfectly implemented) goal of our e2e congestion control
> algorithms to ultimately converge to a equal amount of bandwidth at
> differing RTTs to different services.

	[SM] This is a good point that makes me reflect my position on this topic a bit; because I have been living in a flow queued environment for over a decade now, I fail to see how achieving that (on a "good enough" level) should be unachievable.


> My principal kvetch with his work was that every blog entry during
> this period making these points then ended up linking to a "Quality
> Floor", called "delta-something", a mathematical method that was
> ill-documented, not available as open source and impossible, for me,
> at least to understand. The link to that solution is broken in that
> link, for example. That quasi-mystical jump to "the solution", I was
> never able to make.

	[SM] Looked from high above his argument really seems to say, NN measurement should not focus on per-network configuration but on conparung end to end performance/experience, something I guess nobody disagrees with all that much?


> 
> I believe something like this method lives on in Domos´s work today,
> and despite them filing an internet draft on the subject (
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-olden-ippm-qoo/ ) I remain
> mostly in the dark, without being able to evaluate their methods
> against tools I already understand.

	[SM] Their telemetry method, really is one that is only achievable for an ISP inside their own network, as clever as it appears to be as unsuited to end-to-end measurements over the internet they seem to be as almost no path will be fully instrumented...



> I like the idea of what I think a "quality floor" might provide, which
> is something that fq-everywhere can provide, and no known e2e
> congestion control can guarantee.
> 
> I would like it if instead of ISPs selling "up to X bandwidth" they
> sold a minimum guarantee of at least Y bandwidth, which is easier to
> reason and provision for, but harder to sell.

	[SM] Independently of what an ISP promises, not all paths will be able to carry that much capacity at any one time and often not for the fault of that ISP. The way the German regulatory agency (BNetzA) tried t tackle this issue is by requiring foremost that the contracted rates can be measured against a set of reference speedtest servers operated for the BNetzA and located at one/some of Germany's largest IX (though ISPs can also opt for private peering with the AS hosting the servers, which IMHO is sub-optimal). The EU regulation also makes an exemption for things out of the ISPs control, say if Notflix [sic] would decide to not serve ISP A than ISP A can not be faulted for having shitty connectivity to Notflix, even if Notflix would offer excellent access for excellent $$$$. Not saying the EU regime is perfect, but it at least covers a lot of ground and seems all in all balanced between end-user, ISP and content provider perspectives.



> 
> Instead:
> 
> In the last 14 years I focused on restoring correct behavior of the
> well-defined congestion controls of the internet, first documented
> here:  https://ee.lbl.gov/papers/congavoid.pdf and built on the
> decades since, while many others made enormous advances on what was
> possible - packet pacing, for example, is a genuine breakthrough in
> how multiple services from multiple providers can leave sufficient
> space for other flows to co-exist and eventually use up their fair
> share.

	[SM] Yes, we as a community, made great strides on the technical side, but that did not magically remove all NN issues. For example mobile carriers in the EU opted for tilting the playing field by zero-rating some selected services on their volume-limited mobile networks, something that was finally deemed in violation against the EU rules exactly because ISPs are required to not "pick winners or loosers" but to offer unbiased access to the internet.



> 
>> 
>> I hope you will read the link ^^ before jumping to Martin's conclusion, but still, here it is:
>> 
>>> 
>>> So if not “neutrality”, then what else?
> 
> This is the phase where his arguments began to fall into the weeds.
> 
>>> The only option is to focus on the end-to-end service quality.
> 
> I agree that achieving quality on various good metrics, especially
> under load, is needed. The popular MOS metric for voip could use some
> improvement, and we lack any coherent framework for measuring
> videoconferencing well.
> 
>>> The local traffic management is an irrelevance and complete distraction.
> 
> I am not sure how to tie this to the rest of the argument. The local
> traffic management can be as simple as short buffers, or inordinately
> complex, as you will find complex organisations internally trying to
> balance the needs for throughput and latency, and for example, the
> CAKE qdisc not only does active queue management, and FQ, but
> optionally allows additional means of differentiation for
> voice/videoconferencing, best effort, and "bulk" traffic, in an
> effort, ultimately to balance goals to achieve the "service quality"
> the user desires. Then there are the side-effects of various layer 2
> protocols - wifi tends to be batchy, 5G tends towards being hugely
> bufferbloated - PON has a 250us lower limit, cable

	[SM] I think his argument is that a sufficiently malevolent and genius ISP might be able to spread a discriminatory policy so carefully over many network nodes, such that the NN police would never be able to find enough evidence for unfair tampering and hence that ISP would evade NN policing. I think this is a strawman, as surely NN policing works by measuring whether there is observable discrimination end to end, not by having tech police swecure and scrutinize rputer/switch configurations.



> 
>> Terms like “throttling” are technically meaningless. The lawgeneers who have written articles and books saying otherwise are unconsciously incompetent at computer science.
> 
> There are use cases, both good and bad, for "throttling". It is and
> has always been technically feasible to rate limit flows from anyone
> to anyone. Advisable, sometimes! DDOS attacks are one case where
> throttling is needed.

	[SM] Yes, and e.g. the EU rules allow for reasonable traffic management, and during covid lock downs made it explicitly clear that in some cases this can mean slowing down a whole class of traffic (lke streaming video) as long as that is traffic management of the whole class and not simply service X. So in reality many potential objections against simplistic NN rules can be avoided simply by not making the NN rules simplistic ;)


> 
> Breaking the user perception of being intentionally throttled vs the
> fate of the the rest of the network would be a goodness. The side
> effects of one service, living on a slow network, becoming suddenly
> popular, is known as the "slashdot effect", and is mostly mediated by
> leveraging CDN and cloud technologies, and totally out of the control
> of the local ISP.

	[SM] In the short term for sure! Longer term an ISP constantly running into such a problem might reconsider their connectivity with upstream to remedy this issue or cooperation with that service provider as long as these options are financially reasonable....


> 
>>> We computer scientists call this viable alternative “end-to-end” approach a “quality floor”.
> 
> In googling I have thus far been unable to find a definition of
> "Quality floor". Cite, please?

	[SM] Ah, good old quality_floor() which is a hand cfafted artisanal version of the mass-produced floor() function used in many programming languages ;)

> 
>> The good news is that we now have a practical means to measure it and hard science to model it.
> 
> Weeds, here.
> 
>>> Maybe we should consciously and competently try it?
> 
> ... if only we had running code and rough consensus.

	[SM] I see what you did there... Tip of the hat

Regards
	Sebastian



> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> All the best,
>> 
>> Frank
>> 
>> Frantisek (Frank) Borsik
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik
>> 
>> Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714
>> 
>> iMessage, mobile: +420775230885
>> 
>> Skype: casioa5302ca
>> 
>> frantisek.borsik@gmail.com
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Sun, Oct 1, 2023 at 7:15 PM Dave Taht via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I am pleased to see over 100 people have signed up for this list
>>> already. I am not really planning on "activating" this list until
>>> tuesday or so, after a few more people I have reached out to sign up
>>> (or not).
>>> 
>>> I would like y´all to seek out people with differing opinions and
>>> background, in the hope that one day, we can shed more light than heat
>>> about the science and technologies that "govern" the internet, to
>>> those that wish to regulate it. In the short term, I would like enough
>>> of us to agree on an open letter, or NPRM filing,and to put out a
>>> press release(s), in the hope that this time, the nn and title ii
>>> discussion is more about real, than imagined, internet issues. [1]
>>> 
>>> I am basically planning to move the enormous discussion from over
>>> here, titled "network neutrality back in the news":
>>> 
>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/starlink/2023-September/thread.html
>>> 
>>> to here. I expect that we are going to be doing this discussion for a
>>> long time, and many more issues besides my short term ones will be
>>> discussed. I hope that we can cleanly isolate technical issues from
>>> political ones, in particular, and remain civil, and factual, and
>>> avoid hyperbole.
>>> 
>>> Since the FCC announcement of a proposed NPRM as of Oct 19th... my own
>>> initial impetus was to establish why the NN debate first started in
>>> 2005, and the conflict between the legal idea of "common carriage" vs
>>> what the internet was actually capable of in mixing voip and
>>> bittorrent, in
>>> "The Bufferbloat vs Bittorrent vs Voip" phase. Jim Gettys, myself, and
>>> Jason Livinggood have weighed in on their stories on linkedin,
>>> twitter, and elsewhere.
>>> 
>>> There was a second phase, somewhat triggered by netflix, that Jonathan
>>> Morton summarized in that thread, ending in the first establishment of
>>> some title ii rules in 2015.
>>> 
>>> The third phase was when title ii was rescinded... and all that has
>>> happened since.
>>> 
>>> I, for one, am fiercely proud about how our tech community rose to
>>> meet the challenge of covid, and how, for example, videoconferencing
>>> mostly just worked for so many, after a postage stamp sized start in
>>> 2012[2]. The oh-too-faint-praise for that magnificent effort from
>>> higher levels rankles me greatly, but I will try to get it under
>>> control.
>>> 
>>> And this fourth phase, opening in a few weeks, is more, I think about
>>> privacy and power than all the other phases, and harmonization with EU
>>> legislation, perhaps. What is on the table for the industry and
>>> internet is presently unknown.
>>> 
>>> So here we "NN-again". Lay your issues out!
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> [1] I have only had one fight with the FCC. Won it handily:
>>> https://www.computerworld.com/article/2993112/vint-cerf-and-260-experts-give-fcc-a-plan-to-secure-wi-fi-routers.html
>>> In this case this is not so much a fight, I hope, but a collaborative
>>> effort towards a better, faster, lower latency, and more secure,
>>> internet for everyone.
>>> 
>>> [2] https://archive.org/details/video1_20191129
>>> --
>>> Oct 30: https://netdevconf.info/0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-bof.html
>>> Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Nnagain mailing list
>>> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Oct 30: https://netdevconf.info/0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-bof.html
> Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos
> _______________________________________________
> Nnagain mailing list
> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain

Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors

[dan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 21387 bytes --]

I think a big problem with Net Neutrality is it's sort of a topic for
providers and not for end users.  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.

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.  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.

I'm really a proponent of creating a competitive environment, not
controlling the technical details of those products.  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.

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.

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.  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.

I believe that transparency is the key here.  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.  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.  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.

Now for my ISP version of this.

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.

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.

End rant.

On Sun, Oct 1, 2023 at 4:01 PM Patrick Maupin via Nnagain <
nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:

> > “neutrality” is framed by the experience of end users
>
> Assuming, arguendo, that's true, then the issue becomes one of ensuring
> that bad actors can't slowly strangle the competition until eventually the
> antitrust laws have to be invoked.
>
> Because that's always too late.
>
> Dave Taht and others have correctly pointed out that many of the issues
> that have cropped up have purely technical solutions.
>
> Maybe everything devolves to a technical issue?  I'm not sure, but it may
> be worthwhile to view current protocols, norms, and regulations as a system
> that is under security threats from bad actors*, and to enumerate some of
> the potential exploits and consider potential mitigations.
>
> Bearing in mind, of course, that one of the tools available to bad actors
> may, in fact, be current or new regulations that impede the self-help
> capabilities of ISPs and other ecosystem participants, but also bearing in
> mind that the history of the internet as a whole (replete with cooperative
> endeavors) is completely different from the history of many of the
> rent-seeking businesses that are now aggressively monetizing it.
>
> In any case, it's easy these days to sit out negotiations between Comcast
> and Netflix.  Or Comcast and Disney over football, or whatever.  Because
> they're all big boys.
>
> The holy grail is, as always, to guarantee that the _next_ netflix can't
> be easily strangled in its crib.
>
>  - Pat Maupin
>
> [*] If there are no would-be bad actors, no regulation is needed.  But if
> there are would-be bad actors, then they will attempt to be instrumental in
> shaping any new regulations, and many of the presumed would-be bad actors
> have time, money, and histories of securing significant face time with
> regulatory agencies such as the FCC.
>
> On Sun, Oct 1, 2023 at 3:51 PM Dave Cohen via Nnagain <
> nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>
>> It’s useful for us to remember here that, politics aside, “neutrality” is
>> framed by the experience of end users, not by the experience of operators.
>> While much of Martin’s argument that malicious treatment and incapable
>> design cannot often be distinguished from one another is correct, I believe
>> it to be beside the point; from the perspective of most end users, “I can’t
>> watch Netflix because Comcast is throttling it” and “I can’t watch Netflix
>> because Comcast doesn’t have enough capacity where Netflix traffic
>> ingresses” may be distinguishable arguments but they’re also equally
>> egregious. (With apologies to Jason, Comcast was my home ISP during that
>> era of NN debates, so my specific argument here is reflexive.) Most users
>> will be sympathetic enough to tolerate an occasional service hiccup but
>> will not tolerate repeated issues, regardless of the cause of those issues
>> or their personal ability to differentiate between those causes.
>>
>> Of course this is a two way street. Anyone inclined to believe that large
>> companies are going to conspiratorially behave maliciously took a big giant
>> victory lap when Cogent press released that they had successfully throttled
>> Netflix traffic in a controlled experiment, when of course that commanded
>> no such thing.
>>
>> I recall getting into a Twitter fight with Martin around this time on
>> that point. My argument was effectively that end user perception wasn’t
>> going to change and an ISP trying to nuance its way through how it presents
>> its traffic management (in effect, the “Quality Floor” framework) was
>> missing the point with its customers; throwing more bandwidth at the
>> problem was the only way out. I’d like to think that time has proven my
>> perspective correct, although the growth in utilization of CDN and edge
>> networking topologies also subverted the need for bandwidth growth, at
>> least over the public Internet, to be quite so rapid.
>>
>> Dave Cohen
>> craetdave@gmail.com
>>
>> > On Oct 1, 2023, at 3:52 PM, Dave Taht via Nnagain <
>> nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > I kind of expect many, many forks of conversations here, and for those
>> > introducing a new topic,
>> > I would like to encourage using a relevant subject line, so I have
>> > changed this one to suit.
>> >
>> >> On Sun, Oct 1, 2023 at 11:57 AM Frantisek Borsik
>> >> <frantisek.borsik@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> OK, so I will bite the bullet! I have invited Ajit Pai and Martin
>> Geddes to join us here and let's see if they still have some time and/or
>> even stomach for current round of NN discussion.
>> >
>> > Honestly I was hoping for some time to setup, and even perhaps, have
>> > enough of us here
>> > to agree on one of the definitions of NN, to start with!
>> >
>> >> Anyway, here is my bullet. I will argue with Martin, that - Net
>> Neutrality CAN'T be implemented:
>> >
>> > You meant "argue along with" rather than "with". I know you are not a
>> > native english speaker, but in the way you said it, it meant you were
>> > arguing against what he described.
>> >
>> >>
>> >>> Whilst people argue over the virtues of net neutrality as a
>> regulatory policy, computer science tells us regulatory implementation is a
>> fool’s errand.
>> >>> Suppose for a moment that you are the victim of a wicked ISP that
>> engages in disallowed “throttling” under a “neutral” regime for Internet
>> access. You like to access streaming media from a particular “over the top”
>> service provider. By coincidence, the performance of your favoured
>> application drops at the same time your ISP launches a rival content
>> service of its own.
>> >>> You then complain to the regulator, who investigates. She finds that
>> your ISP did indeed change their traffic management settings right at the
>> point that the “throttling” began. A swathe of routes, including the one to
>> your preferred “over the top” application, have been given a different
>> packet scheduling and routing treatment.
>> >>> It seems like an open-and-shut case of “throttling” resulting in a
>> disallowed “neutrality violation”. Or is it?
>> >>> Here’s why the regulator’s enforcement order will never survive the
>> resulting court case and expert witness scrutiny:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> https://www.martingeddes.com/one-reason-net-neutrality-cant-implemented/
>> >
>> > Throttling, using DPI or other methods, is indeed feasible. It is very
>> > straightforward to limit flows to or from a given set of IP addresses.
>> > However, there are also technical limitations, based on for example,
>> > the underlying connectivity of a path be it one gbit or 10, which
>> > would also show a customer problem in unwinding the difference between
>> > intentionally throttling and merely being out of bandwidth across that
>> > link. A lot of the netflix controversy was generated because netflix
>> > suddenly ate far far more bandwidth that anyone had provisioned, and
>> > was ultimately addressed by them developing and making easily
>> > available a caching architecture that could be located within an ISPs
>> > borders, saving an enormous amount on transit costs.  The rest of the
>> > computing universe followed with enormous numbers of CDNs from the
>> > bigger services being built out in the years following.
>> >
>> > In part I kind of reject a few older arguments here in the face of
>> > subsequent, technical improvements on how the internet works.
>> >
>> > I had many discussions with martin back in the day. The reasoning in
>> > this piece is pretty sound, except that "fairness" can be achieved via
>> > various means (notably flow (fair) queueing), and it has always been a
>> > (imperfectly implemented) goal of our e2e congestion control
>> > algorithms to ultimately converge to a equal amount of bandwidth at
>> > differing RTTs to different services.
>> >
>> > My principal kvetch with his work was that every blog entry during
>> > this period making these points then ended up linking to a "Quality
>> > Floor", called "delta-something", a mathematical method that was
>> > ill-documented, not available as open source and impossible, for me,
>> > at least to understand. The link to that solution is broken in that
>> > link, for example. That quasi-mystical jump to "the solution", I was
>> > never able to make.
>> >
>> > I believe something like this method lives on in Domos´s work today,
>> > and despite them filing an internet draft on the subject (
>> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-olden-ippm-qoo/ ) I remain
>> > mostly in the dark, without being able to evaluate their methods
>> > against tools I already understand.
>> >
>> > I like the idea of what I think a "quality floor" might provide, which
>> > is something that fq-everywhere can provide, and no known e2e
>> > congestion control can guarantee.
>> >
>> > I would like it if instead of ISPs selling "up to X bandwidth" they
>> > sold a minimum guarantee of at least Y bandwidth, which is easier to
>> > reason and provision for, but harder to sell.
>> >
>> > Instead:
>> >
>> > In the last 14 years I focused on restoring correct behavior of the
>> > well-defined congestion controls of the internet, first documented
>> > here:  https://ee.lbl.gov/papers/congavoid.pdf and built on the
>> > decades since, while many others made enormous advances on what was
>> > possible - packet pacing, for example, is a genuine breakthrough in
>> > how multiple services from multiple providers can leave sufficient
>> > space for other flows to co-exist and eventually use up their fair
>> > share.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> I hope you will read the link ^^ before jumping to Martin's
>> conclusion, but still, here it is:
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> So if not “neutrality”, then what else?
>> >
>> > This is the phase where his arguments began to fall into the weeds.
>> >
>> >>> The only option is to focus on the end-to-end service quality.
>> >
>> > I agree that achieving quality on various good metrics, especially
>> > under load, is needed. The popular MOS metric for voip could use some
>> > improvement, and we lack any coherent framework for measuring
>> > videoconferencing well.
>> >
>> >>> The local traffic management is an irrelevance and complete
>> distraction.
>> >
>> > I am not sure how to tie this to the rest of the argument. The local
>> > traffic management can be as simple as short buffers, or inordinately
>> > complex, as you will find complex organisations internally trying to
>> > balance the needs for throughput and latency, and for example, the
>> > CAKE qdisc not only does active queue management, and FQ, but
>> > optionally allows additional means of differentiation for
>> > voice/videoconferencing, best effort, and "bulk" traffic, in an
>> > effort, ultimately to balance goals to achieve the "service quality"
>> > the user desires. Then there are the side-effects of various layer 2
>> > protocols - wifi tends to be batchy, 5G tends towards being hugely
>> > bufferbloated - PON has a 250us lower limit, cable
>> >
>> >> Terms like “throttling” are technically meaningless. The lawgeneers
>> who have written articles and books saying otherwise are unconsciously
>> incompetent at computer science.
>> >
>> > There are use cases, both good and bad, for "throttling". It is and
>> > has always been technically feasible to rate limit flows from anyone
>> > to anyone. Advisable, sometimes! DDOS attacks are one case where
>> > throttling is needed.
>> >
>> > Breaking the user perception of being intentionally throttled vs the
>> > fate of the the rest of the network would be a goodness. The side
>> > effects of one service, living on a slow network, becoming suddenly
>> > popular, is known as the "slashdot effect", and is mostly mediated by
>> > leveraging CDN and cloud technologies, and totally out of the control
>> > of the local ISP.
>> >
>> >>> We computer scientists call this viable alternative “end-to-end”
>> approach a “quality floor”.
>> >
>> > In googling I have thus far been unable to find a definition of
>> > "Quality floor". Cite, please?
>> >
>> >> The good news is that we now have a practical means to measure it and
>> hard science to model it.
>> >
>> > Weeds, here.
>> >
>> >>> Maybe we should consciously and competently try it?
>> >
>> > ... if only we had running code and rough consensus.
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> All the best,
>> >>
>> >> Frank
>> >>
>> >> Frantisek (Frank) Borsik
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik
>> >>
>> >> Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714
>> >>
>> >> iMessage, mobile: +420775230885
>> >>
>> >> Skype: casioa5302ca
>> >>
>> >> frantisek.borsik@gmail.com
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> On Sun, Oct 1, 2023 at 7:15 PM Dave Taht via Nnagain <
>> nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> I am pleased to see over 100 people have signed up for this list
>> >>> already. I am not really planning on "activating" this list until
>> >>> tuesday or so, after a few more people I have reached out to sign up
>> >>> (or not).
>> >>>
>> >>> I would like y´all to seek out people with differing opinions and
>> >>> background, in the hope that one day, we can shed more light than heat
>> >>> about the science and technologies that "govern" the internet, to
>> >>> those that wish to regulate it. In the short term, I would like enough
>> >>> of us to agree on an open letter, or NPRM filing,and to put out a
>> >>> press release(s), in the hope that this time, the nn and title ii
>> >>> discussion is more about real, than imagined, internet issues. [1]
>> >>>
>> >>> I am basically planning to move the enormous discussion from over
>> >>> here, titled "network neutrality back in the news":
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/starlink/2023-September/thread.html
>> >>>
>> >>> to here. I expect that we are going to be doing this discussion for a
>> >>> long time, and many more issues besides my short term ones will be
>> >>> discussed. I hope that we can cleanly isolate technical issues from
>> >>> political ones, in particular, and remain civil, and factual, and
>> >>> avoid hyperbole.
>> >>>
>> >>> Since the FCC announcement of a proposed NPRM as of Oct 19th... my own
>> >>> initial impetus was to establish why the NN debate first started in
>> >>> 2005, and the conflict between the legal idea of "common carriage" vs
>> >>> what the internet was actually capable of in mixing voip and
>> >>> bittorrent, in
>> >>> "The Bufferbloat vs Bittorrent vs Voip" phase. Jim Gettys, myself, and
>> >>> Jason Livinggood have weighed in on their stories on linkedin,
>> >>> twitter, and elsewhere.
>> >>>
>> >>> There was a second phase, somewhat triggered by netflix, that Jonathan
>> >>> Morton summarized in that thread, ending in the first establishment of
>> >>> some title ii rules in 2015.
>> >>>
>> >>> The third phase was when title ii was rescinded... and all that has
>> >>> happened since.
>> >>>
>> >>> I, for one, am fiercely proud about how our tech community rose to
>> >>> meet the challenge of covid, and how, for example, videoconferencing
>> >>> mostly just worked for so many, after a postage stamp sized start in
>> >>> 2012[2]. The oh-too-faint-praise for that magnificent effort from
>> >>> higher levels rankles me greatly, but I will try to get it under
>> >>> control.
>> >>>
>> >>> And this fourth phase, opening in a few weeks, is more, I think about
>> >>> privacy and power than all the other phases, and harmonization with EU
>> >>> legislation, perhaps. What is on the table for the industry and
>> >>> internet is presently unknown.
>> >>>
>> >>> So here we "NN-again". Lay your issues out!
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> [1] I have only had one fight with the FCC. Won it handily:
>> >>>
>> https://www.computerworld.com/article/2993112/vint-cerf-and-260-experts-give-fcc-a-plan-to-secure-wi-fi-routers.html
>> >>> In this case this is not so much a fight, I hope, but a collaborative
>> >>> effort towards a better, faster, lower latency, and more secure,
>> >>> internet for everyone.
>> >>>
>> >>> [2] https://archive.org/details/video1_20191129
>> >>> --
>> >>> Oct 30:
>> https://netdevconf.info/0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-bof.html
>> >>> Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> Nnagain mailing list
>> >>> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> >>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Oct 30:
>> https://netdevconf.info/0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-bof.html
>> > Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Nnagain mailing list
> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 25988 bytes --]

Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors

[Patrick Maupin]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 16864 bytes --]

> “neutrality” is framed by the experience of end users

Assuming, arguendo, that's true, then the issue becomes one of ensuring
that bad actors can't slowly strangle the competition until eventually the
antitrust laws have to be invoked.

Because that's always too late.

Dave Taht and others have correctly pointed out that many of the issues
that have cropped up have purely technical solutions.

Maybe everything devolves to a technical issue?  I'm not sure, but it may
be worthwhile to view current protocols, norms, and regulations as a system
that is under security threats from bad actors*, and to enumerate some of
the potential exploits and consider potential mitigations.

Bearing in mind, of course, that one of the tools available to bad actors
may, in fact, be current or new regulations that impede the self-help
capabilities of ISPs and other ecosystem participants, but also bearing in
mind that the history of the internet as a whole (replete with cooperative
endeavors) is completely different from the history of many of the
rent-seeking businesses that are now aggressively monetizing it.

In any case, it's easy these days to sit out negotiations between Comcast
and Netflix.  Or Comcast and Disney over football, or whatever.  Because
they're all big boys.

The holy grail is, as always, to guarantee that the _next_ netflix can't be
easily strangled in its crib.

 - Pat Maupin

[*] If there are no would-be bad actors, no regulation is needed.  But if
there are would-be bad actors, then they will attempt to be instrumental in
shaping any new regulations, and many of the presumed would-be bad actors
have time, money, and histories of securing significant face time with
regulatory agencies such as the FCC.

On Sun, Oct 1, 2023 at 3:51 PM Dave Cohen via Nnagain <
nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:

> It’s useful for us to remember here that, politics aside, “neutrality” is
> framed by the experience of end users, not by the experience of operators.
> While much of Martin’s argument that malicious treatment and incapable
> design cannot often be distinguished from one another is correct, I believe
> it to be beside the point; from the perspective of most end users, “I can’t
> watch Netflix because Comcast is throttling it” and “I can’t watch Netflix
> because Comcast doesn’t have enough capacity where Netflix traffic
> ingresses” may be distinguishable arguments but they’re also equally
> egregious. (With apologies to Jason, Comcast was my home ISP during that
> era of NN debates, so my specific argument here is reflexive.) Most users
> will be sympathetic enough to tolerate an occasional service hiccup but
> will not tolerate repeated issues, regardless of the cause of those issues
> or their personal ability to differentiate between those causes.
>
> Of course this is a two way street. Anyone inclined to believe that large
> companies are going to conspiratorially behave maliciously took a big giant
> victory lap when Cogent press released that they had successfully throttled
> Netflix traffic in a controlled experiment, when of course that commanded
> no such thing.
>
> I recall getting into a Twitter fight with Martin around this time on that
> point. My argument was effectively that end user perception wasn’t going to
> change and an ISP trying to nuance its way through how it presents its
> traffic management (in effect, the “Quality Floor” framework) was missing
> the point with its customers; throwing more bandwidth at the problem was
> the only way out. I’d like to think that time has proven my perspective
> correct, although the growth in utilization of CDN and edge networking
> topologies also subverted the need for bandwidth growth, at least over the
> public Internet, to be quite so rapid.
>
> Dave Cohen
> craetdave@gmail.com
>
> > On Oct 1, 2023, at 3:52 PM, Dave Taht via Nnagain <
> nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> >
> > I kind of expect many, many forks of conversations here, and for those
> > introducing a new topic,
> > I would like to encourage using a relevant subject line, so I have
> > changed this one to suit.
> >
> >> On Sun, Oct 1, 2023 at 11:57 AM Frantisek Borsik
> >> <frantisek.borsik@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> OK, so I will bite the bullet! I have invited Ajit Pai and Martin
> Geddes to join us here and let's see if they still have some time and/or
> even stomach for current round of NN discussion.
> >
> > Honestly I was hoping for some time to setup, and even perhaps, have
> > enough of us here
> > to agree on one of the definitions of NN, to start with!
> >
> >> Anyway, here is my bullet. I will argue with Martin, that - Net
> Neutrality CAN'T be implemented:
> >
> > You meant "argue along with" rather than "with". I know you are not a
> > native english speaker, but in the way you said it, it meant you were
> > arguing against what he described.
> >
> >>
> >>> Whilst people argue over the virtues of net neutrality as a regulatory
> policy, computer science tells us regulatory implementation is a fool’s
> errand.
> >>> Suppose for a moment that you are the victim of a wicked ISP that
> engages in disallowed “throttling” under a “neutral” regime for Internet
> access. You like to access streaming media from a particular “over the top”
> service provider. By coincidence, the performance of your favoured
> application drops at the same time your ISP launches a rival content
> service of its own.
> >>> You then complain to the regulator, who investigates. She finds that
> your ISP did indeed change their traffic management settings right at the
> point that the “throttling” began. A swathe of routes, including the one to
> your preferred “over the top” application, have been given a different
> packet scheduling and routing treatment.
> >>> It seems like an open-and-shut case of “throttling” resulting in a
> disallowed “neutrality violation”. Or is it?
> >>> Here’s why the regulator’s enforcement order will never survive the
> resulting court case and expert witness scrutiny:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> https://www.martingeddes.com/one-reason-net-neutrality-cant-implemented/
> >
> > Throttling, using DPI or other methods, is indeed feasible. It is very
> > straightforward to limit flows to or from a given set of IP addresses.
> > However, there are also technical limitations, based on for example,
> > the underlying connectivity of a path be it one gbit or 10, which
> > would also show a customer problem in unwinding the difference between
> > intentionally throttling and merely being out of bandwidth across that
> > link. A lot of the netflix controversy was generated because netflix
> > suddenly ate far far more bandwidth that anyone had provisioned, and
> > was ultimately addressed by them developing and making easily
> > available a caching architecture that could be located within an ISPs
> > borders, saving an enormous amount on transit costs.  The rest of the
> > computing universe followed with enormous numbers of CDNs from the
> > bigger services being built out in the years following.
> >
> > In part I kind of reject a few older arguments here in the face of
> > subsequent, technical improvements on how the internet works.
> >
> > I had many discussions with martin back in the day. The reasoning in
> > this piece is pretty sound, except that "fairness" can be achieved via
> > various means (notably flow (fair) queueing), and it has always been a
> > (imperfectly implemented) goal of our e2e congestion control
> > algorithms to ultimately converge to a equal amount of bandwidth at
> > differing RTTs to different services.
> >
> > My principal kvetch with his work was that every blog entry during
> > this period making these points then ended up linking to a "Quality
> > Floor", called "delta-something", a mathematical method that was
> > ill-documented, not available as open source and impossible, for me,
> > at least to understand. The link to that solution is broken in that
> > link, for example. That quasi-mystical jump to "the solution", I was
> > never able to make.
> >
> > I believe something like this method lives on in Domos´s work today,
> > and despite them filing an internet draft on the subject (
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-olden-ippm-qoo/ ) I remain
> > mostly in the dark, without being able to evaluate their methods
> > against tools I already understand.
> >
> > I like the idea of what I think a "quality floor" might provide, which
> > is something that fq-everywhere can provide, and no known e2e
> > congestion control can guarantee.
> >
> > I would like it if instead of ISPs selling "up to X bandwidth" they
> > sold a minimum guarantee of at least Y bandwidth, which is easier to
> > reason and provision for, but harder to sell.
> >
> > Instead:
> >
> > In the last 14 years I focused on restoring correct behavior of the
> > well-defined congestion controls of the internet, first documented
> > here:  https://ee.lbl.gov/papers/congavoid.pdf and built on the
> > decades since, while many others made enormous advances on what was
> > possible - packet pacing, for example, is a genuine breakthrough in
> > how multiple services from multiple providers can leave sufficient
> > space for other flows to co-exist and eventually use up their fair
> > share.
> >
> >>
> >> I hope you will read the link ^^ before jumping to Martin's conclusion,
> but still, here it is:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> So if not “neutrality”, then what else?
> >
> > This is the phase where his arguments began to fall into the weeds.
> >
> >>> The only option is to focus on the end-to-end service quality.
> >
> > I agree that achieving quality on various good metrics, especially
> > under load, is needed. The popular MOS metric for voip could use some
> > improvement, and we lack any coherent framework for measuring
> > videoconferencing well.
> >
> >>> The local traffic management is an irrelevance and complete
> distraction.
> >
> > I am not sure how to tie this to the rest of the argument. The local
> > traffic management can be as simple as short buffers, or inordinately
> > complex, as you will find complex organisations internally trying to
> > balance the needs for throughput and latency, and for example, the
> > CAKE qdisc not only does active queue management, and FQ, but
> > optionally allows additional means of differentiation for
> > voice/videoconferencing, best effort, and "bulk" traffic, in an
> > effort, ultimately to balance goals to achieve the "service quality"
> > the user desires. Then there are the side-effects of various layer 2
> > protocols - wifi tends to be batchy, 5G tends towards being hugely
> > bufferbloated - PON has a 250us lower limit, cable
> >
> >> Terms like “throttling” are technically meaningless. The lawgeneers who
> have written articles and books saying otherwise are unconsciously
> incompetent at computer science.
> >
> > There are use cases, both good and bad, for "throttling". It is and
> > has always been technically feasible to rate limit flows from anyone
> > to anyone. Advisable, sometimes! DDOS attacks are one case where
> > throttling is needed.
> >
> > Breaking the user perception of being intentionally throttled vs the
> > fate of the the rest of the network would be a goodness. The side
> > effects of one service, living on a slow network, becoming suddenly
> > popular, is known as the "slashdot effect", and is mostly mediated by
> > leveraging CDN and cloud technologies, and totally out of the control
> > of the local ISP.
> >
> >>> We computer scientists call this viable alternative “end-to-end”
> approach a “quality floor”.
> >
> > In googling I have thus far been unable to find a definition of
> > "Quality floor". Cite, please?
> >
> >> The good news is that we now have a practical means to measure it and
> hard science to model it.
> >
> > Weeds, here.
> >
> >>> Maybe we should consciously and competently try it?
> >
> > ... if only we had running code and rough consensus.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> All the best,
> >>
> >> Frank
> >>
> >> Frantisek (Frank) Borsik
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik
> >>
> >> Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714
> >>
> >> iMessage, mobile: +420775230885
> >>
> >> Skype: casioa5302ca
> >>
> >> frantisek.borsik@gmail.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Sun, Oct 1, 2023 at 7:15 PM Dave Taht via Nnagain <
> nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I am pleased to see over 100 people have signed up for this list
> >>> already. I am not really planning on "activating" this list until
> >>> tuesday or so, after a few more people I have reached out to sign up
> >>> (or not).
> >>>
> >>> I would like y´all to seek out people with differing opinions and
> >>> background, in the hope that one day, we can shed more light than heat
> >>> about the science and technologies that "govern" the internet, to
> >>> those that wish to regulate it. In the short term, I would like enough
> >>> of us to agree on an open letter, or NPRM filing,and to put out a
> >>> press release(s), in the hope that this time, the nn and title ii
> >>> discussion is more about real, than imagined, internet issues. [1]
> >>>
> >>> I am basically planning to move the enormous discussion from over
> >>> here, titled "network neutrality back in the news":
> >>>
> >>>
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/starlink/2023-September/thread.html
> >>>
> >>> to here. I expect that we are going to be doing this discussion for a
> >>> long time, and many more issues besides my short term ones will be
> >>> discussed. I hope that we can cleanly isolate technical issues from
> >>> political ones, in particular, and remain civil, and factual, and
> >>> avoid hyperbole.
> >>>
> >>> Since the FCC announcement of a proposed NPRM as of Oct 19th... my own
> >>> initial impetus was to establish why the NN debate first started in
> >>> 2005, and the conflict between the legal idea of "common carriage" vs
> >>> what the internet was actually capable of in mixing voip and
> >>> bittorrent, in
> >>> "The Bufferbloat vs Bittorrent vs Voip" phase. Jim Gettys, myself, and
> >>> Jason Livinggood have weighed in on their stories on linkedin,
> >>> twitter, and elsewhere.
> >>>
> >>> There was a second phase, somewhat triggered by netflix, that Jonathan
> >>> Morton summarized in that thread, ending in the first establishment of
> >>> some title ii rules in 2015.
> >>>
> >>> The third phase was when title ii was rescinded... and all that has
> >>> happened since.
> >>>
> >>> I, for one, am fiercely proud about how our tech community rose to
> >>> meet the challenge of covid, and how, for example, videoconferencing
> >>> mostly just worked for so many, after a postage stamp sized start in
> >>> 2012[2]. The oh-too-faint-praise for that magnificent effort from
> >>> higher levels rankles me greatly, but I will try to get it under
> >>> control.
> >>>
> >>> And this fourth phase, opening in a few weeks, is more, I think about
> >>> privacy and power than all the other phases, and harmonization with EU
> >>> legislation, perhaps. What is on the table for the industry and
> >>> internet is presently unknown.
> >>>
> >>> So here we "NN-again". Lay your issues out!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> [1] I have only had one fight with the FCC. Won it handily:
> >>>
> https://www.computerworld.com/article/2993112/vint-cerf-and-260-experts-give-fcc-a-plan-to-secure-wi-fi-routers.html
> >>> In this case this is not so much a fight, I hope, but a collaborative
> >>> effort towards a better, faster, lower latency, and more secure,
> >>> internet for everyone.
> >>>
> >>> [2] https://archive.org/details/video1_20191129
> >>> --
> >>> Oct 30:
> https://netdevconf.info/0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-bof.html
> >>> Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Nnagain mailing list
> >>> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
> >>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Oct 30:
> https://netdevconf.info/0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-bof.html
> > Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 21255 bytes --]

Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors

[Dave Cohen]

It’s useful for us to remember here that, politics aside, “neutrality” is framed by the experience of end users, not by the experience of operators. While much of Martin’s argument that malicious treatment and incapable design cannot often be distinguished from one another is correct, I believe it to be beside the point; from the perspective of most end users, “I can’t watch Netflix because Comcast is throttling it” and “I can’t watch Netflix because Comcast doesn’t have enough capacity where Netflix traffic ingresses” may be distinguishable arguments but they’re also equally egregious. (With apologies to Jason, Comcast was my home ISP during that era of NN debates, so my specific argument here is reflexive.) Most users will be sympathetic enough to tolerate an occasional service hiccup but will not tolerate repeated issues, regardless of the cause of those issues or their personal ability to differentiate between those causes. 

Of course this is a two way street. Anyone inclined to believe that large companies are going to conspiratorially behave maliciously took a big giant victory lap when Cogent press released that they had successfully throttled Netflix traffic in a controlled experiment, when of course that commanded no such thing. 

I recall getting into a Twitter fight with Martin around this time on that point. My argument was effectively that end user perception wasn’t going to change and an ISP trying to nuance its way through how it presents its traffic management (in effect, the “Quality Floor” framework) was missing the point with its customers; throwing more bandwidth at the problem was the only way out. I’d like to think that time has proven my perspective correct, although the growth in utilization of CDN and edge networking topologies also subverted the need for bandwidth growth, at least over the public Internet, to be quite so rapid. 

Dave Cohen
craetdave@gmail.com

> On Oct 1, 2023, at 3:52 PM, Dave Taht via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> 
> I kind of expect many, many forks of conversations here, and for those
> introducing a new topic,
> I would like to encourage using a relevant subject line, so I have
> changed this one to suit.
> 
>> On Sun, Oct 1, 2023 at 11:57 AM Frantisek Borsik
>> <frantisek.borsik@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> OK, so I will bite the bullet! I have invited Ajit Pai and Martin Geddes to join us here and let's see if they still have some time and/or even stomach for current round of NN discussion.
> 
> Honestly I was hoping for some time to setup, and even perhaps, have
> enough of us here
> to agree on one of the definitions of NN, to start with!
> 
>> Anyway, here is my bullet. I will argue with Martin, that - Net Neutrality CAN'T be implemented:
> 
> You meant "argue along with" rather than "with". I know you are not a
> native english speaker, but in the way you said it, it meant you were
> arguing against what he described.
> 
>> 
>>> Whilst people argue over the virtues of net neutrality as a regulatory policy, computer science tells us regulatory implementation is a fool’s errand.
>>> Suppose for a moment that you are the victim of a wicked ISP that engages in disallowed “throttling” under a “neutral” regime for Internet access. You like to access streaming media from a particular “over the top” service provider. By coincidence, the performance of your favoured application drops at the same time your ISP launches a rival content service of its own.
>>> You then complain to the regulator, who investigates. She finds that your ISP did indeed change their traffic management settings right at the point that the “throttling” began. A swathe of routes, including the one to your preferred “over the top” application, have been given a different packet scheduling and routing treatment.
>>> It seems like an open-and-shut case of “throttling” resulting in a disallowed “neutrality violation”. Or is it?
>>> Here’s why the regulator’s enforcement order will never survive the resulting court case and expert witness scrutiny:
>> 
>> 
>> https://www.martingeddes.com/one-reason-net-neutrality-cant-implemented/
> 
> Throttling, using DPI or other methods, is indeed feasible. It is very
> straightforward to limit flows to or from a given set of IP addresses.
> However, there are also technical limitations, based on for example,
> the underlying connectivity of a path be it one gbit or 10, which
> would also show a customer problem in unwinding the difference between
> intentionally throttling and merely being out of bandwidth across that
> link. A lot of the netflix controversy was generated because netflix
> suddenly ate far far more bandwidth that anyone had provisioned, and
> was ultimately addressed by them developing and making easily
> available a caching architecture that could be located within an ISPs
> borders, saving an enormous amount on transit costs.  The rest of the
> computing universe followed with enormous numbers of CDNs from the
> bigger services being built out in the years following.
> 
> In part I kind of reject a few older arguments here in the face of
> subsequent, technical improvements on how the internet works.
> 
> I had many discussions with martin back in the day. The reasoning in
> this piece is pretty sound, except that "fairness" can be achieved via
> various means (notably flow (fair) queueing), and it has always been a
> (imperfectly implemented) goal of our e2e congestion control
> algorithms to ultimately converge to a equal amount of bandwidth at
> differing RTTs to different services.
> 
> My principal kvetch with his work was that every blog entry during
> this period making these points then ended up linking to a "Quality
> Floor", called "delta-something", a mathematical method that was
> ill-documented, not available as open source and impossible, for me,
> at least to understand. The link to that solution is broken in that
> link, for example. That quasi-mystical jump to "the solution", I was
> never able to make.
> 
> I believe something like this method lives on in Domos´s work today,
> and despite them filing an internet draft on the subject (
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-olden-ippm-qoo/ ) I remain
> mostly in the dark, without being able to evaluate their methods
> against tools I already understand.
> 
> I like the idea of what I think a "quality floor" might provide, which
> is something that fq-everywhere can provide, and no known e2e
> congestion control can guarantee.
> 
> I would like it if instead of ISPs selling "up to X bandwidth" they
> sold a minimum guarantee of at least Y bandwidth, which is easier to
> reason and provision for, but harder to sell.
> 
> Instead:
> 
> In the last 14 years I focused on restoring correct behavior of the
> well-defined congestion controls of the internet, first documented
> here:  https://ee.lbl.gov/papers/congavoid.pdf and built on the
> decades since, while many others made enormous advances on what was
> possible - packet pacing, for example, is a genuine breakthrough in
> how multiple services from multiple providers can leave sufficient
> space for other flows to co-exist and eventually use up their fair
> share.
> 
>> 
>> I hope you will read the link ^^ before jumping to Martin's conclusion, but still, here it is:
>> 
>>> 
>>> So if not “neutrality”, then what else?
> 
> This is the phase where his arguments began to fall into the weeds.
> 
>>> The only option is to focus on the end-to-end service quality.
> 
> I agree that achieving quality on various good metrics, especially
> under load, is needed. The popular MOS metric for voip could use some
> improvement, and we lack any coherent framework for measuring
> videoconferencing well.
> 
>>> The local traffic management is an irrelevance and complete distraction.
> 
> I am not sure how to tie this to the rest of the argument. The local
> traffic management can be as simple as short buffers, or inordinately
> complex, as you will find complex organisations internally trying to
> balance the needs for throughput and latency, and for example, the
> CAKE qdisc not only does active queue management, and FQ, but
> optionally allows additional means of differentiation for
> voice/videoconferencing, best effort, and "bulk" traffic, in an
> effort, ultimately to balance goals to achieve the "service quality"
> the user desires. Then there are the side-effects of various layer 2
> protocols - wifi tends to be batchy, 5G tends towards being hugely
> bufferbloated - PON has a 250us lower limit, cable
> 
>> Terms like “throttling” are technically meaningless. The lawgeneers who have written articles and books saying otherwise are unconsciously incompetent at computer science.
> 
> There are use cases, both good and bad, for "throttling". It is and
> has always been technically feasible to rate limit flows from anyone
> to anyone. Advisable, sometimes! DDOS attacks are one case where
> throttling is needed.
> 
> Breaking the user perception of being intentionally throttled vs the
> fate of the the rest of the network would be a goodness. The side
> effects of one service, living on a slow network, becoming suddenly
> popular, is known as the "slashdot effect", and is mostly mediated by
> leveraging CDN and cloud technologies, and totally out of the control
> of the local ISP.
> 
>>> We computer scientists call this viable alternative “end-to-end” approach a “quality floor”.
> 
> In googling I have thus far been unable to find a definition of
> "Quality floor". Cite, please?
> 
>> The good news is that we now have a practical means to measure it and hard science to model it.
> 
> Weeds, here.
> 
>>> Maybe we should consciously and competently try it?
> 
> ... if only we had running code and rough consensus.
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> All the best,
>> 
>> Frank
>> 
>> Frantisek (Frank) Borsik
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik
>> 
>> Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714
>> 
>> iMessage, mobile: +420775230885
>> 
>> Skype: casioa5302ca
>> 
>> frantisek.borsik@gmail.com
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Sun, Oct 1, 2023 at 7:15 PM Dave Taht via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I am pleased to see over 100 people have signed up for this list
>>> already. I am not really planning on "activating" this list until
>>> tuesday or so, after a few more people I have reached out to sign up
>>> (or not).
>>> 
>>> I would like y´all to seek out people with differing opinions and
>>> background, in the hope that one day, we can shed more light than heat
>>> about the science and technologies that "govern" the internet, to
>>> those that wish to regulate it. In the short term, I would like enough
>>> of us to agree on an open letter, or NPRM filing,and to put out a
>>> press release(s), in the hope that this time, the nn and title ii
>>> discussion is more about real, than imagined, internet issues. [1]
>>> 
>>> I am basically planning to move the enormous discussion from over
>>> here, titled "network neutrality back in the news":
>>> 
>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/starlink/2023-September/thread.html
>>> 
>>> to here. I expect that we are going to be doing this discussion for a
>>> long time, and many more issues besides my short term ones will be
>>> discussed. I hope that we can cleanly isolate technical issues from
>>> political ones, in particular, and remain civil, and factual, and
>>> avoid hyperbole.
>>> 
>>> Since the FCC announcement of a proposed NPRM as of Oct 19th... my own
>>> initial impetus was to establish why the NN debate first started in
>>> 2005, and the conflict between the legal idea of "common carriage" vs
>>> what the internet was actually capable of in mixing voip and
>>> bittorrent, in
>>> "The Bufferbloat vs Bittorrent vs Voip" phase. Jim Gettys, myself, and
>>> Jason Livinggood have weighed in on their stories on linkedin,
>>> twitter, and elsewhere.
>>> 
>>> There was a second phase, somewhat triggered by netflix, that Jonathan
>>> Morton summarized in that thread, ending in the first establishment of
>>> some title ii rules in 2015.
>>> 
>>> The third phase was when title ii was rescinded... and all that has
>>> happened since.
>>> 
>>> I, for one, am fiercely proud about how our tech community rose to
>>> meet the challenge of covid, and how, for example, videoconferencing
>>> mostly just worked for so many, after a postage stamp sized start in
>>> 2012[2]. The oh-too-faint-praise for that magnificent effort from
>>> higher levels rankles me greatly, but I will try to get it under
>>> control.
>>> 
>>> And this fourth phase, opening in a few weeks, is more, I think about
>>> privacy and power than all the other phases, and harmonization with EU
>>> legislation, perhaps. What is on the table for the industry and
>>> internet is presently unknown.
>>> 
>>> So here we "NN-again". Lay your issues out!
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> [1] I have only had one fight with the FCC. Won it handily:
>>> https://www.computerworld.com/article/2993112/vint-cerf-and-260-experts-give-fcc-a-plan-to-secure-wi-fi-routers.html
>>> In this case this is not so much a fight, I hope, but a collaborative
>>> effort towards a better, faster, lower latency, and more secure,
>>> internet for everyone.
>>> 
>>> [2] https://archive.org/details/video1_20191129
>>> --
>>> Oct 30: https://netdevconf.info/0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-bof.html
>>> Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Nnagain mailing list
>>> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Oct 30: https://netdevconf.info/0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-bof.html
> Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos
> _______________________________________________
> Nnagain mailing list
> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain

[NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors

[Dave Taht]

I kind of expect many, many forks of conversations here, and for those
introducing a new topic,
I would like to encourage using a relevant subject line, so I have
changed this one to suit.

On Sun, Oct 1, 2023 at 11:57 AM Frantisek Borsik
<frantisek.borsik@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> OK, so I will bite the bullet! I have invited Ajit Pai and Martin Geddes to join us here and let's see if they still have some time and/or even stomach for current round of NN discussion.

Honestly I was hoping for some time to setup, and even perhaps, have
enough of us here
to agree on one of the definitions of NN, to start with!

> Anyway, here is my bullet. I will argue with Martin, that - Net Neutrality CAN'T be implemented:

You meant "argue along with" rather than "with". I know you are not a
native english speaker, but in the way you said it, it meant you were
arguing against what he described.

>
>> Whilst people argue over the virtues of net neutrality as a regulatory policy, computer science tells us regulatory implementation is a fool’s errand.
>> Suppose for a moment that you are the victim of a wicked ISP that engages in disallowed “throttling” under a “neutral” regime for Internet access. You like to access streaming media from a particular “over the top” service provider. By coincidence, the performance of your favoured application drops at the same time your ISP launches a rival content service of its own.
>> You then complain to the regulator, who investigates. She finds that your ISP did indeed change their traffic management settings right at the point that the “throttling” began. A swathe of routes, including the one to your preferred “over the top” application, have been given a different packet scheduling and routing treatment.
>> It seems like an open-and-shut case of “throttling” resulting in a disallowed “neutrality violation”. Or is it?
>> Here’s why the regulator’s enforcement order will never survive the resulting court case and expert witness scrutiny:
>
>
> https://www.martingeddes.com/one-reason-net-neutrality-cant-implemented/

Throttling, using DPI or other methods, is indeed feasible. It is very
straightforward to limit flows to or from a given set of IP addresses.
However, there are also technical limitations, based on for example,
the underlying connectivity of a path be it one gbit or 10, which
would also show a customer problem in unwinding the difference between
intentionally throttling and merely being out of bandwidth across that
link. A lot of the netflix controversy was generated because netflix
suddenly ate far far more bandwidth that anyone had provisioned, and
was ultimately addressed by them developing and making easily
available a caching architecture that could be located within an ISPs
borders, saving an enormous amount on transit costs.  The rest of the
computing universe followed with enormous numbers of CDNs from the
bigger services being built out in the years following.

In part I kind of reject a few older arguments here in the face of
subsequent, technical improvements on how the internet works.

I had many discussions with martin back in the day. The reasoning in
this piece is pretty sound, except that "fairness" can be achieved via
various means (notably flow (fair) queueing), and it has always been a
(imperfectly implemented) goal of our e2e congestion control
algorithms to ultimately converge to a equal amount of bandwidth at
differing RTTs to different services.

My principal kvetch with his work was that every blog entry during
this period making these points then ended up linking to a "Quality
Floor", called "delta-something", a mathematical method that was
ill-documented, not available as open source and impossible, for me,
at least to understand. The link to that solution is broken in that
link, for example. That quasi-mystical jump to "the solution", I was
never able to make.

I believe something like this method lives on in Domos´s work today,
and despite them filing an internet draft on the subject (
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-olden-ippm-qoo/ ) I remain
mostly in the dark, without being able to evaluate their methods
against tools I already understand.

I like the idea of what I think a "quality floor" might provide, which
is something that fq-everywhere can provide, and no known e2e
congestion control can guarantee.

I would like it if instead of ISPs selling "up to X bandwidth" they
sold a minimum guarantee of at least Y bandwidth, which is easier to
reason and provision for, but harder to sell.

Instead:

In the last 14 years I focused on restoring correct behavior of the
well-defined congestion controls of the internet, first documented
here:  https://ee.lbl.gov/papers/congavoid.pdf and built on the
decades since, while many others made enormous advances on what was
possible - packet pacing, for example, is a genuine breakthrough in
how multiple services from multiple providers can leave sufficient
space for other flows to co-exist and eventually use up their fair
share.

>
> I hope you will read the link ^^ before jumping to Martin's conclusion, but still, here it is:
>
>>
>> So if not “neutrality”, then what else?

This is the phase where his arguments began to fall into the weeds.

>> The only option is to focus on the end-to-end service quality.

I agree that achieving quality on various good metrics, especially
under load, is needed. The popular MOS metric for voip could use some
improvement, and we lack any coherent framework for measuring
videoconferencing well.

>>The local traffic management is an irrelevance and complete distraction.

I am not sure how to tie this to the rest of the argument. The local
traffic management can be as simple as short buffers, or inordinately
complex, as you will find complex organisations internally trying to
balance the needs for throughput and latency, and for example, the
CAKE qdisc not only does active queue management, and FQ, but
optionally allows additional means of differentiation for
voice/videoconferencing, best effort, and "bulk" traffic, in an
effort, ultimately to balance goals to achieve the "service quality"
the user desires. Then there are the side-effects of various layer 2
protocols - wifi tends to be batchy, 5G tends towards being hugely
bufferbloated - PON has a 250us lower limit, cable

> Terms like “throttling” are technically meaningless. The lawgeneers who have written articles and books saying otherwise are unconsciously incompetent at computer science.

There are use cases, both good and bad, for "throttling". It is and
has always been technically feasible to rate limit flows from anyone
to anyone. Advisable, sometimes! DDOS attacks are one case where
throttling is needed.

Breaking the user perception of being intentionally throttled vs the
fate of the the rest of the network would be a goodness. The side
effects of one service, living on a slow network, becoming suddenly
popular, is known as the "slashdot effect", and is mostly mediated by
leveraging CDN and cloud technologies, and totally out of the control
of the local ISP.

>> We computer scientists call this viable alternative “end-to-end” approach a “quality floor”.

In googling I have thus far been unable to find a definition of
"Quality floor". Cite, please?

> The good news is that we now have a practical means to measure it and hard science to model it.

Weeds, here.

>> Maybe we should consciously and competently try it?

... if only we had running code and rough consensus.

>
>
>
> All the best,
>
> Frank
>
> Frantisek (Frank) Borsik
>
>
>
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik
>
> Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714
>
> iMessage, mobile: +420775230885
>
> Skype: casioa5302ca
>
> frantisek.borsik@gmail.com
>
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 1, 2023 at 7:15 PM Dave Taht via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>
>> I am pleased to see over 100 people have signed up for this list
>> already. I am not really planning on "activating" this list until
>> tuesday or so, after a few more people I have reached out to sign up
>> (or not).
>>
>> I would like y´all to seek out people with differing opinions and
>> background, in the hope that one day, we can shed more light than heat
>> about the science and technologies that "govern" the internet, to
>> those that wish to regulate it. In the short term, I would like enough
>> of us to agree on an open letter, or NPRM filing,and to put out a
>> press release(s), in the hope that this time, the nn and title ii
>> discussion is more about real, than imagined, internet issues. [1]
>>
>> I am basically planning to move the enormous discussion from over
>> here, titled "network neutrality back in the news":
>>
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/starlink/2023-September/thread.html
>>
>> to here. I expect that we are going to be doing this discussion for a
>> long time, and many more issues besides my short term ones will be
>> discussed. I hope that we can cleanly isolate technical issues from
>> political ones, in particular, and remain civil, and factual, and
>> avoid hyperbole.
>>
>> Since the FCC announcement of a proposed NPRM as of Oct 19th... my own
>> initial impetus was to establish why the NN debate first started in
>> 2005, and the conflict between the legal idea of "common carriage" vs
>> what the internet was actually capable of in mixing voip and
>> bittorrent, in
>> "The Bufferbloat vs Bittorrent vs Voip" phase. Jim Gettys, myself, and
>> Jason Livinggood have weighed in on their stories on linkedin,
>> twitter, and elsewhere.
>>
>> There was a second phase, somewhat triggered by netflix, that Jonathan
>> Morton summarized in that thread, ending in the first establishment of
>> some title ii rules in 2015.
>>
>> The third phase was when title ii was rescinded... and all that has
>> happened since.
>>
>> I, for one, am fiercely proud about how our tech community rose to
>> meet the challenge of covid, and how, for example, videoconferencing
>> mostly just worked for so many, after a postage stamp sized start in
>> 2012[2]. The oh-too-faint-praise for that magnificent effort from
>> higher levels rankles me greatly, but I will try to get it under
>> control.
>>
>> And this fourth phase, opening in a few weeks, is more, I think about
>> privacy and power than all the other phases, and harmonization with EU
>> legislation, perhaps. What is on the table for the industry and
>> internet is presently unknown.
>>
>> So here we "NN-again". Lay your issues out!
>>
>>
>>
>> [1] I have only had one fight with the FCC. Won it handily:
>> https://www.computerworld.com/article/2993112/vint-cerf-and-260-experts-give-fcc-a-plan-to-secure-wi-fi-routers.html
>> In this case this is not so much a fight, I hope, but a collaborative
>> effort towards a better, faster, lower latency, and more secure,
>> internet for everyone.
>>
>> [2] https://archive.org/details/video1_20191129
>> --
>> Oct 30: https://netdevconf.info/0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-bof.html
>> Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos
>> _______________________________________________
>> Nnagain mailing list
>> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain



-- 
Oct 30: https://netdevconf.info/0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-bof.html
Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos