From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm1-x333.google.com (mail-wm1-x333.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::333]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DDEBC3CB42 for ; Fri, 10 May 2024 11:48:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-wm1-x333.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-41fd5dc03easo11595975e9.1 for ; Fri, 10 May 2024 08:48:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1715356125; x=1715960925; darn=lists.bufferbloat.net; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:references:in-reply-to :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=dirZvmkJr/CXC28EdNVRYa1zptE4q3tokizqfBzQzXk=; b=KNS07jS29bGedS/PXW8TvDtwnFNKqzgKZsv71rz+bFcXLK6Nlw/6i/5U/b10WM8zJ7 WyuRu2SBYYTAZCm2RZh5YCoL+RfL/Lkx80RXaoN0fVO8svQs+XglAfgfMjV/l3tcUoN5 jytDSinwfBb8B7Aa4cSPPMccGEhJoVAn1RIx6H78N4G86X3sYjcRhw9jsYGLB+epQ++w Gd9Z8caru3C9d4mrI2FV04d/KqDY6fQ0ltPKpnZAaEoa4NgVKqtG4CKZuUmbuxuyXYWg 2OlKvakc7WNRa0IYPdTu5yj6duBAaLHDnLbjywGw/odMedBIRBvD6aztv16qnJfovhBn bcWg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1715356125; x=1715960925; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:references:in-reply-to :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=dirZvmkJr/CXC28EdNVRYa1zptE4q3tokizqfBzQzXk=; b=SDLnn3zqapdA2OM2Z/SZ82QroSENPypJN3TXBczhAQeoAchcV3P3gekF+E46y11lAA QXfxIM/6A+632uGCwzmDKNpM+ccZRPX0Ky1iAO987bBLJyEbURvlvp8Bg6SU2PfnTSm7 uytK8iqSItZaCsdxu1Cix8q7b/OpdBljtSvx8tvE/E/SbX7gI1lF/c9M8qsWorm6cxHJ wS5VHVaGzJNBc/R+wW9pATG+/5B+csVa5PyhhUjQb8Y5C7TPd/QE//o+oRea1GnvKNUJ m+q4MBEp1ClZhdMyUCcTq1J7WrWRrb7sV0yrS06esZTl8BMlyu+ys82hTOdSMmmkoram 9vxg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwhapYfVFy54DyJfdlShD6WoNzcNykTwQAYnwG+QRAzidaTaXEK CKwlsvHMR4NwNe55FVBwLAvjbI9JWAz2bwP+PyF9CkZo+sPXey0r49eg6MPenfdzuoommMkPo0H +J2z47xVif5miSBVGZPyzbyMSGuxCFw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHAzfqLi0GnZwGgWvZ8maIoAFOD2is/GtfwFtnRltvya+apmKR8rw/8QhS3KIK5Jyi+S6CCM8hjmiABRcK9fPU= X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:68cf:b0:41b:77c1:82b5 with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-41feab38f23mr21040085e9.19.1715356125236; Fri, 10 May 2024 08:48:45 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:a05:6020:fb08:b0:2d7:ecc9:6c56 with HTTP; Fri, 10 May 2024 08:48:44 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Dave Taht Date: Fri, 10 May 2024 08:48:44 -0700 Message-ID: To: =?UTF-8?Q?Network_Neutrality_is_back=21_Let=C2=B4s_make_the_technical_asp?= =?UTF-8?Q?ects_heard_this_time=21?= Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000008215ee06181b7867" Subject: Re: [NNagain] "FCC explicitly prohibits fast lanes, closing possible net neutrality loophole" X-BeenThere: nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: =?utf-8?q?Network_Neutrality_is_back!_Let=C2=B4s_make_the_technical_aspects_heard_this_time!?= List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 May 2024 15:48:47 -0000 --0000000000008215ee06181b7867 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I have not read this but I am pretty sure it does not ban fair queuing. On Friday, May 10, 2024, Mike Conlow via Nnagain < nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote: > I'm sure this was a difficult thing to write a regulation on. I'm glad th= e > FCC took a swing. Here's why: > > If the Internet community wants to [continue] to develop technologies > where applications (or users) can signal a need for low latency treatment > and other networks in the path can honor that need -- great. > > But one of the networks in the chain -- the access network -- making the > determination of what types of traffic get the low latency treatment, in = my > personal opinion is reasonably interpreted as throttling. > > I think it's also worth noting that these rules only apply to last-mile > mass-market ISP plans. And any network is still free to offer "network > slicing" as an enterprise offering, which I'm sure they will. > > On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 10:32=E2=80=AFAM Frantisek Borsik via Nnagain < > nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote: > >> "Net neutrality proponents argued that these separate lanes for differen= t >> kinds of traffic would degrade performance of traffic that isn't favored= . >> The final FCC order released yesterday addresses that complaint. >> >> "We clarify that a BIAS [Broadband Internet Access Service] provider's >> decision to speed up 'on the basis of Internet content, applications, or >> services' would 'impair or degrade' other content, applications, or >> services which are not given the same treatment," the FCC's final order >> said. >> >> The "impair or degrade" clarification means that speeding up is banned >> because the no-throttling rule says that ISPs "shall not impair or degra= de >> lawful Internet traffic on the basis of Internet content, application, o= r >> service." >> >> https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/05/fcc-explicitly- >> prohibits-fast-lanes-closing-possible-net-neutrality-loophole/ >> >> >> 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 >> _______________________________________________ >> Nnagain mailing list >> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain >> > --=20 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DBVFWSyMp3xg&t=3D1098s Waves Podcast Dave T=C3=A4ht CSO, LibreQos --0000000000008215ee06181b7867 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I have not read this but I am pretty sure it does not ban fair queuing.
=
On Friday, May 10, 2024, Mike Conlow via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:=
I'm sure this was a= difficult thing to write a regulation on. I'm glad the FCC took a swin= g. Here's why:

If the Internet community wants to [c= ontinue] to develop technologies where applications (or users) can signal a= need for low latency treatment and other networks in the path can honor th= at need -- great.=C2=A0

But one of the networks in= the chain -- the access network -- making the determination of what types = of traffic get the low latency treatment, in my personal opinion is reasona= bly interpreted as throttling.

I think it's al= so worth noting that these rules only apply to last-mile mass-market ISP pl= ans. And any network is still free to offer "network slicing" as = an enterprise offering, which I'm sure they will.=C2=A0

=
On Fri, Ma= y 10, 2024 at 10:32=E2=80=AFAM Frantisek Borsik via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.buffe= rbloat.net> wrote:
"Net neutrality proponents argued= that these separate lanes for different kinds of traffic would degrade per= formance of traffic that isn't favored. The final FCC order released ye= sterday addresses that complaint.=C2=A0

"We c= larify that a BIAS [Broadband Internet Access Service] provider's decis= ion to speed up 'on the basis of Internet content, applications, or ser= vices' would 'impair or degrade' other content, applications, o= r services which are not given the same treatment," the FCC's fina= l order said.=C2=A0

The "impair or degrade&qu= ot; clarification means that speeding up is banned because the no-throttlin= g rule says that ISPs "shall not impair or degrade lawful Internet tra= ffic on the basis of Internet content, application, or service."
=



<= div>
All the best,

=

Frank

Frantisek (Frank) Borsik<= u>

=C2=A0

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

= Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714=C2=A0

iMessage, mobile: +42077523088= 5

Sky= pe: casioa5302ca

frantisek.borsik@gmail.com

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


--
https://ww= w.youtube.com/watch?v=3DBVFWSyMp3xg&t=3D1098s Waves Podcast
Dave T=C3=A4ht CSO, LibreQos

--0000000000008215ee06181b7867--