From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from bobcat.rjmcmahon.com (bobcat.rjmcmahon.com [45.33.58.123]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 653893B2A4 for ; Wed, 15 May 2024 18:28:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail-yb1-f180.google.com (mail-yb1-f180.google.com [209.85.219.180]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by bobcat.rjmcmahon.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7F53A1B4EC for ; Wed, 15 May 2024 15:28:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 bobcat.rjmcmahon.com 7F53A1B4EC DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rjmcmahon.com; s=bobcat; t=1715812134; bh=S9tL0Ehx+8KILxmmQQc9xj/QOf9YD7mGMtIGrDaI6os=; h=References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:Subject:To:From; b=oNPS31JEJ6FgyDufxUTHLbFFo97yWXI9AeDd3Db6wCIuQBsgfGl3XrgIQQ/x+61nK W+M1nQR2iHDI1d2phu0MHv1McHmKq1J7xoRbaq48WQRoMDpvNcjN5dQMHmjGE0Fc2g 065mFKndAjdb1G48eOprPznwQ1eU+JX2Rfwpqt2o= Received: by mail-yb1-f180.google.com with SMTP id 3f1490d57ef6-df3dfcf7242so845872276.2 for ; Wed, 15 May 2024 15:28:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWdp4/fX01i0RZYgz5P13UqNed/YRK+ZT5D10jvPFjyLRXVCUPgLBxq3VNDYurVYKtf+JTGDXe4e3aEO2LzuykZMcmDaMBUQMmcGfla+g== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yx29Em4Sd6KCseaoE65BOc25EewAhkIh5bvlo2ctl+59oPKtmuY zXm1uLerfWM12chXQjRWO9jBeA1ehwKWFuCGQV5l2vASODWeLf+I0Q0fSwT2X3q3xJ2HF1DvbKM X3UmC0OyGdmu3ajZLXk5PkGiHpOo= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHNeQGmidFc1nHCKY0bglus+b3N5lB+/Z76KvncXjCgj2Y6iFhsPcjO8/CLXvy4orjh+roYburjQWeFOhNfhpQ= X-Received: by 2002:a25:838d:0:b0:de4:6f1e:c9bb with SMTP id 3f1490d57ef6-dee4f2d88ccmr15830793276.26.1715812133641; Wed, 15 May 2024 15:28:53 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Robert McMahon Date: Wed, 15 May 2024 15:28:42 -0700 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: To: karl@cavebear.com, =?UTF-8?Q?Network_Neutrality_is_back=21_Let=C2=B4s_make_the_technical_aspect?= =?UTF-8?Q?s_heard_this_time=21?= Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ba315b061885a409" 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: Wed, 15 May 2024 22:28:55 -0000 --000000000000ba315b061885a409 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hmm, seems more about wiglomeration than regulation. Per Dickens, "Here he is, Esther," said Mr. Jarndyce, comfortably putting his hands into his pockets and stretching out his legs. "He must have a profession; he must make some choice for himself. There will be a world more wiglomeration about it, I suppose, but it must be done." "More what, guardian?" said I. "More wiglomeration," said he. "It's the only name I know for the thing. He is a ward in Chancery, my dear. Kenge and Carboy will have something to say about it; Master Somebody--a sort of ridiculous sexton, digging graves for the merits of causes in a back room at the end of Quality Court, Chancery Lane--will have something to say about it; counsel will have something to say about it; the Chancellor will have something to say about it; the satellites will have something to say about it; they will all have to be handsomely feed, all round, about it; the whole thing will be vastly ceremonious, wordy, unsatisfactory, and expensive, and I call it, in general, wiglomeration. How mankind ever came to be afflicted with wiglomeration, or for whose sins these young people ever fell into a pit of it, I don't know; so it is." On Wed, May 15, 2024, 2:43 PM Karl Auerbach via Nnagain < nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote: > As a matter of drafting the FCC has left some potholes: > > "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," > > That phrase "speed up" is too vague. Does it conflict with active or fair > queue management? Does it prohibit things that some Ethernet NIC > "offloads" do (but which could be done by a provider) such as TCP data > aggregation (i.e. the merging of lots of small TCP segments into one big > one)? Does it prohibit insertion of an ECN bit that would have the effect > of slowing a sender of packets? Might it preclude a provider "helpfully" > dropping stale video packets that would arrive at a users video rendering > codec too late to be useful? Could there be an issue with selective > compression? Or, to really get nerdy - given that a lot of traffic uses > Ethernet frames as a model, there can be a non-trivial amount of hidden, > usually unused, bandwidth in that gap between the end of tiny IP packets > and the end of minimum length Ethernet frames. (I've seen that space used > for things like license management.) Or might this impact larger path > issues, such as routing choices, either dynamic or based on contractual > relationships - such as conversational voice over terrestrial or > low-earth-orbit paths while background file transfers are sent via fat, but > large latency paths such as geo-synch satellite? If an ISP found a means > of blocking spam from being delivered, would that violate the rules? (Same > question for blocking of VoIP calls from undesirable sources. It may also > call into question even the use of IP address blacklists or reverse path > algorithms that block traffic coming from places where it has no business > coming from.) > > The answers may be obvious to tech folks here but in the hands of > troublesome lawyers (I'm one of those) these ambiguities could be elevated > to be real headaches. > > These may seem like minor or even meaningless nits, but these are the > kinds of things that can be used by lawyers (again, like me) to tie > regulatory bodies into knots, which often a goal of some large > organizations that do not like regulation. > > In addition, I can't put my finger on it, but I am sensing that without > some flexibility the FCC neutrality rules may be creating a kind of no > cost, tragedy of the commons situation. Sometimes a bit of friction - cost > - can be useful to either incentivize improvements and invention or to make > things (like spam) less desirable/more expensive to abusers. > > --karl-- > On 5/10/24 7:31 AM, Frantisek Borsik via Nnagain wrote: > > "Net neutrality proponents argued that these separate lanes for different > 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 degrade > lawful Internet traffic on the basis of Internet content, application, or > 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 listNnagain@lists.bufferbloat.nethttps://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain > > _______________________________________________ > Nnagain mailing list > Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain > --000000000000ba315b061885a409 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hmm, seems more about wiglomeration than regulation.=C2= =A0 Per Dickens,

"Here he is, Esther," said Mr. Jarndyce, co= mfortably putting his hands into his pockets and stretching out his legs. &= quot;He must have a profession; he must make some choice for himself. There= will be a world more wiglomeration about it, I suppose, but it must be don= e."

"More what, guardian?&q= uot; said I.

"More wiglomeration= ," said he. "It's the only name I know for the thing. He is a= ward in Chancery, my dear. Kenge and Carboy will have something to say abo= ut it; Master Somebody--a sort of ridiculous sexton, digging graves for the= merits of causes in a back room at the end of Quality Court, Chancery Lane= --will have something to say about it; counsel will have something to say a= bout it; the Chancellor will have something to say about it; the satellites= will have something to say about it; they will all have to be handsomely f= eed, all round, about it; the whole thing will be vastly ceremonious, wordy= , unsatisfactory, and expensive, and I call it, in general, wiglomeration. = How mankind ever came to be afflicted with wiglomeration, or for whose sins= these young people ever fell into a pit of it, I don't know; so it is.= "


On Wed, May 15, 2024, 2:43 PM Karl Auerbach via Nnagain <= ;nnagain@lists.bufferbloat= .net> wrote:
=20 =20 =20

As a matter of drafting the FCC has left some potholes:

"We clarify that a BIAS [Broadband Internet Access Service] provider's decision to speed up 'on the basis of Internet con= tent, applications, or services' would 'impair or degrade' othe= r content, applications, or services which are not given the same treatment,"

That phrase "speed up" is too vague.=C2=A0 Does it conflic= t with active or fair queue management?=C2=A0 Does it prohibit things that some Ethernet NIC "offloads" do (but which could be done by= a provider) such as TCP data aggregation (i.e. the merging of lots of small TCP segments into one big one)? Does it prohibit insertion of an ECN bit that would have the effect of slowing a sender of packets?=C2=A0 Might it preclude a provider "helpfully= " dropping stale video packets that would arrive at a users video rendering codec too late to be useful?=C2=A0 Could there be an issue with selective compression?=C2=A0 Or, to really get nerdy - given tha= t a lot of traffic uses Ethernet frames as a model, there can be a non-trivial amount of hidden, usually unused, bandwidth in that gap between the end of tiny IP packets and the end of minimum length Ethernet frames. (I've seen that space used for things lik= e license management.)=C2=A0 Or might this impact larger path issues, such as routing choices, either dynamic or based on contractual relationships - such as conversational voice over terrestrial or low-earth-orbit paths while background file transfers are sent via fat, but large latency paths such as geo-synch satellite?=C2=A0 If an ISP found a means of blocking spam from being delivered, would that violate the rules?=C2=A0 (Same question for blocking of VoIP cal= ls from undesirable sources.=C2=A0 It may also call into question even t= he use of IP address blacklists or reverse path algorithms that block traffic coming from places where it has no business coming from.)

The answers may be obvious to tech folks here but in the hands of troublesome lawyers (I'm one of those) these ambiguities could be elevated to be real headaches.

These may seem like minor or even meaningless nits, but these are the kinds of things that can be used by lawyers (again, like me) to tie regulatory bodies into knots, which often a goal of some large organizations that do not like regulation.

In addition, I can't put my finger on it, but I am sensing that without some flexibility the FCC neutrality rules may be creating a kind of no cost, tragedy of the commons situation.=C2=A0 Sometimes = a bit of friction - cost - can be useful to either incentivize improvements and invention or to make things (like spam) less desirable/more expensive to abusers.

=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 --karl--

On 5/10/24 7:31 AM, Frantisek Borsik via Nnagain wrote:
=20
"Net neutrality proponents argued that these separate lan= es for different kinds of traffic would degrade performance of traffic that isn't favored. The final FCC order released yesterday addresses that complaint.=C2=A0

"We clarify that a BIAS [Broadband Internet Access Servic= e] provider's decision to speed up 'on the basis of Internet content, applications, or services' would 'impair or degr= ade' other content, applications, or services which are not given the same treatment," the FCC's final order said.=C2=A0

The "impair or degrade" clarification means that spe= eding up is banned because the no-throttling rule says that ISPs "shall not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of Internet content, application, or service."



All the best,

Frank

Frantisek (Frank) Borsik

=C2=A0

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

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

iMessage, mobile: +420775230885

Skype: casioa5302ca

frantisek.borsik@gmail.c= om


_______________________________________________
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/nnag= ain
--000000000000ba315b061885a409--