From: Frantisek Borsik <frantisek.borsik@gmail.com>
To: "Network Neutrality is back! Let´s make the technical aspects
heard this time!" <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Re: [NNagain] Some backstory on the nn-again mailing list
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2023 20:56:35 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJUtOOheWHzHUTLWYe_Tm-vsc1O98x6DktYqUDyf1ifgoX+hDQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAA93jw4ruGpkZeKq85kkho76BH_Zw6LeBo_3urhRTd44CY6_WQ@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6403 bytes --]
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.
Anyway, here is my bullet.* I will argue with Martin, that - Net Neutrality
CAN'T be implemented: *
*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/*
<https://www.martingeddes.com/one-reason-net-neutrality-cant-implemented/>
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?
> *The only option is to focus on the end-to-end service quality*. The
> local traffic management is an *irrelevance* and complete distraction.
> Terms like “throttling” are technically meaningless. The lawgeneers
> <http://martingeddes.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=f105fd56904428bca9da44a82&id=732dff72e5&e=8d627b38dd> who
> have written articles and books saying otherwise are unconsciously
> incompetent at computer science.
> *We computer scientists call this viable alternative “end-to-end” approach
> a “quality floor”*. The good news is that we now have a practical means
> to measure it
> <http://martingeddes.us1.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=f105fd56904428bca9da44a82&id=b5afe64690&e=8d627b38dd>
> and hard science
> <http://martingeddes.us1.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=f105fd56904428bca9da44a82&id=ea6122c7a8&e=8d627b38dd> to
> model it.
> Maybe we should consciously and competently try it?
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
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 9583 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-10-01 18:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 59+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-10-01 17:15 Dave Taht
2023-10-01 18:56 ` Frantisek Borsik [this message]
2023-10-01 19:51 ` [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors Dave Taht
2023-10-01 20:50 ` Dave Cohen
2023-10-01 22:01 ` Patrick Maupin
2023-10-02 1:34 ` dan
2023-10-02 7:28 ` Sebastian Moeller
2023-10-02 16:29 ` dan
2023-10-04 7:30 ` Sebastian Moeller
2023-10-02 15:30 ` Andy Ringsmuth
2023-10-02 18:28 ` Nathan Loofbourrow
2023-10-02 20:34 ` Colin_Higbie
2023-10-02 21:04 ` Dave Cohen
2023-10-02 21:07 ` rjmcmahon
2023-10-02 21:43 ` Colin_Higbie
2023-10-02 21:55 ` rjmcmahon
2023-10-03 19:29 ` Colin_Higbie
2023-10-03 19:45 ` rjmcmahon
2023-10-04 0:57 ` David Lang
2023-10-03 7:50 ` Sebastian Moeller
2023-10-03 8:10 ` Karl Auerbach
2023-10-03 14:41 ` Sebastian Moeller
2023-10-03 15:34 ` dan
2023-10-03 16:54 ` rjmcmahon
2023-10-03 17:55 ` Sebastian Moeller
2023-10-03 18:09 ` Frantisek Borsik
2023-10-03 18:14 ` dan
2023-10-03 19:44 ` Dick Roy
2023-10-03 18:10 ` dan
2023-10-03 19:23 ` rjmcmahon
2023-10-04 1:05 ` David Lang
2023-10-04 0:39 ` David Lang
2023-10-03 20:26 ` Colin_Higbie
2023-10-03 21:40 ` dan
2023-10-04 15:56 ` Colin_Higbie
2023-10-04 17:45 ` David Lang
2023-10-05 20:24 ` Livingood, Jason
2023-10-05 22:17 ` Dick Roy
2023-10-05 22:47 ` Jeremy Austin
2023-10-05 22:53 ` Dave Cohen
2023-10-06 15:56 ` Dick Roy
2023-10-06 15:58 ` rjmcmahon
2023-10-04 17:59 ` rjmcmahon
2023-10-04 19:26 ` Dick Roy
[not found] ` <MN2PR16MB3391A66B0DC222C43664DAD6F1CBA@MN2PR16MB3391.namprd16.prod.outlook.com>
2023-10-05 8:44 ` Sebastian Moeller
2023-10-05 19:07 ` David Lang
2023-10-03 23:17 ` Mark Steckel
2023-10-04 7:51 ` Sebastian Moeller
2023-10-02 6:48 ` Sebastian Moeller
2023-10-02 13:43 ` Livingood, Jason
2023-10-02 14:51 ` Mark Steckel
2023-10-02 18:09 ` Livingood, Jason
2023-10-02 18:15 ` Patrick Maupin
2023-10-02 19:18 ` Dick Roy
2023-10-02 6:34 ` Sebastian Moeller
2023-10-02 13:27 ` Livingood, Jason
2023-10-02 6:06 ` [NNagain] Some backstory on the nn-again mailing list Sebastian Moeller
2023-10-02 12:36 ` Bless, Roland (TM)
2023-10-03 7:15 ` Sebastian Moeller
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://lists.bufferbloat.net/postorius/lists/nnagain.lists.bufferbloat.net/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAJUtOOheWHzHUTLWYe_Tm-vsc1O98x6DktYqUDyf1ifgoX+hDQ@mail.gmail.com \
--to=frantisek.borsik@gmail.com \
--cc=nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox