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/* 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 > 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 > > and hard science > 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 >