From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qv1-xf2b.google.com (mail-qv1-xf2b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f2b]) (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 4D2AB3CB42 for ; Fri, 10 May 2024 11:08:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-qv1-xf2b.google.com with SMTP id 6a1803df08f44-69b50b8239fso18784456d6.0 for ; Fri, 10 May 2024 08:08:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cloudflare.com; s=google09082023; t=1715353730; x=1715958530; darn=lists.bufferbloat.net; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=NqVb8CDQu39VwJoAvyDsJY7aUu1r7KRVMYbd4OUqzXw=; b=B4YiCOvKRTKFfO2e2u0DObPt5RXehCIQrR0h9WcP8xlVxrHqzIOjZ8LToUqsRBuWad daJXb27f1iu2M9r5KDUCvfxfyo8icTbxbIOfSIhh7HSOdyNVooea9/IwB3BT8/i1n49v vLWeRvMYOKH3JgWH0pcQGPPaNAwM1LRwiTsr59me0mIol0PcKCNkCkmt9R6esMseXukG ori/4SMtMJlO4D9uBGNx+PD3EHuvDa7xe0xvoZTTMrZJvortUy2/AjPOrkaah+3fW7p4 YOGimJtiZXXGW71ZopGhdmt0NRaQCMfRNTlOa/i2pV2ufLBU1+sjA2NFZt8vDVCoX9gy AZuw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1715353730; x=1715958530; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=NqVb8CDQu39VwJoAvyDsJY7aUu1r7KRVMYbd4OUqzXw=; b=TlFk4hK9Kvq/+UoJteJ6DuUYjV38N0yYaERCUZWtK8DVz43dcFriXUx5qvBBplgYgI 0BSekXplgYvocxK8W2Hb/z3rBi9Ye+8IZyzI+ZJBwvX03PyXb1qqwqtE3iXV5iTCRl/0 wSg8vcAhAO5bg8F3JHwgEs9ekkbD5uPV3KJrYQ1Kkiccqhom+YDKPi4JAwJHQ7gXgEBK cj0oXKz9faJ2UjjOxhkBguFoRghZW2uNwk9MDBSnWprrHfptu2wElKaHtW4u76h6duOR 7cb/y56boSZMC9sWyG1wxAAhrdd7BCIpCi+p9SjG6C+vlvloGnlo4gEDHhmLHRRufyl0 2FZw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Ywa/l1pPpOKOlhA6yy5MDRI3m6INDCtOl6e96tV9+PoWu0m1iFG gWz3T324NHdTO4Q03xHwChggNQZtDYpcxDyuon6NjHmqEaN/LMf6R22dIjpV7U9QwpL95tIJSx7 apeFWhkbiZm5+fT08naW0tzjUVadcULc1NlL1Ue+MTjCdvg+w X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEOIIN5w0BYA6l269Lzh/zWKhAquY1Dbrgp2WceAbaJHlMUsxpuIcbNWWZ4TGk9wORuHQKFy5mVgBASUHaePmY= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:334:b0:6a0:b93f:e678 with SMTP id 6a1803df08f44-6a15cbc452fmr102968736d6.10.1715353730295; Fri, 10 May 2024 08:08:50 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Mike Conlow Date: Fri, 10 May 2024 11:08:39 -0400 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="000000000000c2532106181ae9e1" 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 15:08:51 -0000 --000000000000c2532106181ae9e1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I'm sure this was a difficult thing to write a regulation on. I'm glad the 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 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 degrad= e > 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 list > Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain > --000000000000c2532106181ae9e1 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I'm sure this was a difficult thing to write a regulat= ion on. I'm glad the FCC took a swing. Here's why:

If the Internet community wants to [continue] to develop technologies wh= ere applications (or users) can signal a need for low latency treatment and= other networks in the path can honor that need -- great.=C2=A0
<= br>
But one of the networks in the chain -- the access network --= making the determination of what types of traffic get the low latency trea= tment, in my personal opinion is reasonably interpreted as throttling.

I think it's also worth noting that these rules on= ly 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.=C2=A0

On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 10:32=E2=80=AFAM Fran= tisek Borsik via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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.=C2=A0

"We clarify that a BIAS [Broadband Internet Access Service] pr= ovider's decision to speed up 'on the basis of Internet content, ap= plications, or services' would 'impair or degrade' other conten= t, applications, or services which are not given the same treatment," = the FCC's final order said.=C2=A0

The "im= pair or degrade" clarification means that speeding up is banned becaus= e the no-throttling rule says that ISPs "shall not impair or degrade l= awful Internet traffic on the basis of Internet content, application, or se= rvice."



=
All the best,

Frank

Frantisek (Frank) Borsik

= =C2=A0

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

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

iMessage, mobile: +420775230885<= u>

Skype: casio= a5302ca

frantisek.borsik@gmail.com

=
_______________________________________________
Nnagain mailing list
Nnagain@= lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
--000000000000c2532106181ae9e1--