"As in past Orders, we continue to recognize that in order to optimize end-user experience, BIAS providers must be permitted to engage in reasonable network management practices." (para 499)
Whatever "the service" is, I wonder what the new rules imply about how traffic is processed._______________________________________________
Even 40 years ago, we tried lots of heuristics to improve performance. One example I remember was treating datagrams differently depending simply on the size of their content. Putting a minimal-length datagram at the front of the output queue would slightly "degrade" the service delivered to the large datagrams behind it, but it might avoid a retransmission by delivering an ACK before a retransmission timer ran out.
If the new rules prohibit such behavior, I suspect a lot of more modern "smart queue" strategies might be also prohibited, such that all datagrams are given the exact same treatment. FIFO may now be the law?
With circuits in the 80s running <56kb/sec, such scenarios were of real concern. Today, with "bufferbloat" and such characteristics of the Internet, the scenarios are different but still exist.
Jack Haverty
On 5/15/24 17:55, Vint Cerf via Nnagain wrote:
An interpretation of the intent might be not so much a prohibition of various grades of service but that all grades are available on the same terms to all comers.
v
On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 5:43 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."
All the best,
Frank
Frantisek (Frank) Borsik
https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik
Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714
iMessage, mobile: +420775230885
Skype: casioa5302ca
_______________________________________________ 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/nnagain
--
Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to:Vint CerfGoogle, LLC1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th FloorReston, VA 20190+1 (571) 213 1346
until further notice
_______________________________________________ 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/nnagain