Re: [NNagain] [EXTERNAL] Re: NN review in the UK

[Mike Conlow <mconlow@cloudflare.com>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3591 bytes --]

I'm not aware of any regularly occurring congestion issues in the UK, and
the consultation didn't suggest there are such issues.

I agree it comes across as legacy thinking. "Because packages offering
different quality of service would require some traffic prioritisation
where there is network congestion" kind of says it all.

This is speculation, but perhaps what the ISPs had in mind when discussing
this with Ofcom were newer AQMs, but it was translated into the
consultation this way? Regardless, to my reading, they asked for, and were
granted, a clarification that says they could offer one service with known
congestion issues and another service (which costs more to the end user)
that routes around the congestion.




On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 11:47 AM Livingood, Jason <
jason_livingood@comcast.com> wrote:

> Thx for the pointer to that section. Seems like some legacy thinking in
> that the view is the network rather than edge needs to do the heavy lifting
> on congestion control. But maybe with UK leased access there’s routine
> daily congestion (not enough capacity)?
>
>
>
> Looking at 6.28 I don’t see why an ISP could not charge more for a low
> latency service if that service was delivered at the same best effort QoS
> as the baseline service – which is possible with current AQMs. Not knowing
> as much about UK regs – maybe that is the issue? That it is unclear whether
> there can be any price/feature differentiation for broadband services even
> at the same level of best effort QoS?
>
>
>
> JL
>
>
>
> *From: *Mike Conlow <mconlow@cloudflare.com>
> *Date: *Monday, October 30, 2023 at 11:14
> *To: *Network Neutrality is back! Let´s make the technical aspects heard
> this time! <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> *Cc: *Jason Livingood <jason_livingood@comcast.com>
> *Subject: *[EXTERNAL] Re: [NNagain] NN review in the UK
>
>
>
> +1. My understanding is the origins of this item in the NN review in the
> UK is that  ISPs requested it because of lack of clarity around whether
> "premium quality service" offerings violated NN rules. See page 63-64 here
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0028/245926/net-neutrality-review.pdf__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!ErUN6Nq2hd-S88MFqYrqwFhfFKN93rTuYy_MrrQMvwrAUBC8kQ1ZpHnPt6_zuqhoVQJ1uK6IxZPFbU5BkJwTwLYDDg$>.
> Screenshot below:
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 10:26 AM Livingood, Jason via Nnagain <
> nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>
> On 10/28/23, 06:01, "Nnagain on behalf of Sebastian Moeller via Nnagain"
> <nnagain-
> > For example, people who use high quality virtual reality applications
> may want to buy a premium quality service, while users who mainly stream
> and browse the internet can buy a cheaper package. Our updated guidance
> clarifies that ISPs can offer premium packages, for example offering low
> latency, as long as they are sufficiently clear to customers about what
> they can expect from the services they buy.
>
> Sigh. Wish more regulators knew about modern AQMs - we can have our cake
> and eat it too. The solution above seems to pre-suppose the need for QoS
> but this isn't a capacity problem.
>
> JL
>
> _______________________________________________
> Nnagain mailing list
> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!ErUN6Nq2hd-S88MFqYrqwFhfFKN93rTuYy_MrrQMvwrAUBC8kQ1ZpHnPt6_zuqhoVQJ1uK6IxZPFbU5BkJwtGoJWVg$>
>
>

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 5974 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: image001.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 230727 bytes --]