Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors

[Patrick Maupin <pmaupin@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1914 bytes --]

> That is likely why I think industry writ large agrees with the notion of
no blocking/throttling/prioritization.

In that case, there should be no problems with getting agreement with
properly worded transparency and behavioral regulations.  It will be
interesting to see how this plays out in the real world.

On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 1:10 PM Livingood, Jason via Nnagain <
nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:

> On 10/2/23, 10:51, "Nnagain on behalf of Mark Steckel via Nnagain" <
> nnagain-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:
> nnagain-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> on behalf of
> nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net>>
> wrote:
>
> > In both cases it is rational for the ISPs to favor this content over
> other content. This can be done by zero tier ratings, throttling, etc.
>
> What I have observed in practice is the businesses of connectivity and
> content are separately run & tend to act with a very high degree of
> independence. To take the example of throttling - all that would do is (1)
> prompt customer contacts - driving cost to the ISP, or (2) prompt churn -
> also driving cost + reducing revenue. My personal view is that the whole
> notion of throttling streaming video (or whatever) is a non-issue to any
> large ISP. That is why I think there is consensus support for 'no
> throttling or blocking' in the ISP community.
>
> > While there are numerous issues around NN, the core of it starts with
> whether the public and companies that use the Internet are entitled to
> transparent, fair and and equal access to the Internet.
>
> That is likely why I think industry writ large agrees with the notion of
> no blocking/throttling/prioritization.
>
> JL
>
> _______________________________________________
> Nnagain mailing list
> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2752 bytes --]