From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-yb1-xb2d.google.com (mail-yb1-xb2d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b2d]) (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 739733CB37 for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2023 14:15:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-yb1-xb2d.google.com with SMTP id 3f1490d57ef6-d8a000f6a51so37059276.3 for ; Mon, 02 Oct 2023 11:15:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1696270545; x=1696875345; 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=3fWau0igXiOMN+Qb5NdMywoLMeRfjhH6kSly0fM6ou4=; b=KUxPix5RtVqMSoze17QuBPOHlbYBrXhgx/ECl+QEbPfGiMcgueFflcMNfcSKDGUFyZ 5J5AmfJYiv0AUEN0ooBwGeQfEkDMkBbI/bbiP29uUcJZXFx8piFbT6Tm4+0S0t+NPyWa XL9SMCd9l+2LALgDkqZxVROmzwibhioE+wVLMHhHHUslE0oVs/2q3YtrBURa8hPfqH/w 0gJhVuhI5m5dwtVNI44t0EZjVgQGxECIP2wl+pbBNKWX59N42zOReDilWY28wPx4rv6C ZGnnuqhyGldOJjfnmfulTknyoMnhCMO+gimiEC2hsPst55LjTGfOn1H1SJWvqD06TOFN JQ5w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1696270545; x=1696875345; 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=3fWau0igXiOMN+Qb5NdMywoLMeRfjhH6kSly0fM6ou4=; b=DEu68Tmc7ElMiJkrh3fdUokZuy7Eo5GF6FKeSVfIwyOEpbfTkEJWSLSMYuob83Ire5 w2BtRud3mfqsrBUnE95BKEIovNsvn8Yf0EouFuUxqVTX4rmQBY6v9TvE8ur4UmRnctKH AQLf0G8cT6EDd4734SHTQXFePKMhFwSS9BKXdAEJ30V/1UqjR5dovkMMZYc3t0YBT/mT 0AJzbAlcXeApQlRGMuRGwiciLCQU9F8/mkZJKYVE2lth9+rmTtyfijpdVSIKHVI/lyma uofIAOXoZL3EpXxdvAV3jFDfXBo9Xe8zVc4Z37ET01Jxdu7SAgs+9nJ5oonzpb4s9uW+ wgxw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyltTH5rImA8Sog11sNgfMT3/GaTg/2UKEUvOWTH5b0SaezT2oq ELYdQw1sG1Hfp7ra0tucV7D7u+BUQtV/1DOa/y2q2VJ+omhj+g== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEU3/9eh1kvFxcnvzzLfMni4s+cqgX/6lgnZM3LZUTmzvjatVTpg6wy85vrIsxeEEV/Pc7JRdcVRv/oGdipqjE= X-Received: by 2002:a25:dc11:0:b0:d78:134:9477 with SMTP id y17-20020a25dc11000000b00d7801349477mr11662156ybe.58.1696270545570; Mon, 02 Oct 2023 11:15:45 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <6753C846-DD37-434B-9A07-8EFE4FEE7AF6@cable.comcast.com> <18af0df4e0b.edb34c95711106.5401229236188491451@phillywisper.net> <2B67FB81-1976-4DCE-9198-4CCCF13D9FFC@cable.comcast.com> In-Reply-To: <2B67FB81-1976-4DCE-9198-4CCCF13D9FFC@cable.comcast.com> From: Patrick Maupin Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2023 13:15:34 -0500 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="0000000000004fd2eb0606bfc3a2" Subject: Re: [NNagain] On "Throttling" behaviors 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: Mon, 02 Oct 2023 18:15:46 -0000 --0000000000004fd2eb0606bfc3a2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > 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=E2=80=AFPM 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 nnagain-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> on behalf of > 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 > --0000000000004fd2eb0606bfc3a2 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> 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 tr= ansparency and behavioral regulations.=C2=A0 It will be interesting to see = how this plays out in the real world.

On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 1:10= =E2=80=AFPM Livingood, Jason via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
On 10/2/23, 10:51, "Nn= again on behalf of Mark Steckel via Nnagain" <nnagain-bounces@lists= .bufferbloat.net <mailto:nnagain-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net&g= t; on behalf of nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net <mailto:nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net<= /a>>> wrote:

> In both cases it is rational for the ISPs to favor this content over o= ther content. This can be done by zero tier ratings, throttling, etc.

What I have observed in practice is the businesses of connectivity and cont= ent are separately run & tend to act with a very high degree of indepen= dence. 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 dri= ving 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. T= hat is why I think there is consensus support for 'no throttling or blo= cking' in the ISP community.=C2=A0 =C2=A0

> 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 tran= sparent, 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
--0000000000004fd2eb0606bfc3a2--