From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8878A3B29D for ; Mon, 2 Oct 2023 02:06:23 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.de; s=s31663417; t=1696226781; x=1696831581; i=moeller0@gmx.de; bh=oqqoc6YvkPYy7bVN6kpYPx6tnFAN64lo09ASesG2Np4=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=Xu+hlNEJxvj3KiUSunMAv3T40PI69FL5RbyYDmGs9QogyopqpyWtoWrTtzsZAjweqSPHz7eCShD nFJxoc32jZ0SBpsKsSQ1RsltyzQrGC4gU1pilUmq35iL/nvuGcnLOqyHqZaDkC13am1rMKzuuGBpH T9xmjl2rvltRBssTUUOMUVlz6cIKQlNV5MiNeW+R77GpQs7A0Xgpye3KQEKJ+cEL7zNjX984Ar1BY HZhnn8hlIXRh6vGn9pnIcbLEtIS4YIGsemqDPpq8vYarhGFScAa51fmqfL011sdDwuTYWA2d8+VuG tKjdwIlSr49eTdBFnrol6qs3CiVM+FEj/Ubg== X-UI-Sender-Class: 724b4f7f-cbec-4199-ad4e-598c01a50d3a Received: from smtpclient.apple ([77.0.37.4]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx005 [212.227.17.190]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1M3UZ6-1qme6h0tsI-000bZn; Mon, 02 Oct 2023 08:06:21 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.120.41.1.4\)) From: Sebastian Moeller In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2023 08:06:20 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: To: =?utf-8?Q?Network_Neutrality_is_back!_Let=C2=B4s_make_the_technical_as?= =?utf-8?Q?pects_heard_this_time!?= X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.120.41.1.4) X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:VvqiMCezpL+VH7edBWxFboF80MGd4BHDP+XK7RgoJOgn5T/0zC/ e0jgjdI93R8sy8gDxBgjLkq2MwMI8xo0RNUjkaMxk+eCXpCBpjtqgUOtfnlKKmK3T553J4W Q5v2M2cpjMmurgpNrhlGMOnJ0FpvgebR+19gjy4+pc6mWkrTXzCxqZBQyiDaYzKyRnZJJD+ 1DqivowKuHx+ozyG/OV+A== X-Spam-Flag: NO UI-OutboundReport: notjunk:1;M01:P0:2nbWtato8SI=;fGEB3kHF4izw8PUkosneh3I4Jgy pgEguiOolWU/H2GfTrikEHGxogkZVevy0NEYXun+XOTLwP84EG3+iFqv+utB98xbsnS/Jr2rt 0kmN1pZ4VJn/XnBNzMMv+hHzyVEv4gO4YjhfFSNZSVeQEAhZ8as/HhXrnwJX46YicbSyUrUE6 uRNq9dayUOv7gHqa2wJ06SfdegFMrwDY6qfHBsOYbPboT1MKXsgQcZEXYGUfLJlYCX1BHFdo1 UNARCelg68+rKuFcYbOFWReDpQvHIPYjjGCJj6Dg4M5urP62HCh1C3Ec3aZl2HzGTseYE06in W7NWGvNn2ogwDCBiKEep8P95dkaukteYBUAe5hnG+XaHwBAGwEGEe27vg9zhxpzZYG3WI/bVG 0hgJX0MPs8gT2RuN14CtSTJcg747hTOtd/OWXTe90Ly0qnOoEtr/cYLK/PkJn19+AF9cEnMYK JTD9Ag7UyxrgE5CjLhewGS1122vSsI9Z4n4rk4ugf9IxeNat+mbsECFB54fRg7FwbXtdEU1Cl tDv6LF641yPpUmA6pEHCnxWxQ9fEarJQD7zgGf2bBVh5ajE6oTmLbh/G3N0/j0ZXSy+2gB66z 5DRmI2humeLZ60vBhMU9dYCNkqY+6prGa6Zqrp4NWfBxIoMv5bqoYGRTM1T0EryxJ4yNZwoWD ArjJrzrOs2vCwudw+uiw+8ePCS2YJ/Qhq2xN/cPSj1HL8NpTxij+B+HLuxqH/L7mD9gbouL5P fmnZKvkpFzWRxV5KK1JEb55RZc0Xe0tofPiNI5g0Z9CjLaxy6fVWeZ9n/P639z2Mr+kzoBe0A 0vKAkYmpZrmcI7EicgtrGkq/Dacsauv9I0AWPXg/r+I5yQmG3WfYw90WJgqRg3Jbvkvu0r5ap qHbSMMlJMmc3DTUvJ/XqNWdnD9XxFRJgFivH73FiBvG1G/KnEg1zgN/mFfNOMthJhfIhuTNGN eix6zWgqot4euIHgaGaR92zjORo= Subject: Re: [NNagain] Some backstory on the nn-again mailing list 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 06:06:23 -0000 Hi Frantisek, > On Oct 1, 2023, at 20:56, Frantisek Borsik via Nnagain = wrote: >=20 > OK, so I will bite the bullet! I have invited Ajit Pai and Martin = Geddes to join us here and let's see if they still have some time and/or = even stomach for current round of NN discussion. >=20 > Anyway, here is my bullet. I will argue with Martin, that - Net = Neutrality CAN'T be implemented:=20 >=20 > Whilst people argue over the virtues of net neutrality as a regulatory = policy, computer science tells us regulatory implementation is a = fool=E2=80=99s errand. > Suppose for a moment that you are the victim of a wicked ISP that = engages in disallowed =E2=80=9Cthrottling=E2=80=9D under a =E2=80=9Cneutra= l=E2=80=9D regime for Internet access. You like to access streaming = media from a particular =E2=80=9Cover the top=E2=80=9D service provider. = By coincidence, the performance of your favoured application drops at = the same time your ISP launches a rival content service of its own. > You then complain to the regulator, who investigates. She finds that = your ISP did indeed change their traffic management settings right at = the point that the =E2=80=9Cthrottling=E2=80=9D began. A swathe of = routes, including the one to your preferred =E2=80=9Cover the top=E2=80=9D= application, have been given a different packet scheduling and routing = treatment. > It seems like an open-and-shut case of =E2=80=9Cthrottling=E2=80=9D = resulting in a disallowed =E2=80=9Cneutrality violation=E2=80=9D. Or is = it? > Here=E2=80=99s why the regulator=E2=80=99s enforcement order will = never survive the resulting court case and expert witness scrutiny: > =20 > = https://www.martingeddes.com/one-reason-net-neutrality-cant-implemented/ >=20 >=20 > I hope you will read the link ^^ before jumping to Martin's = conclusion, but still, here it is: [SM] So I did my best to follow the link with an open mind, but = I did not find a reasoned logical argument at the end but a fallacy. = That article fails to understand that discrimination by ISPs is = primarily a (problematic) economic/business move and as such will have a = money-trail to follow. ISPs, and here I do not want to insult anybody on = this list are typically not Dr. Moriarty type evil geniuses that hide = their traffic management in a way that is completely untraceable (which = also runs counter to their business interest, if they discriminate = against service X than typically because they either want X to pony up = extra money or they want to stack the deck in favor of competing service = Y). If you end up giving Y a 5% edge over X, honsetly non of the = eye-balls are going to notice and the whole endeavor was futile, for = this to make business sense* eye-balls/end customers need to be able to = easily perceive the difference, and at that point the results of that = scheme are traceable, which for regulatory action is enough, nobody = really cares about how te ISP discriminates as long as the resulting = discrimination is openly visible. Also in essentially all regulations laws, "perfection" is not = required, "good enough" ist good enough. By the same token (perfection = is unachievable) we might as well scrap all penal law, because we always = have cases where a criminal gets away with their crime....=20 *) It is not a testament for our regulators in general that we have to = consider such predatory business practices as being "expected" but that = is where we are... > =20 > So if not =E2=80=9Cneutrality=E2=80=9D, then what else? [SM] So let me ask, are you for ISP being allowed to openly = discriminate against any traffic source they please? If yes why? > The only option is to focus on the end-to-end service quality. [SM] But Martin, I say, this is exactly how we would go and = assess discrimination, we would measure end to end performance of = different services and see whether they end up with roughly equal = experiences.=20 > The local traffic management is an irrelevance and complete = distraction. [SM] This is both true and false IMHO, for the regulatory = assessment it is irrelevant, as long as there is no observable = discriminatin, the ISP can do what ever they please, and if there is = observed discrimination there surely is some way this was implemented = somewhere in the network s this is relavant to some degree, even though = the regulator does not need to prove any specific malevolent = configuration. > Terms like =E2=80=9Cthrottling=E2=80=9D are technically meaningless. = The lawgeneers who have written articles and books saying otherwise are = unconsciously incompetent at computer science. [SM] I really think that an article using made up terms like = "lawgeneers" essentially disqualifies itself as objective data point in = an good faith discussion, especially one that is essentially a Nirvana = fallacy (perfection can not be reached, so do not even attempt an = intervention). > We computer scientists call this viable alternative =E2=80=9Cend-to-end=E2= =80=9D approach a =E2=80=9Cquality floor=E2=80=9D. [SM] I am not a computer scientist, but I have never heard that = term... > The good news is that we now have a practical means to measure it and = hard science to model it. > Maybe we should consciously and competently try it? [SM] If I am generous, I do not think that M. Geddes is truly = arguing for discriminatory practices by ISPs, he really only seems to = argue against on specific form or network neutrality = policing/enforcement, that I would respectfully consider a strawman = anyway. But I might well be wrong here, as I have not read much of hid = editorials on the NN topic. Regards Sebastian >=20 >=20 >=20 > All the best, >=20 > Frank >=20 > Frantisek (Frank) Borsik >=20 > =20 >=20 > https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik >=20 > Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714=20 >=20 > iMessage, mobile: +420775230885 >=20 > Skype: casioa5302ca >=20 > frantisek.borsik@gmail.com >=20 >=20 >=20 > On Sun, Oct 1, 2023 at 7:15=E2=80=AFPM Dave Taht via Nnagain = wrote: > I am pleased to see over 100 people have signed up for this list > already. I am not really planning on "activating" this list until > tuesday or so, after a few more people I have reached out to sign up > (or not). >=20 > I would like y=C2=B4all to seek out people with differing opinions and > background, in the hope that one day, we can shed more light than heat > about the science and technologies that "govern" the internet, to > those that wish to regulate it. In the short term, I would like enough > of us to agree on an open letter, or NPRM filing,and to put out a > press release(s), in the hope that this time, the nn and title ii > discussion is more about real, than imagined, internet issues. [1] >=20 > I am basically planning to move the enormous discussion from over > here, titled "network neutrality back in the news": >=20 > = https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/starlink/2023-September/thread.htm= l >=20 > to here. I expect that we are going to be doing this discussion for a > long time, and many more issues besides my short term ones will be > discussed. I hope that we can cleanly isolate technical issues from > political ones, in particular, and remain civil, and factual, and > avoid hyperbole. >=20 > Since the FCC announcement of a proposed NPRM as of Oct 19th... my own > initial impetus was to establish why the NN debate first started in > 2005, and the conflict between the legal idea of "common carriage" vs > what the internet was actually capable of in mixing voip and > bittorrent, in > "The Bufferbloat vs Bittorrent vs Voip" phase. Jim Gettys, myself, and > Jason Livinggood have weighed in on their stories on linkedin, > twitter, and elsewhere. >=20 > There was a second phase, somewhat triggered by netflix, that Jonathan > Morton summarized in that thread, ending in the first establishment of > some title ii rules in 2015. >=20 > The third phase was when title ii was rescinded... and all that has > happened since. >=20 > I, for one, am fiercely proud about how our tech community rose to > meet the challenge of covid, and how, for example, videoconferencing > mostly just worked for so many, after a postage stamp sized start in > 2012[2]. The oh-too-faint-praise for that magnificent effort from > higher levels rankles me greatly, but I will try to get it under > control. >=20 > And this fourth phase, opening in a few weeks, is more, I think about > privacy and power than all the other phases, and harmonization with EU > legislation, perhaps. What is on the table for the industry and > internet is presently unknown. >=20 > So here we "NN-again". Lay your issues out! >=20 >=20 >=20 > [1] I have only had one fight with the FCC. Won it handily: > = https://www.computerworld.com/article/2993112/vint-cerf-and-260-experts-gi= ve-fcc-a-plan-to-secure-wi-fi-routers.html > In this case this is not so much a fight, I hope, but a collaborative > effort towards a better, faster, lower latency, and more secure, > internet for everyone. >=20 > [2] https://archive.org/details/video1_20191129 > --=20 > Oct 30: = https://netdevconf.info/0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-bof.html > Dave T=C3=A4ht CSO, LibreQos > _______________________________________________ > 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