From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from out-177.mta0.migadu.com (out-177.mta0.migadu.com [91.218.175.177]) (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 601313CB41 for ; Mon, 11 Dec 2023 18:55:27 -0500 (EST) MIME-Version: 1.0 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rjp.ie; s=key1; t=1702338926; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding; bh=j2qV5X37u9U2QNCw//gAIBtMnU3PVMSoFlQzUu6ZUmM=; b=IjNPjVRDw3mqdehhaQGS5XtVStZ4hbzahoR8qOxgXLvT8EIpxnSGseyY1siRsxQxEn9M/w 2JNMqJa5CXwB8PBONNAd8QmPRHA6ooU4kIMOQKxWHel+TyBNJqhOgdhvH3Mbj7SvD8df5p aaWO3yUwF9BnC9rGQJzXaaSwP6Os8Fw= Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2023 23:55:24 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. From: "Ronan Pigott" Message-ID: TLS-Required: No To: nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 15 Dec 2023 18:12:52 -0500 Subject: [NNagain] Net neutrality and Bufferbloat? 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, 11 Dec 2023 23:55:27 -0000 Hi, I read the recent NOI response and it sparked my interest in the relation= ship between Net Neutrality and bufferbloat. I also found [1] which makes it s= eem Net Neutrality is an obstacle to solving bufferbloat in the US, at least.= I'm just curious about the legal obstacles to bufferbloat solutions in the US= . I tried reading the FCC rules which I understand changed in 2010, 2014, and= 2017 but theye're kinda vague I think and I am no lawyer nor industry veteran = and don't think I really understand the implications. In particular, [1] claims: > Misapplied concepts of network neutrality is one of the things that kil= led > fq codel for DOCSIS 3.1 Does anyone know more about this? When looking around, I found more similar claims [2]: > Finally, some jurisdictions impose regulations that limit the ability o= f > networks to provide differentiation of services, in large part this see= ms to > be based on the belief that doing so necessarily involves prioritizatio= n or > privileged access to bandwidth, and thus a benefit to one class of traf= fic > always comes at the expense of another. Anyone know what regulations the authors mean here? I personally run openwrt+sqm/cake in my home router and have found it to = be effective, so I am convinced of the value of sqm. Is Net Neutrality regul= ation an obstacle to wider deployment? [1] https://blog.cerowrt.org/post/net_neutrality_customers/ [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb/ Thanks, Ronan