[NNagain] Net neutrality and Bufferbloat?

[Sebastian Moeller]

Hi Dick,


> On Dec 18, 2023, at 21:51, Dick Roy <dickroy at alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> 
> Given that the capacity of a system is in essence a theoretical maximum (in
> this case data rates of a communications sytem), I am not sure what "scaling
> the capacity to the load" means.

	Oh this was supposed to mean that the EU regulators expect ISPs to increase their internal capacity if the sustained load of their customers exceed the given capacity reliably for too long. If an ISP throttles all streaming due to a transient overload and to allow e.g. video conference traffic to flow smoother this is acceptable, if the same ISPs decided to do so ad infinitum to save the cost of removing bottlenecks from its networks that will be a problem (in theory, how all of this is handled in practice I can not tell).... But hey I am extrapolation from EU regulation 2015/2120 :

The objective of reasonable traffic management is to contribute to an efficient use of network resources and to an optimisation of overall transmission quality responding to the objectively different technical quality of service requirements of specific categories of traffic, and thus of the content, applications and services transmitted. Reasonable traffic management measures applied by providers of internet access services should be transparent, non-discriminatory and proportionate, and should not be based on commercial considerations. The requirement for traffic management measures to be non-discriminatory does not preclude providers of internet access services from implementing, in order to optimise the overall transmission quality, traffic management measures which differentiate between objectively different categories of traffic. Any such differentiation should, in order to optimise overall quality and user experience, be permitted only on the basis of objectively different technical quality of service requirements (for example, in terms of latency, jitter, packet loss, and bandwidth) of the specific categories of traffic, and not on the basis of commercial considerations. Such differentiating measures should be proportionate in relation to the purpose of overall quality optimisation and should treat equivalent traffic equally. Such measures should not be maintained for longer than necessary.



> Throttling the load to the capacity I
> understand.

	Yes, I thought it was clever to flip this nomenclature around, but as you demonstrate "far too clever"  ;)

Regards
	Sebastian

> 
> Hmm ....
> 
> RR
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nnagain [mailto:nnagain-bounces at lists.bufferbloat.net] On Behalf Of
> Sebastian Moeller via Nnagain
> Sent: Monday, December 18, 2023 7:24 AM
> To: Network Neutrality is back! Let´s make the technical aspects heard this
> time!
> Cc: Sebastian Moeller; Ronan Pigott
> Subject: Re: [NNagain] Net neutrality and Bufferbloat?
> 
> Hi Jason,
> 
> 
> during the Covid19 era, the EU issued clarifications that even throttling a
> complete class like streaming video might be within reasonable network
> management. The only stipulations wer this needs to happen only to allow
> arguably more important traffic classes (like work-from home vide
> conferences or remote schooling) to proceed with less interferences and
> blind to source and sender. That is using this to play favorites amongst
> streaming services would still be problematic, but down-prioritizing all
> streaming would be acceptable. (Now the assumption is that reasonable
> network management will not last for ever and is no replacement for scaling
> the capacity to the load in the intermediate/longer terms).
> 
> 
> 
>> On Dec 18, 2023, at 16:10, Livingood, Jason via Nnagain
> <nnagain at lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> Misapplied concepts of network neutrality is one of the things that
> killed
>>> fq codel for DOCSIS 3.1
>> 
>> I am not so sure this was the case - I think it was just that a different
> AQM was selected. DOCSIS 3.1 includes the DOCSIS-PIE AQM - see
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8034.html and 
>> 
> https://www.cablelabs.com/blog/how-docsis-3-1-reduces-latency-with-active-qu
> eue-management. I co-wrote a paper about our deployment during COVID at
> https://arxiv.org/pdf/2107.13968.pdf. See also
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-livingood-low-latency-deployment-03.ht
> ml.
>> 
>>> Finally, some jurisdictions impose regulations that limit the ability of
>>> networks to provide differentiation of services, in large part this seems
> to
>>> be based on the belief that doing so necessarily involves prioritization
> or
>>> privileged access to bandwidth, and thus a benefit to one class of
> traffic
>>> always comes at the expense of another.
>> 
>> Much regulatory/policy discussion still frames networks as making
> decisions with scarce bandwidth, rather than abundant bandwidth, and
> prioritization in that view is a zero-sum game. But IMO we're no longer in
> the bandwidth-scarcity era but in a bandwidth-abundance era - or at least in
> an era with declining marginal utility of bandwidth as compared to
> techniques to improve latency. But I digress.
> 
> 	Speaking from my side of the pond, over here we still have a
> somewhat big divide between those sitting on heaps of capacity and those
> that are still in the painful range <= 16 Mbps (16 itself would not be so
> bad, but that class goes down below 1 Mbps links and that is IMHO painful).
> 
> 
>> 
>> To go back to the question of reasonable network management - the key is
> that any technique used must not be application or destination-specific. So
> for example, it cannot be focused on flows to the example.com destination or
> on any flows that are streaming video [1]. 
> 
> 	See above, while as long as example.com is not violating the law
> this first is also not an option inside the EU regulatory framework, but the
> second already has been under specific limited circumstances.
> 
> 
>> Anyway - I do not think new AQMs or dual queue low latency networking is
> in conflict with net neutrality. 
> 
> 	I agree that AQMs are pretty safe, and I feel that packet schedulers
> are also fine, even conditional priority schedulers ;)
> 
> Regards
> 	Sebastian
> 
>> 
>> Jason
>> 
>> [1] Current rules differ between wireless/mobile and fixed last mile
> networks; currently the MNOs have a lot more latitude that fixed networks
> but that may be sorted out in the current NPRM. My personal view is there
> should be a unified set of rules of all networks.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Nnagain mailing list
>> Nnagain at lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Nnagain mailing list
> Nnagain at lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
>