[NNagain] nn back in the news

[Sebastian Moeller]

Hi Dave,

On 15 August 2024 16:16:52 CEST, Dave Taht via Nnagain <nnagain at lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>Perhaps it would have been better to say that "one of the sites I read
>regularly just put out an update on it." :)
>
>I like to think that bufferbloat.net's NOI filing did a bit of good,
>getting cited 16 times, but not changing the top level conclusions one
>iota. Doing another one this year is on my mind in followup, but aside from
>harping on our latency points, 

[SM] So I believe/think that we need (or rather I need to convince my National Regulatory Agency that mandating a OWD to a national reference point <150ms, so an RTT <= 300ms) some clear study showing the effect of loaded latency/jitter on some measurable variable of obvious relevance. That is, I think we should make a scientifically backed claim that shitty latency causes shitty productivity. We as a group IMHO intuitively seem to accept that as a given (based on some evidence), but to convince regulators we need better examples then e.g. L4S' on-line switching between different live camera feeds, or showing that page completion time scales linearly with latency...
Stuart's, remote desktop example might serve as good starting point, if we can show that productivity suffers significantly as a function of latency and jitter. I mention abstract productivity simply because I believe making remote work more efficient would be a case in the public's interest and hence might catch the regulator's attention.
So if anybody on this list has an idea for an experiment or better yet an already existing paper describing such an experiment, that would be great.



pointing to progress, and the need for more
>IXPs, I don't know what top level items could be addressed, again? I'd have
>to buckle down and re-read what resonated, and what didn't.
>
>Perhaps something might come out of the DNC?
>
>I have been enjoying Carr's negative posts on BEAD, but there must be some
>bright news in that program somewhere by now?
>
>I am perhaps reading too much into it, but with a potentially younger crowd
>moving into office, perhaps more technical clue is arriving? I'm very happy
>to see mudge make CIO at darpa. The white house got a cto yet? The FCC?
>
>PS  Ms Shotwell did a great fireside chat at Mountain Connect:
>https://www.broadband.io/c/broadband-community-events/shotwell
>
>
>On Thu, Aug 15, 2024 at 6:27 AM Livingood, Jason <
>jason_livingood at comcast.com> wrote:
>
>> I would say it is not “back” in the news – it has continuously been in the
>> news since the Loper Bright SCOTUS ruling that impacts “Chevron deference”
>> as well the major questions doctrine issue raised in W VA vs EPA. As many
>> people have long said, this will be tied up in the courts for several
>> years.
>>
>> Personal take – in the long-term it will be better to have legislation
>> that codifies this (as well as a national cross-sector privacy law).
>>
>>
>>
>> JL
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *Nnagain <nnagain-bounces at lists.bufferbloat.net> on behalf of Dave
>> Taht via Nnagain <nnagain at lists.bufferbloat.net>
>> *Reply-To: *Network Neutrality is back! Let´s make the technical aspects
>> heard this time! <nnagain at lists.bufferbloat.net>
>> *Date: *Thursday, August 15, 2024 at 07:41
>> *To: *Network Neutrality is back! Let´s make the technical aspects heard
>> this time! <nnagain at lists.bufferbloat.net>
>> *Cc: *Dave Taht <dave.taht at gmail.com>
>> *Subject: *[NNagain] nn back in the news
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/08/isps-ask-supreme-court-to-kill-new-york-law-that-requires-15-broadband-plans/
>> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/08/isps-ask-supreme-court-to-kill-new-york-law-that-requires-15-broadband-plans/__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!FPiUKVoVIIjDuEAjFeVX-ISnAeSb8gI7-H-8Pg5UvZVEuC6YaYS0X8k4cHM4F-i7JjIAMB_2uKpV5QLmf8MbXIx1fORtlGxN$>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>>
>> Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos
>>
>
>

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.