[NNagain] "FCC explicitly prohibits fast lanes, closing possible net neutrality loophole"

Wed May 15 21:14:49 EDT 2024

Whatever "the service" is, I wonder what the new rules imply about how 
traffic is processed.

Even 40 years ago, we tried lots of heuristics to improve performance.  
One example I remember was treating datagrams differently depending 
simply on the size of their content.   Putting a minimal-length datagram 
at the front of the output queue would slightly "degrade" the service 
delivered to the large datagrams behind it, but it might avoid a 
retransmission by delivering an ACK before a retransmission timer ran out.

If the new rules prohibit such behavior, I suspect a lot of more modern 
"smart queue" strategies might be also prohibited, such that all 
datagrams are given the exact same treatment.   FIFO may now be the law?

With circuits in the 80s running <56kb/sec, such scenarios were of real 
concern.  Today, with "bufferbloat" and such characteristics of the 
Internet, the scenarios are different but still exist.

Jack Haverty

On 5/15/24 17:55, Vint Cerf via Nnagain wrote:
> An interpretation of the intent might be not so much a prohibition of 
> various grades of service but that all grades are available on the 
> same terms to all comers.
>
> v
>
>
> On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 5:43 PM Karl Auerbach via Nnagain 
> <nnagain at lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>
>     As a matter of drafting the FCC has left some potholes:
>
>     "We clarify that a BIAS [Broadband Internet Access Service]
>     provider's decision to speed up 'on the basis of Internet content,
>     applications, or services' would 'impair or degrade' other
>     content, applications, or services which are not given the same
>     treatment,"
>
>     That phrase "speed up" is too vague.  Does it conflict with active
>     or fair queue management?  Does it prohibit things that some
>     Ethernet NIC "offloads" do (but which could be done by a provider)
>     such as TCP data aggregation (i.e. the merging of lots of small
>     TCP segments into one big one)? Does it prohibit insertion of an
>     ECN bit that would have the effect of slowing a sender of packets?
>     Might it preclude a provider "helpfully" dropping stale video
>     packets that would arrive at a users video rendering codec too
>     late to be useful?  Could there be an issue with selective
>     compression?  Or, to really get nerdy - given that a lot of
>     traffic uses Ethernet frames as a model, there can be a
>     non-trivial amount of hidden, usually unused, bandwidth in that
>     gap between the end of tiny IP packets and the end of minimum
>     length Ethernet frames. (I've seen that space used for things like
>     license management.)  Or might this impact larger path issues,
>     such as routing choices, either dynamic or based on contractual
>     relationships - such as conversational voice over terrestrial or
>     low-earth-orbit paths while background file transfers are sent via
>     fat, but large latency paths such as geo-synch satellite?  If an
>     ISP found a means of blocking spam from being delivered, would
>     that violate the rules?  (Same question for blocking of VoIP calls
>     from undesirable sources.  It may also call into question even the
>     use of IP address blacklists or reverse path algorithms that block
>     traffic coming from places where it has no business coming from.)
>
>     The answers may be obvious to tech folks here but in the hands of
>     troublesome lawyers (I'm one of those) these ambiguities could be
>     elevated to be real headaches.
>
>     These may seem like minor or even meaningless nits, but these are
>     the kinds of things that can be used by lawyers (again, like me)
>     to tie regulatory bodies into knots, which often a goal of some
>     large organizations that do not like regulation.
>
>     In addition, I can't put my finger on it, but I am sensing that
>     without some flexibility the FCC neutrality rules may be creating
>     a kind of no cost, tragedy of the commons situation.  Sometimes a
>     bit of friction - cost - can be useful to either incentivize
>     improvements and invention or to make things (like spam) less
>     desirable/more expensive to abusers.
>
>             --karl--
>
>     On 5/10/24 7:31 AM, Frantisek Borsik via Nnagain wrote:
>>     "Net neutrality proponents argued that these separate lanes for
>>     different kinds of traffic would degrade performance of traffic
>>     that isn't favored. The final FCC order released yesterday
>>     addresses that complaint.
>>
>>     "We clarify that a BIAS [Broadband Internet Access Service]
>>     provider's decision to speed up 'on the basis of Internet
>>     content, applications, or services' would 'impair or degrade'
>>     other content, applications, or services which are not given the
>>     same treatment," the FCC's final order said.
>>
>>     The "impair or degrade" clarification means that speeding up is
>>     banned because the no-throttling rule says that ISPs "shall not
>>     impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of
>>     Internet content, application, or service."
>>
>>     https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/05/fcc-explicitly-prohibits-fast-lanes-closing-possible-net-neutrality-loophole/
>>
>>
>>     All the best,
>>
>>     Frank
>>
>>     Frantisek (Frank) Borsik
>>
>>     https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik
>>
>>     Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714
>>     <tel:+421%20919%20416%20714>
>>
>>     iMessage, mobile: +420775230885 <tel:+420%20775%20230%20885>
>>
>>     Skype: casioa5302ca
>>
>>     frantisek.borsik at gmail.com
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     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
>
>
>
> -- 
> Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to:
> Vint Cerf
> Google, LLC
> 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor
> Reston, VA 20190
> +1 (571) 213 1346
>
>
> until further notice
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Nnagain mailing list
> Nnagain at lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/nnagain/attachments/20240515/3ba06be5/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_0x746CC322403B8E50.asc
Type: application/pgp-keys
Size: 2428 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP public key
URL: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/nnagain/attachments/20240515/3ba06be5/attachment-0001.key>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 665 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/nnagain/attachments/20240515/3ba06be5/attachment-0001.sig>