[Starlink] [LibreQoS] [Bloat] [Rpm] net neutrality back in the news

[Sebastian Moeller]

Hi David,

> On Sep 29, 2023, at 18:22, David Fernández via Starlink <starlink at lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> 
> Well, never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence,
> but I still remember the time when VoIP calls (Skype and the like)
> were blocked in your mobile phone Internet access. At least in Spain
> all mobile operators were doing it at some point. But it did not last
> long.
> 
> Nowadays, we have subscriptions with unlimited calls and 20 GB/month
> for ~10 euros/month and you can do anything with the Internet
> connection, I have not noticed any restriction or throttling (except
> for the blocking of certain websites like The Pirate Bay or during the
> 1st October 2017 Referendum in Catalonia, when the Spanish Government
> blocked the access to websites about that).

	[SM] This is partly because of EU regulation 2015/2021 (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32015R2120) which makes it pretty clear what ISPs/carriers can and can not do to their customer's traffic. Blocking access to illegal content* is permitted within that regulation, blocking access to competing services (like alternative VoIP providers) is not....

Regards
	Sebastian

*) THe Pirate Bay case is covered by this, the referendum website case looks less clear cut.

> 
> 
>> Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2023 09:53:26 -0600
>> From: dan <dandenson at gmail.com>
>> To: "Livingood, Jason" <Jason_Livingood at comcast.com>
>> Cc: Jonathan Morton <chromatix99 at gmail.com>,  Dave Taht via Starlink
>> 	<starlink at lists.bufferbloat.net>, Rpm <rpm at lists.bufferbloat.net>,
>> 	libreqos <libreqos at lists.bufferbloat.net>, bloat
>> 	<bloat at lists.bufferbloat.net>
>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] [LibreQoS] [Bloat] [Rpm] net neutrality back
>> 	in the	news
>> Message-ID:
>> 	<CAA_JP8X0dRJJm5vAxccvWjbqqL5hAdk=BHE9pf8k==0CDsAHnQ at mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>> 
>> On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 7:17 AM Livingood, Jason via LibreQoS <
>> libreqos at lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 9/29/23, 00:54, "Jonathan Morton" <chromatix99 at gmail.com <mailto:
>>> chromatix99 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>> Some ISPs began to actively degrade Netflix traffic, in particular by
>>> refusing to provision adequate peering capacity at the nodes through which
>>> Netflix traffic predominated
>>> 
>>> That is not true and really not worth re-litigating here.
>>> 
>>>> NN regulations forced ISPs to carry Netflix traffic with reasonable
>>> levels of service, even though they didn't want to for purely selfish and
>>> greedy commercial reasons.
>>> 
>>> NN regulations played no role whatsoever in the resolution of that
>>> conflict - a business arrangement was reached, just as it was in the SK
>>> Telecom example recently:
>>> https://about.netflix.com/en/news/sk-telecom-sk-broadband-and-netflix-establish-strategic-partnership-to
>>> 
>>>> ISPs behind L4S actively do not want a technology that works end-to-end
>>> over the general Internet.
>>> 
>>> That's simply not true. As someone running an L4S field trial right now -
>>> we want the technology to get the widest possible deployment and be fully
>>> end-to-end. Why else would there be so much effort to ensure that ECN and
>>> DSCP marks can traverse network domain boundaries for example? Why else
>>> would there be strong app developer interest? What evidence do you have to
>>> show that anyone working on L4S want to create a walled garden? If
>>> anything, it seems the opposite of 5G network slicing, which seems to me
>>> personally to be another 3GPP run at walled garden stuff (like IMS).
>>> Ultimately it is like a lot of other IETF work -- it is an interesting
>>> technology and we'll have to see whether it gets good adoption - the
>>> 'market' will decide.
>>> 
>>>> They want something that can provide a domination service within their
>>> own walled gardens.
>>> 
>>> Also not correct. And last time I checked the balance sheets of companies
>>> in these sectors - video streaming services were losing money while
>>> provision of internet services were financially healthy.
>>> 
>>> JL
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> I think this stuff degrades into conspiracy theory often enough.  While I
>> don't discount the possibility of collusion, I don't give these
>> people/groups credit enough to pull of a mass scale conspiracy either....
>> If netflix is jammed down to small of a pipe at an ISP, that's more likely
>> (IMO...) disorganization or incompetence or disinterest over conspiracy.
>> I feel the same about government in general...
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink at lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink