[Rpm] benton's consumer broadband label prototype

[Rpm] benton's consumer broadband label prototype

[Dave Taht]

 is actually... not bad.

https://www.benton.org/blog/consumer-driven-broadband-label-design

-- 
This song goes out to all the folk that thought Stadia would work:
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dtaht_the-mushroom-song-activity-6981366665607352320-FXtz
Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC

Re: [Rpm] [LibreQoS] benton's consumer broadband label prototype

[dan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1476 bytes --]

Complete fail on a marketing perspective though, this would have to be
legislated and then handled by a third party.  No one is going to put out
essentially a warning label that says 'poor' or 'marginal' in any category
for a product they sell.  I wouldn't, and we have LTE services to get to
people with no other option and they are quite happy, it would be
detrimental to hand them a sheet that says that the service is actually
'poor'.

Also, my trust in the government to decide what's good or bad...
laughable.    You'd get things like on the example page.  903.5Mbps Median
download speed, 811.8 Median upload speed, gaming rating poor and video
conferencing marginal, on Fios service.  I know that's an example, but it's
so spot on what the government might do...

As an operator, I will not implement this unless forced to and then I'll
support lobby efforts to get it removed.

On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 8:30 PM Dave Taht via LibreQoS <
libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:

>  is actually... not bad.
>
> https://www.benton.org/blog/consumer-driven-broadband-label-design
>
> --
> This song goes out to all the folk that thought Stadia would work:
>
> https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dtaht_the-mushroom-song-activity-6981366665607352320-FXtz
> Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC
> _______________________________________________
> LibreQoS mailing list
> LibreQoS@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/libreqos
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2295 bytes --]

Re: [Rpm] [LibreQoS] benton's consumer broadband label prototype

[Sebastian Moeller]

Hi Dan,


> On Oct 26, 2022, at 17:09, dan via Rpm <rpm@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> 
> Complete fail on a marketing perspective though, this would have to be legislated and then handled by a third party.

	[SM] Well this is not intended to be a marketing tool, but a regulatory tool to make sure the market works to the benefit of society (I understand that market members are incentivized to skew the market mechanism to their advantage, this is why working markets need equally working regulation, just like competitive sports require umpires/referees). So yes legislation might well be required, but that would not be a sign of failure, no?

>  No one is going to put out essentially a warning label that says 'poor' or 'marginal' in any category for a product they sell.  I wouldn't, and we have LTE services to get to people with no other option and they are quite happy, it would be detrimental to hand them a sheet that says that the service is actually 'poor'.

	[SM] True, but e.g. in Germany ISPs are required by law to publish their contracted rates in a pre-described fashion pre-sale and are actually held responsible to some degree to actually deliver the promised rates. (Well, not really, but consumers can get a cost-free right to immediately cancel their contract or reduce their payments commensurate to the under-delivery of the contracted speed*). What happens here is not that ISPs need to disclose shitty service but that the need to declare what they intend to deliver and they are simply held responsible to actually do so**.


*) The first option is already well established and works, the payment reduction part is ATM still being worked out.
**) Unfortunately, the required numbers currently do not include latency under load or even idle latency... there is still work ahead to convince the regulatory agency of that.

> Also, my trust in the government to decide what's good or bad... laughable.

	[SM] Compared to bigger cooperations operating in "free-market" capitalism? Really there is no alternative to government for that purpose...

>    You'd get things like on the example page.  903.5Mbps Median download speed, 811.8 Median upload speed, gaming rating poor and video conferencing marginal, on Fios service.  I know that's an example, but it's so spot on what the government might do...

	[SM] See e.g.:
https://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Sachgebiete/Telekommunikation/Unternehmen_Institutionen/Anbieterpflichten/Kundenschutz/Transparenzmaßnahmen/templates_for_information_sheets.pdf;jsessionid=0868AE15965FB584C81008C96BA15E4B?__blob=publicationFile&v=1
and
https://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Sachgebiete/Telekommunikation/Unternehmen_Institutionen/Anbieterpflichten/Kundenschutz/Transparenzmaßnahmen/Instruction_for_drawing_up_PIS.pdf;jsessionid=0868AE15965FB584C81008C96BA15E4B?__blob=publicationFile&v=1

for how something similar might look in practice.

> 
> As an operator, I will not implement this unless forced to and then I'll support lobby efforts to get it removed.

	[SM] Ad that is why we can't have nice things... ;) No really, I agree this needs legislative/regulatory backing/teeth to work, but that is not a failure but simply how our system developed.

Regards
	Sebastian


> 
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 8:30 PM Dave Taht via LibreQoS <libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>  is actually... not bad.
> 
> https://www.benton.org/blog/consumer-driven-broadband-label-design
> 
> -- 
> This song goes out to all the folk that thought Stadia would work:
> https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dtaht_the-mushroom-song-activity-6981366665607352320-FXtz
> Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC
> _______________________________________________
> LibreQoS mailing list
> LibreQoS@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/libreqos
> _______________________________________________
> Rpm mailing list
> Rpm@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/rpm

Re: [Rpm] [LibreQoS] benton's consumer broadband label prototype

[dan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5994 bytes --]

My argument here is more about government inadequacies.  Without government
warning labels for internet service we have a massive streaming industry,
gaming industry, home office workers, and so on.  It's imperfect, but the
fact that many of us complain about how kids are stuck in front of an xbox
playing fortnite... well I guess it's working to some degree.

Government's ability to regulate and protect consumers that already exists
just isn't utilized, ie if you say you sell X, you give X else void
contract and potential refunds of up-front costs.   In the US at least, the
government's decision making process has fed the 'bad' companies 3000-4000
per subscriber to build out services that don't address the underserved
anyway.  All of this money thrown out there by the government making their
decisions and they've not moved the needle at all.

IMO, very simple rules on advertising based on delivering what is claimed
will force industry innovation.  If a company says 'fast' and that term is
too broad, then any attack on 'my latency is crap so this isn't fast' could
lead to refunds.  This is capitalism after all.   Maybe companies should
have to say 'best throughput' if they are trying to hyper their 1G or 2G
service, they can't say 'fast' because that's not really a valid measure.
'great low latency services' instead of fast.    We have the language to
market properly but companies are allowed to market vaguely and it IMO
contributes to consumer ignorance and misunderstanding.

For our 'fiber like' services we literally pitch latencies to various
gaming services and zoom relays.


On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 9:27 AM Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de> wrote:

> Hi Dan,
>
>
> > On Oct 26, 2022, at 17:09, dan via Rpm <rpm@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > Complete fail on a marketing perspective though, this would have to be
> legislated and then handled by a third party.
>
>         [SM] Well this is not intended to be a marketing tool, but a
> regulatory tool to make sure the market works to the benefit of society (I
> understand that market members are incentivized to skew the market
> mechanism to their advantage, this is why working markets need equally
> working regulation, just like competitive sports require umpires/referees).
> So yes legislation might well be required, but that would not be a sign of
> failure, no?
>
> >  No one is going to put out essentially a warning label that says 'poor'
> or 'marginal' in any category for a product they sell.  I wouldn't, and we
> have LTE services to get to people with no other option and they are quite
> happy, it would be detrimental to hand them a sheet that says that the
> service is actually 'poor'.
>
>         [SM] True, but e.g. in Germany ISPs are required by law to publish
> their contracted rates in a pre-described fashion pre-sale and are actually
> held responsible to some degree to actually deliver the promised rates.
> (Well, not really, but consumers can get a cost-free right to immediately
> cancel their contract or reduce their payments commensurate to the
> under-delivery of the contracted speed*). What happens here is not that
> ISPs need to disclose shitty service but that the need to declare what they
> intend to deliver and they are simply held responsible to actually do so**.
>
>
> *) The first option is already well established and works, the payment
> reduction part is ATM still being worked out.
> **) Unfortunately, the required numbers currently do not include latency
> under load or even idle latency... there is still work ahead to convince
> the regulatory agency of that.
>
> > Also, my trust in the government to decide what's good or bad...
> laughable.
>
>         [SM] Compared to bigger cooperations operating in "free-market"
> capitalism? Really there is no alternative to government for that purpose...
>
> >    You'd get things like on the example page.  903.5Mbps Median download
> speed, 811.8 Median upload speed, gaming rating poor and video conferencing
> marginal, on Fios service.  I know that's an example, but it's so spot on
> what the government might do...
>
>         [SM] See e.g.:
>
> https://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Sachgebiete/Telekommunikation/Unternehmen_Institutionen/Anbieterpflichten/Kundenschutz/Transparenzmaßnahmen/templates_for_information_sheets.pdf;jsessionid=0868AE15965FB584C81008C96BA15E4B?__blob=publicationFile&v=1
> and
>
> https://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Sachgebiete/Telekommunikation/Unternehmen_Institutionen/Anbieterpflichten/Kundenschutz/Transparenzmaßnahmen/Instruction_for_drawing_up_PIS.pdf;jsessionid=0868AE15965FB584C81008C96BA15E4B?__blob=publicationFile&v=1
>
> for how something similar might look in practice.
>
> >
> > As an operator, I will not implement this unless forced to and then I'll
> support lobby efforts to get it removed.
>
>         [SM] Ad that is why we can't have nice things... ;) No really, I
> agree this needs legislative/regulatory backing/teeth to work, but that is
> not a failure but simply how our system developed.
>
> Regards
>         Sebastian
>
>
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 8:30 PM Dave Taht via LibreQoS <
> libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> >  is actually... not bad.
> >
> > https://www.benton.org/blog/consumer-driven-broadband-label-design
> >
> > --
> > This song goes out to all the folk that thought Stadia would work:
> >
> https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dtaht_the-mushroom-song-activity-6981366665607352320-FXtz
> > Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC
> > _______________________________________________
> > LibreQoS mailing list
> > LibreQoS@lists.bufferbloat.net
> > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/libreqos
> > _______________________________________________
> > Rpm mailing list
> > Rpm@lists.bufferbloat.net
> > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/rpm
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 7958 bytes --]

Re: [Rpm] [LibreQoS] benton's consumer broadband label prototype

[Dave Taht]

Well, the FCC is due to announce their proposal for consumer broadband
labels on Nov 15th. What it actually is,
hasn't leaked. I'd be assembling my best arguments, venting, and
planning press releases through my favorite lobbyists,
kind of like this, to prep for that day:

https://watergate.info/1969/07/20/an-undelivered-nixon-speech.html

On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 8:42 AM dan <dandenson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> My argument here is more about government inadequacies.  Without government warning labels for internet service we have a massive streaming industry, gaming industry, home office workers, and so on.  It's imperfect, but the fact that many of us complain about how kids are stuck in front of an xbox playing fortnite... well I guess it's working to some degree.
>
> Government's ability to regulate and protect consumers that already exists just isn't utilized, ie if you say you sell X, you give X else void contract and potential refunds of up-front costs.   In the US at least, the government's decision making process has fed the 'bad' companies 3000-4000 per subscriber to build out services that don't address the underserved anyway.  All of this money thrown out there by the government making their decisions and they've not moved the needle at all.
>
> IMO, very simple rules on advertising based on delivering what is claimed will force industry innovation.  If a company says 'fast' and that term is too broad, then any attack on 'my latency is crap so this isn't fast' could lead to refunds.  This is capitalism after all.   Maybe companies should have to say 'best throughput' if they are trying to hyper their 1G or 2G service, they can't say 'fast' because that's not really a valid measure.  'great low latency services' instead of fast.    We have the language to market properly but companies are allowed to market vaguely and it IMO contributes to consumer ignorance and misunderstanding.
>
> For our 'fiber like' services we literally pitch latencies to various gaming services and zoom relays.
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 9:27 AM Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Dan,
>>
>>
>> > On Oct 26, 2022, at 17:09, dan via Rpm <rpm@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > Complete fail on a marketing perspective though, this would have to be legislated and then handled by a third party.
>>
>>         [SM] Well this is not intended to be a marketing tool, but a regulatory tool to make sure the market works to the benefit of society (I understand that market members are incentivized to skew the market mechanism to their advantage, this is why working markets need equally working regulation, just like competitive sports require umpires/referees). So yes legislation might well be required, but that would not be a sign of failure, no?
>>
>> >  No one is going to put out essentially a warning label that says 'poor' or 'marginal' in any category for a product they sell.  I wouldn't, and we have LTE services to get to people with no other option and they are quite happy, it would be detrimental to hand them a sheet that says that the service is actually 'poor'.
>>
>>         [SM] True, but e.g. in Germany ISPs are required by law to publish their contracted rates in a pre-described fashion pre-sale and are actually held responsible to some degree to actually deliver the promised rates. (Well, not really, but consumers can get a cost-free right to immediately cancel their contract or reduce their payments commensurate to the under-delivery of the contracted speed*). What happens here is not that ISPs need to disclose shitty service but that the need to declare what they intend to deliver and they are simply held responsible to actually do so**.
>>
>>
>> *) The first option is already well established and works, the payment reduction part is ATM still being worked out.
>> **) Unfortunately, the required numbers currently do not include latency under load or even idle latency... there is still work ahead to convince the regulatory agency of that.
>>
>> > Also, my trust in the government to decide what's good or bad... laughable.
>>
>>         [SM] Compared to bigger cooperations operating in "free-market" capitalism? Really there is no alternative to government for that purpose...
>>
>> >    You'd get things like on the example page.  903.5Mbps Median download speed, 811.8 Median upload speed, gaming rating poor and video conferencing marginal, on Fios service.  I know that's an example, but it's so spot on what the government might do...
>>
>>         [SM] See e.g.:
>> https://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Sachgebiete/Telekommunikation/Unternehmen_Institutionen/Anbieterpflichten/Kundenschutz/Transparenzmaßnahmen/templates_for_information_sheets.pdf;jsessionid=0868AE15965FB584C81008C96BA15E4B?__blob=publicationFile&v=1
>> and
>> https://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Sachgebiete/Telekommunikation/Unternehmen_Institutionen/Anbieterpflichten/Kundenschutz/Transparenzmaßnahmen/Instruction_for_drawing_up_PIS.pdf;jsessionid=0868AE15965FB584C81008C96BA15E4B?__blob=publicationFile&v=1
>>
>> for how something similar might look in practice.
>>
>> >
>> > As an operator, I will not implement this unless forced to and then I'll support lobby efforts to get it removed.
>>
>>         [SM] Ad that is why we can't have nice things... ;) No really, I agree this needs legislative/regulatory backing/teeth to work, but that is not a failure but simply how our system developed.
>>
>> Regards
>>         Sebastian
>>
>>
>> >
>> > On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 8:30 PM Dave Taht via LibreQoS <libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>> >  is actually... not bad.
>> >
>> > https://www.benton.org/blog/consumer-driven-broadband-label-design
>> >
>> > --
>> > This song goes out to all the folk that thought Stadia would work:
>> > https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dtaht_the-mushroom-song-activity-6981366665607352320-FXtz
>> > Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > LibreQoS mailing list
>> > LibreQoS@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/libreqos
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Rpm mailing list
>> > Rpm@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/rpm
>>


-- 
This song goes out to all the folk that thought Stadia would work:
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dtaht_the-mushroom-song-activity-6981366665607352320-FXtz
Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC

Re: [Rpm] [LibreQoS] benton's consumer broadband label prototype

[Sebastian Moeller]

Hi Dan,


> On Oct 26, 2022, at 17:42, dan <dandenson@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> My argument here is more about government inadequacies.

	[SM] Sure regulatory capture is a reality and we can/should always strive for better government, but existing government is IMHO better than no government ;) (not a fan of anarchy)

>  Without government warning labels for internet service we have a massive streaming industry, gaming industry, home office workers, and so on.

	[SM] That is somewhat orthogonal, as we also have a massive organized crime "industry" in spite of government warning/acting against it ;)

>  It's imperfect, but the fact that many of us complain about how kids are stuck in front of an xbox playing fortnite... well I guess it's working to some degree.  

	[SM] Not saying that all internet service is bad, just that enough of it is sub-promise that I personally consider regulatory action desirable. We can discuss how that action should look like. (I also want to add, that e.g. in Germany many ISPs already delivered on their promises even before the changes in law).

> Government's ability to regulate and protect consumers that already exists just isn't utilized, ie if you say you sell X, you give X else void contract and potential refunds of up-front costs.  

	[SM] Hence me bringing the example from the German regulatory agency that (acting based on a change in the relevant telecommunication law) does exactly that, make sure both parties know what an internet access link contract entails.


> In the US at least, the government's decision making process has fed the 'bad' companies 3000-4000 per subscriber to build out services that don't address the underserved anyway.  All of this money thrown out there by the government making their decisions and they've not moved the needle at all.

	[SM] There is some inefficiency in the system of how to getting those links built/updated to broadband where a pure profit motive with the established prices will not work by itself. However it needs "free-market" players to abuse the government's willingness to pay for such build-outs (and gorvernments willingness to not look close enugh to the details of the implementation).


> IMO, very simple rules on advertising based on delivering what is claimed will force industry innovation.

	[SM] What kind of innovation do you envision here? After all "basic internet access" is a commodity, or should be, no?

>  If a company says 'fast' and that term is too broad, then any attack on 'my latency is crap so this isn't fast' could lead to refunds.  This is capitalism after all.  

	[SM] In the UK ISPs are, as far as I know, only allowed to advertise with rates that are somehow empirically evidenced. In Germany they can advertize with the PIB's "maximal rate", but then are held accountable to actually deliver something close to that rate (the rules how the regulator controls whether ISPs hold their contracts are, in good German fashion, somewhat baroque and convoluted/complicated, I am sure once the US commits to its own system it will be likely better/simpler to use).


> Maybe companies should have to say 'best throughput' if they are trying to hyper their 1G or 2G service, they can't say 'fast' because that's not really a valid measure.  'great low latency services' instead of fast.  

	[SM] All of these terms like "fast" have no bearing over here, ISPs need to reveal actual rates and then need to deliver these (again there are rules how to interpret the availability of these rates end users can expect). Over here ISPs advertize typically with their maximal download rate.

>  We have the language to market properly but companies are allowed to market vaguely and it IMO contributes to consumer ignorance and misunderstanding.
> 
> For our 'fiber like' services we literally pitch latencies to various gaming services and zoom relays. 

	[SM] Which IMHO is fine, assuming you actually deliver robust and reliable low latencies as far as that is under your control. Actually if you deliver that, it well above just fine ;). Bit of a sign of competence for any network operator not to blow up latency under load beyond reason.

Regards
	Sebastian



>   
> 
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 9:27 AM Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de> wrote:
> Hi Dan,
> 
> 
> > On Oct 26, 2022, at 17:09, dan via Rpm <rpm@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> > 
> > Complete fail on a marketing perspective though, this would have to be legislated and then handled by a third party.
> 
>         [SM] Well this is not intended to be a marketing tool, but a regulatory tool to make sure the market works to the benefit of society (I understand that market members are incentivized to skew the market mechanism to their advantage, this is why working markets need equally working regulation, just like competitive sports require umpires/referees). So yes legislation might well be required, but that would not be a sign of failure, no?
> 
> >  No one is going to put out essentially a warning label that says 'poor' or 'marginal' in any category for a product they sell.  I wouldn't, and we have LTE services to get to people with no other option and they are quite happy, it would be detrimental to hand them a sheet that says that the service is actually 'poor'.
> 
>         [SM] True, but e.g. in Germany ISPs are required by law to publish their contracted rates in a pre-described fashion pre-sale and are actually held responsible to some degree to actually deliver the promised rates. (Well, not really, but consumers can get a cost-free right to immediately cancel their contract or reduce their payments commensurate to the under-delivery of the contracted speed*). What happens here is not that ISPs need to disclose shitty service but that the need to declare what they intend to deliver and they are simply held responsible to actually do so**.
> 
> 
> *) The first option is already well established and works, the payment reduction part is ATM still being worked out.
> **) Unfortunately, the required numbers currently do not include latency under load or even idle latency... there is still work ahead to convince the regulatory agency of that.
> 
> > Also, my trust in the government to decide what's good or bad... laughable.
> 
>         [SM] Compared to bigger cooperations operating in "free-market" capitalism? Really there is no alternative to government for that purpose...
> 
> >    You'd get things like on the example page.  903.5Mbps Median download speed, 811.8 Median upload speed, gaming rating poor and video conferencing marginal, on Fios service.  I know that's an example, but it's so spot on what the government might do...
> 
>         [SM] See e.g.:
> https://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Sachgebiete/Telekommunikation/Unternehmen_Institutionen/Anbieterpflichten/Kundenschutz/Transparenzmaßnahmen/templates_for_information_sheets.pdf;jsessionid=0868AE15965FB584C81008C96BA15E4B?__blob=publicationFile&v=1
> and
> https://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Sachgebiete/Telekommunikation/Unternehmen_Institutionen/Anbieterpflichten/Kundenschutz/Transparenzmaßnahmen/Instruction_for_drawing_up_PIS.pdf;jsessionid=0868AE15965FB584C81008C96BA15E4B?__blob=publicationFile&v=1
> 
> for how something similar might look in practice.
> 
> > 
> > As an operator, I will not implement this unless forced to and then I'll support lobby efforts to get it removed.
> 
>         [SM] Ad that is why we can't have nice things... ;) No really, I agree this needs legislative/regulatory backing/teeth to work, but that is not a failure but simply how our system developed.
> 
> Regards
>         Sebastian
> 
> 
> > 
> > On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 8:30 PM Dave Taht via LibreQoS <libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> >  is actually... not bad.
> > 
> > https://www.benton.org/blog/consumer-driven-broadband-label-design
> > 
> > -- 
> > This song goes out to all the folk that thought Stadia would work:
> > https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dtaht_the-mushroom-song-activity-6981366665607352320-FXtz
> > Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC
> > _______________________________________________
> > LibreQoS mailing list
> > LibreQoS@lists.bufferbloat.net
> > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/libreqos
> > _______________________________________________
> > Rpm mailing list
> > Rpm@lists.bufferbloat.net
> > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/rpm
> 

Re: [Rpm] [LibreQoS] benton's consumer broadband label prototype

[dan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 10483 bytes --]

Sebastian, we're basically arguing two entirely different systems.  EU
regulators are much more willing to regulate.  In the US it's like the wild
west.  The government's efforts to step in and influence always seems to
make it worse.

Simply making companies accountable to their claims is 'enough' in my
opinion.  Right now, big players don't even monitor if customers devices
are offline, or if modulation on their docsis modem is bad, etc.  They've
made it time consuming and difficult to even get support about those
issues.  No consequences and they keep getting federal money.  They can
mislead with no consequences.

Some percent of people will automatically police services.  If the big
cable co says 'downloads are x, uploads are y, latency is z' and so on,
enough people will habitually test those things and report.  Putting teeth
into the rules are required though, if you don't provide what you claim,
then you owe a credit and potential escape from contracts and potentially
refunds on install fees etc.

Now, I don't disagree with clear billing labeling.  We have massive
problems of "the service is $65" and the bill comes at $77.82 with all the
extras on there.  Again though, that's simply false advertising and we
already have consumer production rules that are not enforced.  This stuff
might land on the same label, but it's a different topic.

On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 2:08 PM Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de> wrote:

> Hi Dan,
>
>
> > On Oct 26, 2022, at 17:42, dan <dandenson@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > My argument here is more about government inadequacies.
>
>         [SM] Sure regulatory capture is a reality and we can/should always
> strive for better government, but existing government is IMHO better than
> no government ;) (not a fan of anarchy)
>
> >  Without government warning labels for internet service we have a
> massive streaming industry, gaming industry, home office workers, and so on.
>
>         [SM] That is somewhat orthogonal, as we also have a massive
> organized crime "industry" in spite of government warning/acting against it
> ;)
>
> >  It's imperfect, but the fact that many of us complain about how kids
> are stuck in front of an xbox playing fortnite... well I guess it's working
> to some degree.
>
>         [SM] Not saying that all internet service is bad, just that enough
> of it is sub-promise that I personally consider regulatory action
> desirable. We can discuss how that action should look like. (I also want to
> add, that e.g. in Germany many ISPs already delivered on their promises
> even before the changes in law).
>
> > Government's ability to regulate and protect consumers that already
> exists just isn't utilized, ie if you say you sell X, you give X else void
> contract and potential refunds of up-front costs.
>
>         [SM] Hence me bringing the example from the German regulatory
> agency that (acting based on a change in the relevant telecommunication
> law) does exactly that, make sure both parties know what an internet access
> link contract entails.
>
>
> > In the US at least, the government's decision making process has fed the
> 'bad' companies 3000-4000 per subscriber to build out services that don't
> address the underserved anyway.  All of this money thrown out there by the
> government making their decisions and they've not moved the needle at all.
>
>         [SM] There is some inefficiency in the system of how to getting
> those links built/updated to broadband where a pure profit motive with the
> established prices will not work by itself. However it needs "free-market"
> players to abuse the government's willingness to pay for such build-outs
> (and gorvernments willingness to not look close enugh to the details of the
> implementation).
>
>
> > IMO, very simple rules on advertising based on delivering what is
> claimed will force industry innovation.
>
>         [SM] What kind of innovation do you envision here? After all
> "basic internet access" is a commodity, or should be, no?
>
> >  If a company says 'fast' and that term is too broad, then any attack on
> 'my latency is crap so this isn't fast' could lead to refunds.  This is
> capitalism after all.
>
>         [SM] In the UK ISPs are, as far as I know, only allowed to
> advertise with rates that are somehow empirically evidenced. In Germany
> they can advertize with the PIB's "maximal rate", but then are held
> accountable to actually deliver something close to that rate (the rules how
> the regulator controls whether ISPs hold their contracts are, in good
> German fashion, somewhat baroque and convoluted/complicated, I am sure once
> the US commits to its own system it will be likely better/simpler to use).
>
>
> > Maybe companies should have to say 'best throughput' if they are trying
> to hyper their 1G or 2G service, they can't say 'fast' because that's not
> really a valid measure.  'great low latency services' instead of fast.
>
>         [SM] All of these terms like "fast" have no bearing over here,
> ISPs need to reveal actual rates and then need to deliver these (again
> there are rules how to interpret the availability of these rates end users
> can expect). Over here ISPs advertize typically with their maximal download
> rate.
>
> >  We have the language to market properly but companies are allowed to
> market vaguely and it IMO contributes to consumer ignorance and
> misunderstanding.
> >
> > For our 'fiber like' services we literally pitch latencies to various
> gaming services and zoom relays.
>
>         [SM] Which IMHO is fine, assuming you actually deliver robust and
> reliable low latencies as far as that is under your control. Actually if
> you deliver that, it well above just fine ;). Bit of a sign of competence
> for any network operator not to blow up latency under load beyond reason.
>
> Regards
>         Sebastian
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 26, 2022 at 9:27 AM Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de>
> wrote:
> > Hi Dan,
> >
> >
> > > On Oct 26, 2022, at 17:09, dan via Rpm <rpm@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Complete fail on a marketing perspective though, this would have to be
> legislated and then handled by a third party.
> >
> >         [SM] Well this is not intended to be a marketing tool, but a
> regulatory tool to make sure the market works to the benefit of society (I
> understand that market members are incentivized to skew the market
> mechanism to their advantage, this is why working markets need equally
> working regulation, just like competitive sports require umpires/referees).
> So yes legislation might well be required, but that would not be a sign of
> failure, no?
> >
> > >  No one is going to put out essentially a warning label that says
> 'poor' or 'marginal' in any category for a product they sell.  I wouldn't,
> and we have LTE services to get to people with no other option and they are
> quite happy, it would be detrimental to hand them a sheet that says that
> the service is actually 'poor'.
> >
> >         [SM] True, but e.g. in Germany ISPs are required by law to
> publish their contracted rates in a pre-described fashion pre-sale and are
> actually held responsible to some degree to actually deliver the promised
> rates. (Well, not really, but consumers can get a cost-free right to
> immediately cancel their contract or reduce their payments commensurate to
> the under-delivery of the contracted speed*). What happens here is not that
> ISPs need to disclose shitty service but that the need to declare what they
> intend to deliver and they are simply held responsible to actually do so**.
> >
> >
> > *) The first option is already well established and works, the payment
> reduction part is ATM still being worked out.
> > **) Unfortunately, the required numbers currently do not include latency
> under load or even idle latency... there is still work ahead to convince
> the regulatory agency of that.
> >
> > > Also, my trust in the government to decide what's good or bad...
> laughable.
> >
> >         [SM] Compared to bigger cooperations operating in "free-market"
> capitalism? Really there is no alternative to government for that purpose...
> >
> > >    You'd get things like on the example page.  903.5Mbps Median
> download speed, 811.8 Median upload speed, gaming rating poor and video
> conferencing marginal, on Fios service.  I know that's an example, but it's
> so spot on what the government might do...
> >
> >         [SM] See e.g.:
> >
> https://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Sachgebiete/Telekommunikation/Unternehmen_Institutionen/Anbieterpflichten/Kundenschutz/Transparenzmaßnahmen/templates_for_information_sheets.pdf;jsessionid=0868AE15965FB584C81008C96BA15E4B?__blob=publicationFile&v=1
> > and
> >
> https://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Sachgebiete/Telekommunikation/Unternehmen_Institutionen/Anbieterpflichten/Kundenschutz/Transparenzmaßnahmen/Instruction_for_drawing_up_PIS.pdf;jsessionid=0868AE15965FB584C81008C96BA15E4B?__blob=publicationFile&v=1
> >
> > for how something similar might look in practice.
> >
> > >
> > > As an operator, I will not implement this unless forced to and then
> I'll support lobby efforts to get it removed.
> >
> >         [SM] Ad that is why we can't have nice things... ;) No really, I
> agree this needs legislative/regulatory backing/teeth to work, but that is
> not a failure but simply how our system developed.
> >
> > Regards
> >         Sebastian
> >
> >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 8:30 PM Dave Taht via LibreQoS <
> libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> > >  is actually... not bad.
> > >
> > > https://www.benton.org/blog/consumer-driven-broadband-label-design
> > >
> > > --
> > > This song goes out to all the folk that thought Stadia would work:
> > >
> https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dtaht_the-mushroom-song-activity-6981366665607352320-FXtz
> > > Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > LibreQoS mailing list
> > > LibreQoS@lists.bufferbloat.net
> > > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/libreqos
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Rpm mailing list
> > > Rpm@lists.bufferbloat.net
> > > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/rpm
> >
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 12983 bytes --]

Re: [Rpm] [LibreQoS] benton's consumer broadband label prototype

[Jonathan Morton]

> On 26 Oct, 2022, at 6:09 pm, dan via Rpm <rpm@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> 
> Also, my trust in the government to decide what's good or bad... laughable.    You'd get things like on the example page.  903.5Mbps Median download speed, 811.8 Median upload speed, gaming rating poor and video conferencing marginal, on Fios service.  I know that's an example, but it's so spot on what the government might do...

It's constructed as an example, and thus probably doesn't directly reflect any single service that actually exists.

The suitability rating for gaming and videoconferencing is undoubtedly derived from the packet loss rate, listed as 0.5% under "normal" conditions and over 5% under 10th-percentile conditions (which would occur pretty often, almost daily), and the high latency in the latter case (over 300ms).  If I had a connection like that, I'd be pretty unhappy with its performance, no matter how much throughput it could get.

 - Jonathan Morton