From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from bobcat.rjmcmahon.com (bobcat.rjmcmahon.com [45.33.58.123]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F19343B29D; Thu, 28 Sep 2023 13:04:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.rjmcmahon.com (bobcat.rjmcmahon.com [45.33.58.123]) by bobcat.rjmcmahon.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 23BC51B25E; Thu, 28 Sep 2023 10:04:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 bobcat.rjmcmahon.com 23BC51B25E DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rjmcmahon.com; s=bobcat; t=1695920697; bh=uNMIFdU1Q5nKYxB6VIQxdOKrL2U6Asg0wbFuL1scCuM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=jDlGeuKBUmueyfaC0BHp5BKSNsDpdskElVx6vjvbg/3H5TK+ec1YaTz9xfWs6WiT2 sV1xKzJi9+5bSWUf2H5SJKsI3FX7MsIJphV9r60u3xND1SVqpWKxPQdb0G2LfzTWJ8 iV29ibWKyXaWNC7i8Q5rZg+S7+WdgqGii9e2kxqI= MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2023 10:04:57 -0700 From: rjmcmahon To: "Livingood, Jason" Cc: Dave Taht , Sebastian Moeller , libreqos , Dave Taht via Starlink , Rpm , Jamal Hadi Salim , bloat In-Reply-To: <3A241A2C-4D92-4F6B-A155-27AF43675ECD@cable.comcast.com> References: <3A241A2C-4D92-4F6B-A155-27AF43675ECD@cable.comcast.com> Message-ID: X-Sender: rjmcmahon@rjmcmahon.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Rpm] [Starlink] net neutrality back in the news X-BeenThere: rpm@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: revolutions per minute - a new metric for measuring responsiveness List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2023 17:04:58 -0000 Here's is the point for TLDR by Noam. Neutral traffic acceptance is not no priorities. We want traffic priorities despite all the b.s. that they're unfair. "All of common carriages free-flow, goals of low transaction cost, and no-liability goals are thus preserved by a system of (a) non-exclusive interconnection (b) neutral traffic acceptance." Back to TLDR per Noam. This is the pertinent part. First, few in the U.S. want the IAPs to be common carriers. It would really bad. The following factors are important in determining common carriage: ... law and regulations define the responsibilities of the parties. For contract carriers, on the other hand: ... contracts define parties' responsibilities. And then, the issue isn't so much about CPE side but peering or interconnection of networks. Interconnectivity is critical to the future network system. Yet interconnectivity does not happen by itself; that is the lesson of decades of American experience. Open network architecture, comparably efficient interconnection, and collocation are part of this evolution. Such interconnection arrangements do not depend on common carriage, though they are inspired by it. Therefore, its is possible, Then Noam's suggestions on how to go forward to protect common carriage principals with contract carriage operators through "neutral" interconnections. Notice there is no mandate of equal traffic priority only neutral access to the network. Priorities can be negotiated per business contracts e.g. peering agreements. VIII. What for the Future? ... This suggests that new policy instruments will have to be found to deal with the negatives effect on information diversity and flow. A way to do so is by replacing the principle of common carriage by a new principle of neutral interconnection. A carrier can elect to be private by running its own self-contained infrastructure, and having full control over its content, use and access. But if it interconnects into other networks and accepts transmission traffic from them, it cannot pick some bits over other bits. This means that while a private carrier can be selective in its direct customers, whether they are end-users or content providers, it cannot be selective in what it accepts from another interconnected carrier. Among interconnected carriers, no carrier can transmit selectively traffic passed on to it by another carrier, based on content, uses, or usage, or refuse interconnection on these grounds. Any carrier offering interconnection to some carriers must offer it to other carriers, too, within technical constraints. This does not require interconnection on equal terms, as in the case of common carriage. But it establishes the possibility of arbitrage if differentiated pricing occurs. All of common carriages free-flow, goals of low transaction cost, and no-liability goals are thus preserved by a system of (a) non-exclusive interconnection (b) neutral traffic acceptance. Bob > On 9/28/23, 12:45, "Starlink on behalf of Dave Taht via Starlink" > on behalf of > starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net > > wrote: >> It would be nice, if as a (dis)organisation... the bufferbloat team > could focus on somehow getting both sides of the network neutrality > debate deeplying understanding the technological problem their > pre-conceptions face, and the (now readily available and inexpensive) > solutions that could be deployed, by most ISPs, over a weekend. We are > regularly bringing up a few thousand people a week on libreqos (that > we know of), and then of course, there are all the home routers and > CPE that are increasingly capable of doing the right thing. > > [JL] The FCC will soon (maybe today) open a notice of proposed > rulemaking - aka NPRM. That process provides an opportunity for anyone > to file and filings from technical experts are always highly valued. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Rpm mailing list > Rpm@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/rpm