From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.lang.hm (unknown [66.167.227.145]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 254623B29D; Thu, 28 Sep 2023 18:19:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dlang-mobile (unknown [10.2.2.69]) by mail.lang.hm (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06BBF1AF213; Thu, 28 Sep 2023 15:19:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2023 15:19:28 -0700 (PDT) From: David Lang To: "Livingood, Jason" cc: dan , Dave Taht , Rpm , Dave Taht via Starlink , bloat , libreqos , Jamal Hadi Salim In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5so3r00n-31pn-14s7-7775-08731s3s551r@ynat.uz> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="228850167-1280431544-1695939569=:15407" Subject: Re: [Starlink] [Bloat] [LibreQoS] [Rpm] net neutrality back in the news X-BeenThere: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: "Starlink has bufferbloat. Bad." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2023 22:19:30 -0000 This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --228850167-1280431544-1695939569=:15407 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT On Thu, 28 Sep 2023, Livingood, Jason via Bloat wrote: > Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2023 20:48:58 +0000 > From: "Livingood, Jason via Bloat" > Reply-To: "Livingood, Jason" > To: dan , Dave Taht > Cc: Rpm , > Dave Taht via Starlink , > bloat , > libreqos , > Jamal Hadi Salim > Subject: Re: [Bloat] [Starlink] [LibreQoS] [Rpm] net neutrality back in the > news > >> dan wrote: > >> "(I assume most ISPs want happy customers)." >> made me laugh a little.  'Most' by quantity of businesses maybe, but 'most' >> in terms of customers being served by puts the Spectrums and Comcasts in the >> mix (in the US) and they don't care about happy customers they care about >> defacto monopolies in markets so that they don't have to care about happy >> customers.  > > In that context, happy customers stay longer (less churn) and spend more > (upgrades, multiple services). And unhappy customers generate costs via > disconnects (loss of revenue, costs to replace them with a new customer to > just stay at the same subscriber levels), and costs via customer contacts > (call center staff). Except when you have a monopoly in an area, at which point the ability of customers to leave is minimal, and years of bad customer service means that people don't bother complaining, so the call center staffing costs are lower than they should be. >> For the last mile, I'm actually less concerned with pure NN and more concerned with no-blocking or 'brand' prioritization and required/label transparency... > > The two thoughts your comments (thanks for the response BTW!) trigger are: > 1 - Often regulation looks to the past - in this case maybe an era of > bandwidth scarcity where prioritization may have mattered. I think we're in > the midst of a shift into bandwidth abundance where priority does not matter. > What will is latency/responsiveness, content/compute localization, > reliability, consistency, security, etc. > 2 - If an ISP blocked YouTube or Netflix, they'd incur huge customer care > (contact) costs and would see people start to immediately shift to competitors > (5G FWA, FTTP or DOCSIS, WISP, Starlink/LEO, etc.). It just does not seem like > something that could realistically happen any longer in the US. Dave T called out earlier that the rise of bittorrent was a large part of the inital NN discussion here in the US. But a second large portion was a money grab from ISPs thinking that they could hold up large paid websites (netflix for example) for additional fees by threatening to make their service less useful to their users (viewing their users as an asset to be marketed to the websites rather than customers to be satisfied by providing them access to the websites) I don't know if a new round of "it's not fair that Netflix doesn't pay us for the bandwidth to service them" would fall flat at this point or not. David Lang --228850167-1280431544-1695939569=:15407--