From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CDA633B29E for ; Fri, 29 Sep 2023 12:26:31 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.de; s=s31663417; t=1696004790; x=1696609590; i=moeller0@gmx.de; bh=HjdMgbJ8d6acd1eKmEcPnXOh5/c7koSQJrFXjIrnaJU=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=Pv5sJAme98fLVL4Bp/E7BZ2lFOeGa1tRQ7iEZW9WBs6CigesfshHN1AQgvwQrIfCTspvSdzx7Vx 1Vt355MVQMJM7YV1INWRXCEj+8FO02ZjwRwa0Wmf9/bptzgcNOXrN2VO7xdIYyqyBDBQvZkEX86Sc jh068csLRU15blRDx8PpLq2boOYnC6iVqgE3Tf/Rxl6QNigr5pljcsoYkHH+ICtljCUEk4BhZfbTb CnCtxFj5fpeC+J/YC36UolGffM9eEF+8DMa2YV7ip+OmSCvYz0g5yOCgevD6XG1AI9tRVUfH/7WJg 3Vm4wiHyrhWpr5u218YDvgydNF873duJlD/A== X-UI-Sender-Class: 724b4f7f-cbec-4199-ad4e-598c01a50d3a Received: from smtpclient.apple ([134.76.241.253]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx104 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MkYXm-1rUd9H3uak-00m3LW; Fri, 29 Sep 2023 18:26:29 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.120.41.1.4\)) From: Sebastian Moeller In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2023 18:26:29 +0200 Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <7BF4DC97-59B4-4181-B175-851E3A0A3541@gmx.de> References: To: =?utf-8?Q?David_Fern=C3=A1ndez?= X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.120.41.1.4) X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:VCubUax1dnlfTwcvn1M+y0qfJ+ibI+oIxWLXp7wMNuZIDQNzNP4 Qo+awBQNPoMzvz0nukGQSQznBRFmcP77cxsY/xv253xmAXkuDS+FgM5oafEl/9ET8LiLYPZ yczWVSuGLpRGnox2adv7J56AoC2m/rYcXjnuLoi/GY0WZuTX6nYH2SnDmrSKhnRoLeRkGoJ l3lFglcHFmhU7/9ZkiS2Q== X-Spam-Flag: NO UI-OutboundReport: notjunk:1;M01:P0:gtWx97UGBh4=;IyDVFu4IOqsqHlRcXeE397/4mmF ao5BLCGB73QXu6U+K2d6qLdhMhTZ9cQFzQBw403oPSqzGH/VdMZk1oSj64Nzhb1/HDWLGxbQF YXIy7hOPa2nN86Tx40MyQH4sXbNUDqz49+JBO6L7qA/YHHLM35Z9WiRZAsQbU3umI0Tp6aHG/ q1ketZI7kD3TY5on8HEO8qYXzjXOTImeIi2YVEDUmCu0f1I7KaPj5yI372ZNIEZKgYps+nyhm lUVhWtSzz7LFB45VwfFKYwgnyUlTn0Nl1OJASnTNQviM5BhsW5WzxUCadNfk1PVPzLYRQM1qn aHuqzfj+Iv6sGmYAte/vt15RzbT/qrPX29kUW/5dpmJ2Om6j0M1tvrzalMiPfiIf5/mr8RbC9 2/Y4ITRl2+CIa5LV9jORx82eJUD0OE+YcnkA011RIIoXgjAPhjHUdjd6BNcTbyqAJEXrRs8pF WGYyDC5TTkgrTaGI9BOaalhMnB781pdwbcgp9A0CTeJjpxPaOtbiU9GFVjCrxhbXjPTOnvNLR laSCvigd25/L/Q+CVLMWxVyqM+8wHYvLtC/zmWaR4jk20Bils8YtvBb7DEHlWPZixUxjXy4t7 kUoGtWqUeLBJbRB7Scbhll4eCARpFLE+jsAOqYH0nHkg4xyNPTgd0JHPeV5N3SP7cdoVBABJC FcnYGSi4JOaVQbSw4ML7pf9w+cS0MeraMfsd0p8gyfzAi8NTKrb5PEQG503l9lzkgKXR5CRPU K06QZNOfd/lvD/yumktNCfNUJkNy5cBX7HjCSoiBAy/n4NYjdSgAtnE9ceHh3LMs7TksCISQI 3ThZ2ACtBIEY1xFBXVkKLzFXxT1Ix5IjEbmD4maY3gAvCBvqm3TgUA5YiqR9C8VEEE5oakEsG geKWlUDK3dqfhWjIyx+xwncbSop64BM/46yiqB8b4N764EAyA8Xze1AOXIrpvuwU41NUSL0nh cmJ8aykrn60MmaWTFxrh4wkZGXE= Subject: Re: [Starlink] [LibreQoS] [Bloat] [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: Fri, 29 Sep 2023 16:26:32 -0000 Hi David, > On Sep 29, 2023, at 18:22, David Fern=C3=A1ndez via Starlink = wrote: >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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=3DCELEX:32015R21= 20) 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. >=20 >=20 >> Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2023 09:53:26 -0600 >> From: dan >> To: "Livingood, Jason" >> Cc: Jonathan Morton , Dave Taht via Starlink >> , Rpm = , >> libreqos , bloat >> >> Subject: Re: [Starlink] [LibreQoS] [Bloat] [Rpm] net neutrality back >> in the news >> Message-ID: >> = = >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"utf-8" >>=20 >> On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 7:17=E2=80=AFAM Livingood, Jason via LibreQoS = < >> libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote: >>=20 >>> On 9/29/23, 00:54, "Jonathan Morton" >> chromatix99@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 >>>=20 >>> That is not true and really not worth re-litigating here. >>>=20 >>>> 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. >>>=20 >>> 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-esta= blish-strategic-partnership-to >>>=20 >>>> ISPs behind L4S actively do not want a technology that works = end-to-end >>> over the general Internet. >>>=20 >>> 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. >>>=20 >>>> They want something that can provide a domination service within = their >>> own walled gardens. >>>=20 >>> 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. >>>=20 >>> JL >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >> 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@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink