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

["David Fernández" <davidfdzp@gmail.com>]

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).


> Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2023 09:53:26 -0600
> From: dan <dandenson@gmail.com>
> To: "Livingood, Jason" <Jason_Livingood@comcast.com>
> Cc: Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>,  Dave Taht via Starlink
> 	<starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>, Rpm <rpm@lists.bufferbloat.net>,
> 	libreqos <libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net>, bloat
> 	<bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> Subject: Re: [Starlink] [LibreQoS] [Bloat] [Rpm] net neutrality back
> 	in the	news
> Message-ID:
> 	<CAA_JP8X0dRJJm5vAxccvWjbqqL5hAdk=BHE9pf8k==0CDsAHnQ@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 7:17 AM Livingood, Jason via LibreQoS <
> libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>
>> On 9/29/23, 00:54, "Jonathan Morton" <chromatix99@gmail.com <mailto:
>> 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
>>
>> 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...