From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qk1-x735.google.com (mail-qk1-x735.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::735]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6CFF93B2A4; Sat, 30 Sep 2023 07:42:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-qk1-x735.google.com with SMTP id af79cd13be357-7741bffd123so949739585a.0; Sat, 30 Sep 2023 04:42:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1696074136; x=1696678936; darn=lists.bufferbloat.net; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=i8pCp+RBSmiM+Ls2r+EGAJhznN7vKaAyGsP6AGoKcng=; b=AEQktAlxD4G1jW/BBAc93n5sXVxRawbCqVAw+rG38FMTWHrPB0daMBsUD+8Ecc6+ph hhJ+eOT8FvbfcNpcuNlm9JexqD3kV7pqJMRtzIo/fe+izhcFmIxWRBRgqOO6qpBshtmy jctfIFe4O8GnFHs1xLMcZbH9qW9ok51ck4uB+cVKVyqcew4ALZMN8QEYJtj8zSlGSNKP OaQI5U97LXYzj4e31K93NV9j1UV7U9O6vZk3nQZWl5YbuPU1R5D/y3b0HBO3Ctg5OLbR vA4ZgK6/s8cAArwVEvyKmwSqIrcBmiIwP2NX/3BXfu38WIQPktY44yKQd7cibJj/0Bel VQ3w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1696074136; x=1696678936; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=i8pCp+RBSmiM+Ls2r+EGAJhznN7vKaAyGsP6AGoKcng=; b=NtgDtXR8JS1doFEEdG/WCcQflk2rwB8POjfWFkzduqH5whfbKcqQpEqM21Qvesi0zh 4kVvEa5WtMByP0S68Cs+BwPRabXblppgqetyfnb6mZHjkRpLjYlJhrQPHn3tECEUeE8r P6AcCTeX6bBuN0R0w7CAN2AkIheCx7wHnioXjJsZ2HzzO5DHggUeqQCpGVy1Dz0yZ41d ucAiAoga8hFERvyv2VvQLFmB8qX1G4LECIthRmgOBLei5YREdVAUmWrcfAN55INJlvID ID/3ebUS7rEYYy/eph5iimaVVnT2lJol5vhIjTubq3quOPzqIlWo+2dK3hqtwECAst4G Ppbg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxQd3QWapPkJjSy9yxkKOYWFnIHUGTGIpAOf/n0zBQVq46NzOm5 86rKgC4sTD2DZELTe8LZbiTHkIBcAYmyywFUkrk= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IE+R2XUGM8gCDsFMkBgVTNh8dpKhpUI3f7tmUpbl6j1/0D4qm0VsNLfiYDtEPWDB1arNnUXFdGltJhHsLGVUBQ= X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:50:b0:413:5d52:ee17 with SMTP id y16-20020a05622a005000b004135d52ee17mr7755750qtw.42.1696074135762; Sat, 30 Sep 2023 04:42:15 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4C8F178A-BDC9-4D7E-84BD-DFE7231E8740@cable.comcast.com> In-Reply-To: From: Frantisek Borsik Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2023 13:41:39 +0200 Message-ID: To: "Livingood, Jason" , Jonathan Morton Cc: Dave Taht via Starlink , bloat , Rpm , libreqos , dan Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000005ffcc606069208fa" Subject: Re: [Starlink] [Rpm] [LibreQoS] [Bloat] 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: Sat, 30 Sep 2023 11:42:16 -0000 --0000000000005ffcc606069208fa Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > > 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. * Indeed, Jason: https://www.vulture.com/2023/06/streaming-industry-netflix-max-disney-hulu-= apple-tv-prime-video-peacock-paramount.html All the best, Frank Frantisek (Frank) Borsik https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714 iMessage, mobile: +420775230885 Skype: casioa5302ca frantisek.borsik@gmail.com On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 5:53=E2=80=AFPM dan via Rpm wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 7:17=E2=80=AFAM Livingood, Jason via LibreQoS < > libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote: > >> 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 whi= ch >> 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 an= d >> 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-es= tablish-strategic-partnership-to >> >> > ISPs behind L4S actively do not want a technology that works end-to-en= d >> 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 full= y >> end-to-end. Why else would there be so much effort to ensure that ECN an= d >> 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 companie= s >> 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 likel= y > (IMO...) disorganization or incompetence or disinterest over conspiracy. > I feel the same about government in general... > _______________________________________________ > Rpm mailing list > Rpm@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/rpm > --0000000000005ffcc606069208fa Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> They want something that can provide= a domination service within their own walled gardens.=C2=A0
Also not correct. And last time I c= hecked the balance sheets of companies in these sectors - video streamin= g services were losing money while provision of internet services were fina= ncially healthy.=C2=A0



All the best,

Frank

Frantisek (Frank) Borsik

=C2=A0

https:/= /www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik

Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +4219194167= 14=C2=A0

iMessage, mobile: +420775230885

Skype: casioa5302ca

frantisek= .borsik@gmail.com



On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 5:53=E2=80=AFPM dan= via Rpm <rpm@lists.bufferb= loat.net> wrote:


On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 7:17=E2=80=AFAM Livingood, Jason via L= ibreQoS <libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
On 9/29/23, 00:54, "Jonathan Morton" <chromatix99@gmail.com <mailto:<= a href=3D"mailto:chromatix99@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">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 le= vels 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 exa= mple recently: https://about.netflix.com/en/news/sk-telecom-sk-broadban= d-and-netflix-establish-strategic-partnership-to

> ISPs behind L4S actively do not want a technology that works end-to-en= d 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 full= y 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 wo= uld there be strong app developer interest? What evidence do you have to sh= ow 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 t= o be another 3GPP run at walled garden stuff (like IMS). Ultimately it is l= ike 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 de= cide.

> 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 i= n these sectors - video streaming services were losing money while provisio= n of internet services were financially healthy.

JL



I think this stuff degrades into conspiracy t= heory often enough.=C2=A0 While I don't discount the possibility of col= lusion, I don't give these people/groups credit enough to pull of a mas= s scale conspiracy either....=C2=A0 If netflix is jammed down to small of a= pipe at an ISP, that's more likely (IMO...) disorganization or incompe= tence=C2=A0or disinterest over conspiracy.=C2=A0 =C2=A0I feel the same abou= t government in general...
_______________________________________________
Rpm mailing list
Rpm@lists.bu= fferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/rpm
--0000000000005ffcc606069208fa--