From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.15]) (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 B5F953B29D; Fri, 29 Sep 2023 02:27:10 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.de; s=s31663417; t=1695968822; x=1696573622; i=moeller0@gmx.de; bh=OS4gWFEsnLWwTchAGdumncyRYAOMZ9TtHmcwLmOk08o=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=l99CQ5Gp5EiGDLs+fLxpL/rqaGkE5WNWSV5voX2a8Pzb/BmccOnOSKK+aCC2muoxDhL1Jr9olO3 Y8+mDys+BCv5EAPzH3Hpw//YImZw6FYWKDxn3/WlI0XVSM8h40wi1cRZ1jwiFMfWDUItD4NTy9Rqc ydNnfrDFEUXYW49c0WLKDKcAyIZaCzhVPPmwfabZvHiPOKWiyNCObgS9gg1mHSkl3XqBkXWW1sSDz rf8cQqD9nlrETjqVlpyBRYnV4SFhU7FPW6hkclPYVzbXizOr9uG9T8BAdKaoiEeP1ysCov9Y+lnoQ OhwUBpHrKrZRhqB9xj10s0nCTAAILKgyQ89Q== X-UI-Sender-Class: 724b4f7f-cbec-4199-ad4e-598c01a50d3a Received: from smtpclient.apple ([134.76.241.253]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx005 [212.227.17.190]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MeU4s-1rKLJp40Au-00aUFj; Fri, 29 Sep 2023 08:27:02 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.120.41.1.4\)) From: Sebastian Moeller In-Reply-To: <5so3r00n-31pn-14s7-7775-08731s3s551r@ynat.uz> Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2023 08:24:13 +0200 Cc: "Livingood, Jason" , Dave Taht via Starlink , dan , Jamal Hadi Salim , libreqos , Rpm , bloat Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <5so3r00n-31pn-14s7-7775-08731s3s551r@ynat.uz> To: David Lang X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.120.41.1.4) X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:E3ZgAGL9nFUUFbtkpUCtY9vlKAAjSzAqyRFH7FuzHvCsZ9o6aJZ l2S+Rvt5HJv0gptD3zvDVoql7bWahXWmblnJbKw/bMckhMnd27df53cQhG1m2WGS+RZzqOF y7u9eshfz8qie4b2XG2246S21SuQYMfaYv+715B1PzKG6GMjaAN6mnOTrNm05xwW5KLWPM9 +y4HojPosMQssF8HRx51A== X-Spam-Flag: NO UI-OutboundReport: notjunk:1;M01:P0:jT9S0/f0/cQ=;4VIJ9Vg2XvPieybFvKvUPmNKQIm r7u7SRwFtQGi9PZD9Eit/9SPZpNxTnitz3Tsnz32slKvijIaTf0FLmfb6p8ytwb3ykM8f/ySL /fHLt5Rh0jEfs0kYMMWzTDjGk3KvTDWa+4rzPytrSV/wpe3FuNbPS9jqQ50uMbAw8e6VYDxbL SYo3L6/A76EeojDe+P1ntzD19XqTrqJJeSNhY22RfSK+09sMzD5MZb7U1Y1SOFRhPgI1H9s9S p7kFZLIEKR9KoR53hVnEcruo8nfFhv51rEAhowVpDa49TTwhZEx2kXO93WfoW/84kD24rIXf1 Ic6VEfqbzKMbCcpPisYH/ayNXG5yuFwNN5m4eZ1VY8G0Kt/BdVwa7MNP6xoL2IkcDkWNRJztO /FJewghvMDOTM5xWvDWNfWHzgofeuLwsy8id8ZsEEwvN/mp2UJh2inVdlWVSE9fd7LlrGX+at TY5Ykr8hurhKR9+M0FRjCrveFoJqRnI/O+/dgFlKFP22B6k9Sb8PjLLC0OfOzv1AYRk0neiAJ gk+0zQbZADH0hIfvfRTnHYvuD5e8Qd1JP6OU2wTb3KrUGpJ7Ruw0Q+ZLUFZiTF6XmfqRF9sP7 9tdtUr0zk0tGbruF91rjU4X8rTALGz1ndc6cZuTuz5wwOs1651aeqEyDTec0dJOQY2KXCM9SU q9ii93qJTNphjV501wnGkppegD7NKV7KJ4jmr1jOTydyZdoEwtdj1+wBaac66MDmoqsSyrbcl 934XqBGJggH6a7ELoooZvmFKL4mpqEwcRE5GJ9XXSnR7/6PDXTObojHFiJShM4TUzwi6Nx98X OsTyj6oy9cWMFwsoZosFJ8UIWJmICeRraqNkHwqjRABZCExfJPCu50Lyz5XVMey3NzWQLXku5 YJ7m9lQ0NlnJcxK04KevYJ5Fs/uJxHew+231qh6z/hfFCtroHDV6CMrXWPGe5DKH9IApvbfL8 CcAQZfsuInxpDjcNEoB5rwD7NuE= Subject: Re: [Starlink] [Rpm] [Bloat] [LibreQoS] 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 06:27:11 -0000 Hi David, > On Sep 29, 2023, at 00:19, David Lang via Rpm = wrote: >=20 > On Thu, 28 Sep 2023, Livingood, Jason via Bloat wrote: >=20 >> 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: >>=20 >>> "(I assume most ISPs want happy customers)." >=20 >>> 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.=20 >>=20 >> 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). >=20 > 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. >=20 >>> 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... >>=20 >> The two thoughts your comments (thanks for the response BTW!) trigger = are: >=20 >> 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. >=20 >> 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. >=20 > 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) >=20 > 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. [SM] In the EU we have this as a continuous lobbying effort by = big incumbent ISPs (a move to have the large content providers (CAPs) = shoulder their "fair" share of the cost of modernizing the networks*), = why this flys with at least some EU politicians is that the intended = payees of this scheme are all located outside the EU and hence will have = little support by the EU citizenry... (The latter is IMHO not fully = undeserved either, the days of "do no evil" are long behind us and big = tech often forgets that we are all in this together, but I digress). In = the EU one of these days such an effort might actually succeed, as much = as I dislike this. *) This argument about fairness is indeed made by the same ISPs that = already charge their eye-ball customers for the same capacity they say = they need to built with particpatoin of the CAPs >=20 > David Lang_______________________________________________ > Rpm mailing list > Rpm@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/rpm