Regards
I wonder somewhat to what degree VF's motivation was closer to its own bottom
line (so having an additional service dimension to monetize) than trying to
help achieve its end-users latency desires...
And that is to a degree fine with me as an end-user... an ISP might as well
bill me (a bit) for proper download traffic shaping on my ingress, as long as
the attractiveness of that service is not artificially enhanced by making the
normal service worse... (that is if I can decide to run my own download
shaping/scheduling/AQM or for similar responsiveness to off-load that to the
ISP, I am game).
But as I understand, such a service is already permissible under existing EU
and UK rules (as stated by Ofcom, they can not make new law, all they do is
clarify how the existing rules are going to be enforced/interpreted by them in
their role as NRA).
Regards
Sebastian
> On Oct 30, 2023, at 16:12, Mike Conlow via Nnagain
> <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>
> +1. My understanding is the origins of this item in the NN review in the UK
> is that ISPs requested it because of lack of clarity around whether "premium
> quality service" offerings violated NN rules.
[SM] Thanks for that piece of information, that makes a ton of sense
and explains IMHO the tone of the document... (all the details I looked at are
such that I might not have picked the precise positions but all seem pretty
defensible and almost boringly balanced ;) )
Thanks & Regards
Sebastian
> See page 63-64 here. Screenshot below:
>
> <Screenshot 2023-10-30 at 11.08.48 AM.png>
>
> On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 10:26 AM Livingood, Jason via Nnagain
> <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> On 10/28/23, 06:01, "Nnagain on behalf of Sebastian Moeller via Nnagain"
> <nnagain-
> > For example, people who use high quality virtual reality applications may
> > want to buy a premium quality service, while users who mainly stream and
> > browse the internet can buy a cheaper package. Our updated guidance
> > clarifies that ISPs can offer premium packages, for example offering low
> > latency, as long as they are sufficiently clear to customers about what
> > they can expect from the services they buy.
>
> Sigh. Wish more regulators knew about modern AQMs - we can have our cake and
> eat it too. The solution above seems to pre-suppose the need for QoS but this
> isn't a capacity problem.
>
> JL
>
> _______________________________________________
> Nnagain mailing list
> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
> _______________________________________________
> Nnagain mailing list
> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
_______________________________________________
Nnagain mailing list
Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
