Re: [NNagain] "FCC explicitly prohibits fast lanes, closing possible net neutrality loophole"

Hi Karl, being a lawyer you know how this works, until a court come to an interpretation all is in some degree of limbo, so if you want clarification sue somebody to force an interpretation ;) > On 15. May 2024, at 23:43, Karl Auerbach via Nnagain > wrote: > > As a matter of drafting the

Re: [NNagain] Flash priority

Hi Bob, so having iperf2 actually check and report this information, obviously is the end game here (especially reporting, the DSCP and ECN pattern send, the patterns recswivec by the other side and what the receiver saw in the response packets would be really helpful). But one can use

Re: [NNagain] Flash priority

Hi Jason, > On 9. Mar 2024, at 15:38, Livingood, Jason via Nnagain > wrote: > > On 3/8/24, 22:02, "Nnagain on behalf of David Lang via Nnagain" > on behalf of > nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net > wrote: > >>

Re: [NNagain] Verizon, T-Mobile, Nokia get noisy on network slicing and net neutrality (LightReading)

Hi Jason. > On 9. Mar 2024, at 00:30, Livingood, Jason via Nnagain > wrote: > > I find it difficult to imagine a lot of consumer use cases for this (and find > it another rather complex 3GPP spec). I can see some enterprise, industrial, > and event (e.g. sports venue) use cases - but those

Re: [NNagain] Geoff Huston's panel

> On 29. Feb 2024, at 18:26, Lee via Nnagain > wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 9:12 AM Dave Taht via Nnagain wrote: >> >> He is being incredibly provocative this week. It hurt to sit through this. >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxO73fH0VqM > > Yes, he's provocative - but also

Re: [NNagain] are you Bill Woodcock?

Hi Bill, thank you for this great explanation. > On 18. Jan 2024, at 23:38, Bill Woodcock via Nnagain > wrote: > >> On Jan 18, 2024, at 22:51, le berger des photons via Nnagain >> wrote: >> First I've ever seen the term IXP. It seems interesting. Can you point me >> to some documentation

Re: [NNagain] WISPA Seeks Broad Net Neutrality Exemption for Small ISPs

Anybody has information what exact regulatory demands they object to? The article is light on those details ;) > On Dec 19, 2023, at 16:28, Frantisek Borsik via Nnagain > wrote: > > > https://policyband.com/blog/wispa-seeks-broad-net-neutrality-exemption-for-small-isps-2 > > > All the

Re: [NNagain] Fwd: The 12 Lies of Telecoms Xmas

Thanks for sharing. That had my 'old man shouting at clouds' vibe, I like it On 19 December 2023 16:01:09 CET, Dave Taht via Nnagain wrote: >-- Forwarded message - >From: Dean Bubley via LinkedIn >Date: Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 5:05 AM >Subject: The 12 Lies of Telecoms Xmas

Re: [NNagain] Net neutrality and Bufferbloat?

Yes, I thought it was clever to flip this nomenclature around, but as you demonstrate "far too clever" ;) Regards Sebastian > > Hmm > > RR > > -Original Message- > From: Nnagain [mailto:nnagain-boun...@lists.bufferbloat.net] On Behalf Of >

Re: [NNagain] Net neutrality and Bufferbloat?

Hi Jason, during the Covid19 era, the EU issued clarifications that even throttling a complete class like streaming video might be within reasonable network management. The only stipulations wer this needs to happen only to allow arguably more important traffic classes (like work-from home

Re: [NNagain] [Starlink] FCC Upholds Denial of Starlink's RDOF Application

Hi Frantisek, > On Dec 15, 2023, at 13:46, Frantisek Borsik via Nnagain > wrote: > > Thus, technically speaking, one would like the advantages of satcom such > as starlink, to be at least 5gbit/s in 10 years time, to overcome the > 'tangled fiber' problem. > > No, not really. Starlink was

Re: [NNagain] separable processes for live in-person and live zoom-like faces

> On Nov 17, 2023, at 18:27, rjmcmahon via Nnagain > wrote: > > The human brain is way too complicated to make simplified analysis like this > is the latency required. [SM] On the sensory side this is not all that hard, e.g. we can (and routinely do) measure how long it takes after

Re: [NNagain] The rise and fall of the 90's telecom bubble

Update, mmmh, Virginia is apparently not only for 'lovers' but also for LTE, along the trip with the silver line to Dulles, my phone reported 4G, aka LTE, while in downtown DC EDGE-only it was... Regards Sebsstian On 14 November 2023 13:06:39 CET, Sebastian Moeller via Nnagain

Re: [NNagain] FCC NOI due dec 1 on broadband speed standards

Hi Jack, My argument is this is not a hard or software problem, but a wetware problem, hard to shake off million years of evolution. And IIRC during covid, didn't the IETF do online only meetings? I am not saying video conferencing is doomed, it came a long way in the covid years and is 'here

Re: [NNagain] FCC NOI due dec 1 on broadband speed standards

Hi Jack, > On Nov 14, 2023, at 13:02, Jack Haverty via Nnagain > wrote: > > If video conferencing worked well enough, they would not have to all get > together in one place and would instead hold IETF meetings online ...? [SM] Turns out that humans are social creatures, and some

Re: [NNagain] FCC NOI due dec 1 on broadband speed standards

Hi Jeremy, > On Nov 14, 2023, at 12:58, Jeremy Austin via Nnagain > wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 6:46 AM Livingood, Jason via Nnagain > wrote: > On the subject of how much bandwidth does one household need, here's a fun > stat for you. > > > > At the IETF’s 118th meeting

Re: [NNagain] FCC NOI due dec 1 on broadband speed standards

Hi Jason, Thank you very much for the information! Regards On 14 November 2023 11:37:26 GMT-05:00, "Livingood, Jason" wrote: >> Joking aside, how representative is this ratio of users to peak traffic for >> what you know about residential users? I am not looking for anything more >> than a

Re: [NNagain] FCC NOI due dec 1 on broadband speed standards

Hi Dave, On 14 November 2023 11:06:54 GMT-05:00, Dave Taht via Nnagain wrote: >As I noted also on the twitter thread for this, were I there, and >dishonest, (particularly were gobs of money on the table) I could easily >have permuted the bandwidth on both tests hugely upwards from a single

Re: [NNagain] FCC NOI due dec 1 on broadband speed standards

I guess I now am prepared to upgrade my home network into the ~1Gbps class, before inviting 1000 engineers over ;) Joking aside, how representative is this ratio of users to peak traffic for what you know about residential users? I am not looking for anything more than a very coarse replay,

Re: [NNagain] The rise and fall of the 90's telecom bubble

Hi Richard, > On Nov 13, 2023, at 16:08, Dick Roy via Nnagain > wrote: > > > > -Original Message- > From: Nnagain [mailto:nnagain-boun...@lists.bufferbloat.net] On Behalf Of > Sebastian Moeller via Nnagain > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2023 6:15 AM >

Re: [NNagain] The rise and fall of the 90's telecom bubble

Hi Jason, > On Nov 13, 2023, at 08:54, Livingood, Jason via Nnagain > wrote: > > > Would love to spend some time thinking together about what a smart > > manufacturing system would look like in terms of connectivity, latency, > > compute availability, anything that occurs to you. I know a

Re: [NNagain] NN review in the UK

ould like to see various statements written about >> network neutrality in 2005, 2010, 2015, because it seems to be the >> definition in the ofcom docs has morphed a lot towards being... >> "reasonable", whatever that means. >> >> >> >> On Sat

Re: [NNagain] NN review in the UK

& Regards Sebastian > See page 63-64 here. Screenshot below: > > > > On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 10:26 AM Livingood, Jason via Nnagain > wrote: > On 10/28/23, 06:01, "Nnagain on behalf of Sebastian Moeller via Nnagain" > > For example, people w

[NNagain] Net Neutrality report in Germany

Dear All, after my UK post, here the corresponding document for Germany Here is a link to the national regulatory agency (NRA) Bundesnetzagentur: https://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/EN/Areas/Telecommunications/Companies/NetNeutrality/start.html And here a link to the most recent report in

[NNagain] NN review in the UK

Dear All, I have been pointed at Ofcom's statement on Net neutrality for October 2023: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/consultations-and-statements/category-1/net-neutrality-review Here is the meat of that statement sans the links at the end (the email will be clasified as spam if it contains too

Re: [NNagain] Brendan Carr: "Six years ago, Americans lived through one of the greatest hoaxes in regulatory history...

> On Oct 24, 2023, at 21:21, Dave Taht via Nnagain > wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 11:21 AM the keyboard of geoff goodfellow via > Nnagain wrote: >> >> ➔➔https://twitter.com/BrendanCarrFCC/status/1716558844384379163 > > Leaving aside the rhetoric, I believe the majority of these

Re: [NNagain] upgrading old routers to modern, secure FOSS

Hi Dave, > On Oct 23, 2023, at 19:58, Dave Taht via Nnagain > wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 10:04 AM Dave Taht wrote: >> >> I loved that this guy and his ISP burned a couple weeks learning how >> to build openwrt, built something exactly to the need, *had it work >> the first time* and

Re: [NNagain] nn announced

Hi Dave, for the actual text see: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-397309A1.pdf Regards Sebastian > On Oct 19, 2023, at 19:58, Dave Taht via Nnagain > wrote: > > https://broadbandbreakfast.com/2023/10/fcc-moves-to-reinstate-net-neutrality-keeps-rules-open-for-comment/ >

Re: [NNagain] Small ISP Carve Out

Hi Mr. Photons > On Oct 18, 2023, at 09:08, le berger des photons via Nnagain > wrote: > > but an ISP and its clients should be able to agree together on anything which > they feel works for them. The only rule that I see that should apply is that > there should be proper disclosure. This

Re: [NNagain] NN and freedom of speech, and whether there is worthwhile good-faith discussion in that direction

Hi Richard, > On Oct 16, 2023, at 20:04, Dick Roy wrote: > > Good points all, Sebastien. How to "trade-off" a fixed capacity amongst many > users is ultimately a game theoretic problem when users are allowed to make > choices, which is certainly the case here. Secondly, any network that

Re: [NNagain] transit and peering costs projections

Hi Richard, > On Oct 16, 2023, at 19:01, Dick Roy via Nnagain > wrote: > > Just an observation: ANY type of congestion control that changes application > behavior in response to congestion, or predicted congestion (ENC), begs the > question "How does throttling of application information

Re: [NNagain] transit and peering costs projections

Hi Jack, > On Oct 15, 2023, at 21:59, Jack Haverty via Nnagain > wrote: > > The "VGV User" (Voice, Gaming, Videoconferencing) cares a lot about latency. > It's not just "rewarding" to have lower latencies; high latencies may make > VGV unusable. Average (or "typical") latency as the FCC

Re: [NNagain] Internet Education for Non-technorati?

Hi Bob, > On Oct 13, 2023, at 19:20, rjmcmahon wrote: > > Hi Sebastian, > > It was the ISP tech support over the phone. Trying to help install a home > network over the phone w/o a technician isn't easy. [SM] Ah, okay. I would never even think about calling my ISP when considering

Re: [NNagain] Internet Education for Non-technorati?

Hi Bob, > On Oct 13, 2023, at 06:31, rjmcmahon via Nnagain > wrote: > > Hi David, > > I think we're looking at different parts of the elephant. I perceive huge > advances in WiFi (phy, dsp, radios, fems, etc.) and residential gateway chips > of late. Not sure the state of chips used by the

Re: [NNagain] Internet Education for Non-technorati?

Hi Bob, > On Oct 12, 2023, at 17:55, Robert McMahon via Nnagain > wrote: > > Hi David, > > The vendors I know don't roll their own os code either. The make their own > release still mostly based from Linux and they aren't tied to the openwrt > release process. > > I think GUIs on CPEs

Re: [NNagain] Internet Education for Non-technorati?

Hi Bob, > On Oct 11, 2023, at 20:49, rjmcmahon via Nnagain > wrote: > > Yes, EDCAs are multidimensional. The coupling of EDCA to a DSCP field, Access > Class (AC) or MAC queue is just an engineering thing. The EDCA is really just > for an upcoming access arbitration and doesn't have to be

Re: [NNagain] Internet Education for Non-technorati?

HI Dave, > On Oct 11, 2023, at 20:06, Dave Taht via Nnagain > wrote: > > I think y'all are conflating two different labels here. The nutrition > label was one effort, now being deploye, the other is cybersecurity, > now being discussed. > > On the nutrition front... > We successfully fought

Re: [NNagain] Internet Education for Non-technorati?

Hi Jack, > On Oct 11, 2023, at 19:31, Jack Haverty via Nnagain > wrote: > > A few days ago I made some comments about the idea of "educating" the > lawyers, politicians, and other smart, but not necessarily technically adept, > decision makers. Today I saw a news story about a recent FCC

Re: [NNagain] The non-death of DSL

Hi Bob. On 10 October 2023 02:13:18 CEST, Robert McMahon wrote: >Hi Sebastian, > >The NRE per chip starts at $100M. It's multiplr semiconductors that now define >a networks and data centers capabilitied. A small municipal overbuilder is not >a market maker. [SM] Sure, a small outfit is

Re: [NNagain] The non-death of DSL

Hi Bob, > On Oct 8, 2023, at 22:44, rjmcmahon wrote: > > Yeah, I get it. I think we're just too early for a structural separation > model in comm infrastructure. [SM] I see one reason why we should not wait, and that is the future-proofness of the eventually reached FTTH-deployment... > >

Re: [NNagain] The non-death of DSL

Hi Bob, > On Oct 8, 2023, at 22:18, rjmcmahon wrote: > > Tragedy of the commons occurs because the demand & free price for the common > resources outstrips supply. Free cow grazing in Boston Commons only worked > for 70 cows and then collapsed. [SM] Here is the thing, if the

Re: [NNagain] The non-death of DSL

Hi Bob, > On Oct 8, 2023, at 21:27, rjmcmahon wrote: > > Hi Sebastian, > > Here's a good link on Glasgow, KY likely the first U.S. muni network started > around 1994. It looks like a one and done type investment. Their offering was > competitive for maybe a decade and now seems to have

Re: [NNagain] The non-death of DSL

Hi Bob, thanks for the interesting discussion, I am learning a lot! I am unsure whether the following is too direct > On Oct 8, 2023, at 18:37, Robert McMahon wrote: > > Hi Sebastian, > > The U.S. of late isn't very good with regulatory that motivates investment > into essential comm

Re: [NNagain] The non-death of DSL

Hi Dave, On 8 October 2023 02:07:50 CEST, Dave Taht via Nnagain wrote: >I had found henning shulzerine's projections as to the death of POTs [SM] One argument was that POTs switches were getting hard to come by, but I find this hard to believe that generally stated, hard to come by at prices

Re: [NNagain] The non-death of DSL

Hi Bob, On 8 October 2023 00:13:07 CEST, rjmcmahon via Nnagain wrote: >Everybody abandoned my local loop. Twisted pair from multiple decades ago into >antiquated, windowless COs with punch blocks, with no space nor latency >advantage for colocated content & compute, seems to have killed it

Re: [NNagain] The non-death of DSL

Hi Dave, > On Oct 7, 2023, at 23:22, Dave Taht via Nnagain > wrote: > > I have a lot to unpack from this: > > https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-397257A1.pdf Thanks for the link, I think this contains solid arguments for the FCC's current position. I for one am convinced that