Hmm, seems more about wiglomeration than regulation. Per Dickens, "Here he is, Esther," said Mr. Jarndyce, comfortably putting his hands into his pockets and stretching out his legs. "He must have a profession; he must make some choice for himself. There will be a world more wiglomeration about it, I suppose, but it must be done."
"More what, guardian?" said I. "More wiglomeration," said he. "It's the only name I know for the thing. He is a ward in Chancery, my dear. Kenge and Carboy will have something to say about it; Master Somebody--a sort of ridiculous sexton, digging graves for the merits of causes in a back room at the end of Quality Court, Chancery Lane--will have something to say about it; counsel will have something to say about it; the Chancellor will have something to say about it; the satellites will have something to say about it; they will all have to be handsomely feed, all round, about it; the whole thing will be vastly ceremonious, wordy, unsatisfactory, and expensive, and I call it, in general, wiglomeration. How mankind ever came to be afflicted with wiglomeration, or for whose sins these young people ever fell into a pit of it, I don't know; so it is." On Wed, May 15, 2024, 2:43 PM Karl Auerbach via Nnagain < nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote: > As a matter of drafting the FCC has left some potholes: > > "We clarify that a BIAS [Broadband Internet Access Service] provider's > decision to speed up 'on the basis of Internet content, applications, or > services' would 'impair or degrade' other content, applications, or > services which are not given the same treatment," > > That phrase "speed up" is too vague. Does it conflict with active or fair > queue management? Does it prohibit things that some Ethernet NIC > "offloads" do (but which could be done by a provider) such as TCP data > aggregation (i.e. the merging of lots of small TCP segments into one big > one)? Does it prohibit insertion of an ECN bit that would have the effect > of slowing a sender of packets? Might it preclude a provider "helpfully" > dropping stale video packets that would arrive at a users video rendering > codec too late to be useful? Could there be an issue with selective > compression? Or, to really get nerdy - given that a lot of traffic uses > Ethernet frames as a model, there can be a non-trivial amount of hidden, > usually unused, bandwidth in that gap between the end of tiny IP packets > and the end of minimum length Ethernet frames. (I've seen that space used > for things like license management.) Or might this impact larger path > issues, such as routing choices, either dynamic or based on contractual > relationships - such as conversational voice over terrestrial or > low-earth-orbit paths while background file transfers are sent via fat, but > large latency paths such as geo-synch satellite? If an ISP found a means > of blocking spam from being delivered, would that violate the rules? (Same > question for blocking of VoIP calls from undesirable sources. It may also > call into question even the use of IP address blacklists or reverse path > algorithms that block traffic coming from places where it has no business > coming from.) > > The answers may be obvious to tech folks here but in the hands of > troublesome lawyers (I'm one of those) these ambiguities could be elevated > to be real headaches. > > These may seem like minor or even meaningless nits, but these are the > kinds of things that can be used by lawyers (again, like me) to tie > regulatory bodies into knots, which often a goal of some large > organizations that do not like regulation. > > In addition, I can't put my finger on it, but I am sensing that without > some flexibility the FCC neutrality rules may be creating a kind of no > cost, tragedy of the commons situation. Sometimes a bit of friction - cost > - can be useful to either incentivize improvements and invention or to make > things (like spam) less desirable/more expensive to abusers. > > --karl-- > On 5/10/24 7:31 AM, Frantisek Borsik via Nnagain wrote: > > "Net neutrality proponents argued that these separate lanes for different > kinds of traffic would degrade performance of traffic that isn't favored. > The final FCC order released yesterday addresses that complaint. > > "We clarify that a BIAS [Broadband Internet Access Service] provider's > decision to speed up 'on the basis of Internet content, applications, or > services' would 'impair or degrade' other content, applications, or > services which are not given the same treatment," the FCC's final order > said. > > The "impair or degrade" clarification means that speeding up is banned > because the no-throttling rule says that ISPs "shall not impair or degrade > lawful Internet traffic on the basis of Internet content, application, or > service." > > > https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/05/fcc-explicitly-prohibits-fast-lanes-closing-possible-net-neutrality-loophole/ > > > All the best, > > Frank > > Frantisek (Frank) Borsik > > > > https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik > > Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714 > > iMessage, mobile: +420775230885 > > Skype: casioa5302ca > > frantisek.bor...@gmail.com > > _______________________________________________ > Nnagain mailing > listNnagain@lists.bufferbloat.nethttps://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
