Re: [Bloat] [Rpm] net neutrality back in the news

On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 11:25 PM Sebastian Moeller wrote: > > Hi Dave, > > please excuse a number of tangents below ;) It would be nice, if as a (dis)organisation... the bufferbloat team could focus on somehow getting both sides of the network neutrality debate deeplying understanding the

Re: [Bloat] [Rpm] net neutrality back in the news

On 9/28/23, 02:25, "Bloat on behalf of Sebastian Moeller via Bloat" mailto:bloat-boun...@lists.bufferbloat.net> on behalf of bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net > wrote: > But the core issue IMHO really was an economic one, the over-subscription > ratios that worked

Re: [Bloat] [Starlink] [Rpm] net neutrality back in the news

On 9/28/23, 12:45, "Starlink on behalf of Dave Taht via Starlink" mailto:starlink-boun...@lists.bufferbloat.net> on behalf of starl...@lists.bufferbloat.net > wrote: > It would be nice, if as a (dis)organisation... the bufferbloat team could focus on

Re: [Bloat] [Rpm] [Starlink] net neutrality back in the news

Here's is the point for TLDR by Noam. Neutral traffic acceptance is not no priorities. We want traffic priorities despite all the b.s. that they're unfair. "All of common carriages free-flow, goals of low transaction cost, and no-liability goals are thus preserved by a system of (a)

Re: [Bloat] [Rpm] net neutrality back in the news

Hi Jason, thanks for giving some perspective. > On Sep 28, 2023, at 19:10, Livingood, Jason > wrote: > > On 9/28/23, 02:25, "Bloat on behalf of Sebastian Moeller via Bloat" > on behalf of > bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net

Re: [Bloat] [LibreQoS] [Rpm] net neutrality back in the news

I love that there are oh, 700+ people on these mailing lists, but we have zero visibility due to google not indexing them, where hackernews does. This is going to be an issue dominating the web (again, sadly) for a few weeks at least, and it would really help to be doing it there, rather than

Re: [Bloat] [EXTERNAL] Re: [Rpm] net neutrality back in the news

On 9/28/23, 16:06, "Sebastian Moeller" mailto:moell...@gmx.de>> wrote: >> The answer ended up being a mix of more capacity, apps being more responsive >> to other LAN demands, and then advancements in congestion control & queuing. >> But there were many customers who were basically

Re: [Bloat] [LibreQoS] [Rpm] net neutrality back in the news

On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 12:09 PM dan via LibreQoS < libre...@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote: > "(I assume most ISPs want happy customers)." > 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

Re: [Bloat] [Starlink] [LibreQoS] [Rpm] net neutrality back in the news

> dan wrote: > "(I assume most ISPs want happy customers)." 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

Re: [Bloat] [LibreQoS] [Rpm] net neutrality back in the news

> From: Bloat on behalf of Jeremy Austin > via Bloat > I'm interested in seeing how one can enforce the 'will of the people' -- the > application vendors (who are doing everything in their power to prevent ISPs > identifying *anything* about the traffic) will certainly not obey such a >

Re: [Bloat] [Starlink] [LibreQoS] [Rpm] net neutrality back in the news

On Thu, 28 Sep 2023, Livingood, Jason via Bloat wrote: Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2023 20:48:58 + 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]

Re: [Bloat] [Rpm] net neutrality back in the news

> On Sep 28, 2023, at 18:38, Dave Taht wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 11:25 PM Sebastian Moeller wrote: >> >> Hi Dave, >> >> please excuse a number of tangents below ;) > > It would be nice, if as a (dis)organisation... the bufferbloat team > could focus on somehow getting both sides

Re: [Bloat] [EXTERNAL] Re: [Rpm] net neutrality back in the news

I forgot to add - the workshop has a great summary at https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5594.html On 9/28/23, 17:07, "Livingood, Jason" mailto:jason_living...@cable.comcast.com>> wrote: On 9/28/23, 16:06, "Sebastian Moeller" mailto:moell...@gmx.de>

Re: [Bloat] [Rpm] net neutrality back in the news

@Sebastian: This is a really great list of what the issues were in the EU, and if y'all can repost there, rather than here, perhaps more light will be generated outside our circles. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37694306#37694307 On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 12:31 PM Sebastian Moeller wrote:

Re: [Bloat] [LibreQoS] [Rpm] net neutrality back in the news

"(I assume most ISPs want happy customers)." 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

Re: [Bloat] [Rpm] net neutrality back in the news

I put it on hackernews: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37694306 I too strongly support formal NN rules, and am in general, against some but certainly not all of the title II regulation, and unlike jason, perhaps, tend to want to supercede lawyers´ claims that it can only be solved via legal

Re: [Bloat] [LibreQoS] [Rpm] net neutrality back in the news

On Thu, 28 Sep 2023, dan via Bloat wrote: Common Carriers or rather, carrier class services for 'internet', should be completely neutral. Packets are packets. However, I think it's important to carve out methods to have dedicated links for real time flows at the carrier level. I don't know

Re: [Bloat] [Starlink] [LibreQoS] [Rpm] net neutrality back in the news

> On 29 Sep, 2023, at 1:19 am, David Lang via Bloat > wrote: > > 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

Re: [Bloat] [Rpm] net neutrality back in the news

Hi Dave, please excuse a number of tangents below ;) > On Sep 27, 2023, at 20:21, Dave Taht via Rpm > wrote: > > Jason just did a beautiful thread as to what was the original source > of the network neutrality > bittorrent vs voip bufferbloat blowup. > >

Re: [Bloat] [Starlink] [Rpm] net neutrality back in the news

Hi Gert, > On Sep 28, 2023, at 08:36, Gert Doering wrote: > > Hi, > > On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 08:25:31AM +0200, Sebastian Moeller via Starlink > wrote: >> ***) Strictly speaking IPv6 is required, since "internet access" >> is defined as reaching all of the internet (as far as in the ISPs >>

Re: [Bloat] [Starlink] [Rpm] net neutrality back in the news

Hi Gert, > On Sep 28, 2023, at 09:33, Gert Doering wrote: > > Hi, > > On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 09:14:27AM +0200, Sebastian Moeller wrote: >> [SM] Has Vodafone started using IPv6 for their DSL-users yet*? About >> the content that is an interesting question, I will try to measure in my

Re: [Bloat] [Rpm] net neutrality back in the news

Dear Bob: I have always thought the long standing dispute over moving flow queuing (FQ) into the network has always been about enabling common carriage for the vast majority of possible use cases for the internet or not, going all the way back to the fights over it in 1989, and many discussions