4 ms·

> If you phrase it as just "don't prioritize traffic", you've just broken most CDNs, as well as QoS that optimizes for latency/bandwidth to improve VoIP and sim

> If you phrase it as just "don't prioritize traffic", you've just broken most CDNs, as well as QoS that optimizes for latency/bandwidth to improve VoIP and similar. This is simply incorrect. CDNs are not prioritized on any ISP network. CDNs work because they have a shorter route to the end user, not because they have a higher priority. ISPs should not and do not apply QoS in their core for VoIP or anything else when it's part of generic Internet traffic. It's the end users responsibility to QoS police VoIP or other traffic on their WAN interface. The ISP just shifts the bits. Not privatizing traffic does not break CDNs nor customer QoS. Neither of these things have anything to do with net neutrality. > But even then, how do you draw a bright line between "deliberately degrading", "not giving an advantage to", and "not doing anything to address bandwidth problems when they arise"? It's pretty obvious how you draw that bright line. Don't prioritize and don't congest interfaces. > How would you suggest writing a regulation that doesn't break CDNs and similar, and that can tell the difference between "deliberately hurting" and "not helping"? Easy. As I already wrote, forbid prioritizing and saturation of network interconnects. > How will that regulation adapt when people come up with new ideas to make the web faster? It does not need to when done right, as explained above. > One angle I could imagine working: limiting the ability of one company or family of companies to run both an ISP and network services via that ISP. Still hard to write something robust, though.) Nothing hard about it. It's called functional separation and it's a widely applied remedy to the anticompetitive nature of telecom markets in other countries.

JoshTriplett 10y ago
> CDNs are not prioritized on any ISP network. CDNs work because they have a shorter route to the end user, not because they have a higher priority. So, anyone who can successfully define what they're doing as "not prioritizing" can entirely sidestep any regulation you have in mind. Putting a server in the ISP's datacenter is a common approach. Traffic to those servers doesn't have to go over any external peering links. > ISPs should not and do not apply QoS in their core Many do. As one simple example, look at the ISPs that accelerate the first N bytes of connections, to prioritize interactive requests over bulk transfers/downloads. Other ISPs apply more sophisticated approaches. > It's pretty obvious how you draw that bright line. Don't prioritize and don't congest interfaces. > forbid prioritizing and saturation of network interconnects So, receive and deliver all traffic, regardless of available capacity or financial constraints? Provision every part of the network so it can handle all the traffic passing over any other part, because they're not allowed to limit bandwidth in any way at any point? A saturated interconnect might mean "we're trying to screw Netflix", or it might mean "we can't afford it right now" (either because they're a small ISP and don't have the money, or because they're spending it on something their customers want more).
- amazon_not 10y ago
  > So, anyone who can successfully define what they're doing as "not prioritizing" can entirely sidestep any regulation you have in mind. This argument makes no sense. Colocating a CDN node has nothing to do with prioritization. Nobody is fiddling with any QoS settings. > Putting a server in the ISP's datacenter is a common approach. Traffic to those servers doesn't have to go over any external peering links. What is your point? > As one simple example, look at the ISPs that accelerate the first N bytes of connections, to prioritize interactive requests over bulk transfers/downloads. This is an incorrect characterization of PowerBoost. PowerBoost uncaps your DOCSIS connection temporarily to take advantage of any momentarily free spare capacity. This is not prioritization, it's getting a free tier upgrade temporarily. > Other ISPs apply more sophisticated approaches. Such as? > So, receive and deliver all traffic, regardless of available capacity or financial constraints? Don't be silly. As long as the ISP provides whatever speed tier they sold to the consumer all is good and well. If they cannot do that then they are shortchanging the consumer and should be penalized for that. > Provision every part of the network so it can handle all the traffic passing over any other part, because they're not allowed to limit bandwidth in any way at any point? Yes, to the extent required to provide the service they sold. > A saturated interconnect might mean "we're trying to screw Netflix", or it might mean "we can't afford it right now" (either because they're a small ISP and don't have the money, or because they're spending it on something their customers want more). If you saturate your interconnect you fail at ISPing. There is no excuse. Interconnect capacity is cheap and plentiful.

JoshTriplett 10y ago

> CDNs are not prioritized on any ISP network. CDNs work because they have a shorter route to the end user, not because they have a higher priority. So, anyone who can successfully define what they're doing as "not prioritizing" can entirely sidestep any regulation you have in mind. Putting a server in the ISP's datacenter is a common approach. Traffic to those servers doesn't have to go over any external peering links. > ISPs should not and do not apply QoS in their core Many do. As one simple example, look at the ISPs that accelerate the first N bytes of connections, to prioritize interactive requests over bulk transfers/downloads. Other ISPs apply more sophisticated approaches. > It's pretty obvious how you draw that bright line. Don't prioritize and don't congest interfaces. > forbid prioritizing and saturation of network interconnects So, receive and deliver all traffic, regardless of available capacity or financial constraints? Provision every part of the network so it can handle all the traffic passing over any other part, because they're not allowed to limit bandwidth in any way at any point? A saturated interconnect might mean "we're trying to screw Netflix", or it might mean "we can't afford it right now" (either because they're a small ISP and don't have the money, or because they're spending it on something their customers want more).

amazon_not 10y ago
> So, anyone who can successfully define what they're doing as "not prioritizing" can entirely sidestep any regulation you have in mind. This argument makes no sense. Colocating a CDN node has nothing to do with prioritization. Nobody is fiddling with any QoS settings. > Putting a server in the ISP's datacenter is a common approach. Traffic to those servers doesn't have to go over any external peering links. What is your point? > As one simple example, look at the ISPs that accelerate the first N bytes of connections, to prioritize interactive requests over bulk transfers/downloads. This is an incorrect characterization of PowerBoost. PowerBoost uncaps your DOCSIS connection temporarily to take advantage of any momentarily free spare capacity. This is not prioritization, it's getting a free tier upgrade temporarily. > Other ISPs apply more sophisticated approaches. Such as? > So, receive and deliver all traffic, regardless of available capacity or financial constraints? Don't be silly. As long as the ISP provides whatever speed tier they sold to the consumer all is good and well. If they cannot do that then they are shortchanging the consumer and should be penalized for that. > Provision every part of the network so it can handle all the traffic passing over any other part, because they're not allowed to limit bandwidth in any way at any point? Yes, to the extent required to provide the service they sold. > A saturated interconnect might mean "we're trying to screw Netflix", or it might mean "we can't afford it right now" (either because they're a small ISP and don't have the money, or because they're spending it on something their customers want more). If you saturate your interconnect you fail at ISPing. There is no excuse. Interconnect capacity is cheap and plentiful.