4 ms·

> That also brings up why do they want (and spend millions on) the removal of net neutrality if they didn't plan on violating net neutrality in the first place?

> That also brings up why do they want (and spend millions on) the removal of net neutrality if they didn't plan on violating net neutrality in the first place? This is an undue presumption of bad faith. There are many situations where Net neutrality legitimately harms global internet routing efficiency and user experience. For example, under net neutrality ISPs are not allowed to privilege high priority packets such as real time video streams. It’s much more nuanced than net neutrality good, isps greedy and evil. Think about it from the perspective of a network engineer working for an ISP.

pessimizer 5y ago
Why are you using as an example a way to violate net neutrality that you approve of as an example of how companies might not have been planning to violate net neutrality?
- CyberRabbi 5y ago
  Because the GGP is implying that ISPs opposed NN because they stand to anti-competitively financially benefit when there are other less diabolical reasons that are just as likely if not more likely.
monocasa 5y ago
> For example, under net neutrality ISPs are not allowed to privilege high priority packets such as real time video streams. Net Neutrality does not block standard QOS techniques. Additionally, ISP level QOS of IP packets based on content rather than src/dst is mainly vaporware anyway. You don't have the time to favor certain types of packets at the routers, the streams are going too fast.
- CyberRabbi 5y ago
  > Net Neutrality does not block standard QOS techniques. That’s not true. Nailing down what ISPs are allowed to do in terms of QoS is still very much an open question. It’s not legally clear, for instance, why Comcast would be allowed to prioritize real-time video streams yet not be allowed to deprioritize BitTorrent sharing. What you’re referring to is peering discrimination but the whole of net neutrality is a larger and more complex subject.
  - monocasa 5y ago
    Give an example then of the specific rule that blocks standard QOS techniques then. I can't be expected to prove a negative. Additionally, I'm not just talking about peering discrimination. The residential ISPs want the ability to restrict arbitrary sources and destinations at the last mile even if capacity exists on the rest of their network and their IX.
    - CyberRabbi 5y ago
      Yea there is a specific rule that prohibits throttling in the 2015 order: https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0312/FCC-15-24A1.pdf https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/201... The caveat is that throttling is allowed if it is “reasonable network management” which is defined as actions being done with a “technical network management justification.” And this is where legislation ends, under the ambiguity of reasonable and technical. Comcast tested this when a complaint was filed against them for throttling BitTorrent. I consider throttling BitTorrent “reasonable” and justifiable under purely “technical” reasons but clearly other people disagree. Enough people probably disagree that they had to deny any such throttling practices, meaning that in practice they would likely not be allowed to throttle based on technical reasons alone.
      - monocasa 5y ago
        > I consider throttling BitTorrent “reasonable” and justifiable under purely “technical” reasons but clearly other people disagree. So what you're saying is that there was a process for figuring out the inevitable ambiguities, and you just disagree with the ruling? As an aside, I also don't see the "reasonable", "technical" justification for throttling bittorrent anymore than throttling https.
        CyberRabbi 5y ago
        > So what you're saying is that there was a process for figuring out the inevitable ambiguities, and you just disagree with the ruling? The fact that what constitutes “reasonable” and “technical” QoS is ambiguous and strongly dependent on popular opinion is a huge design smell for net neutrality legislation. > As an aside, I also don't see the "reasonable", "technical" justification for throttling bittorrent anymore than throttling https. If 20% of your customers are using 80% of your network capacity because of BitTorrent then yes, throttling them is both technical and reasonable.

pessimizer 5y ago

Why are you using as an example a way to violate net neutrality that you approve of as an example of how companies might not have been planning to violate net neutrality?

CyberRabbi 5y ago
Because the GGP is implying that ISPs opposed NN because they stand to anti-competitively financially benefit when there are other less diabolical reasons that are just as likely if not more likely.

monocasa 5y ago

> For example, under net neutrality ISPs are not allowed to privilege high priority packets such as real time video streams. Net Neutrality does not block standard QOS techniques. Additionally, ISP level QOS of IP packets based on content rather than src/dst is mainly vaporware anyway. You don't have the time to favor certain types of packets at the routers, the streams are going too fast.

CyberRabbi 5y ago
> Net Neutrality does not block standard QOS techniques. That’s not true. Nailing down what ISPs are allowed to do in terms of QoS is still very much an open question. It’s not legally clear, for instance, why Comcast would be allowed to prioritize real-time video streams yet not be allowed to deprioritize BitTorrent sharing. What you’re referring to is peering discrimination but the whole of net neutrality is a larger and more complex subject.
- monocasa 5y ago
  Give an example then of the specific rule that blocks standard QOS techniques then. I can't be expected to prove a negative. Additionally, I'm not just talking about peering discrimination. The residential ISPs want the ability to restrict arbitrary sources and destinations at the last mile even if capacity exists on the rest of their network and their IX.
  - CyberRabbi 5y ago
    Yea there is a specific rule that prohibits throttling in the 2015 order: https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0312/FCC-15-24A1.pdf https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/201... The caveat is that throttling is allowed if it is “reasonable network management” which is defined as actions being done with a “technical network management justification.” And this is where legislation ends, under the ambiguity of reasonable and technical. Comcast tested this when a complaint was filed against them for throttling BitTorrent. I consider throttling BitTorrent “reasonable” and justifiable under purely “technical” reasons but clearly other people disagree. Enough people probably disagree that they had to deny any such throttling practices, meaning that in practice they would likely not be allowed to throttle based on technical reasons alone.
    - monocasa 5y ago
      > I consider throttling BitTorrent “reasonable” and justifiable under purely “technical” reasons but clearly other people disagree. So what you're saying is that there was a process for figuring out the inevitable ambiguities, and you just disagree with the ruling? As an aside, I also don't see the "reasonable", "technical" justification for throttling bittorrent anymore than throttling https.
      - CyberRabbi 5y ago
        > So what you're saying is that there was a process for figuring out the inevitable ambiguities, and you just disagree with the ruling? The fact that what constitutes “reasonable” and “technical” QoS is ambiguous and strongly dependent on popular opinion is a huge design smell for net neutrality legislation. > As an aside, I also don't see the "reasonable", "technical" justification for throttling bittorrent anymore than throttling https. If 20% of your customers are using 80% of your network capacity because of BitTorrent then yes, throttling them is both technical and reasonable.