4 ms·

> 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 q

> 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.

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.