Notices by kaniini (kaniini@mastodon.dereferenced.org), page 49

@rook

i am not.

the real problem is in fact, that comcast runs their transit ports hot, which is intentionally to degrade netflix.

this has also become an industry standard practice by big cable, which thankfully i do not have to deal with anymore because i do not get my internet from big cable anymore.

i support regulations that fix that problem.

@Gargron why does Mastodon send block messages when restricted accounts interact with other accounts?

this doesn't seem very sane

@rook

you are the one who is arguing, i am expressing my opinions. you can block and/or unfollow me if you wish to not read them.

@chosafine

i tag what i want to. people don't have to follow me if they don't like my content.

@rook

yes, it is possible to ease up on those ports by requiring networks to peer with their competitors.

this is my point, exactly.

@rook

> this simply isn't true. Zero-rating has been attempted without fuss over peering.

there, you said it. OVER PEERING.

> There's nothing stopping Comcast from offering (say) a "Video+ Plan" that restores regular speeds to YouTube and other major video content providers, regardless of who they peer with.

networks are opportunistic, so peering is needed to make such a scheme work. traffic shaping in the last mile isn't enough when comcast is literally running their ports at 95% of capacity.

@cwebber

their proposed solution only restores title ii which *does not guarantee actual net neutrality*

instead of title ii reinstatement, actual regulations implemented by congress are needed.

@rook

because paid peering is exactly how "paid prioritization" would work.

there is no business case for prioritizing certain subnets over other subnets over transit links.

it is also not possible to do at scale with current routing technology.

@sir but make sure the protections are solving the right things (open access to peering - paid or otherwise, not willfully degrading network quality to break video services).

@rook

B2B deals such as *paid peering*?!

I am glad you finally understand my point!

the worst part of this net neutrality thing is watching clueless people talk about things they don't even know about.

meanwhile i'm going to go torrent a bunch of linux ISOs (apparently my ISP blocks torrenting, and also tor! wow!! oh wait, it doesn't.)

@moz @chosafine

thankfully, AT&T unlike Cox isn't degrading their network by running transit ports super hot.

i think that's because they still mostly exist in a "we're the phone company" mentality.

@moz @chosafine

with cox, they were willing to provision a 100mbps circuit with my own modem.

with AT&T, they are willing to provision an 802.1x certificate if i pay them to do it. i haven't gotten sufficiently annoyed with their gateway yet though, as it is a reasonably competent gateway (i have business service)

@moz @chosafine

it didn't do that either in my experience.

when i moved, cox made me accept their own gateway instead of my own CPE, and made me *rent* it.

my current ISP also requires a gateway, but at least they just gave me one instead of making me rent it.

@moz @chosafine

correct, this is the actual concern that needs regulation.

title II didn't do anything about that, until I switched ISPs, cox was still letting their connectivity to netflix run so hot that the service was constantly degraded.

in other words, the real concern is ISPs intentionally harming their networks to disadvantage competitors.

@rook

I have no doubt that Comcast execs are pushing heavily for the possibility of such things.

It doesn't mean that it's technically possible (it's not).

This is the company that can't even measure data usage correctly at all, do you really expect them to be able to bill correctly for paid prioritization?

I mean, they might give it a go, but it will be an utter disaster, and quite literally, they will have to back away from it in the same style as Patreon did.

Net Neutrality advocates largely are riled up by this image:

https://mastodon.dereferenced.org/media/SKm65UDwJSp6qqL4wo0

The problem is that such a scheme is *impossible* because Netflow is way too expensive to implement for this kind of billing. At best, data usage between transit and peering links can be billed, which is a practice done in some places.

Title II does *not* accomplish that.

Title II is *mostly* about not discriminating between "on net" and "off net" services in the last mile, which is basically impossible to do, because again, networks are *opportunistic*. Something with closer adjacency is going to get better performance every time.

Instead, SLAs should be required for off-net service accessibility, which can be enhanced with more friendly peering policies. Regulations to that effect would be really great.

Telecom networks are opportunistic, without many orders of magnitude capacity upgrades, a paid prioritization scheme simply won't work, at all.

Since telecoms are looking to milk every last cent they can out of their current networks, I don't see that coming. The capex is way too large.

So this brings us back to what the whole Net Neutrality thing was about: access to peering instead of transit.

A properly effective Net Neutrality regulation would be one that requires ISPs to peer with anyone who otherwise meets their requirements, meaning that they don't get to pick winners and losers. This means Netflix or whatever else is next would be able to peer, if they covered the costs of facilitating it.

I like how everyone assumes that ISPs are *really* going to charge customers $5 per month for facebook (honestly this sounds like a feature anyway), when it's actually technically infeasible to do that type of granular control at scale.

This was always about Netflix wanting free peering, don't believe the hype.