new thread: QoS, latency, bandwidth and the FCC/net neutrality debate

[Herminio Hernandez, Jr.]

I will start with some thoughts on why I find the NN debate troubling.
First there is a technical misunderstanding. NN is built on the idea that
ISPs should treat all traffic equally. This concept is simply unrealistic.
Bandwidth is a limited resource there is only so much data that a Ethernet
port can transmit and receive. Also things like MTU size, latency, jitter
all impact the reliable transmission of data which bring me to my other
point. Not all traffic is the same. There are night and day differences
between TCP and UDP traffic. For example UDP (which is what most voice and
video is) is faster than TCP. The drawback to this is that UDP does not
have the recovery features that TCP has in case of packet loss (ie sequence
number and acknowledgment packets). There UDP applications are more prone
to suffer when latency is high or links get saturated. To overcome this
network engineer implement prioritization and traffic shaping to ensure
these services are not impacted.

As more content is consumed such as 4K video on the internet, the need for
traffic shaping will only increase. Netflix already has the ability to push
100Gbps from their servers. That is a ton of data that needs to be
prioritized by ISPs. This is not free there are serious costs involved in
man hours and infrastructure. Someone needs to bear that cost. This is why
I am not opposed to fast lanes. If Netflix is going to have ISPs ensure all
of the massive amounts to data are push is delivered efficiently, then the
ISPs should be free to charge a premium for this service. Netflix does not
want to bear this cost, hense their support for Net Neutrality. They want
the ISPs to bear the cost, but then result of that is we bear the cost via
data caps.

When you strip away all the slogans it all comes down to money and control.
Data will be traffic shaped it is just who decides how unelected government
bureaucrats pushing some public policy or market forces.

Something else to consider a lot not all but a lot of the very same people
who cry that the end of Net Neutrality will be end of free speech (no more
free and open internet) have no issue saying Twiiter, Facebook, and Google
(since they are 'private companies') have the right demonetize, obscure, or
even ban individuals who express ideas that other deem "offensive". How is
that promoting a "Free and Open Internet"?

On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Eric Oyen <eric.oyen at icloud.com> wrote:

> well, as someone else suggested, a new thread.
>
> so, shall we start the discussion?
>
> ok, as mentioned, bandwidth is a limited resource. the question is How
> limited?
>
> Then there is the question: can an ISP curtail certain types of traffic
> (null route it, delay it, other bandwidth shaping routines)? How far can
> they go?
>
> What really is net neutrality?
>
> lastly, what part does the FCC play, or should they?
>
> so, any thoughts on the above questions?
>
> -eric
> from the central offices of the Technomage Guild, you got questions, we
> got answers Dept.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss at lists.phxlinux.org
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
> http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.phxlinux.org/pipermail/plug-discuss/attachments/20171124/9b889f37/attachment.html>