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

Wed Nov 29 10:28:26 MST 2017

Oh, my, that might actually work.  But then there must be the question of whether or not their world view already demands that QoS be implemented 'in order for the internet to work'.  If you start with that belief, then the end result is already determined.

And, indeed, this is actually a world-view discussion.  The directions you go technically depend entirely upon how you decide 'the internet is supposed to work'.

If the internet only works when realtime data can pass freely, at the expense of non-realtime users (or worse, when only those who pay extra get the bandwidth they thought they were paying for - see my rabbit trail thread for an issue tangentially related to this), then QoS is required, etc.

If, on the other hand, the internet works fine as designed, and this is just a way for ISPs and others to keep from actually providing the bandwidth they claim to be providing, then QoS is absolutely not required.  The infrastructure providers need to actually provide the bandwidth they claim to be providing you.

So, here's a technical question - why is QoS required?

Is it not because there isn't actually an appropriate amount of bandwidth available between all the different end points to provide the implied bandwidth available?

That is, if you have a 10Mbs pipe to the internet, and someone else has a 10Mbs pipe, but between your ISP and theirs is only a 1Mbs pipe - guess what?  Now, what if some realtime data 'needs' to pass over that 1Mbs pipe - you lose, player 2. No bandwidth forrr YOU!  (These numbers are, of course bogus, but are intended to demonstrate both where the ISPs have problems and what sorts of things affect your usable bandwidth - and how QoS can render the internet completely unusable for anyone not sending realtime data.  And what happens when 100 users 'need' 100Mbs of bandwidth to send their realtime data across a 50Mbs link???  Suddenly the internet doesn't work any more, according to the new definition.  This QoS thing is ONLY putting off the inevitable - the backbone needs more bandwidth.)

In summary - QoS will only 'fix' the realtime data issue until enough users 'need' more realtime bandwidth than the backbone can provide - then all of a sudden the internet is broken again.  If there was enough bandwidth 'on the backbone' to handle all the possible realtime data (ok, sure, the backbone doesn't exist any more, but that really doesn't affect the discussion in a substantive way) then this whole discussion would be silly.

Rusty

-----Original Message-----
From: PLUG-discuss [mailto:plug-discuss-bounces at lists.phxlinux.org] On Behalf Of Eric Oyen
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 4:28 PM
To: Main PLUG discussion list
Subject: Re: new thread: QoS, latency, bandwidth and the FCC/net neutrality debate

ok, as a reply to my own posting, it appears that some of the issues regarding net neutrality are very political in nature.

Frankly, what the FCC needs is a bevy of network engineers who are conversant with all areas of network topology, protocols, security, and traffic handling. Then there would be some really qualified answers and rules coming out of the FCC then. 

-eric
from the central offices of the Technomage Guild, Dept of political machinations.

On Nov 28, 2017, at 4:04 PM, Eric Oyen wrote:

> Below is the text from an article covering net neutrality. It seems that we, out here, with our limited view of things might be missing the big picture.
> 
> what is net neutrality?
> better yet, what is REAL net neutrality?
> 
> anywya, this article might illuminate some of the real issues.
> 
> 
> http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/11/repealing_obamas_net_neutrality_a_blow_for_freedom.html
> 
> 
> November 28, 2017 
> 
> Repealing Obama's Net Neutrality a Blow for Freedom
> 
> By Daniel John Sobieski 
> 
> The FCC is expected to vote and approve on December 14 Chairman Ajit Pai’s
> proposal to end the so-called “net neutrality” rules imposed by President
> Obama’s FCC in 2015. This has provoked howls from liberals and tech giants
> that this is a blow for Internet freedom and another boon for big business.
> It is exactly the opposite. It is in fact a boon for economic and political
> freedom as are all the other Obama-era regulations rescinded by the Trump
> administration that have promoted economic growth and lessened our
> dependency on big government. As the Washington Examiner notes: 
> 
> Sometimes you have to wonder how sincere people are when they gnash their
> teeth and pull out their hair over President Trump blocking or reversing an
> Obama-era regulation. 
> 
> The latest cries of distress about anarchy and market apocalypse can be
> heard about an announcement by the Federal Communications Commission that it
> will roll back “net neutrality.” 
> 
> Net neutrality’s dubious value is made obvious by the misleading way
> Democrats and many news outlets reported the decision. “F.C.C. plans net
> neutrality repeal in a victory for telecoms,” wrote the New York Times.
> Missing from the headline or lede was that the decision was a loss for
> Netflix, Amazon, Google, and other corporate giants that provide content. 
> 
> Liberals oppose the free flow of information they can’t control and in the
> name of providing equal access to all they sought to regulate the access of
> everybody. They., in effect, sought to put toll booths and speed bumps on
> the information superhighway. As the Daily Signal reported: 
> 
> On Wednesday, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai revealed his most important change yet:
> eliminating the spectacularly nonsensical “net neutrality” rules imposed by
> President Barack Obama’s FCC in 2015. 
> 
> The 2015 rules deemed internet service providers such as Verizon and Comcast
> to be “common carriers” under the 80-year-old Communications Act. 
> 
> This allowed the FCC to subject those companies to meticulous FCC control
> over how they provide service --specifically, net neutrality rules requiring
> providers to treat all internet transmissions equally, even if the sender or
> consumer would prefer customized service. 
> 
> Not surprisingly, investment in broadband networks subsequently declined,
> and innovation -- such as certain free data service plans -- was threatened.
> 
> 
> But Wednesday, the FCC chairman revealed plans to repeal the 2015 Open
> Internet Order and return to what he described as “the light-touch
> regulatory framework that served our nation so well.” 
> 
> President Obama feared the free flow of information as a threat to his power
> grabs and attempt to fundamentally transform the United States. Just as
> cable news eliminated the old guard network’s role as gatekeepers of what we
> saw and heard, the Internet freed information consumers to seek the truth
> and speak their minds in an unfettered environment. 
> 
> Under net neutrality, the FCC took for itself the power to regulate how
> Internet providers manage their networks and how they serve their customers.
> The FCC would decide how and what information could flow through the
> Internet, all in the name of providing access to the alleged victims of
> corporate greed. 
> 
> The Internet, perhaps as much as the first printing press, has freed the
> minds of men from the tyranny of those gatekeepers who know that if you can
> control what people say and know, you can control the people themselves. And
> that is what President Obama feared. In a May 2010 commencement speech to
> graduates at Hampton University in Virginia, President Obama complained that
> too much information is actually a threat to democracy. 
> 
> Obama’s fear of Internet freedom and the free flow of information was noted
> by Investor’s Business Daily when it editorialized in 2014: 
> 
> We would suggest that it is because Obama has long opposed the free flow of
> information as a hindrance to his ambitious big-government agenda, an animus
> that started with diatribes against cable outlets such as Fox News and
> conservative talk radio. 
> 
> In a 2010 speech to graduates at Hampton University in Virginia, Obama
> complained that too much information is a threat to democracy. 
> 
> “With iPods and iPads and Xboxes and PlayStations -- none of which I know
> how to work -- information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of
> entertainment, rather than a means of emancipation,” he opined. 
> 
> “All of this is not only putting new pressures on you, it is putting new
> pressures on our country and on our democracy.” 
> 
> We said at the time that we disagreed with his views. Dissent, we argued,
> doesn’t threaten our republic. But free speech restrains the tyrants and
> socialists who would steal our freedoms. The Internet is the direct
> descendant of the pamphleteers who energized the American Revolution. This
> time it’s not the British coming as tyrants, but Obama and the FCC. 
> 
> In George Orwell’s classic 1984, the control of information and its flow was
> critical to “Big Brother” maintaining is control over the people and in
> manipulating their passions. Authoritarian governments and dictators
> worldwide know that lesson well. Now the Obama administration wants
> globalists to be the “Big Brother” of the Internet. 
> 
> The ability to see how others live and the ability to exchange ideas is a
> catalyst to dissent and unrest. It is the preserver of freedom. The ability
> to choke off that flow is a necessity for authoritarian governments. That is
> why the Obama administration so hated outlets like Fox News and talk radio.
> The Internet and social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter have
> helped fuel democratic movements from our own Tea Party to the Iranian
> dissidents. 
> 
> It used to be three networks controlled the information we saw and heard.
> Thanks to the Internet, talk radio, and cable news, we have access to
> formerly unheard and suppressed voices. News and commentary no longer has to
> get past the gatekeepers at CBS, ABC, NBC, the Washington Post, and the New
> York Times. 
> 
> The Founding Fathers wisely provided for freedom of speech and of the press
> as a means of guaranteeing our freedom and our democracy. The Internet is
> the new free press and an outlet for or free speech. 
> 
> As Investor’s Business Daily editorialized in January 2011, an unfettered
> Internet is exactly what the Founders had in mind and what tyrants fear
> most: 
> 
> Al Gore didn't invent the Internet, but if Thomas Jefferson could have he
> would have. The Internet, with its Facebooks and Twitters, is the perfect
> venue for and example of the free speech the Founding Fathers enshrined in
> the Constitution's First Amendment…. 
> 
> The issue is not access, but control. In February 2008, FCC Diversity Czar
> Mark Lloyd, an admirer of what Venezuela's Hugo Chavez did to silence his
> country's media, wrote about net neutrality in an article, "Net Neutrality
> Is A Civil Rights Issue," published by CommonDreams.org. 
> 
> "Unfortunately, the powerful cable and telecom industry doesn't value the
> Internet for its public interest benefits," Lloyd wrote. "Instead, these
> companies too often believe that to safeguard their profits, they must
> control what content you see and how you get it." Lloyd feels government
> should be the voice controlling what you see and hear. 
> 
> Like the “control voice” on the old Outer Limits series, Obama and the
> liberals wanted to control everything you say and hear. Senator Ted Cruz,
> who opposed giving away U.S. control of the Internet to the United Nations
> or any foreign regulatory body, in 2014 rightly compared net neutrality to
> ObamaCare: 
> 
> Cruz, who is mulling a run for president in 2016, compared the entire
> concept of "net neutrality" -- which posits that internet companies should
> not be allowed to speed or slow down their services for certain users -- to
> Obama's much-maligned healthcare reform.'"Net Neutrality' is Obamacare for
> the Internet; the Internet should not operate at the speed of government,"
> Cruz wrote on Twitter. Cruz's spokeswoman, Amanda Carpenter, added that net
> neutrality would place the government "in charge of determining pricing,
> terms of service, and what products can be delivered. Sound like Obamacare
> much?" 
> 
> Net neutrality was not designed to liberate but to suppress. It is the
> Fairness Doctrine of the Internet that like Obama’s war on Fox News and
> conservative talk radio is designed to marginalize and silence those who
> disagree with those in power. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------
> 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

---------------------------------------------------
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