[AusNOG] QoS on Internet traffic

[Mark Smith]

Still don't understand what you're trying to say.

It seems you believe that advertisers have so much control over the billing
model for Internet services that they dictate what features ISPs can
provide. That is not the case in my experience, based on having worked for
a variety of ISPs of different sizes and target markets.

On 21 Aug. 2017 00:27, "Paul Wilkins" <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com> wrote:

> There's market forces both sides, the content providers who want a premium
> service, and the advertisers, whose business model is subsidised by the
> imposed market failure. That's how externalities work. But legislating for
> market failures to subsidise the vested interests of advertisers, means
> consumers paying in terms of worse service than their money pays for.
> Essentially a differentiated tariff model would mean consumers who want
> high quality content/real time services, could have those demands met in
> the market. The advertisers resist this, because they would be relegated to
> carriage with bulk data.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Paul Wilkins
>
> On 20 August 2017 at 14:23, Mark Smith <markzzzsmith at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So I'm trying to parse that ...
>>
>> On 20 August 2017 at 13:50, Paul Wilkins <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > It's interesting that we're seeing around the globe a push to impose by
>> > legislation net neutrality, as a means to prevent market forces who
>> want to
>> > do exactly that.
>>
>> So market forces want to have net neutrality, yet legislation for net
>> neutrality is trying to prevent these market forces attaining net
>> neutrality?
>>
>> >Rather puts them on the wrong side of history. While the
>> > differential exists between value as dictated by the market, and
>> > legislatively imposed externalities,
>> > we'll continue to see content
>> > industries subsidising the advertisers.
>> >
>>
>> So content providers are paying advertisers to display advertising,
>> rather than being paid by advertisers?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Kind regards
>> >
>> > Paul Wilkins
>> >
>> > On 20 August 2017 at 11:49, Mark Smith <markzzzsmith at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Geoff arrived early, tried out QoS, wrote a book on it, then gave up on
>> >> it.
>> >>
>> >> http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2012-06/noqos.html
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 20 Aug. 2017 11:07 am, "Paul Wilkins" <paulwilkins369 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> For those who arrived late, this 2015 article goes to some length to
>> >> elaborate on the QoS ramifications of the FCC's Title II ruling for
>> >> broadband:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> https://www.cnet.com/news/13-things-you-need-to-know-about-t
>> he-fccs-net-neutrality-regulation/L
>> >>
>> >> Kind regards
>> >>
>> >> Paul Wilkins
>> >>
>> >> On 19 August 2017 at 15:49, Jamie Baddeley <jamie.baddeley at vpc.co.nz>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On 19 August 2017 at 16:57, Matt Palmer <mpalmer at hezmatt.org> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 01:00:39PM +1000, Paul Wilkins wrote:
>> >>>> > If your client sites have redundant links, you can get massive
>> >>>> > performance
>> >>>> > benefit by routing bulk transfer via the backup path.
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > As for there is no QoS on the internet, that's mostly because US
>> >>>> > service
>> >>>> > providers are legislatively blocked from what would be a departure
>> >>>> > from net
>> >>>> > neutrality.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> <eyeroll>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> It's got nothing to do with Net Neutrality.  If it was, (a) it would
>> >>>> have
>> >>>> happened long before any of that got started, and (b) the rest of the
>> >>>> world,
>> >>>> which is not similarly constrained, would be doing it, and everything
>> >>>> would
>> >>>> be just peachy.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> No, the problem with QoS on the Internet is the same as allowing
>> senders
>> >>>> to
>> >>>> mark e-mails with priorities: everyone thinks *their* traffic is
>> >>>> important,
>> >>>> so everyone marks their packets / e-mails as "TOP PRIORITY", and
>> you're
>> >>>> back
>> >>>> to exactly the same situation you're in now, where everything's
>> >>>> best-effort
>> >>>> and nobody is particularly happy.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> - Matt
>> >>>>
>> >>> Indeed. There is no QoS on the Internet because Best Effort is the
>> only
>> >>> standard everyone can agree on. Of course some 'Best Efforts' are
>> better
>> >>> than others, but that's life.
>> >>>
>> >>> Now, you can use some of the various techniques described in this
>> thread.
>> >>> But that's not QoS. It's just making a better effort. Which is good.
>> >>>
>> >>> jamie
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> AusNOG mailing list
>> >>> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
>> >>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> AusNOG mailing list
>> >> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
>> >> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > AusNOG mailing list
>> > AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
>> > http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>> >
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20170821/0af618e2/attachment.html>