Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
According to: http://www.engadget.com/2015/11/20/fcc-chairman-gives-t-mobiles-binge-on-the... Chairman Wheeler thinks that T-mob's new "customers can get uncapped media stream data, but only from the people we like" service called Binge On is pro-competition. My take on this is that the service is *precisely* what Net Neutrality was supposed to prevent -- carriers offering paid fast-lanes to content providers -- and that this is anti-competitive to the sort of "upstart YouTube" entities that NN was supposed to protect... and that *that* is the competition that NN was supposed to protect. And I just said the same thing two different ways. Cause does anyone here think that T-mob is giving those *carriers* pride of place *for free*? Corporations don't - in my experience - give away lots of money out of the goodness of their hearts. Cheers, -- jr 'whacky weekend' a -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
According to:
http://www.engadget.com/2015/11/20/fcc-chairman-gives-t-mobiles-binge-on-the...
Chairman Wheeler thinks that T-mob's new "customers can get uncapped media stream data, but only from the people we like" service called Binge On is pro-competition.
My take on this is that the service is *precisely* what Net Neutrality was supposed to prevent -- carriers offering paid fast-lanes to content providers -- and that this is anti-competitive to the sort of "upstart YouTube" entities that NN was supposed to protect...
and that *that* is the competition that NN was supposed to protect.
What I read was that as long as a video offerer marks its traffic and is certified in a few other ways, anyone can send video content cap-free. No I don't know what the criteria are. Does anyone here? I also think I remember that there is no significant cost to certification, i.e. this is not a paid fast lane. If this is all true, this doesn't bother me, and could do everyone a favor by getting definitions clearer and getting traffic marked.
On 11/20/2015 08:16 AM, Scott Brim wrote:
According to:
http://www.engadget.com/2015/11/20/fcc-chairman-gives-t-mobiles-binge-on-the...
Chairman Wheeler thinks that T-mob's new "customers can get uncapped media stream data, but only from the people we like" service called Binge On is pro-competition.
My take on this is that the service is *precisely* what Net Neutrality was supposed to prevent -- carriers offering paid fast-lanes to content providers -- and that this is anti-competitive to the sort of "upstart YouTube" entities that NN was supposed to protect...
and that *that* is the competition that NN was supposed to protect. What I read was that as long as a video offerer marks its traffic and is certified in a few other ways, anyone can send video content cap-free. No I don't know what the criteria are. Does anyone here? I also think I remember that there is no significant cost to certification, i.e. this is not a paid fast lane. If this is all
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote: true, this doesn't bother me, and could do everyone a favor by getting definitions clearer and getting traffic marked.
Why do you need certification? I doubt many people have a problem with qos marking, but "certification" sort of gives me the creeps. Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Brim" <scott.brim@gmail.com>
What I read was that as long as a video offerer marks its traffic and is certified in a few other ways, anyone can send video content cap-free. No I don't know what the criteria are. Does anyone here? I also think I remember that there is no significant cost to certification, i.e. this is not a paid fast lane. If this is all true, this doesn't bother me, and could do everyone a favor by getting definitions clearer and getting traffic marked.
Izzat so. If that's true, then more power to them. I hadn't seen that deep a dive in any of the coverage I'd read. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274
T-Mobile claims they are not accepting any payment from these content providers for inclusion in Binge On. "Onstage today, Legere said any company can apply to join the Binge On program. "Anyone who can meet our technical requirement, we’ll include," he said. "This is not a net neutrality problem." Legere pointed to the fact that Binge On doesn't charge providers for inclusion and customers don't pay to access it." http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/10/9704482/t-mobile-uncarrier-binge-on-netfl... On 11/20/15 10:45 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
According to:
http://www.engadget.com/2015/11/20/fcc-chairman-gives-t-mobiles-binge-on-the...
Chairman Wheeler thinks that T-mob's new "customers can get uncapped media stream data, but only from the people we like" service called Binge On is pro-competition.
My take on this is that the service is *precisely* what Net Neutrality was supposed to prevent -- carriers offering paid fast-lanes to content providers -- and that this is anti-competitive to the sort of "upstart YouTube" entities that NN was supposed to protect...
and that *that* is the competition that NN was supposed to protect.
And I just said the same thing two different ways.
Cause does anyone here think that T-mob is giving those *carriers* pride of place *for free*?
Corporations don't - in my experience - give away lots of money out of the goodness of their hearts.
Cheers, -- jr 'whacky weekend' a
I believe there may be a catch though: I don't think they can pick and choose which streaming providers they allow their customers to stream for free. As long as their streaming program is a "catch-all" for streaming video, they can claim they are doing what they can (within reason) to exempt streaming video from their data caps and are probably fine with the FCC. For instance, using the "streaming video" filter in Procera or a similar DPI product. If it is found they are picking and choosing which content is free (intentionally) they might be in trouble for that part. They are not paying for this feature with the content providers (no paid prioritization) and it's good for consumers. It probably sucks for WISPs until those cell sectors start getting filled up though ;) On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Shane Ronan <shane@ronan-online.com> wrote:
T-Mobile claims they are not accepting any payment from these content providers for inclusion in Binge On.
"Onstage today, Legere said any company can apply to join the Binge On program. "Anyone who can meet our technical requirement, we’ll include," he said. "This is not a net neutrality problem." Legere pointed to the fact that Binge On doesn't charge providers for inclusion and customers don't pay to access it." http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/10/9704482/t-mobile-uncarrier-binge-on-netfl...
On 11/20/15 10:45 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
According to:
http://www.engadget.com/2015/11/20/fcc-chairman-gives-t-mobiles-binge-on-the...
Chairman Wheeler thinks that T-mob's new "customers can get uncapped media stream data, but only from the people we like" service called Binge On is pro-competition.
My take on this is that the service is *precisely* what Net Neutrality was supposed to prevent -- carriers offering paid fast-lanes to content providers -- and that this is anti-competitive to the sort of "upstart YouTube" entities that NN was supposed to protect...
and that *that* is the competition that NN was supposed to protect.
And I just said the same thing two different ways.
Cause does anyone here think that T-mob is giving those *carriers* pride of place *for free*?
Corporations don't - in my experience - give away lots of money out of the goodness of their hearts.
Cheers, -- jr 'whacky weekend' a
(CAUTION CAUTION CAUTION - just a swag) isn't this just moving content to v6 and/or behind the great-nat-of-tmo? 'reduce our need for NAT infra and incent customers to stop using NAT requiring services' ? On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Shane Ronan <shane@ronan-online.com> wrote:
T-Mobile claims they are not accepting any payment from these content providers for inclusion in Binge On.
"Onstage today, Legere said any company can apply to join the Binge On program. "Anyone who can meet our technical requirement, we’ll include," he said. "This is not a net neutrality problem." Legere pointed to the fact that Binge On doesn't charge providers for inclusion and customers don't pay to access it." http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/10/9704482/t-mobile-uncarrier-binge-on-netfl...
On 11/20/15 10:45 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
According to:
http://www.engadget.com/2015/11/20/fcc-chairman-gives-t-mobiles-binge-on-the...
Chairman Wheeler thinks that T-mob's new "customers can get uncapped media stream data, but only from the people we like" service called Binge On is pro-competition.
My take on this is that the service is *precisely* what Net Neutrality was supposed to prevent -- carriers offering paid fast-lanes to content providers -- and that this is anti-competitive to the sort of "upstart YouTube" entities that NN was supposed to protect...
and that *that* is the competition that NN was supposed to protect.
And I just said the same thing two different ways.
Cause does anyone here think that T-mob is giving those *carriers* pride of place *for free*?
Corporations don't - in my experience - give away lots of money out of the goodness of their hearts.
Cheers, -- jr 'whacky weekend' a
What are these technical requirements? I feel like these would punish small upstarts well helping protect large incumbent services from competition. Even if you don't demand payment, you can still hurt the fairness of the internet this way. -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Shane Ronan Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 9:25 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? T-Mobile claims they are not accepting any payment from these content providers for inclusion in Binge On. "Onstage today, Legere said any company can apply to join the Binge On program. "Anyone who can meet our technical requirement, we’ll include," he said. "This is not a net neutrality problem." Legere pointed to the fact that Binge On doesn't charge providers for inclusion and customers don't pay to access it." http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/10/9704482/t-mobile-uncarrier-binge-on-netfl... On 11/20/15 10:45 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
According to:
http://www.engadget.com/2015/11/20/fcc-chairman-gives-t-mobiles-binge-on-the...
Chairman Wheeler thinks that T-mob's new "customers can get uncapped media stream data, but only from the people we like" service called Binge On is pro-competition.
My take on this is that the service is *precisely* what Net Neutrality was supposed to prevent -- carriers offering paid fast-lanes to content providers -- and that this is anti-competitive to the sort of "upstart YouTube" entities that NN was supposed to protect...
and that *that* is the competition that NN was supposed to protect.
And I just said the same thing two different ways.
Cause does anyone here think that T-mob is giving those *carriers* pride of place *for free*?
Corporations don't - in my experience - give away lots of money out of the goodness of their hearts.
Cheers, -- jr 'whacky weekend' a
http://www.t-mobile.com/content/dam/tmo/en-g/pdf/BingeOn-Video-Technical-Cri... -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Steve Mikulasik Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 11:37 AM To: Shane Ronan <shane@ronan-online.com>; nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? What are these technical requirements? I feel like these would punish small upstarts well helping protect large incumbent services from competition. Even if you don't demand payment, you can still hurt the fairness of the internet this way. -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Shane Ronan Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 9:25 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? T-Mobile claims they are not accepting any payment from these content providers for inclusion in Binge On. "Onstage today, Legere said any company can apply to join the Binge On program. "Anyone who can meet our technical requirement, we’ll include," he said. "This is not a net neutrality problem." Legere pointed to the fact that Binge On doesn't charge providers for inclusion and customers don't pay to access it." http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/10/9704482/t-mobile-uncarrier-binge-on-netfl... On 11/20/15 10:45 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
According to:
http://www.engadget.com/2015/11/20/fcc-chairman-gives-t-mobiles-binge- on-the-thumbs-up/
Chairman Wheeler thinks that T-mob's new "customers can get uncapped media stream data, but only from the people we like" service called Binge On is pro-competition.
My take on this is that the service is *precisely* what Net Neutrality was supposed to prevent -- carriers offering paid fast-lanes to content providers -- and that this is anti-competitive to the sort of "upstart YouTube" entities that NN was supposed to protect...
and that *that* is the competition that NN was supposed to protect.
And I just said the same thing two different ways.
Cause does anyone here think that T-mob is giving those *carriers* pride of place *for free*?
Corporations don't - in my experience - give away lots of money out of the goodness of their hearts.
Cheers, -- jr 'whacky weekend' a
That is much better than I thought. Although, I don't think the person who wrote this understands what UDP is. "Use of technology protocols that are demonstrated to prevent video stream detection, such as User Datagram Protocol “UDP” on any platform will exclude video streams from that content provider" -----Original Message----- From: Ian Smith [mailto:I.Smith@F5.com] Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 9:52 AM To: Steve Mikulasik <Steve.Mikulasik@civeo.com>; Shane Ronan <shane@ronan-online.com>; nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? http://www.t-mobile.com/content/dam/tmo/en-g/pdf/BingeOn-Video-Technical-Cri... -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Steve Mikulasik Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 11:37 AM To: Shane Ronan <shane@ronan-online.com>; nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? What are these technical requirements? I feel like these would punish small upstarts well helping protect large incumbent services from competition. Even if you don't demand payment, you can still hurt the fairness of the internet this way. -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Shane Ronan Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 9:25 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? T-Mobile claims they are not accepting any payment from these content providers for inclusion in Binge On. "Onstage today, Legere said any company can apply to join the Binge On program. "Anyone who can meet our technical requirement, we’ll include," he said. "This is not a net neutrality problem." Legere pointed to the fact that Binge On doesn't charge providers for inclusion and customers don't pay to access it." http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/10/9704482/t-mobile-uncarrier-binge-on-netfl... On 11/20/15 10:45 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
According to:
http://www.engadget.com/2015/11/20/fcc-chairman-gives-t-mobiles-binge- on-the-thumbs-up/
Chairman Wheeler thinks that T-mob's new "customers can get uncapped media stream data, but only from the people we like" service called Binge On is pro-competition.
My take on this is that the service is *precisely* what Net Neutrality was supposed to prevent -- carriers offering paid fast-lanes to content providers -- and that this is anti-competitive to the sort of "upstart YouTube" entities that NN was supposed to protect...
and that *that* is the competition that NN was supposed to protect.
And I just said the same thing two different ways.
Cause does anyone here think that T-mob is giving those *carriers* pride of place *for free*?
Corporations don't - in my experience - give away lots of money out of the goodness of their hearts.
Cheers, -- jr 'whacky weekend' a
It’s a full page of standards in a relatively large font with decent spacing. Given that bluetooth is several hundred pages, I’d say this is pretty reasonable. Having read through the page, I don’t see anything onerous in the requirements. In fact, it looks to me like the bare minimum of reasonable and an expression by T-Mo of a willingness to expend a fair amount of effort to integrate content providers. I don’t see anything here that hurts net neutrality and I applaud this as actually being a potential boon to consumers and a potentially good model of how to implement ZRB in a net-neutral way going forward. Owen
On Nov 20, 2015, at 09:03 , Steve Mikulasik <Steve.Mikulasik@civeo.com> wrote:
That is much better than I thought. Although, I don't think the person who wrote this understands what UDP is.
"Use of technology protocols that are demonstrated to prevent video stream detection, such as User Datagram Protocol “UDP” on any platform will exclude video streams from that content provider"
-----Original Message----- From: Ian Smith [mailto:I.Smith@F5.com] Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 9:52 AM To: Steve Mikulasik <Steve.Mikulasik@civeo.com>; Shane Ronan <shane@ronan-online.com>; nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
http://www.t-mobile.com/content/dam/tmo/en-g/pdf/BingeOn-Video-Technical-Cri...
-----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Steve Mikulasik Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 11:37 AM To: Shane Ronan <shane@ronan-online.com>; nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
What are these technical requirements? I feel like these would punish small upstarts well helping protect large incumbent services from competition.
Even if you don't demand payment, you can still hurt the fairness of the internet this way.
-----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Shane Ronan Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 9:25 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
T-Mobile claims they are not accepting any payment from these content providers for inclusion in Binge On.
"Onstage today, Legere said any company can apply to join the Binge On program. "Anyone who can meet our technical requirement, we’ll include," he said. "This is not a net neutrality problem." Legere pointed to the fact that Binge On doesn't charge providers for inclusion and customers don't pay to access it." http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/10/9704482/t-mobile-uncarrier-binge-on-netfl...
On 11/20/15 10:45 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
According to:
http://www.engadget.com/2015/11/20/fcc-chairman-gives-t-mobiles-binge- on-the-thumbs-up/
Chairman Wheeler thinks that T-mob's new "customers can get uncapped media stream data, but only from the people we like" service called Binge On is pro-competition.
My take on this is that the service is *precisely* what Net Neutrality was supposed to prevent -- carriers offering paid fast-lanes to content providers -- and that this is anti-competitive to the sort of "upstart YouTube" entities that NN was supposed to protect...
and that *that* is the competition that NN was supposed to protect.
And I just said the same thing two different ways.
Cause does anyone here think that T-mob is giving those *carriers* pride of place *for free*?
Corporations don't - in my experience - give away lots of money out of the goodness of their hearts.
Cheers, -- jr 'whacky weekend' a
Not that I mind getting significantly more service at little additional cost - as proposed by T-Mobile. But I would have preferred to simply get unlimited data usage (or a much larger monthly allotment) and had the freedom to use that data how I see fit. Comparing the two options, I think one is more neutral than the other. Owen DeLong wrote on 11/20/2015 3:50 PM:
It’s a full page of standards in a relatively large font with decent spacing.
Given that bluetooth is several hundred pages, I’d say this is pretty reasonable.
Having read through the page, I don’t see anything onerous in the requirements. In fact, it looks to me like the bare minimum of reasonable and an expression by T-Mo of a willingness to expend a fair amount of effort to integrate content providers.
I don’t see anything here that hurts net neutrality and I applaud this as actually being a potential boon to consumers and a potentially good model of how to implement ZRB in a net-neutral way going forward.
Owen
On Nov 20, 2015, at 09:03 , Steve Mikulasik <Steve.Mikulasik@civeo.com> wrote:
That is much better than I thought. Although, I don't think the person who wrote this understands what UDP is.
"Use of technology protocols that are demonstrated to prevent video stream detection, such as User Datagram Protocol “UDP” on any platform will exclude video streams from that content provider"
-----Original Message----- From: Ian Smith [mailto:I.Smith@F5.com] Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 9:52 AM To: Steve Mikulasik <Steve.Mikulasik@civeo.com>; Shane Ronan <shane@ronan-online.com>; nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
http://www.t-mobile.com/content/dam/tmo/en-g/pdf/BingeOn-Video-Technical-Cri...
-----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Steve Mikulasik Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 11:37 AM To: Shane Ronan <shane@ronan-online.com>; nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
What are these technical requirements? I feel like these would punish small upstarts well helping protect large incumbent services from competition.
Even if you don't demand payment, you can still hurt the fairness of the internet this way.
-----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Shane Ronan Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 9:25 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
T-Mobile claims they are not accepting any payment from these content providers for inclusion in Binge On.
"Onstage today, Legere said any company can apply to join the Binge On program. "Anyone who can meet our technical requirement, we’ll include," he said. "This is not a net neutrality problem." Legere pointed to the fact that Binge On doesn't charge providers for inclusion and customers don't pay to access it." http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/10/9704482/t-mobile-uncarrier-binge-on-netfl...
On 11/20/15 10:45 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
According to:
http://www.engadget.com/2015/11/20/fcc-chairman-gives-t-mobiles-binge- on-the-thumbs-up/
Chairman Wheeler thinks that T-mob's new "customers can get uncapped media stream data, but only from the people we like" service called Binge On is pro-competition.
My take on this is that the service is *precisely* what Net Neutrality was supposed to prevent -- carriers offering paid fast-lanes to content providers -- and that this is anti-competitive to the sort of "upstart YouTube" entities that NN was supposed to protect...
and that *that* is the competition that NN was supposed to protect.
And I just said the same thing two different ways.
Cause does anyone here think that T-mob is giving those *carriers* pride of place *for free*?
Corporations don't - in my experience - give away lots of money out of the goodness of their hearts.
Cheers, -- jr 'whacky weekend' a
Once upon a time, Blake Hudson <blake@ispn.net> said:
Not that I mind getting significantly more service at little additional cost - as proposed by T-Mobile. But I would have preferred to simply get unlimited data usage (or a much larger monthly allotment) and had the freedom to use that data how I see fit. Comparing the two options, I think one is more neutral than the other.
So, lucky you: most T-Mobile data plans are doubling in size as well (same announcement). They do also offer an unlimited data plan (don't know the caveats, probably some apply). -- Chris Adams <cma@cmadams.net>
Unlimited data plan is $30/mo. Other than the usual cellular caveats of coverage sucks in lots of places and data rates can be slow when you’re in a densely populated area, congestion, oversubscription, etc… Doesn’t seem to have any problems. I’ve been on that plan for most of a year now. The biggest problem I have (other than occasionally terrible call quality) is that due to religious stupidity, they refuse to support IPv6 over LTE for iOS. Owen
On Nov 20, 2015, at 14:09 , Chris Adams <cma@cmadams.net> wrote:
Once upon a time, Blake Hudson <blake@ispn.net> said:
Not that I mind getting significantly more service at little additional cost - as proposed by T-Mobile. But I would have preferred to simply get unlimited data usage (or a much larger monthly allotment) and had the freedom to use that data how I see fit. Comparing the two options, I think one is more neutral than the other.
So, lucky you: most T-Mobile data plans are doubling in size as well (same announcement). They do also offer an unlimited data plan (don't know the caveats, probably some apply).
-- Chris Adams <cma@cmadams.net>
Obviously this is designed so that the carrier knows what traffic to "disregard" in their feed to the NSA ... That is the sole purpose of it.
-----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong Sent: Friday, 20 November, 2015 14:50 To: Steve Mikulasik Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
It’s a full page of standards in a relatively large font with decent spacing.
Given that bluetooth is several hundred pages, I’d say this is pretty reasonable.
Having read through the page, I don’t see anything onerous in the requirements. In fact, it looks to me like the bare minimum of reasonable and an expression by T-Mo of a willingness to expend a fair amount of effort to integrate content providers.
I don’t see anything here that hurts net neutrality and I applaud this as actually being a potential boon to consumers and a potentially good model of how to implement ZRB in a net-neutral way going forward.
Owen
On Nov 20, 2015, at 09:03 , Steve Mikulasik <Steve.Mikulasik@civeo.com> wrote:
That is much better than I thought. Although, I don't think the person who wrote this understands what UDP is.
"Use of technology protocols that are demonstrated to prevent video stream detection, such as User Datagram Protocol “UDP” on any platform will exclude video streams from that content provider"
-----Original Message----- From: Ian Smith [mailto:I.Smith@F5.com] Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 9:52 AM To: Steve Mikulasik <Steve.Mikulasik@civeo.com>; Shane Ronan <shane@ronan-online.com>; nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
http://www.t-mobile.com/content/dam/tmo/en-g/pdf/BingeOn-Video- Technical-Criteria-November-2015.pdf
-----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Steve Mikulasik Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 11:37 AM To: Shane Ronan <shane@ronan-online.com>; nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
What are these technical requirements? I feel like these would punish small upstarts well helping protect large incumbent services from competition.
Even if you don't demand payment, you can still hurt the fairness of the internet this way.
-----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Shane Ronan Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 9:25 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
T-Mobile claims they are not accepting any payment from these content providers for inclusion in Binge On.
"Onstage today, Legere said any company can apply to join the Binge On program. "Anyone who can meet our technical requirement, we’ll include," he said. "This is not a net neutrality problem." Legere pointed to the fact that Binge On doesn't charge providers for inclusion and customers don't pay to access it." http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/10/9704482/t-mobile-uncarrier-binge-on- netflix-hbo-streaming
On 11/20/15 10:45 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
According to:
http://www.engadget.com/2015/11/20/fcc-chairman-gives-t-mobiles-binge- on-the-thumbs-up/
Chairman Wheeler thinks that T-mob's new "customers can get uncapped media stream data, but only from the people we like" service called Binge On is pro-competition.
My take on this is that the service is *precisely* what Net Neutrality was supposed to prevent -- carriers offering paid fast-lanes to content providers -- and that this is anti-competitive to the sort of "upstart YouTube" entities that NN was supposed to protect...
and that *that* is the competition that NN was supposed to protect.
And I just said the same thing two different ways.
Cause does anyone here think that T-mob is giving those *carriers* pride of place *for free*?
Corporations don't - in my experience - give away lots of money out of the goodness of their hearts.
Cheers, -- jr 'whacky weekend' a
I think they actually might… It’s very hard to identify streams in UDP since UDP is stateless. Owen
On Nov 20, 2015, at 09:03 , Steve Mikulasik <Steve.Mikulasik@civeo.com> wrote:
That is much better than I thought. Although, I don't think the person who wrote this understands what UDP is.
"Use of technology protocols that are demonstrated to prevent video stream detection, such as User Datagram Protocol “UDP” on any platform will exclude video streams from that content provider"
-----Original Message----- From: Ian Smith [mailto:I.Smith@F5.com] Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 9:52 AM To: Steve Mikulasik <Steve.Mikulasik@civeo.com>; Shane Ronan <shane@ronan-online.com>; nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
http://www.t-mobile.com/content/dam/tmo/en-g/pdf/BingeOn-Video-Technical-Cri...
-----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Steve Mikulasik Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 11:37 AM To: Shane Ronan <shane@ronan-online.com>; nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
What are these technical requirements? I feel like these would punish small upstarts well helping protect large incumbent services from competition.
Even if you don't demand payment, you can still hurt the fairness of the internet this way.
-----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Shane Ronan Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 9:25 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
T-Mobile claims they are not accepting any payment from these content providers for inclusion in Binge On.
"Onstage today, Legere said any company can apply to join the Binge On program. "Anyone who can meet our technical requirement, we’ll include," he said. "This is not a net neutrality problem." Legere pointed to the fact that Binge On doesn't charge providers for inclusion and customers don't pay to access it." http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/10/9704482/t-mobile-uncarrier-binge-on-netfl...
On 11/20/15 10:45 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
According to:
http://www.engadget.com/2015/11/20/fcc-chairman-gives-t-mobiles-binge- on-the-thumbs-up/
Chairman Wheeler thinks that T-mob's new "customers can get uncapped media stream data, but only from the people we like" service called Binge On is pro-competition.
My take on this is that the service is *precisely* what Net Neutrality was supposed to prevent -- carriers offering paid fast-lanes to content providers -- and that this is anti-competitive to the sort of "upstart YouTube" entities that NN was supposed to protect...
and that *that* is the competition that NN was supposed to protect.
And I just said the same thing two different ways.
Cause does anyone here think that T-mob is giving those *carriers* pride of place *for free*?
Corporations don't - in my experience - give away lots of money out of the goodness of their hearts.
Cheers, -- jr 'whacky weekend' a
Requiring streaming companies not to use UDP is pretty absurd. Surely they must be able to identify streaming traffic without needing TCP. Sent from my Windows Phone ________________________________ From: Owen DeLong<mailto:owen@delong.com> Sent: 11/20/2015 4:32 PM To: Steve Mikulasik<mailto:Steve.Mikulasik@civeo.com> Cc: Ian Smith<mailto:I.Smith@F5.com>; nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? I think they actually might… It’s very hard to identify streams in UDP since UDP is stateless. Owen
On Nov 20, 2015, at 09:03 , Steve Mikulasik <Steve.Mikulasik@civeo.com> wrote:
That is much better than I thought. Although, I don't think the person who wrote this understands what UDP is.
"Use of technology protocols that are demonstrated to prevent video stream detection, such as User Datagram Protocol “UDP” on any platform will exclude video streams from that content provider"
-----Original Message----- From: Ian Smith [mailto:I.Smith@F5.com] Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 9:52 AM To: Steve Mikulasik <Steve.Mikulasik@civeo.com>; Shane Ronan <shane@ronan-online.com>; nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
http://www.t-mobile.com/content/dam/tmo/en-g/pdf/BingeOn-Video-Technical-Cri...
-----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Steve Mikulasik Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 11:37 AM To: Shane Ronan <shane@ronan-online.com>; nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
What are these technical requirements? I feel like these would punish small upstarts well helping protect large incumbent services from competition.
Even if you don't demand payment, you can still hurt the fairness of the internet this way.
-----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Shane Ronan Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 9:25 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
T-Mobile claims they are not accepting any payment from these content providers for inclusion in Binge On.
"Onstage today, Legere said any company can apply to join the Binge On program. "Anyone who can meet our technical requirement, we’ll include," he said. "This is not a net neutrality problem." Legere pointed to the fact that Binge On doesn't charge providers for inclusion and customers don't pay to access it." http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/10/9704482/t-mobile-uncarrier-binge-on-netfl...
On 11/20/15 10:45 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
According to:
http://www.engadget.com/2015/11/20/fcc-chairman-gives-t-mobiles-binge- on-the-thumbs-up/
Chairman Wheeler thinks that T-mob's new "customers can get uncapped media stream data, but only from the people we like" service called Binge On is pro-competition.
My take on this is that the service is *precisely* what Net Neutrality was supposed to prevent -- carriers offering paid fast-lanes to content providers -- and that this is anti-competitive to the sort of "upstart YouTube" entities that NN was supposed to protect...
and that *that* is the competition that NN was supposed to protect.
And I just said the same thing two different ways.
Cause does anyone here think that T-mob is giving those *carriers* pride of place *for free*?
Corporations don't - in my experience - give away lots of money out of the goodness of their hearts.
Cheers, -- jr 'whacky weekend' a
On 11/20/15 3:35 PM, Steve Mikulasik wrote:
Requiring streaming companies not to use UDP is pretty absurd. Surely they must be able to identify streaming traffic without needing TCP.
One presumes that they've gotten rather good at looking at HLS or MPEG-DASH and triggering rate adaption where necessary.
Sent from my Windows Phone ________________________________ From: Owen DeLong<mailto:owen@delong.com> Sent: 11/20/2015 4:32 PM To: Steve Mikulasik<mailto:Steve.Mikulasik@civeo.com> Cc: Ian Smith<mailto:I.Smith@F5.com>; nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
I think they actually might… It’s very hard to identify streams in UDP since UDP is stateless.
Owen
On Nov 20, 2015, at 09:03 , Steve Mikulasik <Steve.Mikulasik@civeo.com> wrote:
That is much better than I thought. Although, I don't think the person who wrote this understands what UDP is.
"Use of technology protocols that are demonstrated to prevent video stream detection, such as User Datagram Protocol “UDP” on any platform will exclude video streams from that content provider"
-----Original Message----- From: Ian Smith [mailto:I.Smith@F5.com] Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 9:52 AM To: Steve Mikulasik <Steve.Mikulasik@civeo.com>; Shane Ronan <shane@ronan-online.com>; nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
http://www.t-mobile.com/content/dam/tmo/en-g/pdf/BingeOn-Video-Technical-Cri...
-----Original Message-----
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Steve Mikulasik Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 11:37 AM To: Shane Ronan <shane@ronan-online.com>; nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
What are these technical requirements? I feel like these would punish small upstarts well helping protect large incumbent services from competition.
Even if you don't demand payment, you can still hurt the fairness of the internet this way.
-----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Shane Ronan Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 9:25 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
T-Mobile claims they are not accepting any payment from these content providers for inclusion in Binge On.
"Onstage today, Legere said any company can apply to join the Binge On program. "Anyone who can meet our technical requirement, we’ll include," he said. "This is not a net neutrality problem." Legere pointed to the fact that Binge On doesn't charge providers for inclusion and customers don't pay to access it." http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/10/9704482/t-mobile-uncarrier-binge-on-netfl...
On 11/20/15 10:45 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
According to:
http://www.engadget.com/2015/11/20/fcc-chairman-gives-t-mobiles-binge-
on-the-thumbs-up/
Chairman Wheeler thinks that T-mob's new "customers can get uncapped media stream data, but only from the people we like" service called Binge On is pro-competition.
My take on this is that the service is *precisely* what Net Neutrality was supposed to prevent -- carriers offering paid fast-lanes to content providers -- and that this is anti-competitive to the sort of "upstart YouTube" entities that NN was supposed to protect...
and that *that* is the competition that NN was supposed to protect.
And I just said the same thing two different ways.
Cause does anyone here think that T-mob is giving those *carriers* pride of place *for free*?
Corporations don't - in my experience - give away lots of money out of the goodness of their hearts.
Cheers, -- jr 'whacky weekend' a
Considering T-Mobile's proposal is intended to favor streaming music and video services, I think it clearly violates net neutrality which is intended to not only promote competition in existing applications, but also in new (possibly undeveloped) applications. This proposal simply entrenches streaming video/music by artificially reducing the cost to operators in these fields while leaving costs the same for operators in other fields - medical imaging, video conferencing, online backup, etc. I believe the sum affect is a reduction in competition and growth of the internet as a whole, the antithesis to the spirit of net neutrality.
I don't know if this is NN or not, but the concept is ancient. Even back in the dark ages of mobile, zero rating and associated rev share were very common. Whether this is relevant to NN or not is for lawyers. Christian
On Nov 20, 2015, at 7:47 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
According to:
Chairman Wheeler thinks that T-mob's new "customers can get uncapped media stream data, but only from the people we like" service called Binge On is pro-competition.
My take on this is that the service is *precisely* what Net Neutrality was supposed to prevent -- carriers offering paid fast-lanes to content providers -- and that this is anti-competitive to the sort of "upstart YouTube" entities that NN was supposed to protect...
and that *that* is the competition that NN was supposed to protect.
And I just said the same thing two different ways.
Cause does anyone here think that T-mob is giving those *carriers* pride of place *for free*?
Corporations don't - in my experience - give away lots of money out of the goodness of their hearts.
Cheers, -- jr 'whacky weekend' a -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.bcp38.info&data=01%7c01%7cchkuhtz%40microsoft.com%7c7c7a1c832d1a4d7d615008d2f1c1ebb0%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=pqF%2fnrW6m6K0%2fdcNZO7pAm9xfEPpoYXHfaoS%2fpGZcsc%3d 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274
Except there’s no revenue share here. According to T-Mobile, the streaming partners aren’t paying anything to T-Mo and T-Mo isn’t paying them. It’s kind of like zero-rating in that the customers don’t pay bandwidth charges, but it’s different in that the service provider isn’t being asked to subsidize the network provider (usual implementation of zero-rating). Owen
On Nov 23, 2015, at 10:42 , Christian Kuhtz <chkuhtz@microsoft.com> wrote:
I don't know if this is NN or not, but the concept is ancient. Even back in the dark ages of mobile, zero rating and associated rev share were very common.
Whether this is relevant to NN or not is for lawyers.
Christian
On Nov 20, 2015, at 7:47 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
According to:
Chairman Wheeler thinks that T-mob's new "customers can get uncapped media stream data, but only from the people we like" service called Binge On is pro-competition.
My take on this is that the service is *precisely* what Net Neutrality was supposed to prevent -- carriers offering paid fast-lanes to content providers -- and that this is anti-competitive to the sort of "upstart YouTube" entities that NN was supposed to protect...
and that *that* is the competition that NN was supposed to protect.
And I just said the same thing two different ways.
Cause does anyone here think that T-mob is giving those *carriers* pride of place *for free*?
Corporations don't - in my experience - give away lots of money out of the goodness of their hearts.
Cheers, -- jr 'whacky weekend' a -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.bcp38.info&data=01%7c01%7cchkuhtz%40microsoft.com%7c7c7a1c832d1a4d7d615008d2f1c1ebb0%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=pqF%2fnrW6m6K0%2fdcNZO7pAm9xfEPpoYXHfaoS%2fpGZcsc%3d 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 5:12 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
Except there’s no revenue share here. According to T-Mobile, the streaming partners aren’t paying anything to T-Mo and T-Mo isn’t paying them. It’s kind of like zero-rating in that the customers don’t pay bandwidth charges, but it’s different in that the service provider isn’t being asked to subsidize the network provider (usual implementation of zero-rating).
equal exchange of value doesn't have to be dollars/pesos/euros changing hands right? -chris
On Nov 23, 2015, at 14:16 , Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 5:12 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
Except there’s no revenue share here. According to T-Mobile, the streaming partners aren’t paying anything to T-Mo and T-Mo isn’t paying them. It’s kind of like zero-rating in that the customers don’t pay bandwidth charges, but it’s different in that the service provider isn’t being asked to subsidize the network provider (usual implementation of zero-rating).
equal exchange of value doesn't have to be dollars/pesos/euros changing hands right? -chris
Sure, but I really don’t think there’s an exchange per se in this case, given that T-Mo is (at least apparently) willing to accommodate any streaming provider that wants to participate so long as they are willing to conform to a fairly basic set of technical criteria. Owen
In message <E24772E7-A95B-4866-9630-2B1023EBD4FD@delong.com>, Owen DeLong write s:
On Nov 23, 2015, at 14:16 , Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 5:12 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
Except there’s no revenue share here. According to T-Mobile, the streaming partners aren’t paying anything to T-Mo and T-Mo isn’t paying them. It’s kind of like zero-rating in that the customers don’t pay bandwidth charges, but it’s different in that the service provider isn’t being asked to subsidize the network provider (usual implementation of zero-rating).
equal exchange of value doesn't have to be dollars/pesos/euros changing hands right? -chris
Sure, but I really don’t think there’s an exchange per se in this case, given that T-Mo is (at least apparently) willing to accommodate any streaming provider that wants to participate so long as they are willing to conform to a fairly basic set of technical criteria.
No. This is T-Mo saying they are neutral but not actually being so. This is like writing a job add for one particular person. Its just as easy to identify a UDP stream as it is a TCP stream. You can ratelimit a UDP stream as easily as a TCP stream. You can have congestion control over UDP as well as over TCP. Just because the base transport doesn't give you some of these and you have to implement them higher up the stack is no reason to throw out a transport. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
On Nov 23, 2015, at 14:58 , Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:
In message <E24772E7-A95B-4866-9630-2B1023EBD4FD@delong.com <mailto:E24772E7-A95B-4866-9630-2B1023EBD4FD@delong.com>>, Owen DeLong write s:
On Nov 23, 2015, at 14:16 , Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 5:12 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
Except there’s no revenue share here. According to T-Mobile, the streaming partners aren’t paying anything to T-Mo and T-Mo isn’t paying them. It’s kind of like zero-rating in that the customers don’t pay bandwidth charges, but it’s different in that the service provider isn’t being asked to subsidize the network provider (usual implementation of zero-rating).
equal exchange of value doesn't have to be dollars/pesos/euros changing hands right? -chris
Sure, but I really don’t think there’s an exchange per se in this case, given that T-Mo is (at least apparently) willing to accommodate any streaming provider that wants to participate so long as they are willing to conform to a fairly basic set of technical criteria.
No. This is T-Mo saying they are neutral but not actually being so. This is like writing a job add for one particular person.
Its just as easy to identify a UDP stream as it is a TCP stream. You can ratelimit a UDP stream as easily as a TCP stream. You can have congestion control over UDP as well as over TCP. Just because the base transport doesn't give you some of these and you have to implement them higher up the stack is no reason to throw out a transport.
Are there a significant number (ANY?) streaming video providers using UDP to deliver their streams? I admit I’m mostly ignorant here, but at least the ones I’m familiar with all use TCP. Further, it depends on how you define a stream… If a stream is a conversation between two particular endpoints using consistent port numbers, then sure, it’s (somewhat) easy to identify, except… OTOH, if a stream is considered all of the packets involved in a particular user watching a particular video, then depending on implementation, this could be much harder to identify over UDP than TCP. For example, if the stream is delivered via a torrent-like delivery system over UDP, it could be very hard to identify that all the various seemingly random UDP packets are part of that particular video delivery. If the requirements were specific enough that they matched a particularly small subset of video delivery services, then I might agree with you. In this case, they seem to have been written more from the technical limitations of T-Mobiles current ability to identify the traffic than targeted at a specific service. For example, I seriously doubt that video delivered from http://us-st.xhcdn.com/swf/ <http://us-st.xhcdn.com/swf/>… is likely to be among their “target candidates”. Nonetheless, it does appear that if xhcdn chooses to apply under the program, they wouldn’t have any trouble meeting the requirements. (if you want to review the kind of videos hosted on xhcdn, visit their client www.xhamster.com <http://www.xhamster.com/>. Warning… NSFW) You can make all the claims you want about how they should have or could have implemented this, but unless you have evidence that the issue is actually an attempt to circumvent the intent of net neutrality and not merely a technical limitation of their particular implementation, then I really don’t think you have a basis for your claim above. Owen
On 24 November 2015 at 00:22, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
Are there a significant number (ANY?) streaming video providers using UDP to deliver their streams?
What else could we have that is UDP based? Ah voice calls. Video calls. Stuff that requires low latency and where TCP retransmit of stale data is bad. Media without buffering because it is real time. And why would a telco want to zero rate all the bandwidth heavy media with certain exceptions? Like not zero rating media that happens to compete with some of their own services, such as voice calls and video calls. Yes sounds like net neutrality to me too (or not!). Regards, Baldur
On Nov 23, 2015, at 17:28 , Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24 November 2015 at 00:22, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
Are there a significant number (ANY?) streaming video providers using UDP to deliver their streams?
What else could we have that is UDP based? Ah voice calls. Video calls. Stuff that requires low latency and where TCP retransmit of stale data is bad. Media without buffering because it is real time.
And why would a telco want to zero rate all the bandwidth heavy media with certain exceptions? Like not zero rating media that happens to compete with some of their own services, such as voice calls and video calls.
Yes sounds like net neutrality to me too (or not!).
Regards,
Baldur
All T-Mobile plans include unlimited 128kbps data, so a voice call is effectively already zero-rated for all practical purposes. I guess the question is: Is it better for the consumer to pay for everything equally, or, is it reasonable for carriers to be able to give away some free data without opening it up to everything? To me, net neutrality isn’t as much about what you charge the customer for the data, it’s about whether you prioritize certain classes of traffic to the detriment of others in terms of service delivery. If T-Mobile were taking money from the video streaming services or only accepting certain video streaming services, I’d likely agree with you that this is a neutrality issue. However, in this case, it appears to me that they aren’t trying to give an advantage to any particular competing streaming video service over the other, they aren’t taking money from participants in the program, and consumers stand to benefit from it. If you see an actual way in which it’s better for everyone if T-Mobile weren’t doing this, then please explain it. If not, then this strikes me as harmless and overall benefits consumers. Owen
In message <CE4E1597-280D-4A37-9DC8-0CE3FFBD86E5@delong.com>, Owen DeLong write s:
On Nov 23, 2015, at 17:28 , Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24 November 2015 at 00:22, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
Are there a significant number (ANY?) streaming video providers using UDP to deliver their streams?
What else could we have that is UDP based? Ah voice calls. Video calls. Stuff that requires low latency and where TCP retransmit of stale data is bad. Media without buffering because it is real time.
And why would a telco want to zero rate all the bandwidth heavy media with certain exceptions? Like not zero rating media that happens to compete with some of their own services, such as voice calls and video calls.
Yes sounds like net neutrality to me too (or not!).
Regards,
Baldur
All T-Mobile plans include unlimited 128kbps data, so a voice call is effectively already zero-rated for all practical purposes.
I guess the question is: Is it better for the consumer to pay for everything equally, or, is it reasonable for carriers to be able to give away some free data without opening it up to everything?
To me, net neutrality isn’t as much about what you charge the customer for the data, it’s about whether you prioritize certain classes of traffic to the detriment of others in terms of service delivery.
If T-Mobile were taking money from the video streaming services or only accepting certain video streaming services, I’d likely agree with you that this is a neutrality issue.
However, in this case, it appears to me that they aren’t trying to give an advantage to any particular competing streaming video service over the other, they aren’t taking money from participants in the program, and consumers stand to benefit from it.
It not being neutral over the content. If content != "video stream we like" then you will be penalised when the customer goes over their data limit.
If you see an actual way in which it’s better for everyone if T-Mobile weren’t doing this, then please explain it. If not, then this strikes me as harmless and overall benefits consumers.
Actually this is as harmful as NAT for the same reasons as NAT. It a opportunity cost at a minimum. T-Mo could have just increased the data limits by the data usage of 7x24 standard definition video stream and achieved the same thing in a totally network neutral way. Instead they choose to play favourites with a type of technology. We are giving X Gigs of additional data. This is enough to allow you to stream your favourite video channels at standard definition all day long and not run out of data.
Owen
Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
On 23 November 2015 at 20:45, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:
T-Mo could have just increased the data limits by the data usage of 7x24 standard definition video stream and achieved the same thing in a totally network neutral way. Instead they choose to play favourites with a type of technology.
1,5Mbps is 492GB/mo; that's just not realistic. However, I think the most acceptable way out of this would be to increase the throttling limit from 128kbps to 1,5Mbps on those plans that offer unlimited streaming from the approved providers (e.g., plans that start at 65$+? incidentally, isn't that the old price of plans with Unlimited 4G from the smartphone subsidy days?); this way, even if the provider is not approved and the user is out of high-speed quota, they can still stream 480p all they want. And, as already mentioned, this should totally be doable — someone can probably find proper references — from when they started doing unlimited 128kbps on all plans, to now, the top speeds, spectral efficiency and capacity of the network have probably all increased 10 fold, so, it's really time to up the ante of the 128kbps limit. Even MVNOs like http://RokMobile.com offer unlimited 256kbps (after the high-speed bucket) nowadays. And http://yourKarma.com outright offers unlimited 5Mbps nationwide for just 50 bucks per month, taking on the Clearwire legacy that Sprint has appeared to have abandoned. C.
I'm surprised you're supporting T-Mob here Owen. To me it's pretty clear: they are charging more for bits that are not streaming video. That's not neutral treatment from a policy perspective, and has no basis in the cost of operating the network. Granted, the network itself is neutral, but the purported purpose of NN in my eyes is twofold: take away the influence of the network on user and operator behaviour, and encourage an open market in network services (both content and access). Allowing zero-rating based on *any* criteria gives them a strong influence over what the end users are going to do with their network connection, and distorts the market for network services. What makes streaming video special to merit zero-rating? I like Clay's connection to the boiling frog. Yes, it's "nice" for most consumers now, but it's still distorting the market. I'm also not seeing why they have to make this so complicated. If they can afford to zero-rate high-bandwidth services like video and audio streaming, clearly there is network capacity to spare. The user behaviour they're encouraging with free video streaming is *precisely* what the incumbents claimed was causing congestion to merit throttling a few years ago, and still to this day whine about constantly. I don't have data, but I would expect usage of this to align quite nicely with their current peaks. Why not just raise the caps to something reasonable or make it unlimited across the board? I could even get behind zero-rating all 'off-peak-hours' use like we used to have for mobile voice; at least that makes sense for the network. What they're doing though is product differentiation where none exists; in fact the zero-rating is likely to cause more load on the system than just doubling or tripling the users' caps. That there seems to be little obvious justification for it from a network perspective makes me vary wary. Keenan On 2015-11-23 18:05, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Nov 23, 2015, at 17:28 , Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24 November 2015 at 00:22, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
Are there a significant number (ANY?) streaming video providers using UDP to deliver their streams?
What else could we have that is UDP based? Ah voice calls. Video calls. Stuff that requires low latency and where TCP retransmit of stale data is bad. Media without buffering because it is real time.
And why would a telco want to zero rate all the bandwidth heavy media with certain exceptions? Like not zero rating media that happens to compete with some of their own services, such as voice calls and video calls.
Yes sounds like net neutrality to me too (or not!).
Regards,
Baldur
All T-Mobile plans include unlimited 128kbps data, so a voice call is effectively already zero-rated for all practical purposes.
I guess the question is: Is it better for the consumer to pay for everything equally, or, is it reasonable for carriers to be able to give away some free data without opening it up to everything?
To me, net neutrality isn’t as much about what you charge the customer for the data, it’s about whether you prioritize certain classes of traffic to the detriment of others in terms of service delivery.
If T-Mobile were taking money from the video streaming services or only accepting certain video streaming services, I’d likely agree with you that this is a neutrality issue.
However, in this case, it appears to me that they aren’t trying to give an advantage to any particular competing streaming video service over the other, they aren’t taking money from participants in the program, and consumers stand to benefit from it.
If you see an actual way in which it’s better for everyone if T-Mobile weren’t doing this, then please explain it. If not, then this strikes me as harmless and overall benefits consumers.
Owen
Not so much to Keenan, but the thread as a whole. It continually amazes me the lack comprehension of the entire network world so many on this list have. They've confined to their little bubble of 100GigE pipes everywhere and everyone should just have balls to the walls everything all of the time. Maybe NANOG needs to have some sessions on putting people into the real world or maybe teach practicality in all circumstances. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Keenan Tims" <ktims@stargate.ca> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Monday, November 23, 2015 9:00:11 PM Subject: Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? I'm surprised you're supporting T-Mob here Owen. To me it's pretty clear: they are charging more for bits that are not streaming video. That's not neutral treatment from a policy perspective, and has no basis in the cost of operating the network. Granted, the network itself is neutral, but the purported purpose of NN in my eyes is twofold: take away the influence of the network on user and operator behaviour, and encourage an open market in network services (both content and access). Allowing zero-rating based on *any* criteria gives them a strong influence over what the end users are going to do with their network connection, and distorts the market for network services. What makes streaming video special to merit zero-rating? I like Clay's connection to the boiling frog. Yes, it's "nice" for most consumers now, but it's still distorting the market. I'm also not seeing why they have to make this so complicated. If they can afford to zero-rate high-bandwidth services like video and audio streaming, clearly there is network capacity to spare. The user behaviour they're encouraging with free video streaming is *precisely* what the incumbents claimed was causing congestion to merit throttling a few years ago, and still to this day whine about constantly. I don't have data, but I would expect usage of this to align quite nicely with their current peaks. Why not just raise the caps to something reasonable or make it unlimited across the board? I could even get behind zero-rating all 'off-peak-hours' use like we used to have for mobile voice; at least that makes sense for the network. What they're doing though is product differentiation where none exists; in fact the zero-rating is likely to cause more load on the system than just doubling or tripling the users' caps. That there seems to be little obvious justification for it from a network perspective makes me vary wary. Keenan On 2015-11-23 18:05, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Nov 23, 2015, at 17:28 , Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24 November 2015 at 00:22, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
Are there a significant number (ANY?) streaming video providers using UDP to deliver their streams?
What else could we have that is UDP based? Ah voice calls. Video calls. Stuff that requires low latency and where TCP retransmit of stale data is bad. Media without buffering because it is real time.
And why would a telco want to zero rate all the bandwidth heavy media with certain exceptions? Like not zero rating media that happens to compete with some of their own services, such as voice calls and video calls.
Yes sounds like net neutrality to me too (or not!).
Regards,
Baldur
All T-Mobile plans include unlimited 128kbps data, so a voice call is effectively already zero-rated for all practical purposes.
I guess the question is: Is it better for the consumer to pay for everything equally, or, is it reasonable for carriers to be able to give away some free data without opening it up to everything?
To me, net neutrality isn’t as much about what you charge the customer for the data, it’s about whether you prioritize certain classes of traffic to the detriment of others in terms of service delivery.
If T-Mobile were taking money from the video streaming services or only accepting certain video streaming services, I’d likely agree with you that this is a neutrality issue.
However, in this case, it appears to me that they aren’t trying to give an advantage to any particular competing streaming video service over the other, they aren’t taking money from participants in the program, and consumers stand to benefit from it.
If you see an actual way in which it’s better for everyone if T-Mobile weren’t doing this, then please explain it. If not, then this strikes me as harmless and overall benefits consumers.
Owen
Keenan Tims wrote:
To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
I'm surprised you're supporting T-Mob here Owen. To me it's pretty clear: they are charging more for bits that are not streaming video. That's not neutral treatment from a policy perspective, and has no basis in the cost of operating the network.
I have no visibility into what the line "T‐Mobile will work with content providers to ensure that our networks work together to properly" actually means, but they could/should be using this as a tool to drive content sources to IPv6. Trying to explain to consumers why an unlimited data plan only works for a tiny subset of content is a waste of energy. Picking a category and "encouraging" that content to move, then after the time limit, pick the next category, rinse/repeat, is a way to move traffic away from the 6/4 nat infrastructure without having to make a big deal about the IP version to the consumer, and at the same time remove "it costs too much" complaints from the sources. If I were implementing such a plan, I would walk the list of traffic sources based on volume to move traffic as quickly as possible, so it makes perfect sense to me that they would start with video. Tony
Granted, the network itself is neutral, but the purported purpose of NN in my eyes is twofold: take away the influence of the network on user and operator behaviour, and encourage an open market in network services (both content and access). Allowing zero-rating based on *any* criteria gives them a strong influence over what the end users are going to do with their network connection, and distorts the market for network services. What makes streaming video special to merit zero-rating?
I like Clay's connection to the boiling frog. Yes, it's "nice" for most consumers now, but it's still distorting the market.
I'm also not seeing why they have to make this so complicated. If they can afford to zero-rate high-bandwidth services like video and audio streaming, clearly there is network capacity to spare. The user behaviour they're encouraging with free video streaming is *precisely* what the incumbents claimed was causing congestion to merit throttling a few years ago, and still to this day whine about constantly. I don't have data, but I would expect usage of this to align quite nicely with their current peaks.
Why not just raise the caps to something reasonable or make it unlimited across the board? I could even get behind zero-rating all 'off-peak-hours' use like we used to have for mobile voice; at least that makes sense for the network. What they're doing though is product differentiation where none exists; in fact the zero-rating is likely to cause more load on the system than just doubling or tripling the users' caps. That there seems to be little obvious justification for it from a network perspective makes me vary wary.
Keenan
On 2015-11-23 18:05, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Nov 23, 2015, at 17:28 , Baldur Norddahl
<baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24 November 2015 at 00:22, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
wrote:
Are there a significant number (ANY?) streaming video providers using UDP to deliver their streams?
What else could we have that is UDP based? Ah voice calls. Video calls. Stuff that requires low latency and where TCP retransmit of stale data is bad. Media without buffering because it is real time.
And why would a telco want to zero rate all the bandwidth heavy media with certain exceptions? Like not zero rating media that happens to compete with some of their own services, such as voice calls and video
calls.
Yes sounds like net neutrality to me too (or not!).
Regards,
Baldur
All T-Mobile plans include unlimited 128kbps data, so a voice call is effectively already zero-rated for all practical purposes.
I guess the question is: Is it better for the consumer to pay for everything equally, or, is it reasonable for carriers to be able to give away some free data without opening it up to everything?
To me, net neutrality isn’t as much about what you charge the customer for the data, it’s about whether you prioritize certain classes of traffic to the detriment of others in terms of service delivery.
If T-Mobile were taking money from the video streaming services or only accepting certain video streaming services, I’d likely agree with you that this is a neutrality issue.
However, in this case, it appears to me that they aren’t trying to give an advantage to any particular competing streaming video service over the other, they aren’t taking money from participants in the program, and consumers stand to benefit from it.
If you see an actual way in which it’s better for everyone if T-Mobile weren’t doing this, then please explain it. If not, then this strikes me as harmless and overall benefits consumers.
Owen
This thread seems to have run its course, but it was an interesting conversation, so I wanted to flag that the Open Technology Institute is running what seems to be a fairly balanced panel on the issue in D.C. next week. Might be worth asking if there's remote participation. https://newamerica.cvent.com/events/zero-rating-and-net-neutrality-is-free-c... New America Please note our new address! 740 15th Street NW, Suite 900, Washington, DC 20005 Wednesday, December 16, 2015 | 12:00 pm - 1:45 pm Even if the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upholds the FCC’s Open Internet Order, the ability of mobile carriers to exclude certain content from the data caps or buckets that determine what a user pays each month remains undecided and controversial. Although mobile carriers maintain that zero-rating selected content is pro-consumer, some consumer advocates argue the FCC should find it violates network neutrality rules against favoring some Internet content or applications over others. In the U.S., T-Mobile recently launched Binge On, which allows consumers to opt out of the delivery of 'free' (zero-rated) streaming video content at lower resolution (CD quality), and instead receive content at high-definition that counts against their data limit. T-Mobile also hosts Music Freedom, which zero-rates participating streaming music services. In the developing world, Facebook’s Free Basics initiative partners with mobile carriers to provide cell phone customers with low-bandwidth versions of participating information and social media apps (e.g., Wikipedia and Facebook itself) at no cost in the hope this exposure will encourage them to upgrade to full Internet access. Join us for an explanation and debate about zero-rating on mobile networks, featuring the two companies most visibly marketing the practice, as well as a range of perspectives from consumer and public interest advocates. Lunch will be served. Follow the discussion online using #ZeroRating and by following us @OTI. Participants: Kevin Martin Vice President for Mobile & Global Access, Facebook Former Chairman, FCC @facebook Mark Cooper Research Director, Consumer Federation of America @ConsumerFed Steve Sharkey Chief, Engineering and Technology Policy, T-Mobile @TMobile Matt Wood Policy Director, Free Press @MattFWood Sarah Morris Senior Policy Counsel, Open Technology Institute at New America @sarmorris Moderator: Michael Calabrese Director, Wireless Future Project, Open Technology Institute at New America @MCalabreseNAF On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Tony Hain <alh-ietf@tndh.net> wrote:
Keenan Tims wrote:
To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
I'm surprised you're supporting T-Mob here Owen. To me it's pretty clear: they are charging more for bits that are not streaming video. That's not neutral treatment from a policy perspective, and has no basis in the cost of operating the network.
I have no visibility into what the line "T‐Mobile will work with content providers to ensure that our networks work together to properly" actually means, but they could/should be using this as a tool to drive content sources to IPv6.
Trying to explain to consumers why an unlimited data plan only works for a tiny subset of content is a waste of energy. Picking a category and "encouraging" that content to move, then after the time limit, pick the next category, rinse/repeat, is a way to move traffic away from the 6/4 nat infrastructure without having to make a big deal about the IP version to the consumer, and at the same time remove "it costs too much" complaints from the sources. If I were implementing such a plan, I would walk the list of traffic sources based on volume to move traffic as quickly as possible, so it makes perfect sense to me that they would start with video.
Tony
Granted, the network itself is neutral, but the purported purpose of NN
my eyes is twofold: take away the influence of the network on user and operator behaviour, and encourage an open market in network services (both content and access). Allowing zero-rating based on *any* criteria gives them a strong influence over what the end users are going to do with their network connection, and distorts the market for network services. What makes streaming video special to merit zero-rating?
I like Clay's connection to the boiling frog. Yes, it's "nice" for most consumers now, but it's still distorting the market.
I'm also not seeing why they have to make this so complicated. If they can afford to zero-rate high-bandwidth services like video and audio streaming, clearly there is network capacity to spare. The user behaviour they're encouraging with free video streaming is *precisely* what the incumbents claimed was causing congestion to merit throttling a few years ago, and still to this day whine about constantly. I don't have data, but I would expect usage of this to align quite nicely with their current peaks.
Why not just raise the caps to something reasonable or make it unlimited across the board? I could even get behind zero-rating all 'off-peak-hours' use like we used to have for mobile voice; at least that makes sense for
network. What they're doing though is product differentiation where none exists; in fact the zero-rating is likely to cause more load on the system than just doubling or tripling the users' caps. That there seems to be little obvious justification for it from a network perspective makes me vary wary.
Keenan
On 2015-11-23 18:05, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Nov 23, 2015, at 17:28 , Baldur Norddahl
<baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24 November 2015 at 00:22, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
wrote:
Are there a significant number (ANY?) streaming video providers using UDP to deliver their streams?
What else could we have that is UDP based? Ah voice calls. Video
calls.
Stuff that requires low latency and where TCP retransmit of stale data is bad. Media without buffering because it is real time.
And why would a telco want to zero rate all the bandwidth heavy media with certain exceptions? Like not zero rating media that happens to compete with some of their own services, such as voice calls and video calls.
Yes sounds like net neutrality to me too (or not!).
Regards,
Baldur
All T-Mobile plans include unlimited 128kbps data, so a voice call is effectively already zero-rated for all practical purposes.
I guess the question is: Is it better for the consumer to pay for everything equally, or, is it reasonable for carriers to be able to give away some free data without opening it up to everything?
To me, net neutrality isn’t as much about what you charge the customer for the data, it’s about whether you prioritize certain classes of traffic to the detriment of others in terms of service delivery.
If T-Mobile were taking money from the video streaming services or only accepting certain video streaming services, I’d likely agree with you that this is a neutrality issue.
However, in this case, it appears to me that they aren’t trying to give an advantage to any particular competing streaming video service over the other, they aren’t taking money from participants in the
in the program,
and consumers stand to benefit from it.
If you see an actual way in which it’s better for everyone if T-Mobile weren’t doing this, then please explain it. If not, then this strikes me as harmless and overall benefits consumers.
Owen
-- *Collin David Anderson* averysmallbird.com | @cda | Washington, D.C.
In related news, Verizon and ATT WILL be charging their data partners: http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/12/verizon-to-test-sponsored-data-let-c... "Verizon is reportedly set to begin testing a sponsored data program that would let companies pay Verizon to deliver online services without using up customers' data plans. The news comes from aRe/code interview <http://recode.net/2015/12/09/verizon-to-start-testing-toll-free-data-in-coming-days/> with Verizon Executive VP Marni Walden. “The capabilities we’ve built allow us to break down any byte that is carried across our network and have all or a portion of that sponsored,” Walden told Re/code." is that still net neutrality? On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Collin Anderson <collin@averysmallbird.com> wrote:
This thread seems to have run its course, but it was an interesting conversation, so I wanted to flag that the Open Technology Institute is running what seems to be a fairly balanced panel on the issue in D.C. next week. Might be worth asking if there's remote participation.
https://newamerica.cvent.com/events/zero-rating-and-net-neutrality-is-free-c...
New America Please note our new address! 740 15th Street NW, Suite 900, Washington, DC 20005 Wednesday, December 16, 2015 | 12:00 pm - 1:45 pm
Even if the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upholds the FCC’s Open Internet Order, the ability of mobile carriers to exclude certain content from the data caps or buckets that determine what a user pays each month remains undecided and controversial. Although mobile carriers maintain that zero-rating selected content is pro-consumer, some consumer advocates argue the FCC should find it violates network neutrality rules against favoring some Internet content or applications over others.
In the U.S., T-Mobile recently launched Binge On, which allows consumers to opt out of the delivery of 'free' (zero-rated) streaming video content at lower resolution (CD quality), and instead receive content at high-definition that counts against their data limit. T-Mobile also hosts Music Freedom, which zero-rates participating streaming music services.
In the developing world, Facebook’s Free Basics initiative partners with mobile carriers to provide cell phone customers with low-bandwidth versions of participating information and social media apps (e.g., Wikipedia and Facebook itself) at no cost in the hope this exposure will encourage them to upgrade to full Internet access.
Join us for an explanation and debate about zero-rating on mobile networks, featuring the two companies most visibly marketing the practice, as well as a range of perspectives from consumer and public interest advocates.
Lunch will be served.
Follow the discussion online using #ZeroRating and by following us @OTI.
Participants: Kevin Martin Vice President for Mobile & Global Access, Facebook Former Chairman, FCC @facebook
Mark Cooper Research Director, Consumer Federation of America @ConsumerFed
Steve Sharkey Chief, Engineering and Technology Policy, T-Mobile @TMobile
Matt Wood Policy Director, Free Press @MattFWood
Sarah Morris Senior Policy Counsel, Open Technology Institute at New America @sarmorris
Moderator: Michael Calabrese Director, Wireless Future Project, Open Technology Institute at New America @MCalabreseNAF
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Tony Hain <alh-ietf@tndh.net> wrote:
Keenan Tims wrote:
To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
I'm surprised you're supporting T-Mob here Owen. To me it's pretty clear: they are charging more for bits that are not streaming video. That's not neutral treatment from a policy perspective, and has no basis in the cost of operating the network.
I have no visibility into what the line "T‐Mobile will work with content providers to ensure that our networks work together to properly" actually means, but they could/should be using this as a tool to drive content sources to IPv6.
Trying to explain to consumers why an unlimited data plan only works for a tiny subset of content is a waste of energy. Picking a category and "encouraging" that content to move, then after the time limit, pick the next category, rinse/repeat, is a way to move traffic away from the 6/4 nat infrastructure without having to make a big deal about the IP version to the consumer, and at the same time remove "it costs too much" complaints from the sources. If I were implementing such a plan, I would walk the list of traffic sources based on volume to move traffic as quickly as possible, so it makes perfect sense to me that they would start with video.
Tony
Granted, the network itself is neutral, but the purported purpose of NN
my eyes is twofold: take away the influence of the network on user and operator behaviour, and encourage an open market in network services (both content and access). Allowing zero-rating based on *any* criteria gives them a strong influence over what the end users are going to do with their network connection, and distorts the market for network services. What makes streaming video special to merit zero-rating?
I like Clay's connection to the boiling frog. Yes, it's "nice" for most consumers now, but it's still distorting the market.
I'm also not seeing why they have to make this so complicated. If they can afford to zero-rate high-bandwidth services like video and audio streaming, clearly there is network capacity to spare. The user behaviour they're encouraging with free video streaming is *precisely* what the incumbents claimed was causing congestion to merit throttling a few years ago, and still to this day whine about constantly. I don't have data, but I would expect usage of this to align quite nicely with their current peaks.
Why not just raise the caps to something reasonable or make it unlimited across the board? I could even get behind zero-rating all 'off-peak-hours' use like we used to have for mobile voice; at least that makes sense for
network. What they're doing though is product differentiation where none exists; in fact the zero-rating is likely to cause more load on the system than just doubling or tripling the users' caps. That there seems to be little obvious justification for it from a network perspective makes me vary wary.
Keenan
On 2015-11-23 18:05, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Nov 23, 2015, at 17:28 , Baldur Norddahl
<baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24 November 2015 at 00:22, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
wrote:
Are there a significant number (ANY?) streaming video providers using UDP to deliver their streams?
What else could we have that is UDP based? Ah voice calls. Video
calls.
Stuff that requires low latency and where TCP retransmit of stale data is bad. Media without buffering because it is real time.
And why would a telco want to zero rate all the bandwidth heavy media with certain exceptions? Like not zero rating media that happens to compete with some of their own services, such as voice calls and video calls.
Yes sounds like net neutrality to me too (or not!).
Regards,
Baldur
All T-Mobile plans include unlimited 128kbps data, so a voice call is effectively already zero-rated for all practical purposes.
I guess the question is: Is it better for the consumer to pay for everything equally, or, is it reasonable for carriers to be able to give away some free data without opening it up to everything?
To me, net neutrality isn’t as much about what you charge the customer for the data, it’s about whether you prioritize certain classes of traffic to the detriment of others in terms of service delivery.
If T-Mobile were taking money from the video streaming services or only accepting certain video streaming services, I’d likely agree with you that this is a neutrality issue.
However, in this case, it appears to me that they aren’t trying to give an advantage to any particular competing streaming video service over the other, they aren’t taking money from participants in the
in the program,
and consumers stand to benefit from it.
If you see an actual way in which it’s better for everyone if
T-Mobile
weren’t doing this, then please explain it. If not, then this strikes me as harmless and overall benefits consumers.
Owen
-- *Collin David Anderson* averysmallbird.com | @cda | Washington, D.C.
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 1:07 PM, William Kenny <william.r.kenny@gmail.com> wrote:
In related news, Verizon and ATT WILL be charging their data partners: http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/12/verizon-to-test-sponsored-data-let-c...
"Verizon is reportedly set to begin testing a sponsored data program that would let companies pay Verizon to deliver online services without using up customers' data plans. The news comes from aRe/code interview <http://recode.net/2015/12/09/verizon-to-start-testing-toll-free-data-in-coming-days/> with Verizon Executive VP Marni Walden. “The capabilities we’ve built allow us to break down any byte that is carried across our network and have all or a portion of that sponsored,” Walden told Re/code."
is that still net neutrality?
who cares? mobile was excepted from the NN rulings.
Once upon a time, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> said:
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 1:07 PM, William Kenny <william.r.kenny@gmail.com> wrote:
is that still net neutrality?
who cares? mobile was excepted from the NN rulings.
Any why the desire for extra regulation for Internet services? Shippers (you know, actual Common Carriers) do things like this all the time, especially when they are busy (congested). I had a package ship Tuesday; it sat at the receiving location for 24 hours before the first move, then it reached my city early this morning, but since I didn't pay extra for timed delivery (and the shipper doesn't have special arrangements), it didn't go on a truck today. I should get it tomorrow. I could have paid more to get it faster, and some large-scale shippers have special arrangements that seem to get their packages priority. How is this different from Internet traffic? -- Chris Adams <cma@cmadams.net>
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Chris Adams <cma@cmadams.net> wrote:
Once upon a time, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> said:
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 1:07 PM, William Kenny <william.r.kenny@gmail.com> wrote:
is that still net neutrality?
who cares? mobile was excepted from the NN rulings.
Any why the desire for extra regulation for Internet services?
Shippers (you know, actual Common Carriers) do things like this all the time, especially when they are busy (congested). I had a package ship Tuesday; it sat at the receiving location for 24 hours before the first move, then it reached my city early this morning, but since I didn't pay extra for timed delivery (and the shipper doesn't have special arrangements), it didn't go on a truck today. I should get it tomorrow.
I could have paid more to get it faster, and some large-scale shippers have special arrangements that seem to get their packages priority. How is this different from Internet traffic?
because cat video
You already have the ability to pay for faster service. NN prevents the carrier from then going to the shipper and extorting further money to deliver the same package. On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Chris Adams <cma@cmadams.net> wrote:
Once upon a time, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> said:
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 1:07 PM, William Kenny <william.r.kenny@gmail.com> wrote:
is that still net neutrality?
who cares? mobile was excepted from the NN rulings.
Any why the desire for extra regulation for Internet services?
Shippers (you know, actual Common Carriers) do things like this all the time, especially when they are busy (congested). I had a package ship Tuesday; it sat at the receiving location for 24 hours before the first move, then it reached my city early this morning, but since I didn't pay extra for timed delivery (and the shipper doesn't have special arrangements), it didn't go on a truck today. I should get it tomorrow.
I could have paid more to get it faster, and some large-scale shippers have special arrangements that seem to get their packages priority. How is this different from Internet traffic?
-- Chris Adams <cma@cmadams.net>
-- 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
On Thu 2015-Dec-10 13:32:25 -0600, Chris Adams <cma@cmadams.net> wrote:
Once upon a time, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> said:
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 1:07 PM, William Kenny <william.r.kenny@gmail.com> wrote:
is that still net neutrality?
who cares? mobile was excepted from the NN rulings.
Any why the desire for extra regulation for Internet services?
Shippers (you know, actual Common Carriers) do things like this all the time, especially when they are busy (congested). I had a package ship Tuesday; it sat at the receiving location for 24 hours before the first move, then it reached my city early this morning, but since I didn't pay extra for timed delivery (and the shipper doesn't have special arrangements), it didn't go on a truck today. I should get it tomorrow.
I could have paid more to get it faster, and some large-scale shippers have special arrangements that seem to get their packages priority. How is this different from Internet traffic?
Your package being delayed was based on your service level (what you paid for the service) not the contents of your package or the sender's identity. If we're going to get into the details of the sender's relationship to the shipping company (i.e. "(and the shipper doesn't have special arrangements)"), note that situation is more analogous to traffic where both the sender and receiver are getting transit from the same provider. If there were two shipping companies (sender uses shipping company A; receiver uses shipping company B, and A & B hand off to each other), the situation would be closer to the discussion.
-- Chris Adams <cma@cmadams.net>
-- Hugo hugo@slabnet.com: email, xmpp/jabber PGP fingerprint (B178313E): CF18 15FA 9FE4 0CD1 2319 1D77 9AB1 0FFD B178 313E (also on Signal)
On Dec 10, 2015, at 2:32 PM, Chris Adams <cma@cmadams.net> wrote:
I could have paid more to get it faster, and some large-scale shippers have special arrangements that seem to get their packages priority. How is this different from Internet traffic?
For me the better comparison is international postal services. I can get USPS to give a package priority on their network, but once it leaves that SLA is gone. They did their best to deliver it to the next-hop. The concern I have here is part marketing and part technical reality. 1) “Unlimited*” doesn’t really mean unlimited, which I’m personally understanding of, but I’ve seen others take the hard-line approach. 2) “Peering” is a term that people don’t quite grok, because it’s overloaded in so many ways with transit, SFI, etc. 3) Networks are rarely equal. T-Mobile has lots of end-users. Their pattern will look different from someone doing disaster recovery off-site data storage. 4) corollary with #3 - Through M&A, divestiture and other moves companies don’t always participate in the same markets in the same way. $dayjob does not do DOCSIS/DSL services in north america. Should we? Not all networks are on the same 5 continents/countries/cities. What is that overlap necessary? The days of being at AADS, MAE-E,W, pac bell, etc have changed significantly. Content distribution has advanced, edge speeds have changed making applications feasible that were not thought possible 10-20 years ago. With the recent 174 <-> 3320 lawsuit, FCC, etc.. this all is interesting to me. How do you reach a solution where the customers win? I’ve seen many approaches to this, and as an engineer I don’t like congested ports. Congested ports mean someone is unhappy, and minimizing that is a goal. When two sides are not speaking to each other, it’s less likely things will be fixed. This is at least people working towards a solution, it may not be one where I have the old Qwest promise of every movie from everything ever *prepares to ride the light*, but I expect things to get better over time as companies adapt. - Jared P.S. Regarding “unlimited” above, things like the new overage charges for DOCSIS, DSL, FTTx services that were perceived as all you can eat, seeing a company place a ceiling on the overages seen would be ideal. eg: you max out at the business class service price, say $50 for residential $100 business class starting tiers that most companies have. Having no max for that is unreasonable for all parties as a bill for $infinity is less likely to be paid compared to 2-3x usual fees. The same theory could be applied to international data fees, just auto-sign me up for the roaming plan that matches my usage. I seem to recall Sprint had a cellular offering like this for minutes used (many eons ago) and for being shareholder and consumer friendly it seemed to be the right balance.
For starters much of the internet infrastructure is built on govt mandated/protected monopolies or very small N oligopolies so is already subject to significant regulation. You can start up a business carrying packages for people for a fee, no harder than any other business. Try spinning up a cable TV or landline or long-distance line business. On December 10, 2015 at 13:32 cma@cmadams.net (Chris Adams) wrote:
Once upon a time, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> said:
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 1:07 PM, William Kenny <william.r.kenny@gmail.com> wrote:
is that still net neutrality?
who cares? mobile was excepted from the NN rulings.
Any why the desire for extra regulation for Internet services?
Shippers (you know, actual Common Carriers) do things like this all the time, especially when they are busy (congested). I had a package ship Tuesday; it sat at the receiving location for 24 hours before the first move, then it reached my city early this morning, but since I didn't pay extra for timed delivery (and the shipper doesn't have special arrangements), it didn't go on a truck today. I should get it tomorrow.
I could have paid more to get it faster, and some large-scale shippers have special arrangements that seem to get their packages priority. How is this different from Internet traffic?
-- Chris Adams <cma@cmadams.net>
-- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo*
"Verizon is reportedly set to begin testing a sponsored data program that would let companies pay Verizon to deliver online services without using up customers' data plans. The news comes from aRe/code interview
This is usually referred to as "zero-rating" and is related to, perhaps a sub-topic of, network neutrality but perhaps a little different. It's become a somewhat big issue in the developing world particularly with Facebook Zero, Wikipedia Zero, Google Free Zone (which doesn't mean a zone w/o google!), and internet.org for some buzzology. T-Mobile has also offered some related music services in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-rating The concern in the developing world is that these services will push out local businesses who can't afford to pay for customers' data or don't have the capital to interest carriers in such a plan for them. I'm mixed, it's probably worth digging into the issue a little before shooting from the hip though. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo*
On 2015-12-10 13:07, William Kenny wrote:
"Verizon is reportedly set to begin testing a sponsored data program that would let companies pay Verizon to deliver online services without using up customers' data plans.
In Canada, the Telecom Act 27(2) states: Unjust discrimination (2) No Canadian carrier shall, in relation to the provision of a telecommunications service or the charging of a rate for it, unjustly discriminate or give an undue or unreasonable preference toward any person, including itself, or subject any person to an undue or unreasonable disadvantage. So if this Verizon scheme were to happen in Canada, one could challenge this if the rates charged to Netflix for 1GB of data are different from the rates charged to anyone else, including residential customers as this would be an undue preference. Bell Canada's wireless service lost such a challenge earlier this year because it ended up giving 10 hours of its own TV service for $4.00 while the same 10 hours on competing services would end up costing something like $40 in normal usage charges. (Bell Canada is current at Federal Court seeking the CRTC's decision be invalidated, stating its TV service is "broadcasting" and not subject to the Telecommunications Act despite being delivered over a telecommunications service using IP technology.
On Dec 10, 2015, at 17:49 , Jean-Francois Mezei <jfmezei_nanog@vaxination.ca> wrote:
On 2015-12-10 13:07, William Kenny wrote:
"Verizon is reportedly set to begin testing a sponsored data program that would let companies pay Verizon to deliver online services without using up customers' data plans.
In Canada, the Telecom Act 27(2) states:
Unjust discrimination
(2) No Canadian carrier shall, in relation to the provision of a telecommunications service or the charging of a rate for it, unjustly discriminate or give an undue or unreasonable preference toward any person, including itself, or subject any person to an undue or unreasonable disadvantage.
So if this Verizon scheme were to happen in Canada, one could challenge this if the rates charged to Netflix for 1GB of data are different from the rates charged to anyone else, including residential customers as this would be an undue preference.
What if the rate charged is the same? Wouldn’t it still be problematic if: I pay VZ $15/Gigabyte for all data I use except Netflix which gets billed automatically to Netflix instead of me?
Bell Canada's wireless service lost such a challenge earlier this year because it ended up giving 10 hours of its own TV service for $4.00 while the same 10 hours on competing services would end up costing something like $40 in normal usage charges. (Bell Canada is current at Federal Court seeking the CRTC's decision be invalidated, stating its TV service is "broadcasting" and not subject to the Telecommunications Act despite being delivered over a telecommunications service using IP technology.
Telephone companies… Any belief that they are communications companies is purely coincidental to their business model. In fact, they are law firms. Owen
On 2015-12-10 20:58, Owen DeLong wrote:
What if the rate charged is the same?
Wouldn’t it still be problematic if:
I pay VZ $15/Gigabyte for all data I use except Netflix which gets billed automatically to Netflix instead of me?
If Netflix gets charged the same retail rate, then I guess challenging this under 27(2) in Canada would be hard since there might not be a preference. Howeever, we all know that large ISPs signing such deals won't be charging "retail rates" for data to their partners. And in all likelyhood, the offending ISP would likely charge the outfit such as Netfix in capacity (gbps) and not number of bytes transfered, so this introduces a preference. (Retaul users are charged for capacity (bits per second) and usage (bytes). Charging a partner only for capacity introduces a preference.
Telephone companies… Any belief that they are communications companies is purely coincidental to their business model. In fact, they are law firms.
I know all too well, I have met with and argued against some of Bell Canada's 10,000 regulatory lawyers :-( There are also revenue maximizing people in telcos. With such a deal, the residential customer pays for the saye 100 gigagyutes per month, while Netflix now pays a second time for the data that was paid as part of the purchase for 100 gygabytes by the retail customer.
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 1:07 PM, William Kenny <william.r.kenny@gmail.com> wrote:
In related news, Verizon and ATT WILL be charging their data partners: http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/12/verizon-to-test-sponsored-data-let-c...
Howdy, Personally, I'm not opposed to this. When each packet has one payer, it doesn't much matter whether the payer is sender or recipient. If they're still going to be picky about settlement-free peering for the subscriber-paid packets then there's still a network neutrality problem. But the problem isn't in letting content providers pay to bypass subscriber data caps. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
On 2015-12-10 21:39, William Herrin wrote:
Personally, I'm not opposed to this. When each packet has one payer, it doesn't much matter whether the payer is sender or recipient.
If the retail customer pays for $70 for 100 gigs of UBB, and uses 50 gigs of Netflix, then the result is that the customer is still paying $70 for 100 gigs of data, and Netflix now has to pay for 50 gigs of data. The principle of paying "once" is fine, the problem is that no ISP is going to reduce your actual bill/ARPU in exchange for charging part of your iusage to someone else. You will still pay $70 for the same package except your bill will show you used only 40 gigs instead of 90 (because 50 were not charged to you). So the end result is that thoes big ISPs will charge twice for the data, it is their goal: make more money.
On Dec 10, 2015, at 18:51 , Jean-Francois Mezei <jfmezei_nanog@vaxination.ca> wrote:
On 2015-12-10 21:39, William Herrin wrote:
Personally, I'm not opposed to this. When each packet has one payer, it doesn't much matter whether the payer is sender or recipient.
If the retail customer pays for $70 for 100 gigs of UBB, and uses 50 gigs of Netflix, then the result is that the customer is still paying $70 for 100 gigs of data, and Netflix now has to pay for 50 gigs of data.
The principle of paying "once" is fine, the problem is that no ISP is going to reduce your actual bill/ARPU in exchange for charging part of your iusage to someone else. You will still pay $70 for the same package except your bill will show you used only 40 gigs instead of 90 (because 50 were not charged to you).
So the end result is that thoes big ISPs will charge twice for the data, it is their goal: make more money.
Except that what happens in practice, at least in many of the developing markets is that users use the services that pay for ZRB and do not use or do not use much of the services that don’t. There remains a single payer for the bits, because many of the people don’t even have a 1GB data plan, they just use the free data that they can get to the services that are paying for their data. Another scenario, more common in the developed world is people buy a small amount of data and focus the bulk of their usage on services that pay for the ZRB, so they may pay for 3GB and use only 2 or 2.5 GB of data that they pay for, but they’ll still stream 20 or 30G of ZRB traffic, which results effectively in the ZRB usage being charged to the streaming provider. Owen
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 9:51 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei <jfmezei_nanog@vaxination.ca> wrote:
On 2015-12-10 21:39, William Herrin wrote:
Personally, I'm not opposed to this. When each packet has one payer, it doesn't much matter whether the payer is sender or recipient.
If the retail customer pays for $70 for 100 gigs of UBB, and uses 50 gigs of Netflix, then the result is that the customer is still paying $70 for 100 gigs of data, and Netflix now has to pay for 50 gigs of data.
Howdy, You're assuming that: (A) Verizon/ATT will prevent organizations from routing some of their IP addresses via paid zero-rate connections and other IP addresses via settlement-free peering, and (B) organizations which pay for zero-rate will elect not to offer Verizon/ATT customers a choice between paying indirectly for more bandwidth or using the bandwidth they already have. Point (A) is not an unreasonable assumption, but in that case the fraud lies in refusing settlement-free peering when the subscriber has already paid for that bandwidth to happen. It's past time the big networks got spanked for this sort of misbehavior. Let's not cloud the issue by objecting to related behavior that's actually ethical. Point (B) is a free market business decision on the part of Netflix, et. al. If they make a poor one, the competitors nipping at their heels will eat their lunch. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
Hi Owen,
To me, net neutrality isn’t as much about what you charge the customer for the data, it’s about whether you prioritize certain classes of traffic to the detriment of others in terms of service delivery.
If T-Mobile were taking money from the video streaming services or only accepting certain video streaming services, I’d likely agree with you that this is a neutrality issue.
You are right in that it could have been much worse. However: giving a big advantage to a certain technology does get in the way of innovation in e.g. new video delivery technologies. And in the long run less innovation will not be to the benefit of the internet's users. We are already too locked in to tcp-port-80-and-443 as it is :( Cheers, Sander
On 23 November 2015 at 20:05, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
On Nov 23, 2015, at 17:28 , Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24 November 2015 at 00:22, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
Are there a significant number (ANY?) streaming video providers using UDP to deliver their streams?
What else could we have that is UDP based? Ah voice calls. Video calls. Stuff that requires low latency and where TCP retransmit of stale data is bad. Media without buffering because it is real time.
And why would a telco want to zero rate all the bandwidth heavy media with certain exceptions? Like not zero rating media that happens to compete with some of their own services, such as voice calls and video calls.
Yes sounds like net neutrality to me too (or not!).
Regards,
Baldur
All T-Mobile plans include unlimited 128kbps data, so a voice call is effectively already zero-rated for all practical purposes.
I guess the question is: Is it better for the consumer to pay for everything equally, or, is it reasonable for carriers to be able to give away some free data without opening it up to everything?
To me, net neutrality isn’t as much about what you charge the customer for the data, it’s about whether you prioritize certain classes of traffic to the detriment of others in terms of service delivery.
This is where I believe the issue comes up with BingeOn that didn't manifest with Music Freedom — with the earlier Music Freedom promotion, they've started offering unlimited music streaming with select providers. As Owen rightly points out, since most T-Mo plans already include unlimited 128kbps, Music Freedom is basically just a wash, and is much more about T-Mo's own marketing than about traffic management. *** With or without Music Freedom, you can already stream unlimited music from any provider, even if you're tethered or use a VPN, or both! *** (Yes, if you do use select providers, you also get to use your 4G bucket allocation in full, whereas otherwise, it may get "wasted" on 128kbps streaming; not ideal, but a relatively minor detail in the grand scheme of things.) But BingeOn is very different: I use a VPN. I set my Netflix player to 480p. I quit all other traffic. Oops, since I've already watched too much porn (somehow none of which is zero rated for BingeOn, even if you're not using a VPN; isn't that a first red flag about their scheme right there?), and my high-speed allocation is all up, so, my player doesn't work at all (Netflix officially requires 512kbps minimum, 128kbps clearly won't work). I disable VPN (which they limit to 128kbps as per above), and suddenly Netflix starts working just fine, since it now gets 1.5Mbps (or thereabouts), and 480p works just fine, even if you're tethered. But yet my porn still doesn't work, even without a VPN! *** How is this not the very definition of fast vs. slow lanes, if one set of traffic gets a permanent 1,5Mbps high-speed treatment, whereas another set of traffic is limited to a slow 128kbps (or effectively 0kbps for video, since it won't stream at all) past the high-speed allocation? *** I think what T-Mobile US ought to do is increase the throttling limits for all — 128kbps was basically set in stone when we still didn't have any LTE; it takes more than a minute to load any "modern" website or use any app at such speed nowadays, if things don't just timeout at all in the first place. If MVNO companies like http://yourKarma.com/ can offer United-States-nationwide unlimited 5Mbps LTE WiFi hotspots for 50$/mo all-in, T-Mobile US surely ought to be capable of raising the throttling limit, (1), to 256kbps or even 512kbps on all unlimited plans (30$+), and, (2), to 1,5Mbps on BingeOn plans (65$+?). P.S. And a Verizon MVNO http://RokMobile.com/ offers 256kbps throttling past their 5GB@50$ bucket, so, likewise, 128kbps from T-Mobile is a bit too slow nowadays. P.P.S. Did anyone notice that Iliad SA, the company that bid for T-Mo last year, now offers 50GB of 4G Internet for 19,99 EUR/mo in France, including free long-distance to Alaska and China, and free roaming all across Europe? (Speeds reduced in excess of 50GB.) http://www.iliad.fr/presse/2015/CP_010915_Eng.pdf http://mobile.free.fr/ Wait, not even 19,99 EUR, but 15,99 EUR if you bundle! P.P.P.S. So, did anyone actually file a net neutrality complaint with the FCC?
If T-Mobile were taking money from the video streaming services or only accepting certain video streaming services, I’d likely agree with you that this is a neutrality issue.
So, why have they not accepted a single porn site yet?
However, in this case, it appears to me that they aren’t trying to give an advantage to any particular competing streaming video service over the other, they aren’t taking money from participants in the program, and consumers stand to benefit from it.
One way or the other, they've so far excluded the whole industry, which the internet is really-really great for.
If you see an actual way in which it’s better for everyone if T-Mobile weren’t doing this, then please explain it. If not, then this strikes me as harmless and overall benefits consumers.
Explained above. Otherwise, one can deduce that any zero rating almost always benefits consumers on average and especially in the short term.
Owen
Cheers, Constantine.
On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 7:36 AM, Constantine A. Murenin <mureninc@gmail.com> wrote:
I disable VPN (which they limit to 128kbps as per above), and suddenly Netflix starts working just fine, since it now gets 1.5Mbps (or thereabouts), and 480p works just fine, even if you're tethered. But yet my porn still doesn't work, even without a VPN!
*** How is this not the very definition of fast vs. slow lanes, if one set of traffic gets a permanent 1,5Mbps high-speed treatment, whereas another set of traffic is limited to a slow 128kbps (or effectively 0kbps for video, since it won't stream at all) past the high-speed allocation? ***
Hi Constantine, In the general case, because it's non-discriminatory. You had the same speed either way until you hit your account cap and if you pay for more bandwidth you'll have the same speed to both once again. Moreover, anyone can pay for zero-rating. In the T-Mobile binge-on case, it's probably a violation of net neutrality. Unless I misunderstand, they're zero-rating folks based on content and technology rather than payment. That's a no-no. They make the case that they're not discriminating against one video provider or another but they're discriminating against video providers versus other less popular technologies whose cost of doing business is effectively increased. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 3:26 PM Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
On Nov 23, 2015, at 14:58 , Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:
In message <E24772E7-A95B-4866-9630-2B1023EBD4FD@delong.com <mailto: E24772E7-A95B-4866-9630-2B1023EBD4FD@delong.com>>, Owen DeLong write s:
On Nov 23, 2015, at 14:16 , Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 5:12 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
Except there’s no revenue share here. According to T-Mobile, the streaming partners aren’t paying anything to T-Mo and T-Mo isn’t paying them. It’s kind of like zero-rating in that the customers don’t pay bandwidth charges, but it’s different in that the service provider isn’t being asked to subsidize the network provider (usual implementation of zero-rating).
equal exchange of value doesn't have to be dollars/pesos/euros changing hands right? -chris
Sure, but I really don’t think there’s an exchange per se in this case, given that T-Mo is (at least apparently) willing to accommodate any streaming provider that wants to participate so long as they are willing to conform to a fairly basic set of technical criteria.
No. This is T-Mo saying they are neutral but not actually being so. This is like writing a job add for one particular person.
Its just as easy to identify a UDP stream as it is a TCP stream. You can ratelimit a UDP stream as easily as a TCP stream. You can have congestion control over UDP as well as over TCP. Just because the base transport doesn't give you some of these and you have to implement them higher up the stack is no reason to throw out a transport.
Are there a significant number (ANY?) streaming video providers using UDP to deliver their streams?
I admit I’m mostly ignorant here, but at least the ones I’m familiar with all use TCP.
Interesting discussion. Minor point answering Owen's question: YouTube is a major streaming video provider that uses UDP: http://blog.chromium.org/2015/04/a-quic-update-on-googles-experimental.html https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/94/slides/slides-94-tcpm-8.pdf (see slide 4)
On 2015-11-23 17:26, Owen DeLong wrote:
Sure, but I really don’t think there’s an exchange per se in this case, given that T-Mo is (at least apparently) willing to accommodate any streaming provider that wants to participate so long as they are willing to conform to a fairly basic set of technical criteria.
Vidéotron also stated on day of annoucement that they were opened to any/all music streaming services and not selective. But fine print is important here because they do "vet" music streaming services and the carrier wants to ensure they are "legal" in canada (music rights), are not a radio station (aka: onwer by competitor telco who owns most radio statiosn in markets where Vidéotron operates) and a whole buch other conditions. There is PR to make "zero rating" look good, and then there is fine print thats hows the true intentions. In the case of Vidéotron, the zero-rated music is available only on their highest priced services and is a marketing scheme to increase AREPU by inciting customers to upgrade to more expensive service.
On 2015-11-23 17:12, Owen DeLong wrote:
Except there’s no revenue share here. According to T-Mobile, the streaming partners aren’t paying anything to T-Mo and T-Mo isn’t paying them.
In Canada, Vidéotron has begun a similar scheme for streaming music. It is currently at the CRTC. They also claimed that the setting up of the scheme with a music streaming partner involved no money exchange. They provided a contract. This contract was 1 page. yes, large incumbent wireless/cable carrier with large legal departments signs a 1 page contract.... This page dealth with which IP addresses from the music streaming service would be zero rated by the carrier. Yet, their advertising uses logos from the handful of music services they have accepted. Permission to use such logos was not included in that 1 page contract which means that there would be a separate contract, not related to zero rating which would deal with co-marketing and whatever else.
* chkuhtz@microsoft.com (Christian Kuhtz) [Mon 23 Nov 2015, 19:43 CET]:
I don't know if this is NN or not, but the concept is ancient. Even back in the dark ages of mobile, zero rating and associated rev share were very common.
Whether this is relevant to NN or not is for lawyers.
This is backwards. It's definitely a net neutrality issue since it concerns inequal access for customers to content on the Internet. Whether it's subject to current laws or regulation is a matter for the lawyers, but current laws and regulations at least in the US are a far cry from actual net neutrality. (If you want a good example of that, look to the Netherlands.) -- Niels.
participants (31)
-
Baldur Norddahl -
Blake Hudson -
bzs＠theworld.com -
Chris Adams -
Christian Kuhtz -
Christopher Morrow -
Collin Anderson -
Constantine A. Murenin -
Ethan Katz-Bassett -
Hugo Slabbert -
Ian Smith -
Jared Mauch -
Jay Ashworth -
Jean-Francois Mezei -
joel jaeggli -
Josh Reynolds -
Keenan Tims -
Keith Medcalf -
Mark Andrews -
Michael Thomas -
Mike Hale -
Mike Hammett -
Niels Bakker -
Owen DeLong -
Sander Steffann -
Scott Brim -
Shane Ronan -
Steve Mikulasik -
Tony Hain -
William Herrin -
William Kenny