Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.
So we went round and round back in November regarding Binge On! and whether it was net neutrality. So here's some closure to that... The EFF did some testing and discovered that what T-Mobile is actually doing doesn't match what they said it was... https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/01/eff-confirms-t-mobiles-bingeon-optimiz... Apparently, John Legere, CEO of T-Mobile, doesn't know who the EFF is, or why they're giving him a hard time. "Part B of my answer is, who the fuck are you, anyway, EFF?" Legere said. "Why are you stirring up so much trouble, and who pays you?" http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/7/10733298/john-legere-binge-on-lie /me makes popcorn....
On Thu 2016-Jan-07 22:43:20 -0500, Valdis Kletnieks <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
So we went round and round back in November regarding Binge On! and whether it was net neutrality. So here's some closure to that...
The EFF did some testing and discovered that what T-Mobile is actually doing doesn't match what they said it was...
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/01/eff-confirms-t-mobiles-bingeon-optimiz...
Apparently, John Legere, CEO of T-Mobile, doesn't know who the EFF is, or why they're giving him a hard time.
"Part B of my answer is, who the fuck are you, anyway, EFF?" Legere said. "Why are you stirring up so much trouble, and who pays you?"
http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/7/10733298/john-legere-binge-on-lie
/me makes popcorn....
And I'm sorry, but this line from Legere had me raging at my screen: "There are people out there saying we’re “throttling.” They’re playing semantics! Binge On does NOT permanently slow down data nor remove customer control. Here’s the thing, mobile customers don’t always want or need giant heavy data files. So we created adaptive video technology to optimize for mobile screens and stream at a bitrate designed to stretch your data (pssst, Google, that's a GOOD thing)."[1] ...so...you're "optimizing" the bitrate of video traffic for mobile by lowering it to 1.5 mbps, but don't worry: it's not "throttling". And you're accusing the "other guys" of playing semantics? Beside pure marketing doublespeak, I don't even know what actual logic he's using here. Apparently it's only "throttling" if it *permanently* slows down traffic, and BingeOn somehow doesn't do that (besides what the EFF is putting forward)? Is it because even though it's enabled by default, there is still an "off" switch, and therefore user choice is maintained (though probalby not obvious to most consumers)? Listen: I have no issue with doing shaping or traffic prioritization or whatever as your customer asks for it; we offer that as an option to customers to get the most out of their connections and I'm sure many of you do as well. But: 1) Those are done at the request of the customer, not opt-out. 2) Be honest about what you're doing. T-Mobile seems to be trying to spin this as if they have some magical technology that will re-encode streaming video on the fly to 480p, when really they're just ID-ing video and rate-limiting it (when it comes to video that doesn't match their technical requirements doc and doesn't do ABR down to 480p on the sending side). Fine: just getting decent accuracy on various edge cases of identifying video traffic isn't trivial, so kudos, but don't blow smoke about it. If Legere has some info about how this truly at a technical level is not just rate limiting, then show us that info. Yes: I've read the "Content Provider Technical Requirements" doc[2] that talks about adaptive bitrate tech on the sending side: "The content provider will provide video over T‐Mobile’s network using adaptive bit rate technology in which the server sending streaming video content will automatically adapt video resolution of the stream based on the capabilities of the data connection or as otherwise indicated by the T‐Mobile network." But, that's for the content folks that are participating in the BingeOn setup for zero-rating. The EFF's data indicates that if you're just a random video stream (or video media type file), you get rate limited. With all of this said, I appreciate the challenge of getting something like this implemented at scale without going opt-out. T-Mo is going for a PR win as well as, let's be honest, reducing network utilization by reducing the bitrate of video crossing the network, but it's *highly* unlikely that you're going to get enough critical mass in an opt-in effort to pull it off. To T-Mo's credit, they're making the opt-out quite simple, but let's be clear that this is not a net neutral move if we go by the commonly accepted definitions: "The idea is that a maximally useful public information network aspires to treat all content, sites, and platforms equally."[3] "Net neutrality (also network neutrality, Internet neutrality, or net equality) is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet the same, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication."[4] The majority of the "fight" to date has been about the source and origin of the traffic, so the discussion often leans that direction, but there is no question that BingeOn works to identify a specific application or type of content (video) and then treats it differently from other traffic. "So why are special interest groups -- and even Google! -- offended by this? Why are they trying to characterize this as a bad thing?" Because you're drawing a box within which people have to play, which puts shackles on innovation. For traffic destined for a BingeOn enabled T-Mo customer (which is everyone by default unless they opt out), content providers can choose to: 1. Meet the technical requirements (possibly at real cost to them to adapt their infrastructure) and do adaptive bitrate streaming, and get capped at 480p but be zero-rated. 2. Do nothing, don't get zero-rated, and get rate-limited to 1.5 mbps. Part of the concern from the net neut crowd is that creating little boxes like this hampers innovation and the development of novel new applications. BingeOn in and of itself may not directly curtail innovation, but the concern is that everyone can create their own little box with which content providers need to cooperate/interoperate. Already in the BingeOn technical requirements doc, there is reference to basically a business relationship (e.g. "To ensure a good customer experience, any changes to a content provider’s streaming formats and/or mechanisms that could impact T‐Mobile’s ability to include the provider’s content in the offering must be communicated to T‐Mobile in advance"). Do we really want a situation where content providers need to establish direct relationships with any edge provider that runs a similar setup to BingeOn in order to ensure their traffic doesn't get squashed or degraded? My gut says that most edge operators wouldn't have an issue with the practice of traffic prioritization or rate limiting as requested by customers (e.g. prioritize my VoIP traffic; cap offsite backup or replication traffic). But those are explicit customer-initiated requests. I think it is legitimate to express concern when that type of traffic classification and differential treatment is applied en masse. T-Mo (or at least Legere) are pandering to "the little guy" and dismissing legitimate reports as "bullshit" in a bunch of handwaving and PR. Let's have an honest conversation about this, including who all stand to benefit and where there is legitimate harm or cause for concern. -- Hugo hugo@slabnet.com: email, xmpp/jabber PGP fingerprint (B178313E): CF18 15FA 9FE4 0CD1 2319 1D77 9AB1 0FFD B178 313E (also on Signal) [1]https://newsroom.t-mobile.com/issues-insights-blog/binge-on-update-blog.htm [2]http://www.t-mobile.com/content/dam/tmo/en-g/pdf/BingeOn-Video-Technical-Cri... [3]http://www.timwu.org/network_neutrality.html [4]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality
On one hand I want to give Legere some credit for addressing the publicity himself. On the other hand, he sounds like a complete fool doing it. I wish I would've been on Periscope at the time. Regards, Ray Orsini – CEO Orsini IT, LLC – Technology Consultants VOICE DATA BANDWIDTH SECURITY SUPPORT P: 305.967.6756 x1009 E: ray@orsiniit.com TF: 844.OIT.VOIP 7900 NW 155th Street, Suite 103, Miami Lakes, FL 33016 http://www.orsiniit.com | View My Calendar | View/Pay Your Invoices | View Your Tickets -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Hugo Slabbert Sent: Friday, January 8, 2016 12:12 PM To: Valdis Kletnieks <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. On Thu 2016-Jan-07 22:43:20 -0500, Valdis Kletnieks <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
So we went round and round back in November regarding Binge On! and whether it was net neutrality. So here's some closure to that...
The EFF did some testing and discovered that what T-Mobile is actually doing doesn't match what they said it was...
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/01/eff-confirms-t-mobiles-bingeon-op timization-just-throttling-applies
Apparently, John Legere, CEO of T-Mobile, doesn't know who the EFF is, or why they're giving him a hard time.
"Part B of my answer is, who the fuck are you, anyway, EFF?" Legere said. "Why are you stirring up so much trouble, and who pays you?"
http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/7/10733298/john-legere-binge-on-lie
/me makes popcorn....
And I'm sorry, but this line from Legere had me raging at my screen: "There are people out there saying we’re “throttling.” They’re playing semantics! Binge On does NOT permanently slow down data nor remove customer control. Here’s the thing, mobile customers don’t always want or need giant heavy data files. So we created adaptive video technology to optimize for mobile screens and stream at a bitrate designed to stretch your data (pssst, Google, that's a GOOD thing)."[1] ...so...you're "optimizing" the bitrate of video traffic for mobile by lowering it to 1.5 mbps, but don't worry: it's not "throttling". And you're accusing the "other guys" of playing semantics? Beside pure marketing doublespeak, I don't even know what actual logic he's using here. Apparently it's only "throttling" if it *permanently* slows down traffic, and BingeOn somehow doesn't do that (besides what the EFF is putting forward)? Is it because even though it's enabled by default, there is still an "off" switch, and therefore user choice is maintained (though probalby not obvious to most consumers)? Listen: I have no issue with doing shaping or traffic prioritization or whatever as your customer asks for it; we offer that as an option to customers to get the most out of their connections and I'm sure many of you do as well. But: 1) Those are done at the request of the customer, not opt-out. 2) Be honest about what you're doing. T-Mobile seems to be trying to spin this as if they have some magical technology that will re-encode streaming video on the fly to 480p, when really they're just ID-ing video and rate-limiting it (when it comes to video that doesn't match their technical requirements doc and doesn't do ABR down to 480p on the sending side). Fine: just getting decent accuracy on various edge cases of identifying video traffic isn't trivial, so kudos, but don't blow smoke about it. If Legere has some info about how this truly at a technical level is not just rate limiting, then show us that info. Yes: I've read the "Content Provider Technical Requirements" doc[2] that talks about adaptive bitrate tech on the sending side: "The content provider will provide video over T‐Mobile’s network using adaptive bit rate technology in which the server sending streaming video content will automatically adapt video resolution of the stream based on the capabilities of the data connection or as otherwise indicated by the T‐Mobile network." But, that's for the content folks that are participating in the BingeOn setup for zero-rating. The EFF's data indicates that if you're just a random video stream (or video media type file), you get rate limited. With all of this said, I appreciate the challenge of getting something like this implemented at scale without going opt-out. T-Mo is going for a PR win as well as, let's be honest, reducing network utilization by reducing the bitrate of video crossing the network, but it's *highly* unlikely that you're going to get enough critical mass in an opt-in effort to pull it off. To T-Mo's credit, they're making the opt-out quite simple, but let's be clear that this is not a net neutral move if we go by the commonly accepted definitions: "The idea is that a maximally useful public information network aspires to treat all content, sites, and platforms equally."[3] "Net neutrality (also network neutrality, Internet neutrality, or net equality) is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet the same, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication."[4] The majority of the "fight" to date has been about the source and origin of the traffic, so the discussion often leans that direction, but there is no question that BingeOn works to identify a specific application or type of content (video) and then treats it differently from other traffic. "So why are special interest groups -- and even Google! -- offended by this? Why are they trying to characterize this as a bad thing?" Because you're drawing a box within which people have to play, which puts shackles on innovation. For traffic destined for a BingeOn enabled T-Mo customer (which is everyone by default unless they opt out), content providers can choose to: 1. Meet the technical requirements (possibly at real cost to them to adapt their infrastructure) and do adaptive bitrate streaming, and get capped at 480p but be zero-rated. 2. Do nothing, don't get zero-rated, and get rate-limited to 1.5 mbps. Part of the concern from the net neut crowd is that creating little boxes like this hampers innovation and the development of novel new applications. BingeOn in and of itself may not directly curtail innovation, but the concern is that everyone can create their own little box with which content providers need to cooperate/interoperate. Already in the BingeOn technical requirements doc, there is reference to basically a business relationship (e.g. "To ensure a good customer experience, any changes to a content provider’s streaming formats and/or mechanisms that could impact T‐Mobile’s ability to include the provider’s content in the offering must be communicated to T‐Mobile in advance"). Do we really want a situation where content providers need to establish direct relationships with any edge provider that runs a similar setup to BingeOn in order to ensure their traffic doesn't get squashed or degraded? My gut says that most edge operators wouldn't have an issue with the practice of traffic prioritization or rate limiting as requested by customers (e.g. prioritize my VoIP traffic; cap offsite backup or replication traffic). But those are explicit customer-initiated requests. I think it is legitimate to express concern when that type of traffic classification and differential treatment is applied en masse. T-Mo (or at least Legere) are pandering to "the little guy" and dismissing legitimate reports as "bullshit" in a bunch of handwaving and PR. Let's have an honest conversation about this, including who all stand to benefit and where there is legitimate harm or cause for concern. -- Hugo hugo@slabnet.com: email, xmpp/jabber PGP fingerprint (B178313E): CF18 15FA 9FE4 0CD1 2319 1D77 9AB1 0FFD B178 313E (also on Signal) [1]https://newsroom.t-mobile.com/issues-insights-blog/binge-on-update-blog.htm [2]http://www.t-mobile.com/content/dam/tmo/en-g/pdf/BingeOn-Video-Technical-Cri... [3]http://www.timwu.org/network_neutrality.html [4]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality
On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 09:11:51AM -0800, Hugo Slabbert wrote:
...so...you're "optimizing" the bitrate of video traffic for mobile by lowering it to 1.5 mbps, but don't worry: it's not "throttling".
It's not just video. Per comments on Techdirt, this also affects other traffic being transmitted via HTTPS, if that traffic is sufficiently large and/or persists for a sufficient period of time. ---rsk
On 7 January 2016 at 19:43, Valdis Kletnieks <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
So we went round and round back in November regarding Binge On! and whether it was net neutrality. So here's some closure to that...
The EFF did some testing and discovered that what T-Mobile is actually doing doesn't match what they said it was...
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/01/eff-confirms-t-mobiles-bingeon-optimiz...
Apparently, John Legere, CEO of T-Mobile, doesn't know who the EFF is, or why they're giving him a hard time.
"Part B of my answer is, who the fuck are you, anyway, EFF?" Legere said. "Why are you stirring up so much trouble, and who pays you?"
http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/7/10733298/john-legere-binge-on-lie
/me makes popcorn....
I don't know what people have been smoking, but I'd like to set the record straight, once and for all. T-Mobile US said that ALL video will be affected from day 0! Here's my comment on https://www.reddit.com/r/tmobile/comments/3sbbm5/netflix_hbo_gonow_sling_tv_... 2015-11-11: «Didn't T-Mobile say that all videos will automatically go at 480p from that point on? If so, what's really the point of an extra step, you know, of the service explicitly "applying" to participate?» I've taken the time to find the source material that must have made me make such a comment, and, I FOUND IT! https://newsroom.t-mobile.com/media-kits/un-carrier-x.htm
Los Angeles, California — November 10, 2015 ...
Powered by new technology built in to T-Mobile’s network, Binge On optimizes video for mobile screens, minimizing data consumption while still delivering DVD or better quality (e.g. 480p or better). That means more reliable streaming for services that stream free with Binge On, and for almost all other video, it means T-Mobile Simple Choice customers can watch up to three times more video from their data plan. And, as always, T-Mobile has put customers in total control with a switch to activate or deactivate Binge On for each line in their My T-Mobile account. Binge On is all about customer choice.
Here it is again, the relevant bits:
for almost all other video, it means T-Mobile Simple Choice customers can watch up to three times more video from their data plan
Those words have certainly been there since at least 2015-11-11! HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT! Just like the rest of the increases in ARPU and other metrics. Unlimited 4G didn't just have the tethering bucket increased from 7GB to 14GB, but the price went from 80$ to 95$, too. (And that doesn't include the earlier increase from 70$ to 80$, either.) Oh, and, to answer EFF's question on why it's enabled by default: https://youtu.be/MHFUT1_QlB8?t=47s
Since it's launched in November, we've learned customers were watching 12% more video.
It is not explicit that "12%" refers to a minute-based metric, but that's most certainly what was meant. Now, compare this with the 66,6% savings by throttling all video to 1.5Mbps, so that "customers can watch up to three times more video", and the net effects of unlimited binge on become quite clear (and quite counter-intuitive to a naive guess on the matter). That said, I have to say I'm disappointed with him going against his own consumers this time around. The only truth from his https://youtu.be/MHFUT1_QlB8 video is that, indeed, if the Dumb and Dumber would have implemented this functionality first, the carriers indeed would have found a way to charge extra for it! Cheers, Constantine.SU.
I'm not certain that most consumers notice or care. How many people can notice 480p vs. 720p vs. 1080p on a 4" display? Now how many will notice the buffering or larger bills? ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Constantine A. Murenin" <mureninc@gmail.com> To: "Valdis Kletnieks" <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu> Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Friday, January 8, 2016 10:07:06 PM Subject: Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. On 7 January 2016 at 19:43, Valdis Kletnieks <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
So we went round and round back in November regarding Binge On! and whether it was net neutrality. So here's some closure to that...
The EFF did some testing and discovered that what T-Mobile is actually doing doesn't match what they said it was...
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/01/eff-confirms-t-mobiles-bingeon-optimiz...
Apparently, John Legere, CEO of T-Mobile, doesn't know who the EFF is, or why they're giving him a hard time.
"Part B of my answer is, who the fuck are you, anyway, EFF?" Legere said. "Why are you stirring up so much trouble, and who pays you?"
http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/7/10733298/john-legere-binge-on-lie
/me makes popcorn....
I don't know what people have been smoking, but I'd like to set the record straight, once and for all. T-Mobile US said that ALL video will be affected from day 0! Here's my comment on https://www.reddit.com/r/tmobile/comments/3sbbm5/netflix_hbo_gonow_sling_tv_... 2015-11-11: «Didn't T-Mobile say that all videos will automatically go at 480p from that point on? If so, what's really the point of an extra step, you know, of the service explicitly "applying" to participate?» I've taken the time to find the source material that must have made me make such a comment, and, I FOUND IT! https://newsroom.t-mobile.com/media-kits/un-carrier-x.htm
Los Angeles, California — November 10, 2015 ...
Powered by new technology built in to T-Mobile’s network, Binge On optimizes video for mobile screens, minimizing data consumption while still delivering DVD or better quality (e.g. 480p or better). That means more reliable streaming for services that stream free with Binge On, and for almost all other video, it means T-Mobile Simple Choice customers can watch up to three times more video from their data plan. And, as always, T-Mobile has put customers in total control with a switch to activate or deactivate Binge On for each line in their My T-Mobile account. Binge On is all about customer choice.
Here it is again, the relevant bits:
for almost all other video, it means T-Mobile Simple Choice customers can watch up to three times more video from their data plan
Those words have certainly been there since at least 2015-11-11! HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT! Just like the rest of the increases in ARPU and other metrics. Unlimited 4G didn't just have the tethering bucket increased from 7GB to 14GB, but the price went from 80$ to 95$, too. (And that doesn't include the earlier increase from 70$ to 80$, either.) Oh, and, to answer EFF's question on why it's enabled by default: https://youtu.be/MHFUT1_QlB8?t=47s
Since it's launched in November, we've learned customers were watching 12% more video.
It is not explicit that "12%" refers to a minute-based metric, but that's most certainly what was meant. Now, compare this with the 66,6% savings by throttling all video to 1.5Mbps, so that "customers can watch up to three times more video", and the net effects of unlimited binge on become quite clear (and quite counter-intuitive to a naive guess on the matter). That said, I have to say I'm disappointed with him going against his own consumers this time around. The only truth from his https://youtu.be/MHFUT1_QlB8 video is that, indeed, if the Dumb and Dumber would have implemented this functionality first, the carriers indeed would have found a way to charge extra for it! Cheers, Constantine.SU.
You are assuming a 4” display. First, lots of phones these days (mine include) larger than 4” displays. Even more phones, again, mine included, have HDMI output. And you better believe I notice the difference on a 32” TV in a hotel room. Owen
On Jan 8, 2016, at 20:25 , Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
I'm not certain that most consumers notice or care. How many people can notice 480p vs. 720p vs. 1080p on a 4" display? Now how many will notice the buffering or larger bills?
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Constantine A. Murenin" <mureninc@gmail.com> To: "Valdis Kletnieks" <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu> Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Friday, January 8, 2016 10:07:06 PM Subject: Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.
On 7 January 2016 at 19:43, Valdis Kletnieks <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
So we went round and round back in November regarding Binge On! and whether it was net neutrality. So here's some closure to that...
The EFF did some testing and discovered that what T-Mobile is actually doing doesn't match what they said it was...
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/01/eff-confirms-t-mobiles-bingeon-optimiz...
Apparently, John Legere, CEO of T-Mobile, doesn't know who the EFF is, or why they're giving him a hard time.
"Part B of my answer is, who the fuck are you, anyway, EFF?" Legere said. "Why are you stirring up so much trouble, and who pays you?"
http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/7/10733298/john-legere-binge-on-lie
/me makes popcorn....
I don't know what people have been smoking, but I'd like to set the record straight, once and for all.
T-Mobile US said that ALL video will be affected from day 0!
Here's my comment on https://www.reddit.com/r/tmobile/comments/3sbbm5/netflix_hbo_gonow_sling_tv_...
2015-11-11: «Didn't T-Mobile say that all videos will automatically go at 480p from that point on? If so, what's really the point of an extra step, you know, of the service explicitly "applying" to participate?»
I've taken the time to find the source material that must have made me make such a comment, and, I FOUND IT!
https://newsroom.t-mobile.com/media-kits/un-carrier-x.htm
Los Angeles, California — November 10, 2015 ...
Powered by new technology built in to T-Mobile’s network, Binge On optimizes video for mobile screens, minimizing data consumption while still delivering DVD or better quality (e.g. 480p or better). That means more reliable streaming for services that stream free with Binge On, and for almost all other video, it means T-Mobile Simple Choice customers can watch up to three times more video from their data plan. And, as always, T-Mobile has put customers in total control with a switch to activate or deactivate Binge On for each line in their My T-Mobile account. Binge On is all about customer choice.
Here it is again, the relevant bits:
for almost all other video, it means T-Mobile Simple Choice customers can watch up to three times more video from their data plan
Those words have certainly been there since at least 2015-11-11!
HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT!
Just like the rest of the increases in ARPU and other metrics. Unlimited 4G didn't just have the tethering bucket increased from 7GB to 14GB, but the price went from 80$ to 95$, too. (And that doesn't include the earlier increase from 70$ to 80$, either.)
Oh, and, to answer EFF's question on why it's enabled by default:
https://youtu.be/MHFUT1_QlB8?t=47s
Since it's launched in November, we've learned customers were watching 12% more video.
It is not explicit that "12%" refers to a minute-based metric, but that's most certainly what was meant.
Now, compare this with the 66,6% savings by throttling all video to 1.5Mbps, so that "customers can watch up to three times more video", and the net effects of unlimited binge on become quite clear (and quite counter-intuitive to a naive guess on the matter).
That said, I have to say I'm disappointed with him going against his own consumers this time around. The only truth from his https://youtu.be/MHFUT1_QlB8 video is that, indeed, if the Dumb and Dumber would have implemented this functionality first, the carriers indeed would have found a way to charge extra for it!
Cheers, Constantine.SU.
Mine has a 6" display and I know it's rare... because people always comment on how big it is. Many\most do HDMI out. About 14 people know about it. Maybe 4 actually do it with any level of regularity. Opt out if it's an issue for you. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com> To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net> Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Friday, January 8, 2016 10:57:32 PM Subject: Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. You are assuming a 4” display. First, lots of phones these days (mine include) larger than 4” displays. Even more phones, again, mine included, have HDMI output. And you better believe I notice the difference on a 32” TV in a hotel room. Owen
On Jan 8, 2016, at 20:25 , Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
I'm not certain that most consumers notice or care. How many people can notice 480p vs. 720p vs. 1080p on a 4" display? Now how many will notice the buffering or larger bills?
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Constantine A. Murenin" <mureninc@gmail.com> To: "Valdis Kletnieks" <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu> Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Friday, January 8, 2016 10:07:06 PM Subject: Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.
On 7 January 2016 at 19:43, Valdis Kletnieks <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
So we went round and round back in November regarding Binge On! and whether it was net neutrality. So here's some closure to that...
The EFF did some testing and discovered that what T-Mobile is actually doing doesn't match what they said it was...
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/01/eff-confirms-t-mobiles-bingeon-optimiz...
Apparently, John Legere, CEO of T-Mobile, doesn't know who the EFF is, or why they're giving him a hard time.
"Part B of my answer is, who the fuck are you, anyway, EFF?" Legere said. "Why are you stirring up so much trouble, and who pays you?"
http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/7/10733298/john-legere-binge-on-lie
/me makes popcorn....
I don't know what people have been smoking, but I'd like to set the record straight, once and for all.
T-Mobile US said that ALL video will be affected from day 0!
Here's my comment on https://www.reddit.com/r/tmobile/comments/3sbbm5/netflix_hbo_gonow_sling_tv_...
2015-11-11: «Didn't T-Mobile say that all videos will automatically go at 480p from that point on? If so, what's really the point of an extra step, you know, of the service explicitly "applying" to participate?»
I've taken the time to find the source material that must have made me make such a comment, and, I FOUND IT!
https://newsroom.t-mobile.com/media-kits/un-carrier-x.htm
Los Angeles, California — November 10, 2015 ...
Powered by new technology built in to T-Mobile’s network, Binge On optimizes video for mobile screens, minimizing data consumption while still delivering DVD or better quality (e.g. 480p or better). That means more reliable streaming for services that stream free with Binge On, and for almost all other video, it means T-Mobile Simple Choice customers can watch up to three times more video from their data plan. And, as always, T-Mobile has put customers in total control with a switch to activate or deactivate Binge On for each line in their My T-Mobile account. Binge On is all about customer choice.
Here it is again, the relevant bits:
for almost all other video, it means T-Mobile Simple Choice customers can watch up to three times more video from their data plan
Those words have certainly been there since at least 2015-11-11!
HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT!
Just like the rest of the increases in ARPU and other metrics. Unlimited 4G didn't just have the tethering bucket increased from 7GB to 14GB, but the price went from 80$ to 95$, too. (And that doesn't include the earlier increase from 70$ to 80$, either.)
Oh, and, to answer EFF's question on why it's enabled by default:
https://youtu.be/MHFUT1_QlB8?t=47s
Since it's launched in November, we've learned customers were watching 12% more video.
It is not explicit that "12%" refers to a minute-based metric, but that's most certainly what was meant.
Now, compare this with the 66,6% savings by throttling all video to 1.5Mbps, so that "customers can watch up to three times more video", and the net effects of unlimited binge on become quite clear (and quite counter-intuitive to a naive guess on the matter).
That said, I have to say I'm disappointed with him going against his own consumers this time around. The only truth from his https://youtu.be/MHFUT1_QlB8 video is that, indeed, if the Dumb and Dumber would have implemented this functionality first, the carriers indeed would have found a way to charge extra for it!
Cheers, Constantine.SU.
You're assuming that people are only using phones with their SIM - those that use a mifi dongle and thus view content on a tablet or laptop will notice We could rate limit traffic from YouTube to 1.5mbps and let the adaptive streaming knock the steam to 480p bit our users with 100mbit connections might wonder why they cannot view 720p or 1080p - and why spicy they view such content - its like putting back the web and online video services 5 years. Where does it stop? 320x240 ? Bulk data and background update processes are things that could possibly by throttled - after all, that's pretty much what QoS does. Most of my phone data is google play software updates and on woes phone ios and itunes store updates - it doesn't matter if the update ticks along in the background. Audio and video need to be good. alan
Valid points. The best solution for everybody is the solution most consumers are adverse to, which is usage based billing. Granted, many times the providers have shot themselves in the foot by making the charges punitive instead of based on cost plus margin. Reasonable $/gig for everybody! :-) ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alan Buxey" <A.L.M.Buxey@lboro.ac.uk> To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net> Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Saturday, January 9, 2016 4:38:58 AM Subject: Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. You're assuming that people are only using phones with their SIM - those that use a mifi dongle and thus view content on a tablet or laptop will notice We could rate limit traffic from YouTube to 1.5mbps and let the adaptive streaming knock the steam to 480p bit our users with 100mbit connections might wonder why they cannot view 720p or 1080p - and why spicy they view such content - its like putting back the web and online video services 5 years. Where does it stop? 320x240 ? Bulk data and background update processes are things that could possibly by throttled - after all, that's pretty much what QoS does. Most of my phone data is google play software updates and on woes phone ios and itunes store updates - it doesn't matter if the update ticks along in the background. Audio and video need to be good. alan
On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 5:06 AM, Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
The best solution for everybody is the solution most consumers are adverse to, which is usage based billing. Granted, many times the providers have shot themselves in the foot by making the charges punitive instead of based on cost plus margin. Reasonable $/gig for everybody! :-)
I'm tempted to make an analogy to health care, insurance, and universal coverage, but I'll abstain. Usage based billing alters the typical hockey stick graph: the 10% of users using 80% of the bandwidth are otherwise subsidized by the long tail. As an ISP, usage-based billing is more sensible, because I would no longer have to stress about oversubscription ratios and keeping the long tail happy. But usage-based models are more stressful for the consumer; I think I disagree that it's the best model for everybody. Let me be a consumer advocate for a moment. One of the reasons consumers are averse to usage-based billing is that the tech industry has not put good tools into their hands. While it is possible to disable automatic updates, set Windows 10's network settings to "metered", and micromanage your bandwidth, in general: The Internet (from the non-eyeball side) is designed around a free-feeding usage model. Can you imagine if the App store of your choice showed two prices, one for the app and one for the download? The permission-based model on Android would have requests like, "This app is likely to cost you $4/week. Is this OK?" I don't know all the reasons that satellite provider Starband shut down, but that was a usage-based billing market; and it would never have been a 'reasonable' $/gig. I'm working to step into the hole they left, and you're right that customers don't want a usage-based model to replace it. In addition, let's say I know of an ISP that makes 10% of its revenue from overage charges. Moving to a purely usage-based model would lower ACR, as it would have to charge a more reasonable price/gig; that top 10% of users won't replace the lost revenue. So even providers may have little incentive to change models, particularly if they have a vested interest in inhibiting the growth of video or usage in general. -- Jeremy Austin
My point on usage based billing isn't meant to stifle anything, but to provide equitable service to everyone at a fair price. $10/gig certainly isn't a fair price for almost any network. People pay variable rates for water, electricity, gas, food, etc., etc. Is it necessarily a bad thing if people stop to think about what their usage costs? ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeremy Austin" <jhaustin@gmail.com> To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net> Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Saturday, January 9, 2016 10:01:47 AM Subject: Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 5:06 AM, Mike Hammett < nanog@ics-il.net > wrote: The best solution for everybody is the solution most consumers are adverse to, which is usage based billing. Granted, many times the providers have shot themselves in the foot by making the charges punitive instead of based on cost plus margin. Reasonable $/gig for everybody! :-) I'm tempted to make an analogy to health care, insurance, and universal coverage, but I'll abstain. Usage based billing alters the typical hockey stick graph: the 10% of users using 80% of the bandwidth are otherwise subsidized by the long tail. As an ISP, usage-based billing is more sensible, because I would no longer have to stress about oversubscription ratios and keeping the long tail happy. But usage-based models are more stressful for the consumer; I think I disagree that it's the best model for everybody. Let me be a consumer advocate for a moment. One of the reasons consumers are averse to usage-based billing is that the tech industry has not put good tools into their hands. While it is possible to disable automatic updates, set Windows 10's network settings to "metered", and micromanage your bandwidth, in general: The Internet (from the non-eyeball side) is designed around a free-feeding usage model. Can you imagine if the App store of your choice showed two prices, one for the app and one for the download? The permission-based model on Android would have requests like, "This app is likely to cost you $4/week. Is this OK?" I don't know all the reasons that satellite provider Starband shut down, but that was a usage-based billing market; and it would never have been a 'reasonable' $/gig. I'm working to step into the hole they left, and you're right that customers don't want a usage-based model to replace it. In addition, let's say I know of an ISP that makes 10% of its revenue from overage charges. Moving to a purely usage-based model would lower ACR, as it would have to charge a more reasonable price/gig; that top 10% of users won't replace the lost revenue. So even providers may have little incentive to change models, particularly if they have a vested interest in inhibiting the growth of video or usage in general. -- Jeremy Austin
The normal consumer has no way to correlate what the "real" cost is as the providers keep their "costs" for bandwidth, transit, etc. proprietary secrets and always lie to the consumer and muddy the picture of what the ISP actually pays for regarding bits! Additionally, until there can be proper tools that are "certified" for measuring usage, then usage based billing will never be viable. Robert Webb On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 10:11:29 -0600 (CST) Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
My point on usage based billing isn't meant to stifle anything, but to provide equitable service to everyone at a fair price. $10/gig certainly isn't a fair price for almost any network. People pay variable rates for water, electricity, gas, food, etc., etc.
Is it necessarily a bad thing if people stop to think about what their usage costs?
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com
The cost to the provider is irrelevant to the consumer. Cost to the consumer is all the consumer should be concerned with. Competition, industry and media would serve as the barometer to sensible or ridiculous pricing. There are a myriad of ways to measure usage. I'm not sure there are any certifications for any other billing relating to the Internet, so why start now? (My ISP doesn't charge for usage and I don't intend to until the industry makes that shift. I'm just debating this side.) ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Webb" <rwebb@ropeguru.com> To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net> Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Saturday, January 9, 2016 10:37:23 AM Subject: Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. The normal consumer has no way to correlate what the "real" cost is as the providers keep their "costs" for bandwidth, transit, etc. proprietary secrets and always lie to the consumer and muddy the picture of what the ISP actually pays for regarding bits! Additionally, until there can be proper tools that are "certified" for measuring usage, then usage based billing will never be viable. Robert Webb On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 10:11:29 -0600 (CST) Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
My point on usage based billing isn't meant to stifle anything, but to provide equitable service to everyone at a fair price. $10/gig certainly isn't a fair price for almost any network. People pay variable rates for water, electricity, gas, food, etc., etc.
Is it necessarily a bad thing if people stop to think about what their usage costs?
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com
Unfortunately when it comes to "competition" in the wireless world, even though there are multiple providers, the consumer will always be gouged given the attitude of today's providers to just follow what the other does. In my opinion, kind of a in the public eye form of collusion. So there will never be a true competition based market in the wireless given the current players. There should be certifications for measurement is that is what my bill is going to be based on as a consumer. My power meter, gas meter, water meter, etc. get replaced every so often for calibration and the particular utility will come out and swap or test on site if I think there is an issue. Unfortunately, providers like Comcast, yes, I know they aren't wireless, but their usage meter is a joke and a proprietary based joke at that. I do not think I have ever seen anyone from Comcast willing to describe exactly how their meter works and what is and is not counted towards usage. I am not a wireless expert, but my guess is that it would be even more difficult to accurately track usage on wireless given the portable nature. (In my area, luckily, my landline ISP doesn't charge or have caps either. But my wireless carrier has caps. And given the data hungry phones these days in which a lot of the data cannot be controlled by the user, then I certainly want the technical details of the usage calculation open to me for review.) Robert Webb On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 10:46:29 -0600 (CST) Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
The cost to the provider is irrelevant to the consumer. Cost to the consumer is all the consumer should be concerned with. Competition, industry and media would serve as the barometer to sensible or ridiculous pricing.
There are a myriad of ways to measure usage. I'm not sure there are any certifications for any other billing relating to the Internet, so why start now?
(My ISP doesn't charge for usage and I don't intend to until the industry makes that shift. I'm just debating this side.)
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Webb" <rwebb@ropeguru.com> To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net> Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Saturday, January 9, 2016 10:37:23 AM Subject: Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.
The normal consumer has no way to correlate what the "real" cost is as the providers keep their "costs" for bandwidth, transit, etc. proprietary secrets and always lie to the consumer and muddy the picture of what the ISP actually pays for regarding bits!
Additionally, until there can be proper tools that are "certified" for measuring usage, then usage based billing will never be viable.
Robert Webb
On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 10:11:29 -0600 (CST) Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
My point on usage based billing isn't meant to stifle anything, but to provide equitable service to everyone at a fair price. $10/gig certainly isn't a fair price for almost any network. People pay variable rates for water, electricity, gas, food, etc., etc.
Is it necessarily a bad thing if people stop to think about what their usage costs?
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com
Bytes uploaded and\or downloaded. That's all that should matter. Initiated by you or not. I have never seen or heard of any utility meters being replaced or calibrated. I suppose they should upon reasonable demand, but I've never seen it regularly done anywhere. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Webb" <rwebb@ropeguru.com> To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net> Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Saturday, January 9, 2016 11:04:05 AM Subject: Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. Unfortunately when it comes to "competition" in the wireless world, even though there are multiple providers, the consumer will always be gouged given the attitude of today's providers to just follow what the other does. In my opinion, kind of a in the public eye form of collusion. So there will never be a true competition based market in the wireless given the current players. There should be certifications for measurement is that is what my bill is going to be based on as a consumer. My power meter, gas meter, water meter, etc. get replaced every so often for calibration and the particular utility will come out and swap or test on site if I think there is an issue. Unfortunately, providers like Comcast, yes, I know they aren't wireless, but their usage meter is a joke and a proprietary based joke at that. I do not think I have ever seen anyone from Comcast willing to describe exactly how their meter works and what is and is not counted towards usage. I am not a wireless expert, but my guess is that it would be even more difficult to accurately track usage on wireless given the portable nature. (In my area, luckily, my landline ISP doesn't charge or have caps either. But my wireless carrier has caps. And given the data hungry phones these days in which a lot of the data cannot be controlled by the user, then I certainly want the technical details of the usage calculation open to me for review.) Robert Webb On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 10:46:29 -0600 (CST) Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
The cost to the provider is irrelevant to the consumer. Cost to the consumer is all the consumer should be concerned with. Competition, industry and media would serve as the barometer to sensible or ridiculous pricing.
There are a myriad of ways to measure usage. I'm not sure there are any certifications for any other billing relating to the Internet, so why start now?
(My ISP doesn't charge for usage and I don't intend to until the industry makes that shift. I'm just debating this side.)
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Webb" <rwebb@ropeguru.com> To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net> Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Saturday, January 9, 2016 10:37:23 AM Subject: Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.
The normal consumer has no way to correlate what the "real" cost is as the providers keep their "costs" for bandwidth, transit, etc. proprietary secrets and always lie to the consumer and muddy the picture of what the ISP actually pays for regarding bits!
Additionally, until there can be proper tools that are "certified" for measuring usage, then usage based billing will never be viable.
Robert Webb
On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 10:11:29 -0600 (CST) Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
My point on usage based billing isn't meant to stifle anything, but to provide equitable service to everyone at a fair price. $10/gig certainly isn't a fair price for almost any network. People pay variable rates for water, electricity, gas, food, etc., etc.
Is it necessarily a bad thing if people stop to think about what their usage costs?
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com
So you are all for supporting having to pay for data the bloatware programs, installed by most all providers, which most consumers do not want or use? When providers start putting out equipment that has the pure phone OS installed, not the bloatware laden crap that is sold today, then I might agree with you a bit more. But we all know from the history of providers that they will never provide a reasonable per byte cost. Everywhere I have lived, providers will come out and replace meters. Some do it better then others, especially if you are seeing anomalies in usage. In the case of normal utilities though, you can pretty much judge your usage. However with internet based per byte billing, one never knows what is going on under the hood of the device in places where the user has zero access to. Robert Webb On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 11:12:16 -0600 (CST) Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
Bytes uploaded and\or downloaded. That's all that should matter. Initiated by you or not.
I have never seen or heard of any utility meters being replaced or calibrated. I suppose they should upon reasonable demand, but I've never seen it regularly done anywhere.
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Webb" <rwebb@ropeguru.com> To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net> Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Saturday, January 9, 2016 11:04:05 AM Subject: Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.
Unfortunately when it comes to "competition" in the wireless world, even though there are multiple providers, the consumer will always be gouged given the attitude of today's providers to just follow what the other does. In my opinion, kind of a in the public eye form of collusion. So there will never be a true competition based market in the wireless given the current players.
There should be certifications for measurement is that is what my bill is going to be based on as a consumer. My power meter, gas meter, water meter, etc. get replaced every so often for calibration and the particular utility will come out and swap or test on site if I think there is an issue.
Unfortunately, providers like Comcast, yes, I know they aren't wireless, but their usage meter is a joke and a proprietary based joke at that. I do not think I have ever seen anyone from Comcast willing to describe exactly how their meter works and what is and is not counted towards usage. I am not a wireless expert, but my guess is that it would be even more difficult to accurately track usage on wireless given the portable nature.
(In my area, luckily, my landline ISP doesn't charge or have caps either. But my wireless carrier has caps. And given the data hungry phones these days in which a lot of the data cannot be controlled by the user, then I certainly want the technical details of the usage calculation open to me for review.)
Robert Webb
On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 10:46:29 -0600 (CST) Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
The cost to the provider is irrelevant to the consumer. Cost to the consumer is all the consumer should be concerned with. Competition, industry and media would serve as the barometer to sensible or ridiculous pricing.
There are a myriad of ways to measure usage. I'm not sure there are any certifications for any other billing relating to the Internet, so why start now?
(My ISP doesn't charge for usage and I don't intend to until the industry makes that shift. I'm just debating this side.)
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Webb" <rwebb@ropeguru.com> To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net> Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Saturday, January 9, 2016 10:37:23 AM Subject: Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.
The normal consumer has no way to correlate what the "real" cost is as the providers keep their "costs" for bandwidth, transit, etc. proprietary secrets and always lie to the consumer and muddy the picture of what the ISP actually pays for regarding bits!
Additionally, until there can be proper tools that are "certified" for measuring usage, then usage based billing will never be viable.
Robert Webb
On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 10:11:29 -0600 (CST) Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
My point on usage based billing isn't meant to stifle anything, but to provide equitable service to everyone at a fair price. $10/gig certainly isn't a fair price for almost any network. People pay variable rates for water, electricity, gas, food, etc., etc.
Is it necessarily a bad thing if people stop to think about what their usage costs?
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com
In article <1725530149.7756.1452359589375.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> you write:
Bytes uploaded and\or downloaded. That's all that should matter. Initiated by you or not.
As should be obvious to people on NANOG, of all places, mobile networks and fixed networks are different. On a mobile network, every bit of infrastructure you use other than your phone is shared and tends to be heavily used. Metered usage makes economic sense, although it's well documented that users hate it and would rather pay for a fixed bundle even if on average metered would be cheaper. On fixed networks, a significant chunk is unshared (such as the wire to your house) and while there may be hotspots, there tends to be a lot of slack capacity within the network. That means that fixed network traffic outside of peak times literally costs the network nothing.
I have never seen or heard of any utility meters being replaced or calibrated. I suppose they should upon reasonable demand, but I've never seen it regularly done anywhere.
Now you have. When I was municipal water commissioner, one of our annual tasks was to buy new meters to swap for the oldest ones. Water meters have a lot of moving parts and when they get old, they tend to underreport usage. R's, John
On Sat, 09 Jan 2016 11:12:16 -0600, Mike Hammett said:
Bytes uploaded and\or downloaded. That's all that should matter. Initiated by you or not.
You want to be the one explaining to your customer that the reason they got charged for 20G of unexpected transfer was because their 3 Windows 8 machines each downloaded Windows 10 without telling them?
At least Microsoft would get heat for unsolicited downloads. Why does Microsoft (allegedly) think they can download (unwanted or at least unsolicited) software to unsuspecting users computer, just to upsell them, at our expense? 20Gigs per household is a lot of data across a market. If it was metered, there would be at least some accountability.
On Jan 9, 2016, at 12:56 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jan 2016 11:12:16 -0600, Mike Hammett said:
Bytes uploaded and\or downloaded. That's all that should matter. Initiated by you or not.
You want to be the one explaining to your customer that the reason they got charged for 20G of unexpected transfer was because their 3 Windows 8 machines each downloaded Windows 10 without telling them?
Comcast uses a standardized protocol called IPDR for their accounting and if they're still using the same software collector that they were a few years ago it was independently verified for accuracy. IPDR had been part of the DOCSIS protocol for nearly a decade and is publicly documented. Now, what (if anything) they choose to zero rate or otherwise manipulate I can't speak on, but the collection of the usage is well understood, independent of the CPE, and extremely accurate. On Jan 9, 2016 12:05 PM, "Robert Webb" <rwebb@ropeguru.com> wrote:
Unfortunately when it comes to "competition" in the wireless world, even though there are multiple providers, the consumer will always be gouged given the attitude of today's providers to just follow what the other does. In my opinion, kind of a in the public eye form of collusion. So there will never be a true competition based market in the wireless given the current players.
There should be certifications for measurement is that is what my bill is going to be based on as a consumer. My power meter, gas meter, water meter, etc. get replaced every so often for calibration and the particular utility will come out and swap or test on site if I think there is an issue.
Unfortunately, providers like Comcast, yes, I know they aren't wireless, but their usage meter is a joke and a proprietary based joke at that. I do not think I have ever seen anyone from Comcast willing to describe exactly how their meter works and what is and is not counted towards usage. I am not a wireless expert, but my guess is that it would be even more difficult to accurately track usage on wireless given the portable nature.
(In my area, luckily, my landline ISP doesn't charge or have caps either. But my wireless carrier has caps. And given the data hungry phones these days in which a lot of the data cannot be controlled by the user, then I certainly want the technical details of the usage calculation open to me for review.)
Robert Webb
On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 10:46:29 -0600 (CST) Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
The cost to the provider is irrelevant to the consumer. Cost to the consumer is all the consumer should be concerned with. Competition, industry and media would serve as the barometer to sensible or ridiculous pricing. There are a myriad of ways to measure usage. I'm not sure there are any certifications for any other billing relating to the Internet, so why start now?
(My ISP doesn't charge for usage and I don't intend to until the industry makes that shift. I'm just debating this side.)
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Webb" <rwebb@ropeguru.com> To: "Mike Hammett" < nanog@ics-il.net> Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" < nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Saturday, January 9, 2016 10:37:23 AM Subject: Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. The normal consumer has no way to correlate what the "real" cost is as the providers keep their "costs" for bandwidth, transit, etc. proprietary secrets and always lie to the consumer and muddy the picture of what the ISP actually pays for regarding bits! Additionally, until there can be proper tools that are "certified" for measuring usage, then usage based billing will never be viable. Robert Webb On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 10:11:29 -0600 (CST) Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
My point on usage based billing isn't meant to stifle anything, but to provide equitable service to everyone at a fair price. $10/gig certainly isn't a fair price for almost any network. People pay variable rates for water, electricity, gas, food, etc., etc. Is it necessarily a bad thing if people stop to think about what their usage costs?
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com
On Jan 9, 2016, at 08:01 , Jeremy Austin <jhaustin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 5:06 AM, Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
The best solution for everybody is the solution most consumers are adverse to, which is usage based billing. Granted, many times the providers have shot themselves in the foot by making the charges punitive instead of based on cost plus margin. Reasonable $/gig for everybody! :-)
I'm tempted to make an analogy to health care, insurance, and universal coverage, but I'll abstain.
Usage based billing alters the typical hockey stick graph: the 10% of users using 80% of the bandwidth are otherwise subsidized by the long tail.
As an ISP, usage-based billing is more sensible, because I would no longer have to stress about oversubscription ratios and keeping the long tail happy. But usage-based models are more stressful for the consumer; I think I disagree that it's the best model for everybody.
As much as I love to criticize T-Mo for what they do wrong (and there’s plenty), this is one area where I think T-Mo has actually done something admirable. They have (sort of) usage-based billing. For $x/month you get Y GB of LTE speed data and after that you drop to 128kbps. You don’t pay an overage charge, but your data slows way down. If you want to make it fast again, you can for $reasonable purchase additional data within that month on a one-time basis. I would like to encourage other carriers to adopt this model, actually. If Verizon had a model like this, I would probably switch tomorrow assuming their prices weren’t too far out of line compared to T-Mo.
Let me be a consumer advocate for a moment. One of the reasons consumers are averse to usage-based billing is that the tech industry has not put good tools into their hands. While it is possible to disable automatic updates, set Windows 10's network settings to "metered", and micromanage your bandwidth, in general:
The Internet (from the non-eyeball side) is designed around a free-feeding usage model. Can you imagine if the App store of your choice showed two prices, one for the app and one for the download? The permission-based model on Android would have requests like, "This app is likely to cost you $4/week. Is this OK?”
Kind of an interesting idea, but to me, the reason usage charges induce stress has ore to do with the fact that they are kind of out of control pricey first of all and second of all that you start incurring them without warning and without any real ability to say no on most networks. That’s why I actually like the T-Mo strategy here. With existing tools, the customer has full choice and control about “overage” costs even if their data usage remains somewhat opaque.
I don't know all the reasons that satellite provider Starband shut down, but that was a usage-based billing market; and it would never have been a 'reasonable' $/gig. I'm working to step into the hole they left, and you're right that customers don't want a usage-based model to replace it.
Because their operating costs overall exceeded the value perceived by consumers. As a result, they could not sell their product to a critical mass of consumers at a price that would allow them to continue operations.
In addition, let's say I know of an ISP that makes 10% of its revenue from overage charges. Moving to a purely usage-based model would lower ACR, as it would have to charge a more reasonable price/gig; that top 10% of users won't replace the lost revenue. So even providers may have little incentive to change models, particularly if they have a vested interest in inhibiting the growth of video or usage in general.
How can an ISP make 10% of its money from overage charges unless they are doing usage-based billing? If you’ve got an AYCE plan, you don’t have overages. If you don’t, then you have some form of usage based billing. The varieties of usage based billing that are available are a far less interesting exercise. Owen
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 7:12 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
For $x/month you get Y GB of LTE speed data and after that you drop to 128kbps.
You don’t pay an overage charge, but your data slows way down.
If you want to make it fast again, you can for $reasonable purchase additional data within that month on a one-time basis.
I would like to encourage other carriers to adopt this model, actually. If Verizon had a model like this, I would probably switch tomorrow assuming their prices weren’t too far out of line compared to T-Mo.
This is similar to Hughesnet's FAP (unfortunately named Fair Access Policy). I've had some consumer success with this model. There are other fairness models that can augment it, however; it's not my favorite.
The Internet (from the non-eyeball side) is designed around a
free-feeding
usage model. Can you imagine if the App store of your choice showed two prices, one for the app and one for the download? The permission-based model on Android would have requests like, "This app is likely to cost you $4/week. Is this OK?”
Kind of an interesting idea, but to me, the reason usage charges induce stress has ore to do with the fact that they are kind of out of control pricey first of all and second of all that you start incurring them without warning and without any real ability to say no on most networks.
That’s why I actually like the T-Mo strategy here. With existing tools, the customer has full choice and control about “overage” costs even if their data usage remains somewhat opaque.
From what I understand, the controversy around T-Mo is that the technique itself was opaque, correct? If the Internet as a whole *had* an "SD" knob,
like Netflix on AppleTV/etc., usage-billed customers would benefit — as long as it was plainly spelled out.
In addition, let's say I know of an ISP that makes 10% of its revenue from overage charges. Moving to a purely usage-based model would lower ACR, as it would have to charge a more reasonable price/gig; that top 10% of users won't replace the lost revenue. So even providers may have little incentive to change models, particularly if they have a vested interest in inhibiting the growth of video or usage in general.
How can an ISP make 10% of its money from overage charges unless they are doing usage-based billing? If you’ve got an AYCE plan, you don’t have overages. If you don’t, then you have some form of usage based billing.
The varieties of usage based billing that are available are a far less interesting exercise.
Owen
On a continuum, AYCE at one end, pay-by-the-bit at the other, and in between, usage caps. For the majority of customers on $provider network, caps are unnecessary; for them, the flat rate they pay is effectively an AYCE. Smaller stomachs, and they are paying a higher $/bit as they use less. Those who incur overages are experiencing usage-based billing. I agree it is uninteresting, but there it is. How much uncapped LTE spectrum is needed before we can hit that 2Mbps per customer referred to recently?
On Jan 11, 2016, at 10:00 , Jeremy Austin <jhaustin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 7:12 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com <mailto:owen@delong.com>> wrote:
For $x/month you get Y GB of LTE speed data and after that you drop to 128kbps.
You don’t pay an overage charge, but your data slows way down.
If you want to make it fast again, you can for $reasonable purchase additional data within that month on a one-time basis.
I would like to encourage other carriers to adopt this model, actually. If Verizon had a model like this, I would probably switch tomorrow assuming their prices weren’t too far out of line compared to T-Mo.
This is similar to Hughesnet's FAP (unfortunately named Fair Access Policy).
I've had some consumer success with this model. There are other fairness models that can augment it, however; it's not my favorite.
What is your favorite?
The Internet (from the non-eyeball side) is designed around a free-feeding usage model. Can you imagine if the App store of your choice showed two prices, one for the app and one for the download? The permission-based model on Android would have requests like, "This app is likely to cost you $4/week. Is this OK?”
Kind of an interesting idea, but to me, the reason usage charges induce stress has ore to do with the fact that they are kind of out of control pricey first of all and second of all that you start incurring them without warning and without any real ability to say no on most networks.
That’s why I actually like the T-Mo strategy here. With existing tools, the customer has full choice and control about “overage” costs even if their data usage remains somewhat opaque.
From what I understand, the controversy around T-Mo is that the technique itself was opaque, correct? If the Internet as a whole *had* an "SD" knob, like Netflix on AppleTV/etc., usage-billed customers would benefit — as long as it was plainly spelled out.
Yes… And I’m in line criticizing T-Mobile for this. However, when it comes to the pricing model for data overages, there’s is the best I’ve seen yet.
In addition, let's say I know of an ISP that makes 10% of its revenue from overage charges. Moving to a purely usage-based model would lower ACR, as it would have to charge a more reasonable price/gig; that top 10% of users won't replace the lost revenue. So even providers may have little incentive to change models, particularly if they have a vested interest in inhibiting the growth of video or usage in general.
How can an ISP make 10% of its money from overage charges unless they are doing usage-based billing? If you’ve got an AYCE plan, you don’t have overages. If you don’t, then you have some form of usage based billing.
The varieties of usage based billing that are available are a far less interesting exercise.
Owen
On a continuum, AYCE at one end, pay-by-the-bit at the other, and in between, usage caps. For the majority of customers on $provider network, caps are unnecessary; for them, the flat rate they pay is effectively an AYCE. Smaller stomachs, and they are paying a higher $/bit as they use less. Those who incur overages are experiencing usage-based billing.
Another term for usage caps is “usage tiers” where you select a tier that you live in and you pay a fine if you exceed your usage tier. However, as I said, I consider everything to the right of AYCE on your “continuum” to be simply variations of usage-based billing. Sure, to a consumer who stays within their usage tier, their tier looks like AYCE (until it doesn’t), but it certainly isn’t actually.
I agree it is uninteresting, but there it is.
How much uncapped LTE spectrum is needed before we can hit that 2Mbps per customer referred to recently?
I would assume quite a bit. There are 7 billion potential subscribers, so that’s 14 billion Mbps or 14 Petabits per second world wide. Owen
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 9:15 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
This is similar to Hughesnet's FAP (unfortunately named Fair Access Policy).
I've had some consumer success with this model. There are other fairness models that can augment it, however; it's not my favorite.
What is your favorite?
Does a dog have the Buddha nature? My favorite is actually having enough bandwidth to meet demand. What a concept. Ought to work for terrestrial; where we run out of spectrum/bandwidth is in shared-medium last-mile. Pre-Title II classification, I had excellent success with per-flow equalization/fairness, but this is expensive and makes bandwidth guarantees difficult to manage. After, I've also had success with a) maintaining sane oversubscription ratios and b) using per-customer-class fairness balancing, and c) some experimentation with FQ-CODEL, although this is less neutral and still a gray area — at least until I understand it better.
However, as I said, I consider everything to the right of AYCE on your “continuum” to be simply variations of usage-based billing.
Sure, to a consumer who stays within their usage tier, their tier looks like AYCE (until it doesn’t), but it certainly isn’t actually.
I agree.
How much uncapped LTE spectrum is needed before we can hit that 2Mbps per customer referred to recently?
I would assume quite a bit. There are 7 billion potential subscribers, so that’s 14 billion Mbps or 14 Petabits per second world wide.
Heh. Gary said it better — it's about user density. All 7 billion aren't on one set of sectors. The architecture for "repeaters", as Gary pointed out, is suboptimal, which is why we rely so heavily on Wifi, and why the WISP world is up in arms over LTE-U. Or so it seems to me. And NYC is just now getting wifi in the tunnels? I apologize if this has grown off-topic.
On Jan 11, 2016, at 10:31 , Jeremy Austin <jhaustin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 9:15 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com <mailto:owen@delong.com>> wrote:
This is similar to Hughesnet's FAP (unfortunately named Fair Access Policy).
I've had some consumer success with this model. There are other fairness models that can augment it, however; it's not my favorite.
What is your favorite?
Does a dog have the Buddha nature?
My favorite is actually having enough bandwidth to meet demand. What a concept. Ought to work for terrestrial; where we run out of spectrum/bandwidth is in shared-medium last-mile.
That’s not a billing model… We were talking about billing models. What’s your favorite billing model?
Pre-Title II classification, I had excellent success with per-flow equalization/fairness, but this is expensive and makes bandwidth guarantees difficult to manage.
After, I've also had success with a) maintaining sane oversubscription ratios and b) using per-customer-class fairness balancing, and c) some experimentation with FQ-CODEL, although this is less neutral and still a gray area — at least until I understand it better.
Again, we are apparently talking apples and oranges. I’m talking about billing models and you’re talking about service delivery techniques.
However, as I said, I consider everything to the right of AYCE on your “continuum” to be simply variations of usage-based billing.
Sure, to a consumer who stays within their usage tier, their tier looks like AYCE (until it doesn’t), but it certainly isn’t actually.
I agree.
How much uncapped LTE spectrum is needed before we can hit that 2Mbps per customer referred to recently?
I would assume quite a bit. There are 7 billion potential subscribers, so that’s 14 billion Mbps or 14 Petabits per second world wide.
Heh. Gary said it better — it's about user density. All 7 billion aren't on one set of sectors.
The architecture for "repeaters", as Gary pointed out, is suboptimal, which is why we rely so heavily on Wifi, and why the WISP world is up in arms over LTE-U. Or so it seems to me.
And NYC is just now getting wifi in the tunnels?
I apologize if this has grown off-topic.
Meh, most useful threads wander significantly. Owen
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 9:40 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
My favorite is actually having enough bandwidth to meet demand. What a concept. Ought to work for terrestrial; where we run out of spectrum/bandwidth is in shared-medium last-mile.
That’s not a billing model… We were talking about billing models.
What’s your favorite billing model?
Heh. I had said "fairness" — perhaps we both support unfair billing but fair supply? Two sides of the same tarnished coin, supply and demand. Which model I prefer… Diogenes, when asked what kind of wine he liked best, replied "The wine of others." As a user in that top 10%, I like my bandwidth subsidized by my unwitting peers. As an ISP, I'm managing to sell it AYCE, but I'm small potatoes. My opinions are my own but largely informed by what I observe for customer satisfaction, contrasting models in an uncompetitive market.
On Jan 11, 2016, at 11:07 , Jeremy Austin <jhaustin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 9:40 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com <mailto:owen@delong.com>> wrote:
My favorite is actually having enough bandwidth to meet demand. What a concept. Ought to work for terrestrial; where we run out of spectrum/bandwidth is in shared-medium last-mile.
That’s not a billing model… We were talking about billing models.
What’s your favorite billing model?
Heh. I had said "fairness" — perhaps we both support unfair billing but fair supply?
Two sides of the same tarnished coin, supply and demand.
Which model I prefer… Diogenes, when asked what kind of wine he liked best, replied "The wine of others."
As a user in that top 10%, I like my bandwidth subsidized by my unwitting peers. As an ISP, I'm managing to sell it AYCE, but I'm small potatoes. My opinions are my own but largely informed by what I observe for customer satisfaction, contrasting models in an uncompetitive market.
As another user in that top 10%, I don’t mind paying the freight for the data I use and I pay the extra $30/month for an unlimited plan vs. the lower tiers at lower prices. OTOH, the other 4 lines on my account as lesser users, I’m accepting the free 1GB of LTE and then they run at 128k for the rest of the month. Two of these lines, however, are in the hands of teenagers, so I’m not willing to risk having to pay exhorbitant overage fees if they go over. That’s what keeps me on T-Mo at the moment. There’s no way to get on Verizon and not take an overage risk (short of just paying up front for huge amounts of data every month). With T-Mo, when they run out of data, they run out of fast data, but stuff doesn’t completely break. That’s a very nice solution for my niche. Owen
On 10 January 2016 at 20:12, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
On Jan 9, 2016, at 08:01 , Jeremy Austin <jhaustin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 5:06 AM, Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
The best solution for everybody is the solution most consumers are adverse to, which is usage based billing. Granted, many times the providers have shot themselves in the foot by making the charges punitive instead of based on cost plus margin. Reasonable $/gig for everybody! :-)
I'm tempted to make an analogy to health care, insurance, and universal coverage, but I'll abstain.
Usage based billing alters the typical hockey stick graph: the 10% of users using 80% of the bandwidth are otherwise subsidized by the long tail.
As an ISP, usage-based billing is more sensible, because I would no longer have to stress about oversubscription ratios and keeping the long tail happy. But usage-based models are more stressful for the consumer; I think I disagree that it's the best model for everybody.
As much as I love to criticize T-Mo for what they do wrong (and there’s plenty), this is one area where I think T-Mo has actually done something admirable.
They have (sort of) usage-based billing.
For $x/month you get Y GB of LTE speed data and after that you drop to 128kbps.
You don’t pay an overage charge, but your data slows way down.
If you want to make it fast again, you can for $reasonable purchase additional data within that month on a one-time basis.
I would like to encourage other carriers to adopt this model, actually. If Verizon had a model like this, I would probably switch tomorrow assuming their prices weren’t too far out of line compared to T-Mo.
Since you're bringing up 128kbps and Verizon, let me mention that a company by the name of RokMobile appears to be offering an unlimited 256kbps throttling over on Verizon network, with 5GB of (non-throttled?) 4G LTE, for 52,24 USD/mo after the 2,25 fees over the 49,99 list price (the fees appear to be identical regardless of the ZIP Code, go figure!). http://RokMobile.com/ http://reddit.com/r/RokMobile I haven't tried them yet, but I'm getting kinda sick of paying ~79$/mo for my 70$/mo Unlimited 4G plan with T-Mobile US, all the while they keep throttling my hotspot at 128kbps after 5GB now, all whilst effectively offering unlimited 1,5Mbps for all those chosen video providers. With the average web-pages being in the 3MB these days -- http://idlewords.com/talks/website_obesity.htm -- it takes a whole lot of time to load up anything over 0.128Mbps (0.016MB/s). The unlimited 128kbps part gets less and less useful these days. There's now really little technical reason they can't bump 0.128Mbps to 1.5Mbps if you're on LTE. Nowadays, even 1.5Mbps is already slow enough that people will still notice that their connection is throttled. And it'll also be an incentive to move up to LTE -- right now, I have none, and I might as well be using as much spectrum at 128kbps on non-LTE as 1Mbps would cost on LTE. BTW, with the minimum transmissions sizes on airtime and such, I'm actually curious whether offering something like 256kbps, 512kbps or even 1Mbps over LTE might in reality cost exactly the same amount of airtime/spectrum as 128kbps over LTE. Anyone knows? Cheers, Constantine.SU.
On Sat, 9 Jan 2016, Jeremy Austin wrote:
Let me be a consumer advocate for a moment. One of the reasons consumers are averse to usage-based billing is that the tech industry has not put good tools into their hands. While it is possible to disable automatic updates, set Windows 10's network settings to "metered", and micromanage your bandwidth, in general:
I encourage people to start engaging in the IETF MIF working group, that could be one piece of the puzzle to create this toolset for the customer. It would mean one can communicate properties for different network connections. Imagine you setting the mobile connection to "metered" and that you want to keep bw usage low on this link, then your applications could be configured (hopefully they would come with this as default) so that backups won't happen over this connection, and lower video bitrate is used than what TCP could indicate to the application is available. It's of course better if the application do these choices than for the ISP to have an middle-box that tries to affect applications by means of TCP rate-adaptation trickery. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
(chewing my pop-corn) Eh... I would like to have that kind of problems! Here we sell a residental 1Gbps for $5/mo with really unlimited traffic, and have a lot of complaint calls if there is slightly less than 1Gbps for that particular users. THAT is how the high competitive market works! ;) On 09.01.16 16:06, Mike Hammett wrote:
Valid points.
The best solution for everybody is the solution most consumers are adverse to, which is usage based billing. Granted, many times the providers have shot themselves in the foot by making the charges punitive instead of based on cost plus margin. Reasonable $/gig for everybody! :-)
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alan Buxey" <A.L.M.Buxey@lboro.ac.uk> To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net> Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Saturday, January 9, 2016 4:38:58 AM Subject: Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.
You're assuming that people are only using phones with their SIM - those that use a mifi dongle and thus view content on a tablet or laptop will notice
We could rate limit traffic from YouTube to 1.5mbps and let the adaptive streaming knock the steam to 480p bit our users with 100mbit connections might wonder why they cannot view 720p or 1080p - and why spicy they view such content - its like putting back the web and online video services 5 years. Where does it stop? 320x240 ?
Bulk data and background update processes are things that could possibly by throttled - after all, that's pretty much what QoS does. Most of my phone data is google play software updates and on woes phone ios and itunes store updates - it doesn't matter if the update ticks along in the background. Audio and video need to be good.
alan
Alan Buxey <A.L.M.Buxey@lboro.ac.uk> wrote:
Bulk data and background update processes are things that could possibly by throttled - after all, that's pretty much what QoS does. Most of my phone data is google play software updates and on woes phone ios and itunes store updates - it doesn't matter if the update ticks along in the background. Audio and video need to be good.
If throttling makes the data transfer take longer then it will hurt battery life. Tony. -- f.anthony.n.finch <dot@dotat.at> http://dotat.at/ Biscay, Fitzroy: West veering northwest, gale 8 to storm 10, decreasing 5 to 7. Very rough or high, becoming rough or very rough. Showers, thundery at first. Good, occasionally poor.
This is not a lossless 480p we're talking about, and most Android phones have been through quite a few generations of having at least 720p, if not 1080p or 1440p, and 5" displays. I wouldn't at all be so quick to dismiss that there's no difference. Also, according to http://www.lighterra.com/papers/videoencodingh264/, for a high-quality 480p, you're supposed to have a 2.5Mbps link to accommodate a 1.6Mbps stream; and a few providers already stream at or above 1.5Mbps for 480p, including BBC at 1500, ESPN at 2000, iTunes at 1500 and Netflix at 1050 or 1750 (1050 results in lower quality 480p). Being throttled at 1.5Mbps would mean that 480p video from any of these provides, if forced at 480p, would either result in just enough stuttering or buffering issues to ruin the experience, or will be automatically downgraded to 360p (which is still 1400 for ESPN, meaning, it might even go to 240p). Moreover, I have a feeling that on HSPA+ their new throttling results in below 480p resolution, because the network is no longer afforded to have the bursts to compensate for the occasional variability of the connection. (Google Galaxy Nexus is HSPA+ and 720p.) So much for 480p and the DVD quality. C. On 8 January 2016 at 20:25, Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
I'm not certain that most consumers notice or care. How many people can notice 480p vs. 720p vs. 1080p on a 4" display? Now how many will notice the buffering or larger bills?
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Constantine A. Murenin" <mureninc@gmail.com> To: "Valdis Kletnieks" <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu> Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Friday, January 8, 2016 10:07:06 PM Subject: Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.
On 7 January 2016 at 19:43, Valdis Kletnieks <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
So we went round and round back in November regarding Binge On! and whether it was net neutrality. So here's some closure to that...
The EFF did some testing and discovered that what T-Mobile is actually doing doesn't match what they said it was...
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/01/eff-confirms-t-mobiles-bingeon-optimiz...
Apparently, John Legere, CEO of T-Mobile, doesn't know who the EFF is, or why they're giving him a hard time.
"Part B of my answer is, who the fuck are you, anyway, EFF?" Legere said. "Why are you stirring up so much trouble, and who pays you?"
http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/7/10733298/john-legere-binge-on-lie
/me makes popcorn....
I don't know what people have been smoking, but I'd like to set the record straight, once and for all.
T-Mobile US said that ALL video will be affected from day 0!
Here's my comment on https://www.reddit.com/r/tmobile/comments/3sbbm5/netflix_hbo_gonow_sling_tv_...
2015-11-11: «Didn't T-Mobile say that all videos will automatically go at 480p from that point on? If so, what's really the point of an extra step, you know, of the service explicitly "applying" to participate?»
I've taken the time to find the source material that must have made me make such a comment, and, I FOUND IT!
https://newsroom.t-mobile.com/media-kits/un-carrier-x.htm
Los Angeles, California — November 10, 2015 ...
Powered by new technology built in to T-Mobile’s network, Binge On optimizes video for mobile screens, minimizing data consumption while still delivering DVD or better quality (e.g. 480p or better). That means more reliable streaming for services that stream free with Binge On, and for almost all other video, it means T-Mobile Simple Choice customers can watch up to three times more video from their data plan. And, as always, T-Mobile has put customers in total control with a switch to activate or deactivate Binge On for each line in their My T-Mobile account. Binge On is all about customer choice.
Here it is again, the relevant bits:
for almost all other video, it means T-Mobile Simple Choice customers can watch up to three times more video from their data plan
Those words have certainly been there since at least 2015-11-11!
HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT!
Just like the rest of the increases in ARPU and other metrics. Unlimited 4G didn't just have the tethering bucket increased from 7GB to 14GB, but the price went from 80$ to 95$, too. (And that doesn't include the earlier increase from 70$ to 80$, either.)
Oh, and, to answer EFF's question on why it's enabled by default:
https://youtu.be/MHFUT1_QlB8?t=47s
Since it's launched in November, we've learned customers were watching 12% more video.
It is not explicit that "12%" refers to a minute-based metric, but that's most certainly what was meant.
Now, compare this with the 66,6% savings by throttling all video to 1.5Mbps, so that "customers can watch up to three times more video", and the net effects of unlimited binge on become quite clear (and quite counter-intuitive to a naive guess on the matter).
That said, I have to say I'm disappointed with him going against his own consumers this time around. The only truth from his https://youtu.be/MHFUT1_QlB8 video is that, indeed, if the Dumb and Dumber would have implemented this functionality first, the carriers indeed would have found a way to charge extra for it!
Cheers, Constantine.SU.
On Saturday, January 9, 2016, Constantine A. Murenin <mureninc@gmail.com> wrote:
This is not a lossless 480p we're talking about, and most Android phones have been through quite a few generations of having at least 720p, if not 1080p or 1440p, and 5" displays. I wouldn't at all be so quick to dismiss that there's no difference.
Also, according to http://www.lighterra.com/papers/videoencodingh264/, for a high-quality 480p, you're supposed to have a 2.5Mbps link to accommodate a 1.6Mbps stream; and a few providers already stream at or above 1.5Mbps for 480p, including BBC at 1500, ESPN at 2000, iTunes at 1500 and Netflix at 1050 or 1750 (1050 results in lower quality 480p). Being throttled at 1.5Mbps would mean that 480p video from any of these provides, if forced at 480p, would either result in just enough stuttering or buffering issues to ruin the experience, or will be automatically downgraded to 360p (which is still 1400 for ESPN, meaning, it might even go to 240p).
Moreover, I have a feeling that on HSPA+ their new throttling results in below 480p resolution, because the network is no longer afforded to have the bursts to compensate for the occasional variability of the connection. (Google Galaxy Nexus is HSPA+ and 720p.) So much for 480p and the DVD quality.
C.
To disabuse anyone on this list about how video is treated in mobile, Page 11 has a good reality check on how every major mobile provider in the usa actively adjusts video https://www3.cs.stonybrook.edu/~phillipa/papers/traffic-diff_imc15.pdf Given that world, my opinion is stepping down abr is the least intrusive method, verses active transcoding .... Which modifies a copywrited work between origin and consumer. According to this tweet, "partners" control the bitrate to avoid exercising abr , and thus no buffering https://twitter.com/slidefuse/status/685373665882599424 So, that is a reasonable e2e approach given the world of mobile video.... Just talking from an engineering perspective. The alternative is that there is quiet arms race between access providers and video providers as described in the first link. On 8 January 2016 at 20:25, Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net <javascript:;>>
I'm not certain that most consumers notice or care. How many people can notice 480p vs. 720p vs. 1080p on a 4" display? Now how many will notice
wrote: the buffering or larger bills?
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Constantine A. Murenin" <mureninc@gmail.com <javascript:;>> To: "Valdis Kletnieks" <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu <javascript:;>> Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" <nanog@nanog.org
<javascript:;>>
Sent: Friday, January 8, 2016 10:07:06 PM Subject: Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.
On 7 January 2016 at 19:43, Valdis Kletnieks <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu <javascript:;>> wrote:
So we went round and round back in November regarding Binge On! and whether it was net neutrality. So here's some closure to that...
The EFF did some testing and discovered that what T-Mobile is actually doing doesn't match what they said it was...
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/01/eff-confirms-t-mobiles-bingeon-optimiz...
Apparently, John Legere, CEO of T-Mobile, doesn't know who the EFF is, or why they're giving him a hard time.
"Part B of my answer is, who the fuck are you, anyway, EFF?" Legere
said. "Why
are you stirring up so much trouble, and who pays you?"
http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/7/10733298/john-legere-binge-on-lie
/me makes popcorn....
I don't know what people have been smoking, but I'd like to set the record straight, once and for all.
T-Mobile US said that ALL video will be affected from day 0!
Here's my comment on
https://www.reddit.com/r/tmobile/comments/3sbbm5/netflix_hbo_gonow_sling_tv_...
2015-11-11: «Didn't T-Mobile say that all videos will automatically go at 480p from that point on? If so, what's really the point of an extra step, you know, of the service explicitly "applying" to participate?»
I've taken the time to find the source material that must have made me make such a comment, and, I FOUND IT!
https://newsroom.t-mobile.com/media-kits/un-carrier-x.htm
Los Angeles, California — November 10, 2015 ...
Powered by new technology built in to T-Mobile’s network, Binge On
optimizes video for mobile screens, minimizing data consumption while still delivering DVD or better quality (e.g. 480p or better). That means more reliable streaming for services that stream free with Binge On, and for almost all other video, it means T-Mobile Simple Choice customers can watch up to three times more video from their data plan. And, as always, T-Mobile has put customers in total control with a switch to activate or deactivate Binge On for each line in their My T-Mobile account. Binge On is all about customer choice.
Here it is again, the relevant bits:
for almost all other video, it means T-Mobile Simple Choice customers
can watch up to three times more video from their data plan
Those words have certainly been there since at least 2015-11-11!
HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT!
Just like the rest of the increases in ARPU and other metrics. Unlimited 4G didn't just have the tethering bucket increased from 7GB to 14GB, but the price went from 80$ to 95$, too. (And that doesn't include the earlier increase from 70$ to 80$, either.)
Oh, and, to answer EFF's question on why it's enabled by default:
https://youtu.be/MHFUT1_QlB8?t=47s
Since it's launched in November, we've learned customers were
watching 12% more video.
It is not explicit that "12%" refers to a minute-based metric, but that's most certainly what was meant.
Now, compare this with the 66,6% savings by throttling all video to 1.5Mbps, so that "customers can watch up to three times more video", and the net effects of unlimited binge on become quite clear (and quite counter-intuitive to a naive guess on the matter).
That said, I have to say I'm disappointed with him going against his own consumers this time around. The only truth from his https://youtu.be/MHFUT1_QlB8 video is that, indeed, if the Dumb and Dumber would have implemented this functionality first, the carriers indeed would have found a way to charge extra for it!
Cheers, Constantine.SU.
T-Mobile CEO Apologizes For “Offending” EFF And Its Supporters After an aggressive response to his company, T-Mobile, being called out for being anti-Net Neutrality on its new “Binge On” product by the EFF, CEO John Legere has backtracked a bit. In case you missed it, he flippantly asked “Who the fuck is the EFF?” during a Twitter Q&A last week. http://techcrunch.com/2016/01/11/t-mobile-ceo-apologizes-for-offending-eff-a...
participants (19)
-
Alan Buxey -
Ca By -
Constantine A. Murenin -
Doug Barton -
Hugo Slabbert -
Jeremy Austin -
John Levine -
Max Tulyev -
Mikael Abrahamsson -
Mike Hammett -
Owen DeLong -
Ray Orsini -
Rich Kulawiec -
Robert Webb -
Scott Helms -
Todd Crane -
Tony Finch -
Valdis Kletnieks -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu