Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.

[Constantine A. Murenin]

On 10 January 2016 at 20:12, Owen DeLong  wrote:
>
>> On Jan 9, 2016, at 08:01 , Jeremy Austin  wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 5:06 AM, Mike Hammett  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.

Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.

[Tony Finch]

Alan Buxey  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    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.

Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.

[Doug Barton]

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 last week.


http://techcrunch.com/2016/01/11/t-mobile-ceo-apologizes-for-offending-eff-and-its-supporters/

Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.

[Jeremy Austin]

On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 7:12 PM, Owen DeLong  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?

Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.

[Owen DeLong]

> On Jan 11, 2016, at 10:00 , Jeremy Austin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 7:12 PM, Owen DeLong  > 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

Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.

[Jeremy Austin]

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 9:15 AM, Owen DeLong  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.

Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.

[Jeremy Austin]

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 9:40 AM, Owen DeLong  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.

Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.

[Owen DeLong]

> On Jan 11, 2016, at 10:31 , Jeremy Austin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 9:15 AM, Owen DeLong  > 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

Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.

[Owen DeLong]

> On Jan 11, 2016, at 11:07 , Jeremy Austin  wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 9:40 AM, Owen DeLong  > 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

Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.

[Owen DeLong]

> On Jan 9, 2016, at 08:01 , Jeremy Austin  wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 5:06 AM, Mike Hammett  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

Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.

[Mikael Abrahamsson]

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 Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se

Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.

[Alex Buie]

Ugh, I had to deal with this almost daily at $large_metered_us_carrier. We
have WiFi hotspots and USB modems and inevitably the customers who usually
use <2GB and have plans based on that usage got slapped with huge Windows
10 overages. Explaining that no, your "geebee" meter isn't broken,
Microsoft just shafted you got so tiring, especially when they don't have
the faintest clue what Windows Update or data or anything of the sort mean,
just barely enough to sign into their AOL account and check the weather.

The bad part is how aggressively Microsoft is downloading it to your HD
even if you don't accept it. (See Windows.BT folder, )

I am "eagerly" awaiting the next wave of update renaming/repushing.

> On Jan 9, 2016 2:57 PM,  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?

Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.

[Alan Buxey]

For the sake of security of all internet connected hosts - especially in this 
new era of even more IOT junk , security updates,  firmware and new OS updates 
should be granted libre data rates so that users who keep their devices updated 
are not penalised. 

as for carriers pipes...will, if multicast was seriously taken up then eg OS 
updates could be streamed out on regular updates 

alan

Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.

[Max Tulyev]

(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.bu...@lboro.ac.uk> 
> To: "Mike Hammett" <na...@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 
> 

Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.

[Christopher Morrow]

On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 9:04 AM, Alan Buxey  wrote:
> For the sake of security of all internet connected hosts - especially in this 
> new era of even more IOT junk , security updates,  firmware and new OS 
> updates should be granted libre data rates so that users who keep their 
> devices updated are not penalised.

so, just for the sake of the discussion, how would you do this? Keep
in mind that you probably can't (as a carrier) prefer one 'os' over
another, and you will likely have to deal with everything from Windows
to gentoo and all the tiny raspbian/etc in the middle.

How would a carrier identify and track over time the sources of this
traffic? (note that a 'registry of update sources' probably also won't
fly)

> as for carriers pipes...will, if multicast was seriously taken up then eg OS 
> updates could be streamed out on regular updates

multicast, yes, of course. So... it hasn't worked yet in the last ~20
yrs of the internet, it'll work now because?

Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.

[Valdis . Kletnieks]

On Sun, 10 Jan 2016 14:04:13 +, Alan Buxey said:

> as for carriers pipes...will, if multicast was seriously taken up then eg OS
> updates could be streamed out on regular updates

You can multicast the Super Bowl, because to a rather high rate of accuracy
you can assume that everybody who wants to watch the Super Bowl in real time
is tuned in and catching the stream.

It doesn't work as well for software updates, because while I know I'm in
a "No cellular coverage" area hiking the south side of Mt Rogers during the
Super Bowl, and I don't care because I'm no a big pro football fan, my cell
phone may care if it misses an update because of it.

Actually - it probably *won't*, because I'll likely be hiking long enough that
my phone will *never notice* that it missed an update.  So now you need to
find a way to make *reverse* multicast work, so that the update server doesn't
get pounded with several million requests once an hour asking "Did I miss an
update?:


pgpWQb3jMFKB8.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.

[John Levine]

>> as for carriers pipes...will, if multicast was seriously taken up then eg OS
>> updates could be streamed out on regular updates

Given that a lot of these updates are happening in the background
without any interaction with the users, I'd think they'd be ideal for
network-un-neutral traffic shaping, throttle them when people are
doing something else, open them up at 3 AM.

In a more reasonable world, I agree that multicasting Windows Update
would make sense, but that would require a whole lot of agreements
from people who aren't inclined to agree.  Also remember that
multicasting only gets you so far, and I would be surprised if you
could multicast over the wireless last mile more efficiently than
unicasting.

R's,
John

Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.

[Randy Bush]

>>> as for carriers pipes...will, if multicast was seriously taken up
>>> then eg OS updates could be streamed out on regular updates
> 
> Given that a lot of these updates are happening in the background
> without any interaction with the users

maybe for your customers, but not so true for our user base or others
with which i have experience.  wise folk want control of patching.  and
it's not only IT departments, but end users.

cheeringly, even end users are becoming more cautious, at least those
who have survived :)

otoh, smart devices may tilt this over time.  the security aspects of
this are an amusing and horrifying subject of discussion in the opsec
and other communities.

randy

Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.

[Mike Hammett]

John Doe end user doesn't even know what updating is, much less wants to 
control it or even do it. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

- Original Message -

From: "Randy Bush" <ra...@psg.com> 
To: "John Levine" <jo...@iecc.com> 
Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" <nanog@nanog.org> 
Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2016 4:54:34 PM 
Subject: Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. 

>>> as for carriers pipes...will, if multicast was seriously taken up 
>>> then eg OS updates could be streamed out on regular updates 
> 
> Given that a lot of these updates are happening in the background 
> without any interaction with the users 

maybe for your customers, but not so true for our user base or others 
with which i have experience. wise folk want control of patching. and 
it's not only IT departments, but end users. 

cheeringly, even end users are becoming more cautious, at least those 
who have survived :) 

otoh, smart devices may tilt this over time. the security aspects of 
this are an amusing and horrifying subject of discussion in the opsec 
and other communities. 

randy 

Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.

[John R. Levine]

Given that a lot of these updates are happening in the background
without any interaction with the users


maybe for your customers, but not so true for our user base or others
with which i have experience.  wise folk want control of patching.  and
it's not only IT departments, but end users.


The Windows 10 stuff generally downloads in the background, then it pops 
up and tells you how wonderful it is.  Most of the end users I know have 
Windows Update set to do its thing automatically, and even if it's not 
installed automatically it'll often download and then ask whether you want 
to install it.



otoh, smart devices may tilt this over time.  the security aspects of
this are an amusing and horrifying subject of discussion in the opsec
and other communities.


No kidding.

R's,
John

Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.

[Alan Buxey]

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

Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.

[Mike Hammett]

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.bu...@lboro.ac.uk> 
To: "Mike Hammett" <na...@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 

Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.

[Constantine A. Murenin]

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 <na...@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" <muren...@gmail.com>
> To: "Valdis Kletnieks" <valdis.kletni...@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.kletni...@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-optimization-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
>
> 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_showtime_hulu_espn_and/cwx16ya
>
> 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 ju

Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.

[Valdis . Kletnieks]

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?


pgpSDkLogGUP1.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. [Comcast meter Q]

[Livingood, Jason]

On 1/9/16, 12:04 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Robert Webb"
 wrote:

>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.

Since my day job is at Comcast and part of that job is ensuring that the
usage meter is technically accurate I figured I would chime in. A few bits
of information that may be helpful follow below. **I am happy to answer
any questions you or others have.** And I have also copied our independent
auditor should there be questions for his firm.

1 - Comcast does byte counting via the IPDR standard (IP Detail Records).
I would think any other DOCSIS-based network that performs byte counting
would also use IPDR (and all the ones of which I am aware do so). You can
find some more information about the IPDR specification here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Protocol_Detail_Record

https://www.incognito.com/tips-and-tutorials/faq-bandwidth-monitoring-with-
ipdr/

http://www.dslreports.com/r0/download/1603814~d44a19780841cdc79abf840b6066d
52d/ipdr-usage-counters.pdf

http://www.cablelabs.com/wp-content/uploads/specdocs/CM-SP-OSSIv3.0-I14-110
210.pdf


2 - Comcast first made mention of the use of IPDR in a 2008 FCC filing, as
part of a deployment of a protocol-agnostic congestion management system.
See these documents:
http://downloads.comcast.net/docs/Attachment_B_Future_Practices.pdf

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6057


3 - Comcast engaged a 3rd party auditor called NetForecast
(http://www.netforecast.com/) to regularly, independently audit the
accuracy of our usage meter. We usually announce those audits on our
Network Management page (ex:
http://networkmanagement.xfinity.com/index.php/8-network-management-news/55
-2015-comcast-usage-meter-accuracy-report) and NetForecast publishes these
reports on their website. See the following documents:
- First accuracy report, 2009:
http://www.netforecast.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/NFR5101_Comcast_Usage
_Meter_Accuracy_Original.pdf
- Second accuracy report, 2010:
http://www.netforecast.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/NFR5101_Comcast_Usage
_Meter_Accuracy.pdf
- Third accuracy report, 2014:
http://www.netforecast.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/NFR5116_Comcast_Meter
_Accuracy_Report.pdf
- Fourth accuracy report, 2015:
http://www.netforecast.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/NFR5120_Fourth_Comcas
t_Meter_Accuracy_Validation_Report.pdf
- ISP best practice report:
http://www.netforecast.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/NFR5119_General_ISP_D
ata_Usage_Meter_Specification.pdf

4 - In terms of what is counted, all Internet traffic is counted (what is
now known as Title-II traffic). Title-VI video traffic and Xfinity Voice
traffic, which may use the IP protocol but are not Internet services, are
not counted.

Enjoy the rest of your weekend,
Jason

Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.

[Robert Webb]

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 <na...@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" <rw...@ropeguru.com> 
To: "Mike Hammett" <na...@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 <na...@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" <rw...@ropeguru.com> 
To: "Mike Hammett" <na...@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 <na...@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 fo

Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.

[Robert Webb]

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  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 

Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.

[Mike Hammett]

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" <rw...@ropeguru.com> 
To: "Mike Hammett" <na...@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 <na...@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 

Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.

[Robert Webb]

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 <na...@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" <rw...@ropeguru.com> 
To: "Mike Hammett" <na...@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 <na...@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 

Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.

[Jeremy Austin]

On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 5:06 AM, Mike Hammett  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

Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.

[Rich Kulawiec]

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

Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.

[John Levine]

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

Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.

[Mike Hammett]

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" <jhaus...@gmail.com> 
To: "Mike Hammett" <na...@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 < na...@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 

Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.

[Mike Hammett]

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" <rw...@ropeguru.com> 
To: "Mike Hammett" <na...@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 <na...@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" <rw...@ropeguru.com> 
> To: "Mike Hammett" <na...@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 <na...@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 
> 
> 

Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.

[Scott Helms]

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" <rw...@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 <na...@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" <rw...@ropeguru.com> To: "Mike Hammett" <
>> na...@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 <na...@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
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.

[Todd Crane via NANOG]

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.kletni...@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?



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.

[Ca By]

On Saturday, January 9, 2016, Constantine A. Murenin <muren...@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 <na...@ics-il.net <javascript:;>>
> 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" <muren...@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> > To: "Valdis Kletnieks" <valdis.kletni...@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.kletni...@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-optimization-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
> >
> > 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_showtime_hulu_espn_and/cwx16ya
> >
> > 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
&

Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.

[Mike Hammett]

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" <muren...@gmail.com> 
To: "Valdis Kletnieks" <valdis.kletni...@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.kletni...@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-optimization-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 

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_showtime_hulu_espn_and/cwx16ya
 

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. 

Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.

[Owen DeLong]

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 <na...@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" <muren...@gmail.com> 
> To: "Valdis Kletnieks" <valdis.kletni...@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.kletni...@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-optimization-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 
> 
> 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_showtime_hulu_espn_and/cwx16ya
>  
> 
> 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. 
> 

Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.

[Mike Hammett]

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" <o...@delong.com> 
To: "Mike Hammett" <na...@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 <na...@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" <muren...@gmail.com> 
> To: "Valdis Kletnieks" <valdis.kletni...@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.kletni...@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-optimization-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 
> 
> 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_showtime_hulu_espn_and/cwx16ya
>  
> 
> 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 t

RE: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.

[Ray Orsini]

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: r...@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-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Hugo Slabbert
Sent: Friday, January 8, 2016 12:12 PM
To: Valdis Kletnieks <valdis.kletni...@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.kletni...@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

Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.

[Constantine A. Murenin]

On 7 January 2016 at 19:43, Valdis Kletnieks  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-optimization-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

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_showtime_hulu_espn_and/cwx16ya

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.

Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.

[Hugo Slabbert]

On Thu 2016-Jan-07 22:43:20 -0500, Valdis Kletnieks  
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-optimization-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 

Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.

[Valdis Kletnieks]

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-optimization-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


pgpxrENJeSCws.pgp
Description: PGP signature