On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 7:36 AM, Constantine A. Murenin
wrote:
> I disable VPN (which they limit to 128kbps as per above), and suddenly
> Netflix starts working just fine, since it now gets 1.5Mbps (or
> thereabouts), and 480p works just fine, even if you're tethered. But
> yet my porn still does
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 9:51 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei
wrote:
> On 2015-12-10 21:39, William Herrin wrote:
>> Personally, I'm not opposed to this. When each packet has one payer,
>> it doesn't much matter whether the payer is sender or recipient.
>
> If the retail customer pays for $70 for 100 gigs
> On Dec 11, 2015, at 7:00 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
>
> Once upon a time, Christopher Morrow said:
>> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 1:07 PM, William Kenny
>> wrote:
>>> is that still net neutrality?
>>
>> who cares? mobile was excepted from the NN rulings.
>
> Any why the desire for extra regulation
On 23 November 2015 at 20:45, Mark Andrews wrote:
> T-Mo could have just increased the data limits by the data usage
> of 7x24 standard definition video stream and achieved the same thing
> in a totally network neutral way. Instead they choose to play
> favourites with a type of technology.
1,5M
On 23 November 2015 at 20:05, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> On Nov 23, 2015, at 17:28 , Baldur Norddahl
>> wrote:
>>
>> On 24 November 2015 at 00:22, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>>> Are there a significant number (ANY?) streaming video providers using UDP
>>> to deliver their streams?
>>>
>>
>> What else c
> On Dec 10, 2015, at 18:51 , Jean-Francois Mezei
> wrote:
>
> On 2015-12-10 21:39, William Herrin wrote:
>
>> Personally, I'm not opposed to this. When each packet has one payer,
>> it doesn't much matter whether the payer is sender or recipient.
>
>
> If the retail customer pays for $70 fo
On 2015-12-10 21:39, William Herrin wrote:
> Personally, I'm not opposed to this. When each packet has one payer,
> it doesn't much matter whether the payer is sender or recipient.
If the retail customer pays for $70 for 100 gigs of UBB, and uses 50
gigs of Netflix, then the result is that the c
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 1:07 PM, William Kenny
wrote:
> In related news, Verizon and ATT WILL be charging their data partners:
> http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/12/verizon-to-test-sponsored-data-let-companies-pay-to-bypass-data-caps/
Howdy,
Personally, I'm not opposed to this. When each pac
On 2015-12-10 20:58, Owen DeLong wrote:
> What if the rate charged is the same?
>
> Wouldn’t it still be problematic if:
>
> I pay VZ $15/Gigabyte for all data I use except Netflix which gets billed
> automatically to Netflix instead of me?
If Netflix gets charged the same retail rate, then I g
> On Dec 10, 2015, at 17:49 , Jean-Francois Mezei
> wrote:
>
> On 2015-12-10 13:07, William Kenny wrote:
>
>> "Verizon is reportedly set to begin testing a sponsored data program that
>> would let companies pay Verizon to deliver online services without using up
>> customers' data plans.
>
>
On 2015-12-10 13:07, William Kenny wrote:
> "Verizon is reportedly set to begin testing a sponsored data program that
> would let companies pay Verizon to deliver online services without using up
> customers' data plans.
In Canada, the Telecom Act 27(2) states:
Unjust discrimination
(2) No Can
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 3:26 PM Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> > On Nov 23, 2015, at 14:58 , Mark Andrews wrote:
> >
> >
> > In message e24772e7-a95b-4866-9630-2b1023ebd...@delong.com>>, Owen DeLong write
> > s:
> >>
> >>> On Nov 23, 2015, at 14:16 , Christopher Morrow
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Mon,
For starters much of the internet infrastructure is built on govt
mandated/protected monopolies or very small N oligopolies so is
already subject to significant regulation.
You can start up a business carrying packages for people for a fee, no
harder than any other business.
Try spinning up a ca
> > "Verizon is reportedly set to begin testing a sponsored data program that
> > would let companies pay Verizon to deliver online services without using up
> > customers' data plans. The news comes from aRe/code interview
This is usually referred to as "zero-rating" and is related to,
perhap
> On Dec 10, 2015, at 2:32 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
>
> I could have paid more to get it faster, and some large-scale shippers
> have special arrangements that seem to get their packages priority. How
> is this different from Internet traffic?
For me the better comparison is international postal
On Thu 2015-Dec-10 13:32:25 -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Christopher Morrow said:
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 1:07 PM, William Kenny
wrote:
> is that still net neutrality?
who cares? mobile was excepted from the NN rulings.
Any why the desire for extra regulation for Internet s
You already have the ability to pay for faster service.
NN prevents the carrier from then going to the shipper and extorting
further money to deliver the same package.
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Christopher Morrow said:
>> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Christopher Morrow said:
>> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 1:07 PM, William Kenny
>> wrote:
>> > is that still net neutrality?
>>
>> who cares? mobile was excepted from the NN rulings.
>
> Any why the desire for extra regulation fo
Once upon a time, Christopher Morrow said:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 1:07 PM, William Kenny
> wrote:
> > is that still net neutrality?
>
> who cares? mobile was excepted from the NN rulings.
Any why the desire for extra regulation for Internet services?
Shippers (you know, actual Common Carrie
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 1:07 PM, William Kenny
wrote:
> In related news, Verizon and ATT WILL be charging their data partners:
> http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/12/verizon-to-test-sponsored-data-let-companies-pay-to-bypass-data-caps/
>
> "Verizon is reportedly set to begin testing a sponsored
ology Institute at New America
> @sarmorris
>
> Moderator:
> Michael Calabrese
> Director, Wireless Future Project, Open Technology Institute at New America
> @MCalabreseNAF
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Tony Hain wrote:
>
> > Keenan Tims wrote:
> > > To:
n wrote:
> Keenan Tims wrote:
> > To: nanog@nanog.org
> > Subject: Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
> >
> > I'm surprised you're supporting T-Mob here Owen. To me it's pretty
> > clear: they are charging more for bits that are
om
> Sent: Sunday, 22 November, 2015 16:30
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
>
> So, which porn sites are zero rated? Uh, asking for a friend.
>
> (Would love to be a fly on the wall when those and other uncomfortable
> requests to join come in.)
>
> Jared
5 14:50
> To: Steve Mikulasik
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
>
> It’s a full page of standards in a relatively large font with decent
> spacing.
>
> Given that bluetooth is several hundred pages, I’d say this is pretty
> r
Keenan Tims wrote:
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
>
> I'm surprised you're supporting T-Mob here Owen. To me it's pretty
> clear: they are charging more for bits that are not streaming video.
> That's not neutr
On 2015-11-23 17:26, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Sure, but I really don’t think there’s an exchange per se in this case, given
> that T-Mo
> is (at least apparently) willing to accommodate any streaming provider that
> wants to
> participate so long as they are willing to conform to a fairly basic set
On 2015-11-23 17:12, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Except there’s no revenue share here. According to T-Mobile, the streaming
> partners
> aren’t paying anything to T-Mo and T-Mo isn’t paying them.
In Canada, Vidéotron has begun a similar scheme for streaming music. It
is currently at the CRTC. They also
Hi Owen,
> To me, net neutrality isn’t as much about what you charge the customer for
> the data, it’s about
> whether you prioritize certain classes of traffic to the detriment of others
> in terms of
> service delivery.
>
> If T-Mobile were taking money from the video streaming services or on
nanog.org
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2015 9:00:11 PM
Subject: Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
I'm surprised you're supporting T-Mob here Owen. To me it's pretty
clear: they are charging more for bits that are not streaming video.
That's not neutral treatment fr
I'm surprised you're supporting T-Mob here Owen. To me it's pretty
clear: they are charging more for bits that are not streaming video.
That's not neutral treatment from a policy perspective, and has no basis
in the cost of operating the network.
Granted, the network itself is neutral, but the pur
In message , Owen DeLong write
s:
>
> > On Nov 23, 2015, at 17:28 , Baldur Norddahl
> wrote:
> >
> > On 24 November 2015 at 00:22, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >
> >> Are there a significant number (ANY?) streaming video providers using
> >> UDP to deliver their streams?
> >>
> >
> > What else could we
> On Nov 23, 2015, at 17:28 , Baldur Norddahl wrote:
>
> On 24 November 2015 at 00:22, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> Are there a significant number (ANY?) streaming video providers using UDP
>> to deliver their streams?
>>
>
> What else could we have that is UDP based? Ah voice calls. Video calls.
On 24 November 2015 at 00:22, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Are there a significant number (ANY?) streaming video providers using UDP
> to deliver their streams?
>
What else could we have that is UDP based? Ah voice calls. Video calls.
Stuff that requires low latency and where TCP retransmit of stale dat
In message , Owen DeLong write
s:
>
> > On Nov 23, 2015, at 14:16 , Christopher Morrow
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 5:12 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >> Except thereâs no revenue share here. According to T-Mobile, the
> streaming partners
> >> arenât paying anything to T-Mo and T-Mo
* chku...@microsoft.com (Christian Kuhtz) [Mon 23 Nov 2015, 19:43 CET]:
I don't know if this is NN or not, but the concept is ancient. Even
back in the dark ages of mobile, zero rating and associated rev
share were very common.
Whether this is relevant to NN or not is for lawyers.
This is ba
> On Nov 23, 2015, at 14:16 , Christopher Morrow
> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 5:12 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> Except there’s no revenue share here. According to T-Mobile, the streaming
>> partners
>> aren’t paying anything to T-Mo and T-Mo isn’t paying them. It’s kind of like
>> zero-
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 5:12 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Except there’s no revenue share here. According to T-Mobile, the streaming
> partners
> aren’t paying anything to T-Mo and T-Mo isn’t paying them. It’s kind of like
> zero-rating
> in that the customers don’t pay bandwidth charges, but it’s d
Except there’s no revenue share here. According to T-Mobile, the streaming
partners
aren’t paying anything to T-Mo and T-Mo isn’t paying them. It’s kind of like
zero-rating
in that the customers don’t pay bandwidth charges, but it’s different in that
the service
provider isn’t being asked to sub
I don't know if this is NN or not, but the concept is ancient. Even back in the
dark ages of mobile, zero rating and associated rev share were very common.
Whether this is relevant to NN or not is for lawyers.
Christian
> On Nov 20, 2015, at 7:47 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>
> According to:
>
>
So, which porn sites are zero rated? Uh, asking for a friend.
(Would love to be a fly on the wall when those and other uncomfortable requests
to join come in.)
Jared
anog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: Binge On! - And
> So This is Net Neutrality?
>
> I think they actually might… It’s very hard to identify streams in
> UDP since UDP is stateless.
>
> Owen
>
>> On Nov 20, 2015, at 09:03 , Steve Mikulasik
>> wrot
ulasik<mailto:steve.mikula...@civeo.com>
Cc: Ian Smith<mailto:i.sm...@f5.com>; nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org>
Subject: Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
I think they actually might… It’s very hard to identify streams in UDP since
UDP is stateless.
Owen
> On Nov
...@f5.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 9:52 AM
> To: Steve Mikulasik ; Shane Ronan
> ; nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: RE: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
>
> http://www.t-mobile.com/content/dam/tmo/en-g/pdf/BingeOn-Video-Technical-Criteria-November-2015.pdf
&
ginal Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Shane Ronan
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 9:25 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
T-Mobile claims they are not accepting any payment from these content providers
for inclusi
Unlimited data plan is $30/mo.
Other than the usual cellular caveats of coverage sucks in lots of places and
data
rates can be slow when you’re in a densely populated area, congestion,
oversubscription,
etc… Doesn’t seem to have any problems. I’ve been on that plan for most of a
year now.
The
Once upon a time, Blake Hudson said:
> Not that I mind getting significantly more service at little
> additional cost - as proposed by T-Mobile. But I would have
> preferred to simply get unlimited data usage (or a much larger
> monthly allotment) and had the freedom to use that data how I see
> f
Steve Mikulasik ; Shane Ronan
; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
http://www.t-mobile.com/content/dam/tmo/en-g/pdf/BingeOn-Video-Technical-Criteria-November-2015.pdf
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Steve
ve Mikulasik ; Shane Ronan
> ; nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: RE: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
>
> http://www.t-mobile.com/content/dam/tmo/en-g/pdf/BingeOn-Video-Technical-Criteria-November-2015.pdf
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG [mailto:nan
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 1:30 PM, Joly MacFie wrote:
> Logic tells me that, if the major incumbents content doesn't count against
> the cap, this leaves more bandwidth for other applications. What am I
> missing?
Cross-subsidy. It's a standard tool of monopoly abuse.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
Wi
It leaves more data available to use within your data plan, but may
reduce bandwidth available to you to actually use. In other words, you
may find your billed usage unusable due to lack of usable bandwidth.
'Oh it's free, I will set my phone to stream all Monty Python movies
continuously.'
Logic tells me that, if the major incumbents content doesn't count against
the cap, this leaves more bandwidth for other applications. What am I
missing?
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Blake Hudson wrote:
> It's not. And that's the point.
>
> This proposal, and ones similar, stifle growth o
This is just the start. Providers will push the limits slowly and will
eventually get to where they want to be. t-mob is doing this in such a way
that consumer's will not object. When the general public doesn't object
(because they are getting "free" data) that makes it a lot easier for the
FCC
It's not. And that's the point.
This proposal, and ones similar, stifle growth of applications. If there
are additional (artificial) burdens for operating in a field it becomes
harder to get into. Because it's harder to get into, fewer operators
compete. [Note, we just reduced open competition
- Original Message -
> From: "Scott Brim"
> What I read was that as long as a video offerer marks its traffic and
> is certified in a few other ways, anyone can send video content
> cap-free. No I don't know what the criteria are. Does anyone here? I
> also think I remember that there is
Considering T-Mobile's proposal is intended to favor streaming music and
video services, I think it clearly violates net neutrality which is
intended to not only promote competition in existing applications, but
also in new (possibly undeveloped) applications. This proposal simply
entrenches st
at content provider"
-Original Message-
From: Ian Smith [mailto:i.sm...@f5.com]
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 9:52 AM
To: Steve Mikulasik ; Shane Ronan
; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
http://www.t-mobile.com/content/dam/tmo/en-g/pd
NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Shane Ronan
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 9:25 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
T-Mobile claims they are not accepting any payment from these content providers
for inclusion in Binge On.
"Onstage today, L
(CAUTION CAUTION CAUTION - just a swag)
isn't this just moving content to v6 and/or behind the great-nat-of-tmo?
'reduce our need for NAT infra and incent customers to stop using NAT
requiring services' ?
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Shane Ronan wrote:
> T-Mobile claims they are not accep
I believe there may be a catch though: I don't think they can pick and
choose which streaming providers they allow their customers to stream
for free. As long as their streaming program is a "catch-all" for
streaming video, they can claim they are doing what they can (within
reason) to exempt strea
On 11/20/2015 08:16 AM, Scott Brim wrote:
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
According to:
http://www.engadget.com/2015/11/20/fcc-chairman-gives-t-mobiles-binge-on-the-thumbs-up/
Chairman Wheeler thinks that T-mob's new "customers can get uncapped media
stream data, but
T-Mobile claims they are not accepting any payment from these content
providers for inclusion in Binge On.
"Onstage today, Legere said any company can apply to join the Binge On
program. "Anyone who can meet our technical requirement, we’ll include,"
he said. "This is not a net neutrality prob
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> According to:
>
>
> http://www.engadget.com/2015/11/20/fcc-chairman-gives-t-mobiles-binge-on-the-thumbs-up/
>
> Chairman Wheeler thinks that T-mob's new "customers can get uncapped media
> stream data, but only from the people we like" ser
According to:
http://www.engadget.com/2015/11/20/fcc-chairman-gives-t-mobiles-binge-on-the-thumbs-up/
Chairman Wheeler thinks that T-mob's new "customers can get uncapped media
stream data, but only from the people we like" service called Binge On
is pro-competition.
My take on this is that t
63 matches
Mail list logo
