Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Constantine A. Murenin]

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 could we have that is UDP based? Ah voice calls. Video calls.
>> Stuff that requires low latency and where TCP retransmit of stale data is
>> bad. Media without buffering because it is real time.
>>
>> And why would a telco want to zero rate all the bandwidth heavy media with
>> certain exceptions? Like not zero rating media that happens to compete with
>> some of their own services, such as voice calls and video calls.
>>
>> Yes sounds like net neutrality to me too (or not!).
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Baldur
>
> All T-Mobile plans include unlimited 128kbps data, so a voice call is 
> effectively
> already zero-rated for all practical purposes.
>
> I guess the question is: Is it better for the consumer to pay for everything 
> equally,
> or, is it reasonable for carriers to be able to give away some free data 
> without opening
> it up to everything?
>
> To me, net neutrality isn’t as much about what you charge the customer for 
> the data, it’s about
> whether you prioritize certain classes of traffic to the detriment of others 
> in terms of
> service delivery.

This is where I believe the issue comes up with BingeOn that didn't
manifest with Music Freedom — with the earlier Music Freedom
promotion, they've started offering unlimited music streaming with
select providers.  As Owen rightly points out, since most T-Mo plans
already include unlimited 128kbps, Music Freedom is basically just a
wash, and is much more about T-Mo's own marketing than about traffic
management.

*** With or without Music Freedom, you can already stream unlimited
music from any provider, even if you're tethered or use a VPN, or
both! ***

(Yes, if you do use select providers, you also get to use your 4G
bucket allocation in full, whereas otherwise, it may get "wasted" on
128kbps streaming; not ideal, but a relatively minor detail in the
grand scheme of things.)


But BingeOn is very different:

I use a VPN.  I set my Netflix player to 480p.  I quit all other
traffic.  Oops, since I've already watched too much porn (somehow none
of which is zero rated for BingeOn, even if you're not using a VPN;
isn't that a first red flag about their scheme right there?), and my
high-speed allocation is all up, so, my player doesn't work at all
(Netflix officially requires 512kbps minimum, 128kbps clearly won't
work).

I disable VPN (which they limit to 128kbps as per above), and suddenly
Netflix starts working just fine, since it now gets 1.5Mbps (or
thereabouts), and 480p works just fine, even if you're tethered.  But
yet my porn still doesn't work, even without a VPN!

*** How is this not the very definition of fast vs. slow lanes, if one
set of traffic gets a permanent 1,5Mbps high-speed treatment, whereas
another set of traffic is limited to a slow 128kbps (or effectively
0kbps for video, since it won't stream at all) past the high-speed
allocation? ***

I think what T-Mobile US ought to do is increase the throttling limits
for all — 128kbps was basically set in stone when we still didn't have
any LTE; it takes more than a minute to load any "modern" website or
use any app at such speed nowadays, if things don't just timeout at
all in the first place.


If MVNO companies like http://yourKarma.com/ can offer
United-States-nationwide unlimited 5Mbps LTE WiFi hotspots for 50$/mo
all-in, T-Mobile US surely ought to be capable of raising the
throttling limit, (1), to 256kbps or even 512kbps on all unlimited
plans (30$+), and, (2), to 1,5Mbps on BingeOn plans (65$+?).

P.S. And a Verizon MVNO http://RokMobile.com/ offers 256kbps
throttling past their 5GB@50$ bucket, so, likewise, 128kbps from
T-Mobile is a bit too slow nowadays.

P.P.S. Did anyone notice that Iliad SA, the company that bid for T-Mo
last year, now offers 50GB of 4G Internet for 19,99 EUR/mo in France,
including free long-distance to Alaska and China, and free roaming all
across Europe?  (Speeds reduced in excess of 50GB.)
http://www.iliad.fr/presse/2015/CP_010915_Eng.pdf
http://mobile.free.fr/  Wait, not even 19,99 EUR, but 15,99 EUR if you
bundle!


P.P.P.S. So, did anyone actually file a net neutrality complaint with the FCC?


>
> If T-Mobile were taking money from the video streaming services or only 
> accepting
> certain video streaming services, I’d likely agree with you that this is a 
> neutrality
> issue.

So, why have they not accepted a single porn site yet?

>
> However, in this case, it appears to me that they aren’t trying to give an 
> advantage to
> any particular competing streaming video service over the other, they aren’t 
> taking
> money from participants in the program, and consumers stand to benefit from 
> it.

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Constantine A. Murenin]

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.

1,5Mbps is 492GB/mo; that's just not realistic.

However, I think the most acceptable way out of this would be to
increase the throttling limit from 128kbps to 1,5Mbps on those plans
that offer unlimited streaming from the approved providers (e.g.,
plans that start at 65$+? incidentally, isn't that the old price of
plans with Unlimited 4G from the smartphone subsidy days?); this way,
even if the provider is not approved and the user is out of high-speed
quota, they can still stream 480p all they want.

And, as already mentioned, this should totally be doable — someone can
probably find proper references — from when they started doing
unlimited 128kbps on all plans, to now, the top speeds, spectral
efficiency and capacity of the network have probably all increased 10
fold, so, it's really time to up the ante of the 128kbps limit.

Even MVNOs like http://RokMobile.com offer unlimited 256kbps (after
the high-speed bucket) nowadays.

And http://yourKarma.com outright offers unlimited 5Mbps nationwide
for just 50 bucks per month, taking on the Clearwire legacy that
Sprint has appeared to have abandoned.

C.

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[William Herrin]

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 of UBB, and uses 50
> gigs of Netflix, then the result is that the customer is still paying
> $70 for 100 gigs of data, and Netflix now has to pay for 50 gigs of data.

Howdy,

You're assuming that:

(A) Verizon/ATT will prevent organizations from routing some of their
IP addresses via paid zero-rate connections and other IP addresses via
settlement-free peering, and

(B) organizations which pay for zero-rate will elect not to offer
Verizon/ATT customers a choice between paying indirectly for more
bandwidth or using the bandwidth they already have.

Point (A) is not an unreasonable assumption, but in that case the
fraud lies in refusing settlement-free peering when the subscriber has
already paid for that bandwidth to happen. It's past time the big
networks got spanked for this sort of misbehavior. Let's not cloud the
issue by objecting to related behavior that's actually ethical.

Point (B) is a free market business decision on the part of Netflix,
et. al. If they make a poor one, the competitors nipping at their
heels will eat their lunch.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



-- 
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: 

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[William Herrin]

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 doesn't work, even without a VPN!
>
> *** How is this not the very definition of fast vs. slow lanes, if one
> set of traffic gets a permanent 1,5Mbps high-speed treatment, whereas
> another set of traffic is limited to a slow 128kbps (or effectively
> 0kbps for video, since it won't stream at all) past the high-speed
> allocation? ***

Hi Constantine,

In the general case, because it's non-discriminatory. You had the same
speed either way until you hit your account cap and if you pay for
more bandwidth you'll have the same speed to both once again.
Moreover, anyone can pay for zero-rating.

In the T-Mobile binge-on case, it's probably a violation of net
neutrality. Unless I misunderstand, they're zero-rating folks based on
content and technology rather than payment. That's a no-no. They make
the case that they're not discriminating against one video provider or
another but they're discriminating against video providers versus
other less popular technologies whose cost of doing business is
effectively increased.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



-- 
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: 

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Rich Brown]

> 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 for Internet services?
> 
> Shippers (you know, actual Common Carriers) do things like this all the
> time, especially when they are busy (congested).  I had a package ship
> Tuesday; it sat at the receiving location for 24 hours before the first
> move, then it reached my city early this morning, but since I didn't pay
> extra for timed delivery (and the shipper doesn't have special
> arrangements), it didn't go on a truck today.  I should get it tomorrow.
> 
> I could have paid more to get it faster, and some large-scale shippers
> have special arrangements that seem to get their packages priority.  How
> is this different from Internet traffic?

I think this conflates arrangements that retailers/shippers make with each 
other and the agreements that consumers have with their own network supplier. 

a) As a customer of a retailer that ships physical packages, my contract is 
with the retailer. They promise to deliver on a certain date, or they yell at 
the shipper.

b) As an *network subscriber*, my contract/agreement is with my 
(cable/DSL/satellite/mobile) ISP. I pay them to deliver my bits - without any 
discussion of where they come from. Most of these agreements don't provide much 
of a service level. But I still have the understanding that *all* data coming 
to/from me will have substantially the rate, latency, and packet loss that is 
advertised. 

Specifically, I have the expectation that data from two streams (say, one from 
a Binge On participant, one from an unsubsidized source like an Ubuntu ISO 
download) should arrive with substantially the same rate, latency and packet 
loss.

I can then remain ignorant/uninvolved with whether any source wants to use 
CDNs, or to subsidize a subscriber's data plan, or make any other arrangement 
between the data source and the intervening providers. As long as data is 
arriving at the contracted rate, I am getting what I paid for.

Isn't that a useful and testable basis for understanding Net Neutrality? 
Doesn't this address (at least part of) the argument about guaranteeing equal 
access to all content whether subsidized or not?

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[William Kenny]

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 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

with
Verizon Executive VP Marni Walden. “The capabilities we’ve built allow us
to break down any byte that is carried across our network and have all or a
portion of that sponsored,” Walden told Re/code."

is that still net neutrality?

On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Collin Anderson 
wrote:

> This thread seems to have run its course, but it was an interesting
> conversation, so I wanted to flag that the Open Technology Institute is
> running what seems to be a fairly balanced panel on the issue in D.C. next
> week. Might be worth asking if there's remote participation.
>
>
> https://newamerica.cvent.com/events/zero-rating-and-net-neutrality-is-free-content-naughty-or-nice-/registration-8e22b15178dc4fa88c2ebe19525262eb.aspx?i=d0db0beb-7340-47c8-8bcc-86d9d6cc85b8
>
> New America
> Please note our new address!
> 740 15th Street NW, Suite 900, Washington, DC 20005
> Wednesday, December 16, 2015 | 12:00 pm - 1:45 pm
>
>
> Even if the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upholds the FCC’s Open Internet
> Order, the ability of mobile carriers to exclude certain content from the
> data caps or buckets that determine what a user pays each month remains
> undecided and controversial. Although mobile carriers maintain that
> zero-rating selected content is pro-consumer, some consumer advocates argue
> the FCC should find it violates network neutrality rules against favoring
> some Internet content or applications over others.
>
> In the U.S., T-Mobile recently launched Binge On, which allows consumers to
> opt out of the delivery of 'free' (zero-rated) streaming video content at
> lower resolution (CD quality), and instead receive content at
> high-definition that counts against their data limit. T-Mobile also hosts
> Music Freedom, which zero-rates participating streaming music services.
>
> In the developing world, Facebook’s Free Basics initiative partners with
> mobile carriers to provide cell phone customers with low-bandwidth versions
> of participating information and social media apps (e.g., Wikipedia and
> Facebook itself) at no cost in the hope this exposure will encourage them
> to upgrade to full Internet access.
>
> Join us for an explanation and debate about zero-rating on mobile networks,
> featuring the two companies most visibly marketing the practice, as well as
> a range of perspectives from consumer and public interest advocates.
>
> Lunch will be served.
>
> Follow the discussion online using #ZeroRating
> and by following us @OTI.
>
> Participants:
> Kevin Martin
> Vice President for Mobile & Global Access, Facebook
> Former Chairman, FCC
> @facebook
>
> Mark Cooper
> Research Director, Consumer Federation of America
> @ConsumerFed
>
> Steve Sharkey
> Chief, Engineering and Technology Policy, T-Mobile
> @TMobile
>
> Matt Wood
> Policy Director, Free Press
> @MattFWood
>
> Sarah Morris
> Senior Policy Counsel, Open Technology Institute at New America
> @sarmorris
>
> Moderator:
> Michael Calabrese
> Director, Wireless Future Project, Open Technology Institute at New America
> @MCalabreseNAF
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Tony Hain  wrote:
>
> > Keenan Tims wrote:
> > > To: nanog@nanog.org
> > > Subject: Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
> > >
> > > I'm surprised you're supporting T-Mob here Owen. To me it's pretty
> > > clear: they are charging more for bits that are not streaming video.
> > > That's not neutral treatment from a policy perspective, and has no
> basis
> > in
> > > the cost of operating the network.
> >
> > I have no visibility into what the line
> > "T‐Mobile will work with content providers to ensure that our networks
> > work together to properly"
> > actually means, but they could/should be using this as a tool to drive
> > content sources to IPv6.
> >
> > Trying to explain to consumers why an unlimited data plan only works for
> a
> > tiny subset of content is a waste of energy. Picking a category and
> > "encouraging" that content to move, then after the time limit, pick the
> > next category, rinse/repeat, is a way to move traffic away from the 6/4
> nat
> > infrastructure without having to make a big deal about the IP version to
> > the consumer, and at the same time remove "it costs too much" complaints
> > from the sources. If I were implementing such a plan, I would walk the
> list
> > of traffic sources based on volume to move traffic as quickly as
> possible,
> > so it makes perfect sense to me that they would start with video.
> >
> > 

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Christopher Morrow]

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 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
> 
> with
> Verizon Executive VP Marni Walden. “The capabilities we’ve built allow us
> to break down any byte that is carried across our network and have all or a
> portion of that sponsored,” Walden told Re/code."
>
> is that still net neutrality?

who cares? mobile was excepted from the NN rulings.

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Chris Adams]

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 Carriers) do things like this all the
time, especially when they are busy (congested).  I had a package ship
Tuesday; it sat at the receiving location for 24 hours before the first
move, then it reached my city early this morning, but since I didn't pay
extra for timed delivery (and the shipper doesn't have special
arrangements), it didn't go on a truck today.  I should get it tomorrow.

I could have paid more to get it faster, and some large-scale shippers
have special arrangements that seem to get their packages priority.  How
is this different from Internet traffic?

-- 
Chris Adams 

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Mike Hale]

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 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 Carriers) do things like this all the
> time, especially when they are busy (congested).  I had a package ship
> Tuesday; it sat at the receiving location for 24 hours before the first
> move, then it reached my city early this morning, but since I didn't pay
> extra for timed delivery (and the shipper doesn't have special
> arrangements), it didn't go on a truck today.  I should get it tomorrow.
>
> I could have paid more to get it faster, and some large-scale shippers
> have special arrangements that seem to get their packages priority.  How
> is this different from Internet traffic?
>
> --
> Chris Adams 



-- 
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Hugo Slabbert]

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 services?

Shippers (you know, actual Common Carriers) do things like this all the
time, especially when they are busy (congested).  I had a package ship
Tuesday; it sat at the receiving location for 24 hours before the first
move, then it reached my city early this morning, but since I didn't pay
extra for timed delivery (and the shipper doesn't have special
arrangements), it didn't go on a truck today.  I should get it tomorrow.

I could have paid more to get it faster, and some large-scale shippers
have special arrangements that seem to get their packages priority.  How
is this different from Internet traffic?


Your package being delayed was based on your service level (what you paid 
for the service) not the contents of your package or the sender's identity.


If we're going to get into the details of the sender's relationship to the 
shipping company (i.e. "(and the shipper doesn't have special 
arrangements)"), note that situation is more analogous to traffic where 
both the sender and receiver are getting transit from the same provider.  
If there were two shipping companies (sender uses shipping company A; 
receiver uses shipping company B, and A & B hand off to each other), the 
situation would be closer to the discussion.



--
Chris Adams 


--
Hugo

h...@slabnet.com: email, xmpp/jabber
PGP fingerprint (B178313E):
CF18 15FA 9FE4 0CD1 2319 1D77 9AB1 0FFD B178 313E

(also on Signal)


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Jared Mauch]

> 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 services.  I can get
USPS to give a package priority on their network, but once it leaves
that SLA is gone.  They did their best to deliver it to the next-hop.

The concern I have here is part marketing and part technical reality.

1) “Unlimited*” doesn’t really mean unlimited, which I’m personally
understanding of, but I’ve seen others take the hard-line approach.

2) “Peering” is a term that people don’t quite grok, because it’s
   overloaded in so many ways with transit, SFI, etc.

3) Networks are rarely equal.  T-Mobile has lots of end-users.  Their
   pattern will look different from someone doing disaster recovery
   off-site data storage.  

4) corollary with #3 - Through M, divestiture and other moves companies
   don’t always participate in the same markets in the same way.  $dayjob
   does not do DOCSIS/DSL services in north america.  Should we?  Not all
   networks are on the same 5 continents/countries/cities.  What is that
   overlap necessary?  The days of being at AADS, MAE-E,W, pac bell, etc
   have changed significantly.  Content distribution has advanced, edge
   speeds have changed making applications feasible that were not thought
   possible 10-20 years ago.

With the recent 174 <-> 3320 lawsuit, FCC, etc.. this all is interesting
to me.  How do you reach a solution where the customers win?

I’ve seen many approaches to this, and as an engineer I don’t like congested
ports.  Congested ports mean someone is unhappy, and minimizing that is a goal.

When two sides are not speaking to each other, it’s less likely things will
be fixed.  This is at least people working towards a solution, it may not be
one where I have the old Qwest promise of every movie from everything ever
*prepares to ride the light*, but I expect things to get better over time as
companies adapt.

- Jared

P.S. Regarding “unlimited” above, things like the new overage charges for
DOCSIS, DSL, FTTx services that were perceived as all you can eat, seeing
a company place a ceiling on the overages seen would be ideal.  eg: you
max out at the business class service price, say $50 for residential
$100 business class starting tiers that most companies have.

Having no max for that is unreasonable for all parties as a bill for $infinity
is less likely to be paid compared to 2-3x usual fees.

The same theory could be applied to international data fees, just auto-sign me
up for the roaming plan that matches my usage.  I seem to recall Sprint had
a cellular offering like this for minutes used (many eons ago) and for
being shareholder and consumer friendly it seemed to be the right balance.

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Christopher Morrow]

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 for Internet services?
>
> Shippers (you know, actual Common Carriers) do things like this all the
> time, especially when they are busy (congested).  I had a package ship
> Tuesday; it sat at the receiving location for 24 hours before the first
> move, then it reached my city early this morning, but since I didn't pay
> extra for timed delivery (and the shipper doesn't have special
> arrangements), it didn't go on a truck today.  I should get it tomorrow.
>
> I could have paid more to get it faster, and some large-scale shippers
> have special arrangements that seem to get their packages priority.  How
> is this different from Internet traffic?

because cat video

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[bzs]

 > > "Verizon is reportedly set to begin testing a sponsored data program that
 > > would let companies pay Verizon to deliver online services without using up
 > > customers' data plans. The news comes from aRe/code interview

This is usually referred to as "zero-rating" and is related to,
perhaps a sub-topic of, network neutrality but perhaps a little
different.

It's become a somewhat big issue in the developing world particularly
with Facebook Zero, Wikipedia Zero, Google Free Zone (which doesn't
mean a zone w/o google!), and internet.org for some
buzzology. T-Mobile has also offered some related music services in
the US.

   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-rating

The concern in the developing world is that these services will push
out local businesses who can't afford to pay for customers' data or
don't have the capital to interest carriers in such a plan for them.

I'm mixed, it's probably worth digging into the issue a little before
shooting from the hip though.

-- 
-Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die| b...@theworld.com   | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202| Login: 617-739-WRLD
The World  | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo*

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[bzs]

For starters much of the internet infrastructure is built on govt
mandated/protected monopolies or very small N oligopolies so is
already subject to significant regulation.

You can start up a business carrying packages for people for a fee, no
harder than any other business.

Try spinning up a cable TV or landline or long-distance line business.

On December 10, 2015 at 13:32 c...@cmadams.net (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 services?
 > 
 > Shippers (you know, actual Common Carriers) do things like this all the
 > time, especially when they are busy (congested).  I had a package ship
 > Tuesday; it sat at the receiving location for 24 hours before the first
 > move, then it reached my city early this morning, but since I didn't pay
 > extra for timed delivery (and the shipper doesn't have special
 > arrangements), it didn't go on a truck today.  I should get it tomorrow.
 > 
 > I could have paid more to get it faster, and some large-scale shippers
 > have special arrangements that seem to get their packages priority.  How
 > is this different from Internet traffic?
 > 
 > -- 
 > Chris Adams 

-- 
-Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die| b...@theworld.com   | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202| Login: 617-739-WRLD
The World  | Public Access Internet | Since 1989 *oo*

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Ethan Katz-Bassett]

On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 3:26 PM Owen DeLong  wrote:

>
> > On Nov 23, 2015, at 14:58 , Mark Andrews  wrote:
> >
> >
> > 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 there’s no revenue share here. According to T-Mobile, the
> >> streaming partners
>  aren’t paying anything to T-Mo and T-Mo isn’t paying them. It’s kind
> >> of like zero-rating
>  in that the customers don’t pay bandwidth charges, but it’s different
> >> in that the service
>  provider isn’t being asked to subsidize the network provider (usual
> >> implementation of
>  zero-rating).
> >>>
> >>> equal exchange of value doesn't have to be dollars/pesos/euros
> >>> changing hands right?
> >>> -chris
> >>
> >> Sure, but I really don’t think there’s an exchange per se in this case,
> >> given that T-Mo
> >> is (at least apparently) willing to accommodate any streaming provider
> >> that wants to
> >> participate so long as they are willing to conform to a fairly basic set
> >> of technical criteria.
> >
> > No. This is T-Mo saying they are neutral but not actually being so.
> > This is like writing a job add for one particular person.
> >
> > Its just as easy to identify a UDP stream as it is a TCP stream.
> > You can ratelimit a UDP stream as easily as a TCP stream.  You can
> > have congestion control over UDP as well as over TCP.  Just because
> > the base transport doesn't give you some of these and you have to
> > implement them higher up the stack is no reason to throw out a
> > transport.
>
> Are there a significant number (ANY?) streaming video providers using UDP
> to deliver their streams?
>
> I admit I’m mostly ignorant here, but at least the ones I’m familiar with
> all use TCP.
>

Interesting discussion.

Minor point answering Owen's question: YouTube is a major streaming video
provider that uses UDP:
http://blog.chromium.org/2015/04/a-quic-update-on-googles-experimental.html
https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/94/slides/slides-94-tcpm-8.pdf (see slide
4)

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Jean-Francois Mezei]

On 2015-12-10 20:58, Owen DeLong wrote:

> What if the rate charged is the same?
> 
> Wouldn’t it still be problematic if:
> 
> I pay VZ $15/Gigabyte for all data I use except Netflix which gets billed
> automatically to Netflix instead of me?

If Netflix gets charged the same retail rate, then I guess challenging
this under 27(2) in Canada would be hard since there might not be a
preference. Howeever, we all know that large ISPs signing such deals
won't be charging "retail rates" for data to their partners.

And in all likelyhood, the offending ISP would likely charge the outfit
such as Netfix in capacity (gbps) and not number of bytes transfered, so
this introduces a preference.

(Retaul users are charged for capacity (bits per second) and usage
(bytes). Charging a partner only for capacity introduces a preference.

> Telephone companies… Any belief that they are communications companies
> is purely coincidental to their business model. In fact, they are law firms.


I know all too well, I have met with and argued against some of Bell
Canada's 10,000 regulatory lawyers :-(


There are also revenue maximizing people in telcos. With such a deal,
the residential customer pays for the saye 100 gigagyutes per month,
while Netflix now pays a second time for the data that was paid as part
of the purchase for 100 gygabytes by the retail customer.

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Jean-Francois Mezei]

On 2015-12-10 13:07, William Kenny wrote:

> "Verizon is reportedly set to begin testing a sponsored data program that
> would let companies pay Verizon to deliver online services without using up
> customers' data plans. 

In Canada, the Telecom Act 27(2) states:

Unjust discrimination

(2) No Canadian carrier shall, in relation to the provision of a
telecommunications service or the charging of a rate for it, unjustly
discriminate or give an undue or unreasonable preference toward any
person, including itself, or subject any person to an undue or
unreasonable disadvantage.



So if this Verizon scheme were to happen in Canada, one could challenge
this if the rates charged to Netflix for 1GB of data are different from
the rates charged to anyone else, including residential customers as
this would be an undue preference.

Bell Canada's wireless service lost such a challenge earlier this year
because it ended up giving 10 hours of its own TV service for $4.00
while the same 10 hours on competing services would end up costing
something like $40 in normal usage charges.  (Bell Canada is current at
Federal Court seeking the CRTC's decision be invalidated, stating its TV
service is "broadcasting" and not subject to the Telecommunications Act
despite being delivered over a telecommunications service using IP
technology.

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Owen DeLong]

> 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. 
> 
> In Canada, the Telecom Act 27(2) states:
> 
> Unjust discrimination
> 
> (2) No Canadian carrier shall, in relation to the provision of a
> telecommunications service or the charging of a rate for it, unjustly
> discriminate or give an undue or unreasonable preference toward any
> person, including itself, or subject any person to an undue or
> unreasonable disadvantage.
> 
> 
> 
> So if this Verizon scheme were to happen in Canada, one could challenge
> this if the rates charged to Netflix for 1GB of data are different from
> the rates charged to anyone else, including residential customers as
> this would be an undue preference.

What if the rate charged is the same?

Wouldn’t it still be problematic if:

I pay VZ $15/Gigabyte for all data I use except Netflix which gets billed
automatically to Netflix instead of me?

> Bell Canada's wireless service lost such a challenge earlier this year
> because it ended up giving 10 hours of its own TV service for $4.00
> while the same 10 hours on competing services would end up costing
> something like $40 in normal usage charges.  (Bell Canada is current at
> Federal Court seeking the CRTC's decision be invalidated, stating its TV
> service is "broadcasting" and not subject to the Telecommunications Act
> despite being delivered over a telecommunications service using IP
> technology.

Telephone companies… Any belief that they are communications companies
is purely coincidental to their business model. In fact, they are law firms.

Owen

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Jean-Francois Mezei]

On 2015-12-10 21:39, William Herrin wrote:

> Personally, I'm not opposed to this. When each packet has one payer,
> it doesn't much matter whether the payer is sender or recipient.


If the retail customer pays for $70 for 100 gigs of UBB, and uses 50
gigs of Netflix, then the result is that the customer is still paying
$70 for 100 gigs of data, and Netflix now has to pay for 50 gigs of data.

The principle of paying "once" is fine, the problem is that no ISP is
going to reduce your actual bill/ARPU in exchange for charging part of
your iusage to someone else.  You will still pay $70 for the same
package except your bill will show you used only 40 gigs instead of 90
(because 50 were not charged to you).


So the end result is that thoes big ISPs will charge twice for the data,
it is their goal: make more money.

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[William Herrin]

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 packet has one payer,
it doesn't much matter whether the payer is sender or recipient.

If they're still going to be picky about settlement-free peering for
the subscriber-paid packets then there's still a network neutrality
problem. But the problem isn't in letting content providers pay to
bypass subscriber data caps.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: 

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Owen DeLong]

> 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 for 100 gigs of UBB, and uses 50
> gigs of Netflix, then the result is that the customer is still paying
> $70 for 100 gigs of data, and Netflix now has to pay for 50 gigs of data.
> 
> The principle of paying "once" is fine, the problem is that no ISP is
> going to reduce your actual bill/ARPU in exchange for charging part of
> your iusage to someone else.  You will still pay $70 for the same
> package except your bill will show you used only 40 gigs instead of 90
> (because 50 were not charged to you).
> 
> 
> So the end result is that thoes big ISPs will charge twice for the data,
> it is their goal: make more money.

Except that what happens in practice, at least in many of the developing
markets is that users use the services that pay for ZRB and do not use
or do not use much of the services that don’t. There remains a single
payer for the bits, because many of the people don’t even have a 1GB
data plan, they just use the free data that they can get to the services
that are paying for their data.

Another scenario, more common in the developed world is people buy
a small amount of data and focus the bulk of their usage on services
that pay for the ZRB, so they may pay for 3GB and use only 2 or 2.5
GB of data that they pay for, but they’ll still stream 20 or 30G of ZRB
traffic, which results effectively in the ZRB usage being charged to the
streaming provider.

Owen

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Collin Anderson]

This thread seems to have run its course, but it was an interesting
conversation, so I wanted to flag that the Open Technology Institute is
running what seems to be a fairly balanced panel on the issue in D.C. next
week. Might be worth asking if there's remote participation.

https://newamerica.cvent.com/events/zero-rating-and-net-neutrality-is-free-content-naughty-or-nice-/registration-8e22b15178dc4fa88c2ebe19525262eb.aspx?i=d0db0beb-7340-47c8-8bcc-86d9d6cc85b8

New America
Please note our new address!
740 15th Street NW, Suite 900, Washington, DC 20005
Wednesday, December 16, 2015 | 12:00 pm - 1:45 pm


Even if the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upholds the FCC’s Open Internet
Order, the ability of mobile carriers to exclude certain content from the
data caps or buckets that determine what a user pays each month remains
undecided and controversial. Although mobile carriers maintain that
zero-rating selected content is pro-consumer, some consumer advocates argue
the FCC should find it violates network neutrality rules against favoring
some Internet content or applications over others.

In the U.S., T-Mobile recently launched Binge On, which allows consumers to
opt out of the delivery of 'free' (zero-rated) streaming video content at
lower resolution (CD quality), and instead receive content at
high-definition that counts against their data limit. T-Mobile also hosts
Music Freedom, which zero-rates participating streaming music services.

In the developing world, Facebook’s Free Basics initiative partners with
mobile carriers to provide cell phone customers with low-bandwidth versions
of participating information and social media apps (e.g., Wikipedia and
Facebook itself) at no cost in the hope this exposure will encourage them
to upgrade to full Internet access.

Join us for an explanation and debate about zero-rating on mobile networks,
featuring the two companies most visibly marketing the practice, as well as
a range of perspectives from consumer and public interest advocates.

Lunch will be served.

Follow the discussion online using #ZeroRating
and by following us @OTI.

Participants:
Kevin Martin
Vice President for Mobile & Global Access, Facebook
Former Chairman, FCC
@facebook

Mark Cooper
Research Director, Consumer Federation of America
@ConsumerFed

Steve Sharkey
Chief, Engineering and Technology Policy, T-Mobile
@TMobile

Matt Wood
Policy Director, Free Press
@MattFWood

Sarah Morris
Senior Policy Counsel, Open Technology Institute at New America
@sarmorris

Moderator:
Michael Calabrese
Director, Wireless Future Project, Open Technology Institute at New America
@MCalabreseNAF


On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Tony Hain  wrote:

> Keenan Tims wrote:
> > To: nanog@nanog.org
> > Subject: Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
> >
> > I'm surprised you're supporting T-Mob here Owen. To me it's pretty
> > clear: they are charging more for bits that are not streaming video.
> > That's not neutral treatment from a policy perspective, and has no basis
> in
> > the cost of operating the network.
>
> I have no visibility into what the line
> "T‐Mobile will work with content providers to ensure that our networks
> work together to properly"
> actually means, but they could/should be using this as a tool to drive
> content sources to IPv6.
>
> Trying to explain to consumers why an unlimited data plan only works for a
> tiny subset of content is a waste of energy. Picking a category and
> "encouraging" that content to move, then after the time limit, pick the
> next category, rinse/repeat, is a way to move traffic away from the 6/4 nat
> infrastructure without having to make a big deal about the IP version to
> the consumer, and at the same time remove "it costs too much" complaints
> from the sources. If I were implementing such a plan, I would walk the list
> of traffic sources based on volume to move traffic as quickly as possible,
> so it makes perfect sense to me that they would start with video.
>
> Tony
>
>
> >
> > Granted, the network itself is neutral, but the purported purpose of NN
> in
> > my eyes is twofold: take away the influence of the network on user and
> > operator behaviour, and encourage an open market in network services
> > (both content and access). Allowing zero-rating based on *any* criteria
> > gives them a strong influence over what the end users are going to do
> with
> > their network connection, and distorts the market for network services.
> > What makes streaming video special to merit zero-rating?
> >
> > I like Clay's connection to the boiling frog. Yes, it's "nice" for most
> > consumers now, but it's still distorting the market.
> >
> > I'm also not seeing why they have to make this so complicated. If they
> can
> > afford to zero-rate high-bandwidth services like video and audio
> streaming,
> > clearly there is network capacity to spare. The user behaviour they're
> > encouraging with free video streaming is *precisely* what the incumbents
> 

RE: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Keith Medcalf]

Obviously this is designed so that the carrier knows what traffic to 
"disregard" in their feed to the NSA ... That is the sole purpose of it.

> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong
> Sent: Friday, 20 November, 2015 14:50
> To: Steve Mikulasik
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
>
> It’s a full page of standards in a relatively large font with decent
> spacing.
>
> Given that bluetooth is several hundred pages, I’d say this is pretty
> reasonable.
>
> Having read through the page, I don’t see anything onerous in the
> requirements. In fact, it looks to me
> like the bare minimum of reasonable and an expression by T-Mo of a
> willingness to expend a fair amount
> of effort to integrate content providers.
>
> I don’t see anything here that hurts net neutrality and I applaud this as
> actually being a potential boon
> to consumers and a potentially good model of how to implement ZRB in a
> net-neutral way going
> forward.
>
> Owen
>
> > On Nov 20, 2015, at 09:03 , Steve Mikulasik 
> wrote:
> >
> > That is much better than I thought. Although, I don't think the person
> who wrote this understands what UDP is.
> >
> > "Use of technology protocols that are demonstrated to prevent video
> stream detection, such as User Datagram Protocol “UDP” on any platform
> will exclude video streams from that content provider"
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Ian Smith [mailto:i.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/pdf/BingeOn-Video-
> Technical-Criteria-November-2015.pdf
> >
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Steve
> Mikulasik
> > Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 11:37 AM
> > To: Shane Ronan ; nanog@nanog.org
> > Subject: RE: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
> >
> > What are these technical requirements? I feel like these would punish
> small upstarts well helping protect large incumbent services from
> competition.
> >
> > Even if you don't demand payment, you can still hurt the fairness of the
> internet this way.
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-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, Legere said any company can apply to join the Binge On
> program. "Anyone who can meet our technical requirement, we’ll include,"
> > he said. "This is not a net neutrality problem." Legere pointed to the
> fact that Binge On doesn't charge providers for inclusion and customers
> don't pay to access it."
> > http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/10/9704482/t-mobile-uncarrier-binge-on-
> netflix-hbo-streaming
> >
> >
> > On 11/20/15 10:45 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> >> According to:
> >>
> >>
> >> http://www.engadget.com/2015/11/20/fcc-chairman-gives-t-mobiles-binge-
> >> on-the-thumbs-up/
> >>
> >> Chairman Wheeler thinks that T-mob's new "customers can get uncapped
> >> media stream data, but only from the people we like" service called
> >> Binge On is pro-competition.
> >>
> >> My take on this is that the service is *precisely* what Net Neutrality
> >> was supposed to prevent -- carriers offering paid fast-lanes to
> >> content providers -- and that this is anti-competitive to the sort of
> >> "upstart YouTube" entities that NN was supposed to protect...
> >>
> >> and that *that* is the competition that NN was supposed to protect.
> >>
> >> And I just said the same thing two different ways.
> >>
> >> Cause does anyone here think that T-mob is giving those *carriers*
> >> pride of place *for free*?
> >>
> >> Corporations don't - in my experience - give away lots of money out of
> >> the goodness of their hearts.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> -- jr 'whacky weekend' a
> >

RE: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Keith Medcalf]

Why uncomfortable?  How do you know this is not how the company executive that 
came up with the idea did so?  (So that he or she could watch unlimited 
bestiality videos).


> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of nanog-
> i...@mail.com
> 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

RE: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Tony Hain]

Keenan Tims wrote:
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
> 
> I'm surprised you're supporting T-Mob here Owen. To me it's pretty
> clear: they are charging more for bits that are not streaming video.
> That's not neutral treatment from a policy perspective, and has no basis in
> the cost of operating the network.

I have no visibility into what the line
"T‐Mobile will work with content providers to ensure that our networks work 
together to properly"
actually means, but they could/should be using this as a tool to drive content 
sources to IPv6. 

Trying to explain to consumers why an unlimited data plan only works for a tiny 
subset of content is a waste of energy. Picking a category and "encouraging" 
that content to move, then after the time limit, pick the next category, 
rinse/repeat, is a way to move traffic away from the 6/4 nat infrastructure 
without having to make a big deal about the IP version to the consumer, and at 
the same time remove "it costs too much" complaints from the sources. If I were 
implementing such a plan, I would walk the list of traffic sources based on 
volume to move traffic as quickly as possible, so it makes perfect sense to me 
that they would start with video.

Tony


> 
> Granted, the network itself is neutral, but the purported purpose of NN in
> my eyes is twofold: take away the influence of the network on user and
> operator behaviour, and encourage an open market in network services
> (both content and access). Allowing zero-rating based on *any* criteria
> gives them a strong influence over what the end users are going to do with
> their network connection, and distorts the market for network services.
> What makes streaming video special to merit zero-rating?
> 
> I like Clay's connection to the boiling frog. Yes, it's "nice" for most
> consumers now, but it's still distorting the market.
> 
> I'm also not seeing why they have to make this so complicated. If they can
> afford to zero-rate high-bandwidth services like video and audio streaming,
> clearly there is network capacity to spare. The user behaviour they're
> encouraging with free video streaming is *precisely* what the incumbents
> claimed was causing congestion to merit throttling a few years ago, and still
> to this day whine about constantly. I don't have data, but I would expect
> usage of this to align quite nicely with their current peaks.
> 
> Why not just raise the caps to something reasonable or make it unlimited
> across the board? I could even get behind zero-rating all 'off-peak-hours'
> use like we used to have for mobile voice; at least that makes sense for the
> network. What they're doing though is product differentiation where none
> exists; in fact the zero-rating is likely to cause more load on the system 
> than
> just doubling or tripling the users'
> caps. That there seems to be little obvious justification for it from a 
> network
> perspective makes me vary wary.
> 
> Keenan
> 
> On 2015-11-23 18:05, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >
> >> On Nov 23, 2015, at 17:28 , Baldur Norddahl
>  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.
> >> Stuff that requires low latency and where TCP retransmit of stale
> >> data is bad. Media without buffering because it is real time.
> >>
> >> And why would a telco want to zero rate all the bandwidth heavy media
> >> with certain exceptions? Like not zero rating media that happens to
> >> compete with some of their own services, such as voice calls and video
> calls.
> >>
> >> Yes sounds like net neutrality to me too (or not!).
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Baldur
> >
> > All T-Mobile plans include unlimited 128kbps data, so a voice call is
> > effectively already zero-rated for all practical purposes.
> >
> > I guess the question is: Is it better for the consumer to pay for
> > everything equally, or, is it reasonable for carriers to be able to
> > give away some free data without opening it up to everything?
> >
> > To me, net neutrality isn’t as much about what you charge the customer
> > for the data, it’s about whether you prioritize certain classes of
> > traffic to the detriment of others in terms of service delivery.
> >
> > If T-Mobile were taking money from the video streaming services or
> > only accepting certain video streaming services, I’d likely agree with
> > you that this is a neutrality issue.
> >
> > However, in this case, it appears to me that they aren’t trying to
> > give an advantage to any particular competing streaming video service
> > over the other, they aren’t taking money from participants in the program,
> and consumers stand to benefit from it.
> >
> > If you see an actual way in which it’s better for everyone if 

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Jean-Francois Mezei]

On 2015-11-23 17:12, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Except there’s no revenue share here. According to T-Mobile, the streaming 
> partners
> aren’t paying anything to T-Mo and T-Mo isn’t paying them.

In Canada, Vidéotron has begun a similar scheme for streaming music. It
is currently at the CRTC. They also claimed that the setting up of the
scheme with a music streaming partner involved no money exchange.

They provided a contract. This contract was 1 page. yes, large incumbent
wireless/cable carrier with large legal departments signs a 1 page
contract This page dealth with which IP addresses from the music
streaming service would be zero rated by the carrier.

Yet, their advertising uses logos from the handful of music services
they have accepted.  Permission to use such logos was not included in
that 1 page contract which means that there would be a separate
contract, not related to zero rating which would deal with co-marketing
and whatever else.

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Jean-Francois Mezei]

On 2015-11-23 17:26, Owen DeLong wrote:

> Sure, but I really don’t think there’s an exchange per se in this case, given 
> that T-Mo
> is (at least apparently) willing to accommodate any streaming provider that 
> wants to
> participate so long as they are willing to conform to a fairly basic set of 
> technical criteria.


Vidéotron also stated on day of annoucement that they were opened to
any/all music streaming services and not selective. But fine print is
important here because they do "vet" music streaming services and the
carrier wants to ensure they are "legal" in canada (music rights), are
not a radio station (aka: onwer by competitor telco who owns most radio
statiosn in markets where Vidéotron operates) and a whole buch other
conditions.

There is PR to make "zero rating" look good, and then there is fine
print thats hows the true intentions.

In the case of Vidéotron, the zero-rated music is available only on
their highest priced services and is a marketing scheme to increase
AREPU by inciting customers to upgrade to more expensive service.

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Sander Steffann]

Hi Owen,

> To me, net neutrality isn’t as much about what you charge the customer for 
> the data, it’s about
> whether you prioritize certain classes of traffic to the detriment of others 
> in terms of
> service delivery.
> 
> If T-Mobile were taking money from the video streaming services or only 
> accepting
> certain video streaming services, I’d likely agree with you that this is a 
> neutrality
> issue.

You are right in that it could have been much worse. However: giving a big 
advantage to a certain technology does get in the way of innovation in e.g. new 
video delivery technologies. And in the long run less innovation will not be to 
the benefit of the internet's users. We are already too locked in to 
tcp-port-80-and-443 as it is :(

Cheers,
Sander

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Mike Hammett]

Not so much to Keenan, but the thread as a whole. 

It continually amazes me the lack comprehension of the entire network world so 
many on this list have. They've confined to their little bubble of 100GigE 
pipes everywhere and everyone should just have balls to the walls everything 
all of the time. Maybe NANOG needs to have some sessions on putting people into 
the real world or maybe teach practicality in all circumstances. 




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

- Original Message -

From: "Keenan Tims"  
To: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2015 9:00:11 PM 
Subject: Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? 

I'm surprised you're supporting T-Mob here Owen. To me it's pretty 
clear: they are charging more for bits that are not streaming video. 
That's not neutral treatment from a policy perspective, and has no basis 
in the cost of operating the network. 

Granted, the network itself is neutral, but the purported purpose of NN 
in my eyes is twofold: take away the influence of the network on user 
and operator behaviour, and encourage an open market in network services 
(both content and access). Allowing zero-rating based on *any* criteria 
gives them a strong influence over what the end users are going to do 
with their network connection, and distorts the market for network 
services. What makes streaming video special to merit zero-rating? 

I like Clay's connection to the boiling frog. Yes, it's "nice" for most 
consumers now, but it's still distorting the market. 

I'm also not seeing why they have to make this so complicated. If they 
can afford to zero-rate high-bandwidth services like video and audio 
streaming, clearly there is network capacity to spare. The user 
behaviour they're encouraging with free video streaming is *precisely* 
what the incumbents claimed was causing congestion to merit throttling a 
few years ago, and still to this day whine about constantly. I don't 
have data, but I would expect usage of this to align quite nicely with 
their current peaks. 

Why not just raise the caps to something reasonable or make it unlimited 
across the board? I could even get behind zero-rating all 
'off-peak-hours' use like we used to have for mobile voice; at least 
that makes sense for the network. What they're doing though is product 
differentiation where none exists; in fact the zero-rating is likely to 
cause more load on the system than just doubling or tripling the users' 
caps. That there seems to be little obvious justification for it from a 
network perspective makes me vary wary. 

Keenan 

On 2015-11-23 18:05, Owen DeLong wrote: 
> 
>> On Nov 23, 2015, at 17:28 , Baldur Norddahl  
>> 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. 
>> Stuff that requires low latency and where TCP retransmit of stale data is 
>> bad. Media without buffering because it is real time. 
>> 
>> And why would a telco want to zero rate all the bandwidth heavy media with 
>> certain exceptions? Like not zero rating media that happens to compete with 
>> some of their own services, such as voice calls and video calls. 
>> 
>> Yes sounds like net neutrality to me too (or not!). 
>> 
>> Regards, 
>> 
>> Baldur 
> 
> All T-Mobile plans include unlimited 128kbps data, so a voice call is 
> effectively 
> already zero-rated for all practical purposes. 
> 
> I guess the question is: Is it better for the consumer to pay for everything 
> equally, 
> or, is it reasonable for carriers to be able to give away some free data 
> without opening 
> it up to everything? 
> 
> To me, net neutrality isn’t as much about what you charge the customer for 
> the data, it’s about 
> whether you prioritize certain classes of traffic to the detriment of others 
> in terms of 
> service delivery. 
> 
> If T-Mobile were taking money from the video streaming services or only 
> accepting 
> certain video streaming services, I’d likely agree with you that this is a 
> neutrality 
> issue. 
> 
> However, in this case, it appears to me that they aren’t trying to give an 
> advantage to 
> any particular competing streaming video service over the other, they aren’t 
> taking 
> money from participants in the program, and consumers stand to benefit from 
> it. 
> 
> If you see an actual way in which it’s better for everyone if T-Mobile 
> weren’t doing this, 
> then please explain it. If not, then this strikes me as harmless and overall 
> benefits 
> consumers. 
> 
> Owen 
> 

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Christian Kuhtz]

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:
> 
>  
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.engadget.com%2f2015%2f11%2f20%2ffcc-chairman-gives-t-mobiles-binge-on-the-thumbs-up%2f=01%7c01%7cchkuhtz%40microsoft.com%7c7c7a1c832d1a4d7d615008d2f1c1ebb0%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1=XFz213dwbX7LmC2FwUAeJn5HP%2bAV9rU6b4dCatA%2b6FM%3d
> 
> Chairman Wheeler thinks that T-mob's new "customers can get uncapped media
> stream data, but only from the people we like" service called Binge On
> is pro-competition.
> 
> My take on this is that the service is *precisely* what Net Neutrality
> was supposed to prevent -- carriers offering paid fast-lanes to content 
> providers -- and that this is anti-competitive to the sort of "upstart 
> YouTube" entities that NN was supposed to protect...
> 
> and that *that* is the competition that NN was supposed to protect.
> 
> And I just said the same thing two different ways.
> 
> Cause does anyone here think that T-mob is giving those *carriers* pride
> of place *for free*?
> 
> Corporations don't - in my experience - give away lots of money out of 
> the goodness of their hearts.
> 
> Cheers,
> -- jr 'whacky weekend' a
> -- 
> Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink   
> j...@baylink.com
> Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
> Ashworth & Associates   
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.bcp38.info=01%7c01%7cchkuhtz%40microsoft.com%7c7c7a1c832d1a4d7d615008d2f1c1ebb0%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1=pqF%2fnrW6m6K0%2fdcNZO7pAm9xfEPpoYXHfaoS%2fpGZcsc%3d
>   2000 Land Rover DII
> St Petersburg FL USA  BCP38: Ask For It By Name!   +1 727 647 1274

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Owen DeLong]

> 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-rating
>> in that the customers don’t pay bandwidth charges, but it’s different in 
>> that the service
>> provider isn’t being asked to subsidize the network provider (usual 
>> implementation of
>> zero-rating).
> 
> equal exchange of value doesn't have to be dollars/pesos/euros
> changing hands right?
> -chris

Sure, but I really don’t think there’s an exchange per se in this case, given 
that T-Mo
is (at least apparently) willing to accommodate any streaming provider that 
wants to
participate so long as they are willing to conform to a fairly basic set of 
technical criteria.

Owen

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Owen DeLong]

Except there’s no revenue share here. According to T-Mobile, the streaming 
partners
aren’t paying anything to T-Mo and T-Mo isn’t paying them. It’s kind of like 
zero-rating
in that the customers don’t pay bandwidth charges, but it’s different in that 
the service
provider isn’t being asked to subsidize the network provider (usual 
implementation of
zero-rating).

Owen

> On Nov 23, 2015, at 10:42 , Christian Kuhtz  wrote:
> 
> I don't know if this is NN or not, but the concept is ancient. Even back in 
> the dark ages of mobile, zero rating and associated rev share were very 
> common.
> 
> Whether this is relevant to NN or not is for lawyers.
> 
> Christian
> 
>> On Nov 20, 2015, at 7:47 AM, Jay Ashworth  wrote:
>> 
>> According to:
>> 
>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.engadget.com%2f2015%2f11%2f20%2ffcc-chairman-gives-t-mobiles-binge-on-the-thumbs-up%2f=01%7c01%7cchkuhtz%40microsoft.com%7c7c7a1c832d1a4d7d615008d2f1c1ebb0%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1=XFz213dwbX7LmC2FwUAeJn5HP%2bAV9rU6b4dCatA%2b6FM%3d
>> 
>> Chairman Wheeler thinks that T-mob's new "customers can get uncapped media
>> stream data, but only from the people we like" service called Binge On
>> is pro-competition.
>> 
>> My take on this is that the service is *precisely* what Net Neutrality
>> was supposed to prevent -- carriers offering paid fast-lanes to content 
>> providers -- and that this is anti-competitive to the sort of "upstart 
>> YouTube" entities that NN was supposed to protect...
>> 
>> and that *that* is the competition that NN was supposed to protect.
>> 
>> And I just said the same thing two different ways.
>> 
>> Cause does anyone here think that T-mob is giving those *carriers* pride
>> of place *for free*?
>> 
>> Corporations don't - in my experience - give away lots of money out of 
>> the goodness of their hearts.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> -- jr 'whacky weekend' a
>> -- 
>> Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink   
>> j...@baylink.com
>> Designer The Things I Think   RFC 
>> 2100
>> Ashworth & Associates   
>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.bcp38.info=01%7c01%7cchkuhtz%40microsoft.com%7c7c7a1c832d1a4d7d615008d2f1c1ebb0%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1=pqF%2fnrW6m6K0%2fdcNZO7pAm9xfEPpoYXHfaoS%2fpGZcsc%3d
>>   2000 Land Rover DII
>> St Petersburg FL USA  BCP38: Ask For It By Name!   +1 727 647 
>> 1274

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Christopher Morrow]

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 different in that 
> the service
> provider isn’t being asked to subsidize the network provider (usual 
> implementation of
> zero-rating).

equal exchange of value doesn't have to be dollars/pesos/euros
changing hands right?
-chris

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Niels Bakker]

* 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 backwards.  It's definitely a net neutrality issue since it 
concerns inequal access for customers to content on the Internet.  
Whether it's subject to current laws or regulation is a matter for the 
lawyers, but current laws and regulations at least in the US are a far 
cry from actual net neutrality.  (If you want a good example of that, 
look to the Netherlands.)



-- Niels.

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Mark Andrews]

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 there’s no revenue share here. According to T-Mobile, the
> streaming partners
> >> aren’t paying anything to T-Mo and T-Mo isn’t paying them. It’s kind
> of like zero-rating
> >> in that the customers don’t pay bandwidth charges, but it’s different
> in that the service
> >> provider isn’t being asked to subsidize the network provider (usual
> implementation of
> >> zero-rating).
> >
> > equal exchange of value doesn't have to be dollars/pesos/euros
> > changing hands right?
> > -chris
>
> Sure, but I really don’t think there’s an exchange per se in this case,
> given that T-Mo
> is (at least apparently) willing to accommodate any streaming provider
> that wants to
> participate so long as they are willing to conform to a fairly basic set
> of technical criteria.

No. This is T-Mo saying they are neutral but not actually being so.
This is like writing a job add for one particular person.

Its just as easy to identify a UDP stream as it is a TCP stream.
You can ratelimit a UDP stream as easily as a TCP stream.  You can
have congestion control over UDP as well as over TCP.  Just because
the base transport doesn't give you some of these and you have to
implement them higher up the stack is no reason to throw out a
transport.

Mark

-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Baldur Norddahl]

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 data is
bad. Media without buffering because it is real time.

And why would a telco want to zero rate all the bandwidth heavy media with
certain exceptions? Like not zero rating media that happens to compete with
some of their own services, such as voice calls and video calls.

Yes sounds like net neutrality to me too (or not!).

Regards,

Baldur

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Mark Andrews]

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 have that is UDP based? Ah voice calls. Video calls.
> > Stuff that requires low latency and where TCP retransmit of stale data
> > is bad. Media without buffering because it is real time.
> >
> > And why would a telco want to zero rate all the bandwidth heavy media
> > with certain exceptions? Like not zero rating media that happens to
> > compete with some of their own services, such as voice calls and video
> > calls.
> >
> > Yes sounds like net neutrality to me too (or not!).
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Baldur
>
> All T-Mobile plans include unlimited 128kbps data, so a voice call is
> effectively already zero-rated for all practical purposes.
>
> I guess the question is: Is it better for the consumer to pay for
> everything equally, or, is it reasonable for carriers to be able to
> give away some free data without opening it up to everything?
>
> To me, net neutrality isn’t as much about what you charge the customer
> for the data, it’s about whether you prioritize certain classes of
> traffic to the detriment of others in terms of service delivery.
>
> If T-Mobile were taking money from the video streaming services or only
> accepting certain video streaming services, I’d likely agree with you
> that this is a neutrality issue.
>
> However, in this case, it appears to me that they aren’t trying to give
> an advantage to any particular competing streaming video service over
> the other, they aren’t taking money from participants in the program,
> and consumers stand to benefit from it.

It not being neutral over the content.  If content != "video stream
we like" then you will be penalised when the customer goes over
their data limit.

> If you see an actual way in which it’s better for everyone if T-Mobile
> weren’t doing this, then please explain it. If not, then this strikes
> me as harmless and overall benefits consumers.

Actually this is as harmful as NAT for the same reasons as NAT.  It
a opportunity cost at a minimum.

T-Mo could have just increased the data limits by the data usage
of 7x24 standard definition video stream and achieved the same thing
in a totally network neutral way.  Instead they choose to play
favourites with a type of technology.

We are giving X Gigs of additional data. This is enough to allow
you to stream your favourite video channels at standard definition
all day long and not run out of data.

> Owen

Mark
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Owen DeLong]

> 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.
> Stuff that requires low latency and where TCP retransmit of stale data is
> bad. Media without buffering because it is real time.
> 
> And why would a telco want to zero rate all the bandwidth heavy media with
> certain exceptions? Like not zero rating media that happens to compete with
> some of their own services, such as voice calls and video calls.
> 
> Yes sounds like net neutrality to me too (or not!).
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Baldur

All T-Mobile plans include unlimited 128kbps data, so a voice call is 
effectively
already zero-rated for all practical purposes.

I guess the question is: Is it better for the consumer to pay for everything 
equally,
or, is it reasonable for carriers to be able to give away some free data 
without opening
it up to everything?

To me, net neutrality isn’t as much about what you charge the customer for the 
data, it’s about
whether you prioritize certain classes of traffic to the detriment of others in 
terms of
service delivery.

If T-Mobile were taking money from the video streaming services or only 
accepting
certain video streaming services, I’d likely agree with you that this is a 
neutrality
issue.

However, in this case, it appears to me that they aren’t trying to give an 
advantage to
any particular competing streaming video service over the other, they aren’t 
taking
money from participants in the program, and consumers stand to benefit from it.

If you see an actual way in which it’s better for everyone if T-Mobile weren’t 
doing this,
then please explain it. If not, then this strikes me as harmless and overall 
benefits
consumers.

Owen

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Keenan Tims]

I'm surprised you're supporting T-Mob here Owen. To me it's pretty
clear: they are charging more for bits that are not streaming video.
That's not neutral treatment from a policy perspective, and has no basis
in the cost of operating the network.

Granted, the network itself is neutral, but the purported purpose of NN
in my eyes is twofold: take away the influence of the network on user
and operator behaviour, and encourage an open market in network services
(both content and access). Allowing zero-rating based on *any* criteria
gives them a strong influence over what the end users are going to do
with their network connection, and distorts the market for network
services. What makes streaming video special to merit zero-rating?

I like Clay's connection to the boiling frog. Yes, it's "nice" for most
consumers now, but it's still distorting the market.

I'm also not seeing why they have to make this so complicated. If they
can afford to zero-rate high-bandwidth services like video and audio
streaming, clearly there is network capacity to spare. The user
behaviour they're encouraging with free video streaming is *precisely*
what the incumbents claimed was causing congestion to merit throttling a
few years ago, and still to this day whine about constantly. I don't
have data, but I would expect usage of this to align quite nicely with
their current peaks.

Why not just raise the caps to something reasonable or make it unlimited
across the board? I could even get behind zero-rating all
'off-peak-hours' use like we used to have for mobile voice; at least
that makes sense for the network. What they're doing though is product
differentiation where none exists; in fact the zero-rating is likely to
cause more load on the system than just doubling or tripling the users'
caps. That there seems to be little obvious justification for it from a
network perspective makes me vary wary.

Keenan

On 2015-11-23 18:05, Owen DeLong wrote:
> 
>> On Nov 23, 2015, at 17:28 , Baldur Norddahl  
>> 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.
>> Stuff that requires low latency and where TCP retransmit of stale data is
>> bad. Media without buffering because it is real time.
>>
>> And why would a telco want to zero rate all the bandwidth heavy media with
>> certain exceptions? Like not zero rating media that happens to compete with
>> some of their own services, such as voice calls and video calls.
>>
>> Yes sounds like net neutrality to me too (or not!).
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Baldur
> 
> All T-Mobile plans include unlimited 128kbps data, so a voice call is 
> effectively
> already zero-rated for all practical purposes.
> 
> I guess the question is: Is it better for the consumer to pay for everything 
> equally,
> or, is it reasonable for carriers to be able to give away some free data 
> without opening
> it up to everything?
> 
> To me, net neutrality isn’t as much about what you charge the customer for 
> the data, it’s about
> whether you prioritize certain classes of traffic to the detriment of others 
> in terms of
> service delivery.
> 
> If T-Mobile were taking money from the video streaming services or only 
> accepting
> certain video streaming services, I’d likely agree with you that this is a 
> neutrality
> issue.
> 
> However, in this case, it appears to me that they aren’t trying to give an 
> advantage to
> any particular competing streaming video service over the other, they aren’t 
> taking
> money from participants in the program, and consumers stand to benefit from 
> it.
> 
> If you see an actual way in which it’s better for everyone if T-Mobile 
> weren’t doing this,
> then please explain it. If not, then this strikes me as harmless and overall 
> benefits
> consumers.
> 
> Owen
> 

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[nanog-isp]

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

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[joel jaeggli]

On 11/20/15 3:35 PM, Steve Mikulasik wrote:
> Requiring streaming companies not to use UDP is pretty absurd. Surely
> they must be able to identify streaming traffic without needing TCP.

One presumes that they've gotten rather good at looking at HLS or
MPEG-DASH and triggering rate adaption where necessary.


> Sent from my Windows Phone  From:
> Owen DeLong Sent: ‎11/‎20/‎2015 4:32 PM To:
> Steve Mikulasik Cc: Ian
> Smith;
> 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
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> That is much better than I thought. Although, I don't think the
>> person who wrote this understands what UDP is.
>> 
>> "Use of technology protocols that are demonstrated to prevent video
>> stream detection, such as User Datagram Protocol “UDP” on any
>> platform will exclude video streams from that content provider"
>> 
>> 
>> -Original Message- From: Ian Smith [mailto:i.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/pdf/BingeOn-Video-Technical-Criteria-November-2015.pdf
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
-Original Message-
>> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Steve
>> Mikulasik Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 11:37 AM To: Shane Ronan
>> ; nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Binge On! -
>> And So This is Net Neutrality?
>> 
>> What are these technical requirements? I feel like these would
>> punish small upstarts well helping protect large incumbent services
>> from competition.
>> 
>> Even if you don't demand payment, you can still hurt the fairness
>> of the internet this way.
>> 
>> 
>> -Original Message- From: NANOG
>> [mailto:nanog-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, Legere said any company can apply to join the Binge
>> On program. "Anyone who can meet our technical requirement, we’ll
>> include," he said. "This is not a net neutrality problem." Legere
>> pointed to the fact that Binge On doesn't charge providers for
>> inclusion and customers don't pay to access it." 
>> http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/10/9704482/t-mobile-uncarrier-binge-on-netflix-hbo-streaming
>>
>>
>>
>> 
On 11/20/15 10:45 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>>> According to:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> http://www.engadget.com/2015/11/20/fcc-chairman-gives-t-mobiles-binge-
>>>
>>> 
on-the-thumbs-up/
>>> 
>>> Chairman Wheeler thinks that T-mob's new "customers can get
>>> uncapped media stream data, but only from the people we like"
>>> service called Binge On is pro-competition.
>>> 
>>> My take on this is that the service is *precisely* what Net
>>> Neutrality was supposed to prevent -- carriers offering paid
>>> fast-lanes to content providers -- and that this is
>>> anti-competitive to the sort of "upstart YouTube" entities that
>>> NN was supposed to protect...
>>> 
>>> and that *that* is the competition that NN was supposed to
>>> protect.
>>> 
>>> And I just said the same thing two different ways.
>>> 
>>> Cause does anyone here think that T-mob is giving those
>>> *carriers* pride of place *for free*?
>>> 
>>> Corporations don't - in my experience - give away lots of money
>>> out of the goodness of their hearts.
>>> 
>>> Cheers, -- jr 'whacky weekend' a
>> 
> 
> 




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Christopher Morrow]

(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 accepting any payment from these content
> providers for inclusion in Binge On.
>
> "Onstage today, Legere said any company can apply to join the Binge On
> program. "Anyone who can meet our technical requirement, we’ll include," he
> said. "This is not a net neutrality problem." Legere pointed to the fact
> that Binge On doesn't charge providers for inclusion and customers don't pay
> to access it."
> http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/10/9704482/t-mobile-uncarrier-binge-on-netflix-hbo-streaming
>
>
>
> On 11/20/15 10:45 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>>
>> According to:
>>
>>
>> http://www.engadget.com/2015/11/20/fcc-chairman-gives-t-mobiles-binge-on-the-thumbs-up/
>>
>> Chairman Wheeler thinks that T-mob's new "customers can get uncapped media
>> stream data, but only from the people we like" service called Binge On
>> is pro-competition.
>>
>> My take on this is that the service is *precisely* what Net Neutrality
>> was supposed to prevent -- carriers offering paid fast-lanes to content
>> providers -- and that this is anti-competitive to the sort of "upstart
>> YouTube" entities that NN was supposed to protect...
>>
>> and that *that* is the competition that NN was supposed to protect.
>>
>> And I just said the same thing two different ways.
>>
>> Cause does anyone here think that T-mob is giving those *carriers* pride
>> of place *for free*?
>>
>> Corporations don't - in my experience - give away lots of money out of
>> the goodness of their hearts.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -- jr 'whacky weekend' a
>
>

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Scott Brim]

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" service called Binge On
> is pro-competition.
>
> My take on this is that the service is *precisely* what Net Neutrality
> was supposed to prevent -- carriers offering paid fast-lanes to content
> providers -- and that this is anti-competitive to the sort of "upstart
> YouTube" entities that NN was supposed to protect...
>
> and that *that* is the competition that NN was supposed to protect.

What I read was that as long as a video offerer marks its traffic and
is certified in a few other ways, anyone can send video content
cap-free. No I don't know what the criteria are. Does anyone here? I
also think I remember that there is no significant cost to
certification, i.e. this is not a paid fast lane.  If this is all
true, this doesn't bother me, and could do everyone a favor by getting
definitions clearer and getting traffic marked.

RE: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Steve Mikulasik]

What are these technical requirements? I feel like these would punish small 
upstarts well helping protect large incumbent services from competition. 

Even if you don't demand payment, you can still hurt the fairness of the 
internet this way. 


-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-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, Legere said any company can apply to join the Binge On program. 
"Anyone who can meet our technical requirement, we’ll include," 
he said. "This is not a net neutrality problem." Legere pointed to the fact 
that Binge On doesn't charge providers for inclusion and customers don't pay to 
access it."
http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/10/9704482/t-mobile-uncarrier-binge-on-netflix-hbo-streaming


On 11/20/15 10:45 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> According to:
>
>
> http://www.engadget.com/2015/11/20/fcc-chairman-gives-t-mobiles-binge-on-the-thumbs-up/
>
> Chairman Wheeler thinks that T-mob's new "customers can get uncapped 
> media stream data, but only from the people we like" service called 
> Binge On is pro-competition.
>
> My take on this is that the service is *precisely* what Net Neutrality 
> was supposed to prevent -- carriers offering paid fast-lanes to 
> content providers -- and that this is anti-competitive to the sort of 
> "upstart YouTube" entities that NN was supposed to protect...
>
> and that *that* is the competition that NN was supposed to protect.
>
> And I just said the same thing two different ways.
>
> Cause does anyone here think that T-mob is giving those *carriers* 
> pride of place *for free*?
>
> Corporations don't - in my experience - give away lots of money out of 
> the goodness of their hearts.
>
> Cheers,
> -- jr 'whacky weekend' a

RE: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Steve Mikulasik]

That is much better than I thought. Although, I don't think the person who 
wrote this understands what UDP is.

"Use of technology protocols that are demonstrated to prevent video stream 
detection, such as User Datagram Protocol “UDP” on any platform will exclude 
video streams from that content provider"


-Original Message-
From: Ian Smith [mailto:i.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/pdf/BingeOn-Video-Technical-Criteria-November-2015.pdf



-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Steve Mikulasik
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 11:37 AM
To: Shane Ronan ; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

What are these technical requirements? I feel like these would punish small 
upstarts well helping protect large incumbent services from competition. 

Even if you don't demand payment, you can still hurt the fairness of the 
internet this way. 


-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-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, Legere said any company can apply to join the Binge On program. 
"Anyone who can meet our technical requirement, we’ll include," 
he said. "This is not a net neutrality problem." Legere pointed to the fact 
that Binge On doesn't charge providers for inclusion and customers don't pay to 
access it."
http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/10/9704482/t-mobile-uncarrier-binge-on-netflix-hbo-streaming


On 11/20/15 10:45 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> According to:
>
>
> http://www.engadget.com/2015/11/20/fcc-chairman-gives-t-mobiles-binge-
> on-the-thumbs-up/
>
> Chairman Wheeler thinks that T-mob's new "customers can get uncapped 
> media stream data, but only from the people we like" service called 
> Binge On is pro-competition.
>
> My take on this is that the service is *precisely* what Net Neutrality 
> was supposed to prevent -- carriers offering paid fast-lanes to 
> content providers -- and that this is anti-competitive to the sort of 
> "upstart YouTube" entities that NN was supposed to protect...
>
> and that *that* is the competition that NN was supposed to protect.
>
> And I just said the same thing two different ways.
>
> Cause does anyone here think that T-mob is giving those *carriers* 
> pride of place *for free*?
>
> Corporations don't - in my experience - give away lots of money out of 
> the goodness of their hearts.
>
> Cheers,
> -- jr 'whacky weekend' a

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Shane Ronan]

T-Mobile claims they are not accepting any payment from these content 
providers for inclusion in Binge On.


"Onstage today, Legere said any company can apply to join the Binge On 
program. "Anyone who can meet our technical requirement, we’ll include," 
he said. "This is not a net neutrality problem." Legere pointed to the 
fact that Binge On doesn't charge providers for inclusion and customers 
don't pay to access it."

http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/10/9704482/t-mobile-uncarrier-binge-on-netflix-hbo-streaming


On 11/20/15 10:45 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:

According to:

   
http://www.engadget.com/2015/11/20/fcc-chairman-gives-t-mobiles-binge-on-the-thumbs-up/

Chairman Wheeler thinks that T-mob's new "customers can get uncapped media
stream data, but only from the people we like" service called Binge On
is pro-competition.

My take on this is that the service is *precisely* what Net Neutrality
was supposed to prevent -- carriers offering paid fast-lanes to content
providers -- and that this is anti-competitive to the sort of "upstart
YouTube" entities that NN was supposed to protect...

and that *that* is the competition that NN was supposed to protect.

And I just said the same thing two different ways.

Cause does anyone here think that T-mob is giving those *carriers* pride
of place *for free*?

Corporations don't - in my experience - give away lots of money out of
the goodness of their hearts.

Cheers,
-- jr 'whacky weekend' a

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Josh Reynolds]

I believe there may be a catch though: I don't think they can pick and
choose which streaming providers they allow their customers to stream
for free. As long as their streaming program is a "catch-all" for
streaming video, they can claim they are doing what they can (within
reason) to exempt streaming video from their data caps and are
probably fine with the FCC. For instance, using the "streaming video"
filter in Procera or a similar DPI product.

If it is found they are picking and choosing which content is free
(intentionally) they might be in trouble for that part.

They are not paying for this feature with the content providers (no
paid prioritization) and it's good for consumers. It probably sucks
for WISPs until those cell sectors start getting filled up though ;)

On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Shane Ronan  wrote:
> T-Mobile claims they are not accepting any payment from these content
> providers for inclusion in Binge On.
>
> "Onstage today, Legere said any company can apply to join the Binge On
> program. "Anyone who can meet our technical requirement, we’ll include," he
> said. "This is not a net neutrality problem." Legere pointed to the fact
> that Binge On doesn't charge providers for inclusion and customers don't pay
> to access it."
> http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/10/9704482/t-mobile-uncarrier-binge-on-netflix-hbo-streaming
>
>
>
> On 11/20/15 10:45 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>>
>> According to:
>>
>>
>> http://www.engadget.com/2015/11/20/fcc-chairman-gives-t-mobiles-binge-on-the-thumbs-up/
>>
>> Chairman Wheeler thinks that T-mob's new "customers can get uncapped media
>> stream data, but only from the people we like" service called Binge On
>> is pro-competition.
>>
>> My take on this is that the service is *precisely* what Net Neutrality
>> was supposed to prevent -- carriers offering paid fast-lanes to content
>> providers -- and that this is anti-competitive to the sort of "upstart
>> YouTube" entities that NN was supposed to protect...
>>
>> and that *that* is the competition that NN was supposed to protect.
>>
>> And I just said the same thing two different ways.
>>
>> Cause does anyone here think that T-mob is giving those *carriers* pride
>> of place *for free*?
>>
>> Corporations don't - in my experience - give away lots of money out of
>> the goodness of their hearts.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -- jr 'whacky weekend' a
>
>

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Michael Thomas]

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 only from the people we like" service called Binge On
is pro-competition.

My take on this is that the service is *precisely* what Net Neutrality
was supposed to prevent -- carriers offering paid fast-lanes to content
providers -- and that this is anti-competitive to the sort of "upstart
YouTube" entities that NN was supposed to protect...

and that *that* is the competition that NN was supposed to protect.

What I read was that as long as a video offerer marks its traffic and
is certified in a few other ways, anyone can send video content
cap-free. No I don't know what the criteria are. Does anyone here? I
also think I remember that there is no significant cost to
certification, i.e. this is not a paid fast lane.  If this is all
true, this doesn't bother me, and could do everyone a favor by getting
definitions clearer and getting traffic marked.



Why do you need certification? I doubt many people have a problem with 
qos marking,

but "certification" sort of gives me the creeps.

Mike

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Jay Ashworth]

- 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 no significant cost to
> certification, i.e. this is not a paid fast lane. If this is all
> true, this doesn't bother me, and could do everyone a favor by getting
> definitions clearer and getting traffic marked.

Izzat so.

If that's true, then more power to them.  I hadn't seen that deep a dive
in any of the coverage I'd read.

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink   j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates   http://www.bcp38.info  2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA  BCP38: Ask For It By Name!   +1 727 647 1274

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Clay Curtis]

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 to look past the fact that this is a violation of basic net
neutrality.  Reminds me of the boiling frog analogy (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog).

Clay

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 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, one tenet of Net
> Neutrality]  Because there are fewer operators there will be less
> competition. Less competition increases prices and fewer customers take the
> service. Because few people use the application, the network operator has
> no incentive to support the application well.  [Note, we just reduced the
> freedom to run applications] Because the network doesn't support the
> application well, few people use the application. It's circular and it
> slows growth.
>
> Just because there may be inherent challenges to offering an application
> (bandwidth, for example), doesn't mean that adding another one (per
> application bandwidth caps) is desirable.
>
> Josh Reynolds wrote on 11/20/2015 11:29 AM:
>
>> How much medical imaging and video conference and online backup is
>> done over cell networks? Those are very high bandwidth tasks that
>> would quickly suck up a data cap. Until LTE came along, doing that was
>> often hit/miss as far as the reliability of the connection and the
>> speed.
>>
>> In an area with LTE, there are often better connectivity options. In
>> an area without LTE, well, how much medical imaging and data backup is
>> done over those 3G and satellite connections?
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Blake Hudson  wrote:
>>
>>> Considering T-Mobile's proposal is intended to favor streaming music and
>>> video services, I think it clearly violates net neutrality which is
>>> intended
>>> to not only promote competition in existing applications, but also in new
>>> (possibly undeveloped) applications. This proposal simply entrenches
>>> streaming video/music by artificially reducing the cost to operators in
>>> these fields while leaving costs the same for operators in other fields -
>>> medical imaging, video conferencing, online backup, etc. I believe the
>>> sum
>>> affect is a reduction in competition and growth of the internet as a
>>> whole,
>>> the antithesis to the spirit of net neutrality.
>>>
>>
>

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Joly MacFie]

​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 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, one tenet of Net
> Neutrality]  Because there are fewer operators there will be less
> competition. Less competition increases prices and fewer customers take the
> service. Because few people use the application, the network operator has
> no incentive to support the application well.  [Note, we just reduced the
> freedom to run applications] Because the network doesn't support the
> application well, few people use the application. It's circular and it
> slows growth.
>
> Just because there may be inherent challenges to offering an application
> (bandwidth, for example), doesn't mean that adding another one (per
> application bandwidth caps) is desirable.

-- 
---
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
--
-

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Blake Hudson]

Considering T-Mobile's proposal is intended to favor streaming music and 
video services, I think it clearly violates net neutrality which is 
intended to not only promote competition in existing applications, but 
also in new (possibly undeveloped) applications. This proposal simply 
entrenches streaming video/music by artificially reducing the cost to 
operators in these fields while leaving costs the same for operators in 
other fields - medical imaging, video conferencing, online backup, etc. 
I believe the sum affect is a reduction in competition and growth of the 
internet as a whole, the antithesis to the spirit of net neutrality.

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Blake Hudson]

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, one tenet of Net 
Neutrality]  Because there are fewer operators there will be less 
competition. Less competition increases prices and fewer customers take 
the service. Because few people use the application, the network 
operator has no incentive to support the application well.  [Note, we 
just reduced the freedom to run applications] Because the network 
doesn't support the application well, few people use the application. 
It's circular and it slows growth.


Just because there may be inherent challenges to offering an application 
(bandwidth, for example), doesn't mean that adding another one (per 
application bandwidth caps) is desirable.


Josh Reynolds wrote on 11/20/2015 11:29 AM:

How much medical imaging and video conference and online backup is
done over cell networks? Those are very high bandwidth tasks that
would quickly suck up a data cap. Until LTE came along, doing that was
often hit/miss as far as the reliability of the connection and the
speed.

In an area with LTE, there are often better connectivity options. In
an area without LTE, well, how much medical imaging and data backup is
done over those 3G and satellite connections?

On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Blake Hudson  wrote:

Considering T-Mobile's proposal is intended to favor streaming music and
video services, I think it clearly violates net neutrality which is intended
to not only promote competition in existing applications, but also in new
(possibly undeveloped) applications. This proposal simply entrenches
streaming video/music by artificially reducing the cost to operators in
these fields while leaving costs the same for operators in other fields -
medical imaging, video conferencing, online backup, etc. I believe the sum
affect is a reduction in competition and growth of the internet as a whole,
the antithesis to the spirit of net neutrality.

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Lyle Giese]

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.'


But I think this answer is more in line with the intent of your 
question, why would someone want to try to startup a new service that 
doesn't fit within the guidelines of these 'free' services.


Lyle Giese
LCR Computer Services, Inc.

On 11/20/2015 12:30 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?

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 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, one tenet of Net
Neutrality]  Because there are fewer operators there will be less
competition. Less competition increases prices and fewer customers take the
service. Because few people use the application, the network operator has
no incentive to support the application well.  [Note, we just reduced the
freedom to run applications] Because the network doesn't support the
application well, few people use the application. It's circular and it
slows growth.

Just because there may be inherent challenges to offering an application
(bandwidth, for example), doesn't mean that adding another one (per
application bandwidth caps) is desirable.

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Owen DeLong]

It’s a full page of standards in a relatively large font with decent spacing.

Given that bluetooth is several hundred pages, I’d say this is pretty 
reasonable.

Having read through the page, I don’t see anything onerous in the requirements. 
In fact, it looks to me
like the bare minimum of reasonable and an expression by T-Mo of a willingness 
to expend a fair amount
of effort to integrate content providers.

I don’t see anything here that hurts net neutrality and I applaud this as 
actually being a potential boon
to consumers and a potentially good model of how to implement ZRB in a 
net-neutral way going
forward.

Owen

> On Nov 20, 2015, at 09:03 , Steve Mikulasik  wrote:
> 
> That is much better than I thought. Although, I don't think the person who 
> wrote this understands what UDP is.
> 
> "Use of technology protocols that are demonstrated to prevent video stream 
> detection, such as User Datagram Protocol “UDP” on any platform will exclude 
> video streams from that content provider"
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Ian Smith [mailto:i.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/pdf/BingeOn-Video-Technical-Criteria-November-2015.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Steve Mikulasik
> Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 11:37 AM
> To: Shane Ronan ; nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: RE: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
> 
> What are these technical requirements? I feel like these would punish small 
> upstarts well helping protect large incumbent services from competition. 
> 
> Even if you don't demand payment, you can still hurt the fairness of the 
> internet this way. 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-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, Legere said any company can apply to join the Binge On 
> program. "Anyone who can meet our technical requirement, we’ll include," 
> he said. "This is not a net neutrality problem." Legere pointed to the fact 
> that Binge On doesn't charge providers for inclusion and customers don't pay 
> to access it."
> http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/10/9704482/t-mobile-uncarrier-binge-on-netflix-hbo-streaming
> 
> 
> On 11/20/15 10:45 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>> According to:
>> 
>> 
>> http://www.engadget.com/2015/11/20/fcc-chairman-gives-t-mobiles-binge-
>> on-the-thumbs-up/
>> 
>> Chairman Wheeler thinks that T-mob's new "customers can get uncapped 
>> media stream data, but only from the people we like" service called 
>> Binge On is pro-competition.
>> 
>> My take on this is that the service is *precisely* what Net Neutrality 
>> was supposed to prevent -- carriers offering paid fast-lanes to 
>> content providers -- and that this is anti-competitive to the sort of 
>> "upstart YouTube" entities that NN was supposed to protect...
>> 
>> and that *that* is the competition that NN was supposed to protect.
>> 
>> And I just said the same thing two different ways.
>> 
>> Cause does anyone here think that T-mob is giving those *carriers* 
>> pride of place *for free*?
>> 
>> Corporations don't - in my experience - give away lots of money out of 
>> the goodness of their hearts.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> -- jr 'whacky weekend' a
> 

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[William Herrin]

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


-- 
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: 

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Blake Hudson]

Not that I mind getting significantly more service at little additional 
cost - as proposed by T-Mobile. But I would have preferred to simply get 
unlimited data usage (or a much larger monthly allotment) and had the 
freedom to use that data how I see fit. Comparing the two options, I 
think one is more neutral than the other.


Owen DeLong wrote on 11/20/2015 3:50 PM:

It’s a full page of standards in a relatively large font with decent spacing.

Given that bluetooth is several hundred pages, I’d say this is pretty 
reasonable.

Having read through the page, I don’t see anything onerous in the requirements. 
In fact, it looks to me
like the bare minimum of reasonable and an expression by T-Mo of a willingness 
to expend a fair amount
of effort to integrate content providers.

I don’t see anything here that hurts net neutrality and I applaud this as 
actually being a potential boon
to consumers and a potentially good model of how to implement ZRB in a 
net-neutral way going
forward.

Owen


On Nov 20, 2015, at 09:03 , Steve Mikulasik  wrote:

That is much better than I thought. Although, I don't think the person who 
wrote this understands what UDP is.

"Use of technology protocols that are demonstrated to prevent video stream 
detection, such as User Datagram Protocol “UDP” on any platform will exclude video 
streams from that content provider"


-Original Message-
From: Ian Smith [mailto:i.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/pdf/BingeOn-Video-Technical-Criteria-November-2015.pdf



-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Steve Mikulasik
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 11:37 AM
To: Shane Ronan ; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

What are these technical requirements? I feel like these would punish small 
upstarts well helping protect large incumbent services from competition.

Even if you don't demand payment, you can still hurt the fairness of the 
internet this way.


-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-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, Legere said any company can apply to join the Binge On program. 
"Anyone who can meet our technical requirement, we’ll include,"
he said. "This is not a net neutrality problem." Legere pointed to the fact that 
Binge On doesn't charge providers for inclusion and customers don't pay to access it."
http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/10/9704482/t-mobile-uncarrier-binge-on-netflix-hbo-streaming


On 11/20/15 10:45 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:

According to:


http://www.engadget.com/2015/11/20/fcc-chairman-gives-t-mobiles-binge-
on-the-thumbs-up/

Chairman Wheeler thinks that T-mob's new "customers can get uncapped
media stream data, but only from the people we like" service called
Binge On is pro-competition.

My take on this is that the service is *precisely* what Net Neutrality
was supposed to prevent -- carriers offering paid fast-lanes to
content providers -- and that this is anti-competitive to the sort of
"upstart YouTube" entities that NN was supposed to protect...

and that *that* is the competition that NN was supposed to protect.

And I just said the same thing two different ways.

Cause does anyone here think that T-mob is giving those *carriers*
pride of place *for free*?

Corporations don't - in my experience - give away lots of money out of
the goodness of their hearts.

Cheers,
-- jr 'whacky weekend' a

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Chris Adams]

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
> fit. Comparing the two options, I think one is more neutral than the
> other.

So, lucky you: most T-Mobile data plans are doubling in size as well
(same announcement).  They do also offer an unlimited data plan (don't
know the caveats, probably some apply).

-- 
Chris Adams 

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Owen DeLong]

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  wrote:
> 
> That is much better than I thought. Although, I don't think the person who 
> wrote this understands what UDP is.
> 
> "Use of technology protocols that are demonstrated to prevent video stream 
> detection, such as User Datagram Protocol “UDP” on any platform will exclude 
> video streams from that content provider"
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Ian Smith [mailto:i.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/pdf/BingeOn-Video-Technical-Criteria-November-2015.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Steve Mikulasik
> Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 11:37 AM
> To: Shane Ronan ; nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: RE: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
> 
> What are these technical requirements? I feel like these would punish small 
> upstarts well helping protect large incumbent services from competition. 
> 
> Even if you don't demand payment, you can still hurt the fairness of the 
> internet this way. 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-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, Legere said any company can apply to join the Binge On 
> program. "Anyone who can meet our technical requirement, we’ll include," 
> he said. "This is not a net neutrality problem." Legere pointed to the fact 
> that Binge On doesn't charge providers for inclusion and customers don't pay 
> to access it."
> http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/10/9704482/t-mobile-uncarrier-binge-on-netflix-hbo-streaming
> 
> 
> On 11/20/15 10:45 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>> According to:
>> 
>> 
>> http://www.engadget.com/2015/11/20/fcc-chairman-gives-t-mobiles-binge-
>> on-the-thumbs-up/
>> 
>> Chairman Wheeler thinks that T-mob's new "customers can get uncapped 
>> media stream data, but only from the people we like" service called 
>> Binge On is pro-competition.
>> 
>> My take on this is that the service is *precisely* what Net Neutrality 
>> was supposed to prevent -- carriers offering paid fast-lanes to 
>> content providers -- and that this is anti-competitive to the sort of 
>> "upstart YouTube" entities that NN was supposed to protect...
>> 
>> and that *that* is the competition that NN was supposed to protect.
>> 
>> And I just said the same thing two different ways.
>> 
>> Cause does anyone here think that T-mob is giving those *carriers* 
>> pride of place *for free*?
>> 
>> Corporations don't - in my experience - give away lots of money out of 
>> the goodness of their hearts.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> -- jr 'whacky weekend' a
> 

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Owen DeLong]

Unlimited data plan is $30/mo.

Other than the usual cellular caveats of coverage sucks in lots of places and 
data
rates can be slow when you’re in a densely populated area, congestion, 
oversubscription,
etc… Doesn’t seem to have any problems. I’ve been on that plan for most of a 
year now.

The biggest problem I have (other than occasionally terrible call quality) is 
that due
to religious stupidity, they refuse to support IPv6 over LTE for iOS.

Owen

> On Nov 20, 2015, at 14:09 , Chris Adams  wrote:
> 
> 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
>> fit. Comparing the two options, I think one is more neutral than the
>> other.
> 
> So, lucky you: most T-Mobile data plans are doubling in size as well
> (same announcement).  They do also offer an unlimited data plan (don't
> know the caveats, probably some apply).
> 
> -- 
> Chris Adams 

RE: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Ian Smith]

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 Mikulasik
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 11:37 AM
To: Shane Ronan ; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

What are these technical requirements? I feel like these would punish small 
upstarts well helping protect large incumbent services from competition. 

Even if you don't demand payment, you can still hurt the fairness of the 
internet this way. 


-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-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, Legere said any company can apply to join the Binge On program. 
"Anyone who can meet our technical requirement, we’ll include," 
he said. "This is not a net neutrality problem." Legere pointed to the fact 
that Binge On doesn't charge providers for inclusion and customers don't pay to 
access it."
http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/10/9704482/t-mobile-uncarrier-binge-on-netflix-hbo-streaming


On 11/20/15 10:45 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> According to:
>
>
> http://www.engadget.com/2015/11/20/fcc-chairman-gives-t-mobiles-binge-
> on-the-thumbs-up/
>
> Chairman Wheeler thinks that T-mob's new "customers can get uncapped 
> media stream data, but only from the people we like" service called 
> Binge On is pro-competition.
>
> My take on this is that the service is *precisely* what Net Neutrality 
> was supposed to prevent -- carriers offering paid fast-lanes to 
> content providers -- and that this is anti-competitive to the sort of 
> "upstart YouTube" entities that NN was supposed to protect...
>
> and that *that* is the competition that NN was supposed to protect.
>
> And I just said the same thing two different ways.
>
> Cause does anyone here think that T-mob is giving those *carriers* 
> pride of place *for free*?
>
> Corporations don't - in my experience - give away lots of money out of 
> the goodness of their hearts.
>
> Cheers,
> -- jr 'whacky weekend' a

RE: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Steve Mikulasik]

Requiring streaming companies not to use UDP is pretty absurd. Surely they must 
be able to identify streaming traffic without needing TCP.

Sent from my Windows Phone

From: Owen DeLong
Sent: ‎11/‎20/‎2015 4:32 PM
To: Steve Mikulasik
Cc: Ian Smith; 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  wrote:
>
> That is much better than I thought. Although, I don't think the person who 
> wrote this understands what UDP is.
>
> "Use of technology protocols that are demonstrated to prevent video stream 
> detection, such as User Datagram Protocol “UDP” on any platform will exclude 
> video streams from that content provider"
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ian Smith [mailto:i.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/pdf/BingeOn-Video-Technical-Criteria-November-2015.pdf
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Steve Mikulasik
> Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 11:37 AM
> To: Shane Ronan ; nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: RE: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
>
> What are these technical requirements? I feel like these would punish small 
> upstarts well helping protect large incumbent services from competition.
>
> Even if you don't demand payment, you can still hurt the fairness of the 
> internet this way.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-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, Legere said any company can apply to join the Binge On 
> program. "Anyone who can meet our technical requirement, we’ll include,"
> he said. "This is not a net neutrality problem." Legere pointed to the fact 
> that Binge On doesn't charge providers for inclusion and customers don't pay 
> to access it."
> http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/10/9704482/t-mobile-uncarrier-binge-on-netflix-hbo-streaming
>
>
> On 11/20/15 10:45 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>> According to:
>>
>>
>> http://www.engadget.com/2015/11/20/fcc-chairman-gives-t-mobiles-binge-
>> on-the-thumbs-up/
>>
>> Chairman Wheeler thinks that T-mob's new "customers can get uncapped
>> media stream data, but only from the people we like" service called
>> Binge On is pro-competition.
>>
>> My take on this is that the service is *precisely* what Net Neutrality
>> was supposed to prevent -- carriers offering paid fast-lanes to
>> content providers -- and that this is anti-competitive to the sort of
>> "upstart YouTube" entities that NN was supposed to protect...
>>
>> and that *that* is the competition that NN was supposed to protect.
>>
>> And I just said the same thing two different ways.
>>
>> Cause does anyone here think that T-mob is giving those *carriers*
>> pride of place *for free*?
>>
>> Corporations don't - in my experience - give away lots of money out of
>> the goodness of their hearts.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -- jr 'whacky weekend' a
>