Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

Mon Nov 23 22:58:17 UTC 2015

In message <E24772E7-A95B-4866-9630-2B1023EBD4FD at delong.com>, Owen DeLong write
s:
>
> > On Nov 23, 2015, at 14:16 , Christopher Morrow
> <morrowc.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 5:12 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> >> Except thereâ€™s no revenue share here. According to T-Mobile, the
> streaming partners
> >> arenâ€™t paying anything to T-Mo and T-Mo isnâ€™t paying them. Itâ€™s kind
> of like zero-rating
> >> in that the customers donâ€™t pay bandwidth charges, but itâ€™s different
> in that the service
> >> provider isnâ€™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 donâ€™t think thereâ€™s an exchange per se in this case,
> given that T-Mo
> is (at least apparently) willing to accommodate any streaming provider
> that wants to
> participate so long as they are willing to conform to a fairly basic set
> of technical criteria.

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

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

Mark

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