Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
owen at delong.com
Tue Nov 24 02:05:44 UTC 2015
> On Nov 23, 2015, at 17:28 , Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 24 November 2015 at 00:22, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> 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!).
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
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
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
More information about the NANOG