Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
marka at isc.org
Tue Nov 24 02:45:21 UTC 2015
In message <CE4E1597-280D-4A37-9DC8-0CE3FFBD86E5 at delong.com>, Owen DeLong write
> > On Nov 23, 2015, at 17:28 , Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl at gmail.com>
> > 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!).
> > 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 isnât as much about what you charge the customer
> for the data, itâs 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, Iâd likely agree with you
> that this is a neutrality issue.
> However, in this case, it appears to me that they arenât trying to give
> an advantage to any particular competing streaming video service over
> the other, they arenât 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 itâs better for everyone if T-Mobile
> werenât 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.
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka at isc.org
More information about the NANOG