[185991] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Fri Nov 20 18:33:31 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <CY1PR07MB22004F61664032E373E3C97BFA1A0@CY1PR07MB2200.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 15:31:53 -0800
To: Steve Mikulasik <Steve.Mikulasik@civeo.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
I think they actually might=E2=80=A6 It=E2=80=99s very hard to identify =
streams in UDP since UDP is stateless.
Owen
> On Nov 20, 2015, at 09:03 , Steve Mikulasik =
<Steve.Mikulasik@civeo.com> wrote:
>=20
> That is much better than I thought. Although, I don't think the person =
who wrote this understands what UDP is.
>=20
> "Use of technology protocols that are demonstrated to prevent video =
stream detection, such as User Datagram Protocol =E2=80=9CUDP=E2=80=9D =
on any platform will exclude video streams from that content provider"
>=20
>=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Smith [mailto:I.Smith@F5.com]=20
> Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 9:52 AM
> To: Steve Mikulasik <Steve.Mikulasik@civeo.com>; Shane Ronan =
<shane@ronan-online.com>; nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: RE: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
>=20
> =
http://www.t-mobile.com/content/dam/tmo/en-g/pdf/BingeOn-Video-Technical-C=
riteria-November-2015.pdf
>=20
>=20
>=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Steve =
Mikulasik
> Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 11:37 AM
> To: Shane Ronan <shane@ronan-online.com>; nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: RE: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
>=20
> What are these technical requirements? I feel like these would punish =
small upstarts well helping protect large incumbent services from =
competition.=20
>=20
> Even if you don't demand payment, you can still hurt the fairness of =
the internet this way.=20
>=20
>=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@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?
>=20
> T-Mobile claims they are not accepting any payment from these content =
providers for inclusion in Binge On.
>=20
> "Onstage today, Legere said any company can apply to join the Binge On =
program. "Anyone who can meet our technical requirement, we=E2=80=99ll =
include,"=20
> 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-net=
flix-hbo-streaming
>=20
>=20
> On 11/20/15 10:45 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>> According to:
>>=20
>>=20
>> =
http://www.engadget.com/2015/11/20/fcc-chairman-gives-t-mobiles-binge-
>> on-the-thumbs-up/
>>=20
>> Chairman Wheeler thinks that T-mob's new "customers can get uncapped=20=
>> media stream data, but only from the people we like" service called=20=
>> Binge On is pro-competition.
>>=20
>> My take on this is that the service is *precisely* what Net =
Neutrality=20
>> was supposed to prevent -- carriers offering paid fast-lanes to=20
>> content providers -- and that this is anti-competitive to the sort of=20=
>> "upstart YouTube" entities that NN was supposed to protect...
>>=20
>> and that *that* is the competition that NN was supposed to protect.
>>=20
>> And I just said the same thing two different ways.
>>=20
>> Cause does anyone here think that T-mob is giving those *carriers*=20
>> pride of place *for free*?
>>=20
>> Corporations don't - in my experience - give away lots of money out =
of=20
>> the goodness of their hearts.
>>=20
>> Cheers,
>> -- jr 'whacky weekend' a
>=20
