[186005] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (joel jaeggli)
Sat Nov 21 05:41:27 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
To: Steve Mikulasik <Steve.Mikulasik@civeo.com>, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
From: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 02:41:11 -0800
In-Reply-To: <CY1PR07MB2200D8BD0D81AD58BBA71DAFFA1A0@CY1PR07MB2200.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--7QqFjoQvq0xSUDIbIrU0vTtqvA5XtPO0O
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1256
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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<mailto:owen@delong.com> Sent: =FD11/=FD20/=FD2015 4:32 PM T=
o:
> Steve Mikulasik<mailto:Steve.Mikulasik@civeo.com> Cc: Ian
> Smith<mailto:I.Smith@F5.com>;
> nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: Binge On! - And
> So This is Net Neutrality?
>=20
> I think they actually might=85 It=92s very hard to identify streams in
> UDP since UDP is stateless.
>=20
> Owen
>=20
>> 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 =93UDP=94 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-Technic=
al-Criteria-November-2015.pdf
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>=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
>> Even if you don't demand payment, you can still hurt the fairness
>> of the internet this way.
>>=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=92ll
>> 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."=20
>> http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/10/9704482/t-mobile-uncarrier-binge-on=
-netflix-hbo-streaming
>>
>>
>>
>>=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=
-
>>>
>>>=20
on-the-thumbs-up/
>>>=20
>>> 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.
>>>=20
>>> 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...
>>>=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* pride of place *for free*?
>>>=20
>>> Corporations don't - in my experience - give away lots of money
>>> out of the goodness of their hearts.
>>>=20
>>> Cheers, -- jr 'whacky weekend' a
>>=20
>=20
>=20
--7QqFjoQvq0xSUDIbIrU0vTtqvA5XtPO0O
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
iEYEARECAAYFAlZQSkcACgkQ8AA1q7Z/VrL0ZACfdJSfUz2mgAk/gpYbZH8qPXon
oBQAniAMj88cgeOs+tcHLLhjmpBJk4DG
=R7PR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--7QqFjoQvq0xSUDIbIrU0vTtqvA5XtPO0O--
