[186044] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mike Hammett)
Tue Nov 24 07:47:06 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 06:46:54 -0600 (CST)
From: Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <5653D2BB.8030704@stargate.ca>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Not so much to Keenan, but the thread as a whole.=20
It continually amazes me the lack comprehension of the entire network world=
so many on this list have. They've confined to their little bubble of 100G=
igE pipes everywhere and everyone should just have balls to the walls every=
thing all of the time. Maybe NANOG needs to have some sessions on putting p=
eople into the real world or maybe teach practicality in all circumstances.=
=20
-----=20
Mike Hammett=20
Intelligent Computing Solutions=20
http://www.ics-il.com=20
----- Original Message -----
From: "Keenan Tims" <ktims@stargate.ca>=20
To: nanog@nanog.org=20
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2015 9:00:11 PM=20
Subject: Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?=20
I'm surprised you're supporting T-Mob here Owen. To me it's pretty=20
clear: they are charging more for bits that are not streaming video.=20
That's not neutral treatment from a policy perspective, and has no basis=20
in the cost of operating the network.=20
Granted, the network itself is neutral, but the purported purpose of NN=20
in my eyes is twofold: take away the influence of the network on user=20
and operator behaviour, and encourage an open market in network services=20
(both content and access). Allowing zero-rating based on *any* criteria=20
gives them a strong influence over what the end users are going to do=20
with their network connection, and distorts the market for network=20
services. What makes streaming video special to merit zero-rating?=20
I like Clay's connection to the boiling frog. Yes, it's "nice" for most=20
consumers now, but it's still distorting the market.=20
I'm also not seeing why they have to make this so complicated. If they=20
can afford to zero-rate high-bandwidth services like video and audio=20
streaming, clearly there is network capacity to spare. The user=20
behaviour they're encouraging with free video streaming is *precisely*=20
what the incumbents claimed was causing congestion to merit throttling a=20
few years ago, and still to this day whine about constantly. I don't=20
have data, but I would expect usage of this to align quite nicely with=20
their current peaks.=20
Why not just raise the caps to something reasonable or make it unlimited=20
across the board? I could even get behind zero-rating all=20
'off-peak-hours' use like we used to have for mobile voice; at least=20
that makes sense for the network. What they're doing though is product=20
differentiation where none exists; in fact the zero-rating is likely to=20
cause more load on the system than just doubling or tripling the users'=20
caps. That there seems to be little obvious justification for it from a=20
network perspective makes me vary wary.=20
Keenan=20
On 2015-11-23 18:05, Owen DeLong wrote:=20
>=20
>> On Nov 23, 2015, at 17:28 , Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> =
wrote:=20
>>=20
>> On 24 November 2015 at 00:22, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:=20
>>=20
>>> Are there a significant number (ANY?) streaming video providers using U=
DP=20
>>> to deliver their streams?=20
>>>=20
>>=20
>> What else could we have that is UDP based? Ah voice calls. Video calls.=
=20
>> Stuff that requires low latency and where TCP retransmit of stale data i=
s=20
>> bad. Media without buffering because it is real time.=20
>>=20
>> And why would a telco want to zero rate all the bandwidth heavy media wi=
th=20
>> certain exceptions? Like not zero rating media that happens to compete w=
ith=20
>> some of their own services, such as voice calls and video calls.=20
>>=20
>> Yes sounds like net neutrality to me too (or not!).=20
>>=20
>> Regards,=20
>>=20
>> Baldur=20
>=20
> All T-Mobile plans include unlimited 128kbps data, so a voice call is eff=
ectively=20
> already zero-rated for all practical purposes.=20
>=20
> I guess the question is: Is it better for the consumer to pay for everyth=
ing equally,=20
> or, is it reasonable for carriers to be able to give away some free data =
without opening=20
> it up to everything?=20
>=20
> To me, net neutrality isn=E2=80=99t as much about what you charge the cus=
tomer for the data, it=E2=80=99s about=20
> whether you prioritize certain classes of traffic to the detriment of oth=
ers in terms of=20
> service delivery.=20
>=20
> If T-Mobile were taking money from the video streaming services or only a=
ccepting=20
> certain video streaming services, I=E2=80=99d likely agree with you that =
this is a neutrality=20
> issue.=20
>=20
> However, in this case, it appears to me that they aren=E2=80=99t trying t=
o give an advantage to=20
> any particular competing streaming video service over the other, they are=
n=E2=80=99t taking=20
> money from participants in the program, and consumers stand to benefit fr=
om it.=20
>=20
> If you see an actual way in which it=E2=80=99s better for everyone if T-M=
obile weren=E2=80=99t doing this,=20
> then please explain it. If not, then this strikes me as harmless and over=
all benefits=20
> consumers.=20
>=20
> Owen=20
>=20
