[186340] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ethan Katz-Bassett)
Thu Dec 10 18:05:02 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <7CD49BA4-217C-4669-A0FA-9D6E586C4ABD@delong.com>
From: Ethan Katz-Bassett <ethan@cs.washington.edu>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 23:04:49 +0000
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 3:26 PM Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 23, 2015, at 14:58 , Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > In message <E24772E7-A95B-4866-9630-2B1023EBD4FD@delong.com <mailto:
> E24772E7-A95B-4866-9630-2B1023EBD4FD@delong.com>>, Owen DeLong write
> > s:
> >>
> >>> On Nov 23, 2015, at 14:16 , Christopher Morrow
> >> <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 5:12 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
> >>>> Except there=E2=80=99s no revenue share here. According to T-Mobile,=
the
> >> streaming partners
> >>>> aren=E2=80=99t paying anything to T-Mo and T-Mo isn=E2=80=99t paying=
them. It=E2=80=99s kind
> >> of like zero-rating
> >>>> in that the customers don=E2=80=99t pay bandwidth charges, but it=E2=
=80=99s different
> >> in that the service
> >>>> provider isn=E2=80=99t being asked to subsidize the network provider=
(usual
> >> implementation of
> >>>> zero-rating).
> >>>
> >>> equal exchange of value doesn't have to be dollars/pesos/euros
> >>> changing hands right?
> >>> -chris
> >>
> >> Sure, but I really don=E2=80=99t think there=E2=80=99s an exchange per=
se in this case,
> >> given that T-Mo
> >> is (at least apparently) willing to accommodate any streaming provider
> >> that wants to
> >> participate so long as they are willing to conform to a fairly basic s=
et
> >> of technical criteria.
> >
> > No. This is T-Mo saying they are neutral but not actually being so.
> > This is like writing a job add for one particular person.
> >
> > Its just as easy to identify a UDP stream as it is a TCP stream.
> > You can ratelimit a UDP stream as easily as a TCP stream. You can
> > have congestion control over UDP as well as over TCP. Just because
> > the base transport doesn't give you some of these and you have to
> > implement them higher up the stack is no reason to throw out a
> > transport.
>
> Are there a significant number (ANY?) streaming video providers using UDP
> to deliver their streams?
>
> I admit I=E2=80=99m mostly ignorant here, but at least the ones I=E2=80=
=99m familiar with
> all use TCP.
>
Interesting discussion.
Minor point answering Owen's question: YouTube is a major streaming video
provider that uses UDP:
http://blog.chromium.org/2015/04/a-quic-update-on-googles-experimental.html
https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/94/slides/slides-94-tcpm-8.pdf (see slide
4)
