Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[joelja at bogus.com (joel jaeggli)]

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 at delong.com> Sent: ?11/?20/?2015 4:32 PM To:
> Steve Mikulasik<mailto:Steve.Mikulasik at civeo.com> Cc: Ian
> Smith<mailto:I.Smith at F5.com>;
> nanog at nanog.org<mailto:nanog at nanog.org> Subject: Re: Binge On! - And
> So This is Net Neutrality?
> 
> I think they actually might? It?s very hard to identify streams in
> UDP since UDP is stateless.
> 
> Owen
> 
>> On Nov 20, 2015, at 09:03 , Steve Mikulasik
>> <Steve.Mikulasik at civeo.com> wrote:
>> 
>> That is much better than I thought. Although, I don't think the
>> person who wrote this understands what UDP is.
>> 
>> "Use of technology protocols that are demonstrated to prevent video
>> stream detection, such as User Datagram Protocol ?UDP? on any
>> platform will exclude video streams from that content provider"
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message----- From: Ian Smith [mailto:I.Smith at F5.com] 
>> Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 9:52 AM To: Steve Mikulasik
>> <Steve.Mikulasik at civeo.com>; Shane Ronan <shane at ronan-online.com>;
>> nanog at nanog.org Subject: RE: Binge On! - And So This is Net
>> Neutrality?
>> 
>> http://www.t-mobile.com/content/dam/tmo/en-g/pdf/BingeOn-Video-Technical-Criteria-November-2015.pdf
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
-----Original Message-----
>> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Steve
>> Mikulasik Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 11:37 AM To: Shane Ronan
>> <shane at ronan-online.com>; nanog at nanog.org Subject: RE: Binge On! -
>> And So This is Net Neutrality?
>> 
>> What are these technical requirements? I feel like these would
>> punish small upstarts well helping protect large incumbent services
>> from competition.
>> 
>> Even if you don't demand payment, you can still hurt the fairness
>> of the internet this way.
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message----- From: NANOG
>> [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Shane Ronan Sent:
>> Friday, November 20, 2015 9:25 AM To: nanog at nanog.org Subject: Re:
>> Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
>> 
>> T-Mobile claims they are not accepting any payment from these
>> content providers for inclusion in Binge On.
>> 
>> "Onstage today, Legere said any company can apply to join the Binge
>> On program. "Anyone who can meet our technical requirement, we?ll
>> 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." 
>> http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/10/9704482/t-mobile-uncarrier-binge-on-netflix-hbo-streaming
>>
>>
>>
>> 
On 11/20/15 10:45 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>>> According to:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> http://www.engadget.com/2015/11/20/fcc-chairman-gives-t-mobiles-binge-
>>>
>>> 
on-the-thumbs-up/
>>> 
>>> 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.
>>> 
>>> 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...
>>> 
>>> and that *that* is the competition that NN was supposed to
>>> protect.
>>> 
>>> And I just said the same thing two different ways.
>>> 
>>> Cause does anyone here think that T-mob is giving those
>>> *carriers* pride of place *for free*?
>>> 
>>> Corporations don't - in my experience - give away lots of money
>>> out of the goodness of their hearts.
>>> 
>>> Cheers, -- jr 'whacky weekend' a
>> 
> 
> 


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 229 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20151121/1a0f025b/attachment.pgp>