Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[marka at isc.org (Mark Andrews)]

In message <CE4E1597-280D-4A37-9DC8-0CE3FFBD86E5 at delong.com>, Owen DeLong write
s:
>
> > On Nov 23, 2015, at 17:28 , Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > On 24 November 2015 at 00:22, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Are there a significant number (ANY?) streaming video providers using
> >> UDP to deliver their streams?
> >>
> >
> > What else could we have that is UDP based? Ah voice calls. Video calls.
> > Stuff that requires low latency and where TCP retransmit of stale data
> > is bad. Media without buffering because it is real time.
> >
> > And why would a telco want to zero rate all the bandwidth heavy media
> > with certain exceptions? Like not zero rating media that happens to
> > compete with some of their own services, such as voice calls and video
> > calls.
> >
> > Yes sounds like net neutrality to me too (or not!).
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Baldur
>
> All T-Mobile plans include unlimited 128kbps data, so a voice call is
> effectively already zero-rated for all practical purposes.
>
> I guess the question is: Is it better for the consumer to pay for
> everything equally, or, is it reasonable for carriers to be able to
> give away some free data without opening it up to everything?
>
> To me, net neutrality isn???t as much about what you charge the customer
> for the data, it???s about whether you prioritize certain classes of
> traffic to the detriment of others in terms of service delivery.
>
> If T-Mobile were taking money from the video streaming services or only
> accepting certain video streaming services, I???d likely agree with you
> that this is a neutrality issue.
>
> However, in this case, it appears to me that they aren???t trying to give
> an advantage to any particular competing streaming video service over
> the other, they aren???t taking money from participants in the program,
> and consumers stand to benefit from it.

It not being neutral over the content.  If content != "video stream
we like" then you will be penalised when the customer goes over
their data limit.

> If you see an actual way in which it???s better for everyone if T-Mobile
> weren???t doing this, then please explain it. If not, then this strikes
> me as harmless and overall benefits consumers.

Actually this is as harmful as NAT for the same reasons as NAT.  It
a opportunity cost at a minimum.

T-Mo could have just increased the data limits by the data usage
of 7x24 standard definition video stream and achieved the same thing
in a totally network neutral way.  Instead they choose to play
favourites with a type of technology.

We are giving X Gigs of additional data. This is enough to allow
you to stream your favourite video channels at standard definition
all day long and not run out of data.

> Owen

Mark
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka at isc.org