nanog mailing list archives
Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
From: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 18:05:44 -0800
On Nov 23, 2015, at 17:28 , Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl () gmail com> wrote: On 24 November 2015 at 00:22, Owen DeLong <owen () 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. 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. Owen
Current thread:
- Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?, (continued)
- Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Joly MacFie (Nov 20)
- Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Lyle Giese (Nov 20)
- Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? William Herrin (Nov 20)
- Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Christian Kuhtz (Nov 23)
- Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Owen DeLong (Nov 23)
- Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Christopher Morrow (Nov 23)
- Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Owen DeLong (Nov 23)
- Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Mark Andrews (Nov 23)
- Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Owen DeLong (Nov 23)
- Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Baldur Norddahl (Nov 23)
- Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Owen DeLong (Nov 23)
- Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Mark Andrews (Nov 23)
- Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Keenan Tims (Nov 23)
- Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Mike Hammett (Nov 24)
- RE: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Tony Hain (Nov 26)
- Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Sander Steffann (Nov 24)
- Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Owen DeLong (Nov 23)
- Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Jean-Francois Mezei (Nov 25)
- Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Jean-Francois Mezei (Nov 25)
- RE: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Keith Medcalf (Nov 28)