Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[William Kenny <william.r.kenny () gmail com>]

In related news, Verizon and ATT WILL be charging their data partners:
http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/12/verizon-to-test-sponsored-data-let-companies-pay-to-bypass-data-caps/

"Verizon is reportedly set to begin testing a sponsored data program that
would let companies pay Verizon to deliver online services without using up
customers' data plans. The news comes from aRe/code interview
<http://recode.net/2015/12/09/verizon-to-start-testing-toll-free-data-in-coming-days/>
with
Verizon Executive VP Marni Walden. “The capabilities we’ve built allow us
to break down any byte that is carried across our network and have all or a
portion of that sponsored,” Walden told Re/code."

is that still net neutrality?

On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Collin Anderson <collin () averysmallbird com>
wrote:

> This thread seems to have run its course, but it was an interesting
> conversation, so I wanted to flag that the Open Technology Institute is
> running what seems to be a fairly balanced panel on the issue in D.C. next
> week. Might be worth asking if there's remote participation.
>
>
> https://newamerica.cvent.com/events/zero-rating-and-net-neutrality-is-free-content-naughty-or-nice-/registration-8e22b15178dc4fa88c2ebe19525262eb.aspx?i=d0db0beb-7340-47c8-8bcc-86d9d6cc85b8
>
> New America
> Please note our new address!
> 740 15th Street NW, Suite 900, Washington, DC 20005
> Wednesday, December 16, 2015 | 12:00 pm - 1:45 pm
>
>
> Even if the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upholds the FCC’s Open Internet
> Order, the ability of mobile carriers to exclude certain content from the
> data caps or buckets that determine what a user pays each month remains
> undecided and controversial. Although mobile carriers maintain that
> zero-rating selected content is pro-consumer, some consumer advocates argue
> the FCC should find it violates network neutrality rules against favoring
> some Internet content or applications over others.
>
> In the U.S., T-Mobile recently launched Binge On, which allows consumers to
> opt out of the delivery of 'free' (zero-rated) streaming video content at
> lower resolution (CD quality), and instead receive content at
> high-definition that counts against their data limit. T-Mobile also hosts
> Music Freedom, which zero-rates participating streaming music services.
>
> In the developing world, Facebook’s Free Basics initiative partners with
> mobile carriers to provide cell phone customers with low-bandwidth versions
> of participating information and social media apps (e.g., Wikipedia and
> Facebook itself) at no cost in the hope this exposure will encourage them
> to upgrade to full Internet access.
>
> Join us for an explanation and debate about zero-rating on mobile networks,
> featuring the two companies most visibly marketing the practice, as well as
> a range of perspectives from consumer and public interest advocates.
>
> Lunch will be served.
>
> Follow the discussion online using #ZeroRating
> and by following us @OTI.
>
> Participants:
> Kevin Martin
> Vice President for Mobile & Global Access, Facebook
> Former Chairman, FCC
> @facebook
>
> Mark Cooper
> Research Director, Consumer Federation of America
> @ConsumerFed
>
> Steve Sharkey
> Chief, Engineering and Technology Policy, T-Mobile
> @TMobile
>
> Matt Wood
> Policy Director, Free Press
> @MattFWood
>
> Sarah Morris
> Senior Policy Counsel, Open Technology Institute at New America
> @sarmorris
>
> Moderator:
> Michael Calabrese
> Director, Wireless Future Project, Open Technology Institute at New America
> @MCalabreseNAF
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Tony Hain <alh-ietf () tndh net> wrote:
>
> > Keenan Tims wrote:
> > > To: nanog () nanog org
> > > Subject: Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
> > >
> > > I'm surprised you're supporting T-Mob here Owen. To me it's pretty
> > > clear: they are charging more for bits that are not streaming video.
> > > That's not neutral treatment from a policy perspective, and has no
> basis
> > in
> > > the cost of operating the network.
> >
> > I have no visibility into what the line
> > "T‐Mobile will work with content providers to ensure that our networks
> > work together to properly"
> > actually means, but they could/should be using this as a tool to drive
> > content sources to IPv6.
> >
> > Trying to explain to consumers why an unlimited data plan only works for
> a
> > tiny subset of content is a waste of energy. Picking a category and
> > "encouraging" that content to move, then after the time limit, pick the
> > next category, rinse/repeat, is a way to move traffic away from the 6/4
> nat
> > infrastructure without having to make a big deal about the IP version to
> > the consumer, and at the same time remove "it costs too much" complaints
> > from the sources. If I were implementing such a plan, I would walk the
> list
> > of traffic sources based on volume to move traffic as quickly as
> possible,
> > so it makes perfect sense to me that they would start with video.
> >
> > Tony
> >
> >
> > > Granted, the network itself is neutral, but the purported purpose of NN
> > in
> > > my eyes is twofold: take away the influence of the network on user and
> > > operator behaviour, and encourage an open market in network services
> > > (both content and access). Allowing zero-rating based on *any* criteria
> > > gives them a strong influence over what the end users are going to do
> > with
> > > their network connection, and distorts the market for network services.
> > > What makes streaming video special to merit zero-rating?
> > >
> > > I like Clay's connection to the boiling frog. Yes, it's "nice" for most
> > > consumers now, but it's still distorting the market.
> > >
> > > I'm also not seeing why they have to make this so complicated. If they
> > can
> > > afford to zero-rate high-bandwidth services like video and audio
> > streaming,
> > > clearly there is network capacity to spare. The user behaviour they're
> > > encouraging with free video streaming is *precisely* what the
> incumbents
> > > claimed was causing congestion to merit throttling a few years ago, and
> > still
> > > to this day whine about constantly. I don't have data, but I would
> expect
> > > usage of this to align quite nicely with their current peaks.
> > >
> > > Why not just raise the caps to something reasonable or make it
> unlimited
> > > across the board? I could even get behind zero-rating all
> > 'off-peak-hours'
> > > use like we used to have for mobile voice; at least that makes sense
> for
> > the
> > > network. What they're doing though is product differentiation where
> none
> > > exists; in fact the zero-rating is likely to cause more load on the
> > system than
> > > just doubling or tripling the users'
> > > caps. That there seems to be little obvious justification for it from a
> > network
> > > perspective makes me vary wary.
> > >
> > > Keenan
> > >
> > > On 2015-11-23 18:05, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > > > > 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
>
>
> --
> *Collin David Anderson*
> averysmallbird.com | @cda | Washington, D.C.