Inline..

On Sep 1, 2015, at 10:13 AM, Jean-Francois Mezei 
<jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca<mailto:jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca>> wrote:

On 15-09-01 12:36, Christian Kuhtz wrote:

Zero rating is not a new concept. It has existed in the mobile world since the 
days of the dumb phone.

Yes, but is now in a different scale and when you start to zero rate
content that comes from CDN (aka: many IPs which may also serve non zero
rated content).

I don't agree with that assertion.  Not a new concept. I worked on stuff like 
that over a decade ago, with multiple CDN providers.   Wasn't even mobile, it 
was for DSL.

There are scaling issues if the idea was out of touch with how interwebs 
actually work.  Only in those cases might it have technically worked but priced 
itself out of reality.  But there wasn't anything fundamentally to say it 
couldn't be done.

CDN's have for a very long time had ways to implement custom mappings and tweak 
their algorithms to source specific content to a specific subscriber in a very 
specific way or place source nodes in particular locations (logically or 
physically).  They only varied in their ability or willingness to do so on 
terms that might seem reasonable to a given partner (which generally means you 
either do or don't come to terms on contracts).  It wasn't a fundamental 
technical barrier even 10-15 yrs ago.

Got a reference to why this was killed by the regulator in Canada?

Bell Mobility zero rating its own MobileTV offering was decided in
January 2015 by CRTC:

Thank you. The key here appears to be this:

Subsection 27(2) prohibits Canadian carriers from
conferring an undue disadvantage to others, or an undue preference to
itself or others.

So this appears to be about distorting the competition between their own 
services and third parties rather than about zero rating per se.

Mobile networks typically use their packet core (and prior iterations of the 
same termination, rating, billing, management gear) to rate and bill specific 
to each subscriber.  It is done with voice minutes, text, data.  Whether or not 
you consider the solutions scalable is up to one's individual judgement. But 
this zero rating billing model has and is very widely deployed and at massive 
scale. In fact, there are specific interfaces defined for just these purposes 
in the applicable standards.  There are many many conceivable ways in which 
billing mediation and associated infrastructure for zero rating can and is 
implemented. This is not new and is very well understood in the mobile industry.

Not sure what you're after here.

What I am after is what sort of logic is used to determine whether a
packet is to be counted towards total monthly usage or not.  Is it based
on sourse IP address ?  DPI equipment looking at content ? And more
importantly, if it is possible to zero rate any flow that is below a
certain speed. (whether from a radio station or some heart monitor).

All of the above and more.  Depends on content. For example, if you obtain the 
knowledge of origin and subscriber, you have what is needed. Origin should not 
be constrained to origin in terms of IP address space or port numbers. It can 
be marked in the protocol header, content, sourced from specific interfaces etc 
etc. The ways are pretty endless and the gear is readily available. There is an 
entire cottage industry peddling this stuff from sourcing, detection through 
rating and billing in addition to the major equipment vendors.

There are no inherent limits. You can do it with or without DPI. You can do it 
with or without subscriber management systems (like BRAS). You can do it with 
or without knowledge of source or destination IP addresses. You can do it with 
any kind of content. You can do it with or without flow awareness.  You can do 
it with or without special protocol semantics.

What is capable is (as always) up to the engineering clue, business savvy and 
business model supporting the implementation.  And I really mean anything can, 
has, and will be brought to life at scale given a suitable business cause.

I don't mean to be obnoxious. The question is a bit like asking if interwebs 
have limits ;-).. Yes, there are stupid ways to screw things up, but there is a 
huge variety of ways to make it work and make money doing it. And without 
pissing off regulators.  There is no red flag from a regulatory perspective 
based on the technology itself in my opinion.

Hope this helps.

Best regards,
Christian


Reply via email to