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:o...@delong.com> Sent: 11/20/2015 4:32 PM To: > Steve Mikulasik<mailto:steve.mikula...@civeo.com> Cc: Ian > Smith<mailto:i.sm...@f5.com>; > nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@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.mikula...@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.sm...@f5.com] >> Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 9:52 AM To: Steve Mikulasik >> <steve.mikula...@civeo.com>; Shane Ronan <sh...@ronan-online.com>; >> nanog@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-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Steve >> Mikulasik Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 11:37 AM To: Shane Ronan >> <sh...@ronan-online.com>; nanog@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-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Shane Ronan Sent: >> Friday, November 20, 2015 9:25 AM To: nanog@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 >> > >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
