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 <col...@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-i...@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.nordd...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> On 24 November 2015 at 00:22, Owen DeLong <o...@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. >
