In message <ce4e1597-280d-4a37-9dc8-0ce3ffbd8...@delong.com>, Owen DeLong write s: > > > 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 isnât as much about what you charge the customer > for the data, itâs 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, Iâd likely agree with you > that this is a neutrality issue. > > However, in this case, it appears to me that they arenât trying to give > an advantage to any particular competing streaming video service over > the other, they arenât taking money from participants in the program, > and consumers stand to benefit from it.
It not being neutral over the content. If content != "video stream we like" then you will be penalised when the customer goes over their data limit. > If you see an actual way in which itâs better for everyone if T-Mobile > werenât doing this, then please explain it. If not, then this strikes > me as harmless and overall benefits consumers. Actually this is as harmful as NAT for the same reasons as NAT. It a opportunity cost at a minimum. T-Mo could have just increased the data limits by the data usage of 7x24 standard definition video stream and achieved the same thing in a totally network neutral way. Instead they choose to play favourites with a type of technology. We are giving X Gigs of additional data. This is enough to allow you to stream your favourite video channels at standard definition all day long and not run out of data. > Owen Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org