Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.

[Alan Buxey]

You're assuming that people are only using phones with their SIM - those that 
use a mifi dongle and thus view content on a tablet or laptop will notice

We could rate limit traffic from YouTube to 1.5mbps and let the adaptive 
streaming knock the steam to 480p bit our users with 100mbit connections might 
wonder why they cannot view 720p or 1080p - and why spicy they view such 
content - its like putting back the web and online video services 5 years.  
Where does it stop?  320x240 ?

Bulk data and background update processes are things that could possibly by 
throttled - after all,  that's pretty much what QoS does.  Most of my phone 
data is google play software updates and on woes phone ios and itunes store 
updates - it doesn't matter if the update ticks along in the background. Audio 
and video need to be good.

alan

5GHz Wifi [Was: Re: GPON vs. GEPON]

[Reuben Farrelly via NANOG]

On 9/01/2016 2:48 PM, Baldur Norddahl wrote:

But 5 GHz usage is still low because people have a ton of devices that are
2,4 GHz only. Even brand new laptops are sold without a 5 GHz radio. People
don't know that they have to check - it is oh but it has wifi and it is
brand new, therefore it must have support for the new standard you are
talking about! Sometimes we have to send someone out to the customer to
demonstrate how crappy his new purchase is.


Unfortunately almost all of the Internet of Things (IoT) client devices 
I have come across or purchased lately are 2.4GHz only:


- Belkin Wemo
- Airconsole
- Sense Sleep Tracker
- LIFX
- Ninjasphere (now defunct, but this was interesting because these 
appear to have a 5GHz radio in them but don't have the antenna to 
support it)


The explanation I have been given a few times is that the antenna 
requirements for 5GHz are just too difficult to achieve in what are 
often small and low powered devices.


We're mostly there with phones and PCs though.

Reuben

Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.

[Mike Hammett]

Valid points. 

The best solution for everybody is the solution most consumers are adverse to, 
which is usage based billing. Granted, many times the providers have shot 
themselves in the foot by making the charges punitive instead of based on cost 
plus margin. Reasonable $/gig for everybody! :-) 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 


- Original Message -

From: "Alan Buxey"  
To: "Mike Hammett"  
Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group"  
Sent: Saturday, January 9, 2016 4:38:58 AM 
Subject: Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. 

You're assuming that people are only using phones with their SIM - those that 
use a mifi dongle and thus view content on a tablet or laptop will notice 

We could rate limit traffic from YouTube to 1.5mbps and let the adaptive 
streaming knock the steam to 480p bit our users with 100mbit connections might 
wonder why they cannot view 720p or 1080p - and why spicy they view such 
content - its like putting back the web and online video services 5 years. 
Where does it stop? 320x240 ? 

Bulk data and background update processes are things that could possibly by 
throttled - after all, that's pretty much what QoS does. Most of my phone data 
is google play software updates and on woes phone ios and itunes store updates 
- it doesn't matter if the update ticks along in the background. Audio and 
video need to be good. 

alan 

Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.

[Constantine A. Murenin]

This is not a lossless 480p we're talking about, and most Android
phones have been through quite a few generations of having at least
720p, if not 1080p or 1440p, and 5" displays.  I wouldn't at all be so
quick to dismiss that there's no difference.

Also, according to http://www.lighterra.com/papers/videoencodingh264/,
for a high-quality 480p, you're supposed to have a 2.5Mbps link to
accommodate a 1.6Mbps stream; and a few providers already stream at or
above 1.5Mbps for 480p, including BBC at 1500, ESPN at 2000, iTunes at
1500 and Netflix at 1050 or 1750 (1050 results in lower quality 480p).
Being throttled at 1.5Mbps would mean that 480p video from any of
these provides, if forced at 480p, would either result in just enough
stuttering or buffering issues to ruin the experience, or will be
automatically downgraded to 360p (which is still 1400 for ESPN,
meaning, it might even go to 240p).

Moreover, I have a feeling that on HSPA+ their new throttling results
in below 480p resolution, because the network is no longer afforded to
have the bursts to compensate for the occasional variability of the
connection.  (Google Galaxy Nexus is HSPA+ and 720p.)  So much for
480p and the DVD quality.

C.

On 8 January 2016 at 20:25, Mike Hammett  wrote:
> I'm not certain that most consumers notice or care. How many people can 
> notice 480p vs. 720p vs. 1080p on a 4" display? Now how many will notice the 
> buffering or larger bills?
>
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
> Midwest Internet Exchange
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>
>
> - Original Message -
>
> From: "Constantine A. Murenin" 
> To: "Valdis Kletnieks" 
> Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" 
> Sent: Friday, January 8, 2016 10:07:06 PM
> Subject: Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.
>
> On 7 January 2016 at 19:43, Valdis Kletnieks  wrote:
>> So we went round and round back in November regarding Binge On! and whether
>> it was net neutrality. So here's some closure to that...
>>
>> The EFF did some testing and discovered that what T-Mobile is actually doing
>> doesn't match what they said it was...
>>
>> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/01/eff-confirms-t-mobiles-bingeon-optimization-just-throttling-applies
>>
>> Apparently, John Legere, CEO of T-Mobile, doesn't know who the EFF is,
>> or why they're giving him a hard time.
>>
>> "Part B of my answer is, who the fuck are you, anyway, EFF?" Legere said. 
>> "Why
>> are you stirring up so much trouble, and who pays you?"
>>
>> http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/7/10733298/john-legere-binge-on-lie
>>
>> /me makes popcorn
>
> I don't know what people have been smoking, but I'd like to set the
> record straight, once and for all.
>
> T-Mobile US said that ALL video will be affected from day 0!
>
> Here's my comment on
> https://www.reddit.com/r/tmobile/comments/3sbbm5/netflix_hbo_gonow_sling_tv_showtime_hulu_espn_and/cwx16ya
>
> 2015-11-11: «Didn't T-Mobile say that all videos will automatically go
> at 480p from that point on? If so, what's really the point of an extra
> step, you know, of the service explicitly "applying" to participate?»
>
> I've taken the time to find the source material that must have made me
> make such a comment, and, I FOUND IT!
>
> https://newsroom.t-mobile.com/media-kits/un-carrier-x.htm
>
>> Los Angeles, California — November 10, 2015
> ...
>
>> Powered by new technology built in to T-Mobile’s network, Binge On optimizes 
>> video for mobile screens, minimizing data consumption while still delivering 
>> DVD or better quality (e.g. 480p or better). That means more reliable 
>> streaming for services that stream free with Binge On, and for almost all 
>> other video, it means T-Mobile Simple Choice customers can watch up to three 
>> times more video from their data plan. And, as always, T-Mobile has put 
>> customers in total control with a switch to activate or deactivate Binge On 
>> for each line in their My T-Mobile account. Binge On is all about customer 
>> choice.
>
> Here it is again, the relevant bits:
>
>> for almost all other video, it means T-Mobile Simple Choice customers can 
>> watch up to three times more video from their data plan
>
> Those words have certainly been there since at least 2015-11-11!
>
> HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT!
>
> Just like the rest of the increases in ARPU and other metrics.
> Unlimited 4G didn't just have the tethering bucket increased from 7GB
> to 14GB, but the price went from 80$ to 95$, too. (And that doesn't
> include the earlier increase from 70$ to 80$, either.)
>
> Oh, and, to answer EFF's question on why it's enabled by default:
>
> https://youtu.be/MHFUT1_QlB8?t=47s
>
> Since it's launched in November, we've learned customers were watching 
> 12% more video.
>
> It is not explicit that "12%" refers to a minute-based metric, but
> 

Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.

[Valdis . Kletnieks]

On Sat, 09 Jan 2016 11:12:16 -0600, Mike Hammett said:
> Bytes uploaded and\or downloaded. That's all that should matter. Initiated by
> you or not.

You want to be the one explaining to your customer that the reason they
got charged for 20G of unexpected transfer was because their 3 Windows 8
machines each downloaded Windows 10 without telling them?


pgpSDkLogGUP1.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. [Comcast meter Q]

[Livingood, Jason]

On 1/9/16, 12:04 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Robert Webb"
 wrote:

>Unfortunately, providers like Comcast, yes, I know they aren't wireless,
>but their usage meter is a joke and a proprietary based joke at that. I
>do not think I have ever seen anyone from Comcast willing to describe
>exactly how their meter works and what is and is not counted towards
>usage. I am not a wireless expert, but my guess is that it would be even
>more difficult to accurately track usage on wireless given the portable
>nature.

Since my day job is at Comcast and part of that job is ensuring that the
usage meter is technically accurate I figured I would chime in. A few bits
of information that may be helpful follow below. **I am happy to answer
any questions you or others have.** And I have also copied our independent
auditor should there be questions for his firm.

1 - Comcast does byte counting via the IPDR standard (IP Detail Records).
I would think any other DOCSIS-based network that performs byte counting
would also use IPDR (and all the ones of which I am aware do so). You can
find some more information about the IPDR specification here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Protocol_Detail_Record

https://www.incognito.com/tips-and-tutorials/faq-bandwidth-monitoring-with-
ipdr/

http://www.dslreports.com/r0/download/1603814~d44a19780841cdc79abf840b6066d
52d/ipdr-usage-counters.pdf

http://www.cablelabs.com/wp-content/uploads/specdocs/CM-SP-OSSIv3.0-I14-110
210.pdf


2 - Comcast first made mention of the use of IPDR in a 2008 FCC filing, as
part of a deployment of a protocol-agnostic congestion management system.
See these documents:
http://downloads.comcast.net/docs/Attachment_B_Future_Practices.pdf

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6057


3 - Comcast engaged a 3rd party auditor called NetForecast
(http://www.netforecast.com/) to regularly, independently audit the
accuracy of our usage meter. We usually announce those audits on our
Network Management page (ex:
http://networkmanagement.xfinity.com/index.php/8-network-management-news/55
-2015-comcast-usage-meter-accuracy-report) and NetForecast publishes these
reports on their website. See the following documents:
- First accuracy report, 2009:
http://www.netforecast.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/NFR5101_Comcast_Usage
_Meter_Accuracy_Original.pdf
- Second accuracy report, 2010:
http://www.netforecast.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/NFR5101_Comcast_Usage
_Meter_Accuracy.pdf
- Third accuracy report, 2014:
http://www.netforecast.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/NFR5116_Comcast_Meter
_Accuracy_Report.pdf
- Fourth accuracy report, 2015:
http://www.netforecast.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/NFR5120_Fourth_Comcas
t_Meter_Accuracy_Validation_Report.pdf
- ISP best practice report:
http://www.netforecast.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/NFR5119_General_ISP_D
ata_Usage_Meter_Specification.pdf

4 - In terms of what is counted, all Internet traffic is counted (what is
now known as Title-II traffic). Title-VI video traffic and Xfinity Voice
traffic, which may use the IP protocol but are not Internet services, are
not counted.

Enjoy the rest of your weekend,
Jason

Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.

[Robert Webb]

So you are all for supporting having to pay for data the bloatware programs, 
installed by most all providers, which most consumers do not want or use? 
When providers start putting out equipment that has the pure phone OS 
installed, not the bloatware laden crap that is sold today, then I might 
agree with you a bit more.


But we all know from the history of providers that they will never provide a 
reasonable per byte cost.


Everywhere I have lived, providers will come out and replace meters. Some do 
it better then others, especially if you are seeing anomalies in usage. In 
the case of normal utilities though, you can pretty much judge your usage. 
However with internet based per byte billing, one never knows what is going 
on under the hood of the device in places where the user has zero access to.


Robert Webb

On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 11:12:16 -0600 (CST)
 Mike Hammett  wrote:
Bytes uploaded and\or downloaded. That's all that should matter. 
Initiated by you or not. 

I have never seen or heard of any utility meters being replaced or 
calibrated. I suppose they should upon reasonable demand, but I've 
never seen it regularly done anywhere. 



- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 



- Original Message -

From: "Robert Webb"  
To: "Mike Hammett"  
Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group"  
Sent: Saturday, January 9, 2016 11:04:05 AM 
Subject: Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the 
fan. 

Unfortunately when it comes to "competition" in the wireless world, 
even 
though there are multiple providers, the consumer will always be 
gouged 
given the attitude of today's providers to just follow what the 
other does. 
In my opinion, kind of a in the public eye form of collusion. So 
there will 
never be a true competition based market in the wireless given the 
current 
players. 

There should be certifications for measurement is that is what my 
bill is 
going to be based on as a consumer. My power meter, gas meter, water 
meter, 
etc. get replaced every so often for calibration and the particular 
utility 
will come out and swap or test on site if I think there is an issue. 

Unfortunately, providers like Comcast, yes, I know they aren't 
wireless, but 
their usage meter is a joke and a proprietary based joke at that. I 
do not 
think I have ever seen anyone from Comcast willing to describe 
exactly how 
their meter works and what is and is not counted towards usage. I am 
not a 
wireless expert, but my guess is that it would be even more 
difficult to 
accurately track usage on wireless given the portable nature. 

(In my area, luckily, my landline ISP doesn't charge or have caps 
either. 
But my wireless carrier has caps. And given the data hungry phones 
these 
days in which a lot of the data cannot be controlled by the user, 
then I 
certainly want the technical details of the usage calculation open 
to me for 
review.) 

Robert Webb 

On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 10:46:29 -0600 (CST) 
Mike Hammett  wrote: 
The cost to the provider is irrelevant to the consumer. Cost to the 
consumer is all the consumer should be concerned with. Competition, 
industry and media would serve as the barometer to sensible or 
ridiculous pricing. 

There are a myriad of ways to measure usage. I'm not sure there are 
any certifications for any other billing relating to the Internet, so 
why start now? 



(My ISP doesn't charge for usage and I don't intend to until the 
industry makes that shift. I'm just debating this side.) 



- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 



- Original Message - 

From: "Robert Webb"  
To: "Mike Hammett"  
Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group"  
Sent: Saturday, January 9, 2016 10:37:23 AM 
Subject: Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the 
fan. 

The normal consumer has no way to correlate what the "real" cost is 
as the 
providers keep their "costs" for bandwidth, transit, etc. 
proprietary 
secrets and always lie to the consumer and muddy the picture of what 
the ISP 
actually pays for regarding bits! 

Additionally, until there can be proper tools that are "certified" 
for 
measuring usage, then usage based billing will never be viable. 

Robert Webb 

On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 10:11:29 -0600 (CST) 
Mike Hammett  wrote: 
My point on usage based billing isn't meant to stifle anything, but 
to provide equitable service to everyone at a fair price. $10/gig 
certainly isn't a fair price for almost any network. People pay 
variable rates for water, electricity, gas, food, etc., etc. 

Is it necessarily a bad thing if people stop to think about what 
their usage costs? 



- 
Mike Hammett 

Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.

[Robert Webb]

The normal consumer has no way to correlate what the "real" cost is as the 
providers keep their "costs" for bandwidth, transit, etc. proprietary 
secrets and always lie to the consumer and muddy the picture of what the ISP 
actually pays for regarding bits!


Additionally, until there can be proper tools that are "certified" for 
measuring usage, then usage based billing will never be viable.


Robert Webb

On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 10:11:29 -0600 (CST)
 Mike Hammett  wrote:
My point on usage based billing isn't meant to stifle anything, but 
to provide equitable service to everyone at a fair price. $10/gig 
certainly isn't a fair price for almost any network. People pay 
variable rates for water, electricity, gas, food, etc., etc. 

Is it necessarily a bad thing if people stop to think about what 
their usage costs? 



- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.

[Mike Hammett]

The cost to the provider is irrelevant to the consumer. Cost to the consumer is 
all the consumer should be concerned with. Competition, industry and media 
would serve as the barometer to sensible or ridiculous pricing. 

There are a myriad of ways to measure usage. I'm not sure there are any 
certifications for any other billing relating to the Internet, so why start 
now? 




(My ISP doesn't charge for usage and I don't intend to until the industry makes 
that shift. I'm just debating this side.) 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 


- Original Message -

From: "Robert Webb"  
To: "Mike Hammett"  
Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group"  
Sent: Saturday, January 9, 2016 10:37:23 AM 
Subject: Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. 

The normal consumer has no way to correlate what the "real" cost is as the 
providers keep their "costs" for bandwidth, transit, etc. proprietary 
secrets and always lie to the consumer and muddy the picture of what the ISP 
actually pays for regarding bits! 

Additionally, until there can be proper tools that are "certified" for 
measuring usage, then usage based billing will never be viable. 

Robert Webb 

On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 10:11:29 -0600 (CST) 
Mike Hammett  wrote: 
> My point on usage based billing isn't meant to stifle anything, but 
>to provide equitable service to everyone at a fair price. $10/gig 
>certainly isn't a fair price for almost any network. People pay 
>variable rates for water, electricity, gas, food, etc., etc. 
> 
> Is it necessarily a bad thing if people stop to think about what 
>their usage costs? 
> 
> 
> - 
> Mike Hammett 
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> http://www.ics-il.com 

Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.

[Robert Webb]

Unfortunately when it comes to "competition" in the wireless world, even 
though there are multiple providers, the consumer will always be gouged 
given the attitude of today's providers to just follow what the other does. 
In my opinion, kind of a in the public eye form of collusion. So there will 
never be a true competition based market in the wireless given the current 
players.


There should be certifications for measurement is that is what my bill is 
going to be based on as a consumer. My power meter, gas meter, water meter, 
etc. get replaced every so often for calibration and the particular utility 
will come out and swap or test on site if I think there is an issue.


Unfortunately, providers like Comcast, yes, I know they aren't wireless, but 
their usage meter is a joke and a proprietary based joke at that. I do not 
think I have ever seen anyone from Comcast willing to describe exactly how 
their meter works and what is and is not counted towards usage. I am not a 
wireless expert, but my guess is that it would be even more difficult to 
accurately track usage on wireless given the portable nature.


(In my area, luckily, my landline ISP doesn't charge or have caps either. 
But my wireless carrier has caps. And given the data hungry phones these 
days in which a lot of the data cannot be controlled by the user, then I 
certainly want the technical details of the usage calculation open to me for 
review.)


Robert Webb

On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 10:46:29 -0600 (CST)
 Mike Hammett  wrote:
The cost to the provider is irrelevant to the consumer. Cost to the 
consumer is all the consumer should be concerned with. Competition, 
industry and media would serve as the barometer to sensible or 
ridiculous pricing. 

There are a myriad of ways to measure usage. I'm not sure there are 
any certifications for any other billing relating to the Internet, so 
why start now? 



(My ISP doesn't charge for usage and I don't intend to until the 
industry makes that shift. I'm just debating this side.) 



- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 



- Original Message -

From: "Robert Webb"  
To: "Mike Hammett"  
Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group"  
Sent: Saturday, January 9, 2016 10:37:23 AM 
Subject: Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the 
fan. 

The normal consumer has no way to correlate what the "real" cost is 
as the 
providers keep their "costs" for bandwidth, transit, etc. 
proprietary 
secrets and always lie to the consumer and muddy the picture of what 
the ISP 
actually pays for regarding bits! 

Additionally, until there can be proper tools that are "certified" 
for 
measuring usage, then usage based billing will never be viable. 

Robert Webb 

On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 10:11:29 -0600 (CST) 
Mike Hammett  wrote: 
My point on usage based billing isn't meant to stifle anything, but 
to provide equitable service to everyone at a fair price. $10/gig 
certainly isn't a fair price for almost any network. People pay 
variable rates for water, electricity, gas, food, etc., etc. 

Is it necessarily a bad thing if people stop to think about what 
their usage costs? 



- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.

[Jeremy Austin]

On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 5:06 AM, Mike Hammett  wrote:

>
> The best solution for everybody is the solution most consumers are adverse
> to, which is usage based billing. Granted, many times the providers have
> shot themselves in the foot by making the charges punitive instead of based
> on cost plus margin. Reasonable $/gig for everybody! :-)


I'm tempted to make an analogy to health care, insurance, and universal
coverage, but I'll abstain.

Usage based billing alters the typical hockey stick graph: the 10% of users
using 80% of the bandwidth are otherwise subsidized by the long tail.

As an ISP, usage-based billing is more sensible, because I would no longer
have to stress about oversubscription ratios and keeping the long tail
happy. But usage-based models are more stressful for the consumer; I think
I disagree that it's the best model for everybody.

Let me be a consumer advocate for a moment. One of the reasons consumers
are averse to usage-based billing is that the tech industry has not put
good tools into their hands. While it is possible to disable automatic
updates, set Windows 10's network settings to "metered", and micromanage
your bandwidth, in general:

The Internet (from the non-eyeball side) is designed around a free-feeding
usage model. Can you imagine if the App store of your choice showed two
prices, one for the app and one for the download? The permission-based
model on Android would have requests like, "This app is likely to cost you
$4/week. Is this OK?"

I don't know all the reasons that satellite provider Starband shut down,
but that was a usage-based billing market; and it would never have been a
'reasonable' $/gig.  I'm working to step into the hole they left, and
you're right that customers don't want a usage-based model to replace it.

In addition, let's say I know of an ISP that makes 10% of its revenue from
overage charges. Moving to a purely usage-based model would lower ACR, as
it would have to charge a more reasonable price/gig; that top 10% of users
won't replace the lost revenue. So even providers may have little incentive
to change models, particularly if they have a vested interest in inhibiting
the growth of video or usage in general.

-- 
Jeremy Austin

Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.

[Rich Kulawiec]

On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 09:11:51AM -0800, Hugo Slabbert wrote:
> ...so...you're "optimizing" the bitrate of video traffic for mobile
> by lowering it to 1.5 mbps, but don't worry: it's not "throttling".

It's not just video.  Per comments on Techdirt, this also affects other
traffic being transmitted via HTTPS, if that traffic is sufficiently large
and/or persists for a sufficient period of time.

---rsk

Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.

[John Levine]

In article <1725530149.7756.1452359589375.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> you 
write:
>Bytes uploaded and\or downloaded. That's all that should matter. Initiated by 
>you or not. 

As should be obvious to people on NANOG, of all places, mobile
networks and fixed networks are different.  On a mobile network, every
bit of infrastructure you use other than your phone is shared and
tends to be heavily used.  Metered usage makes economic sense,
although it's well documented that users hate it and would rather pay
for a fixed bundle even if on average metered would be cheaper.

On fixed networks, a significant chunk is unshared (such as the wire
to your house) and while there may be hotspots, there tends to be a
lot of slack capacity within the network.  That means that fixed
network traffic outside of peak times literally costs the network
nothing.

>I have never seen or heard of any utility meters being replaced or calibrated. 
>I suppose they should upon
>reasonable demand, but I've never seen it regularly done anywhere. 

Now you have.  When I was municipal water commissioner, one of our
annual tasks was to buy new meters to swap for the oldest ones.  Water
meters have a lot of moving parts and when they get old, they tend to
underreport usage.

R's,
John

Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.

[Mike Hammett]

My point on usage based billing isn't meant to stifle anything, but to provide 
equitable service to everyone at a fair price. $10/gig certainly isn't a fair 
price for almost any network. People pay variable rates for water, electricity, 
gas, food, etc., etc. 

Is it necessarily a bad thing if people stop to think about what their usage 
costs? 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 


- Original Message -

From: "Jeremy Austin"  
To: "Mike Hammett"  
Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group"  
Sent: Saturday, January 9, 2016 10:01:47 AM 
Subject: Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. 





On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 5:06 AM, Mike Hammett < na...@ics-il.net > wrote: 



The best solution for everybody is the solution most consumers are adverse to, 
which is usage based billing. Granted, many times the providers have shot 
themselves in the foot by making the charges punitive instead of based on cost 
plus margin. Reasonable $/gig for everybody! :-) 



I'm tempted to make an analogy to health care, insurance, and universal 
coverage, but I'll abstain. 


Usage based billing alters the typical hockey stick graph: the 10% of users 
using 80% of the bandwidth are otherwise subsidized by the long tail. 

As an ISP, usage-based billing is more sensible, because I would no longer have 
to stress about oversubscription ratios and keeping the long tail happy. But 
usage-based models are more stressful for the consumer; I think I disagree that 
it's the best model for everybody. 


Let me be a consumer advocate for a moment. One of the reasons consumers are 
averse to usage-based billing is that the tech industry has not put good tools 
into their hands. While it is possible to disable automatic updates, set 
Windows 10's network settings to "metered", and micromanage your bandwidth, in 
general: 


The Internet (from the non-eyeball side) is designed around a free-feeding 
usage model. Can you imagine if the App store of your choice showed two prices, 
one for the app and one for the download? The permission-based model on Android 
would have requests like, "This app is likely to cost you $4/week. Is this OK?" 


I don't know all the reasons that satellite provider Starband shut down, but 
that was a usage-based billing market; and it would never have been a 
'reasonable' $/gig. I'm working to step into the hole they left, and you're 
right that customers don't want a usage-based model to replace it. 

In addition, let's say I know of an ISP that makes 10% of its revenue from 
overage charges. Moving to a purely usage-based model would lower ACR, as it 
would have to charge a more reasonable price/gig; that top 10% of users won't 
replace the lost revenue. So even providers may have little incentive to change 
models, particularly if they have a vested interest in inhibiting the growth of 
video or usage in general. 


-- 





Jeremy Austin 

Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.

[Mike Hammett]

Bytes uploaded and\or downloaded. That's all that should matter. Initiated by 
you or not. 

I have never seen or heard of any utility meters being replaced or calibrated. 
I suppose they should upon reasonable demand, but I've never seen it regularly 
done anywhere. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 


- Original Message -

From: "Robert Webb"  
To: "Mike Hammett"  
Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group"  
Sent: Saturday, January 9, 2016 11:04:05 AM 
Subject: Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. 

Unfortunately when it comes to "competition" in the wireless world, even 
though there are multiple providers, the consumer will always be gouged 
given the attitude of today's providers to just follow what the other does. 
In my opinion, kind of a in the public eye form of collusion. So there will 
never be a true competition based market in the wireless given the current 
players. 

There should be certifications for measurement is that is what my bill is 
going to be based on as a consumer. My power meter, gas meter, water meter, 
etc. get replaced every so often for calibration and the particular utility 
will come out and swap or test on site if I think there is an issue. 

Unfortunately, providers like Comcast, yes, I know they aren't wireless, but 
their usage meter is a joke and a proprietary based joke at that. I do not 
think I have ever seen anyone from Comcast willing to describe exactly how 
their meter works and what is and is not counted towards usage. I am not a 
wireless expert, but my guess is that it would be even more difficult to 
accurately track usage on wireless given the portable nature. 

(In my area, luckily, my landline ISP doesn't charge or have caps either. 
But my wireless carrier has caps. And given the data hungry phones these 
days in which a lot of the data cannot be controlled by the user, then I 
certainly want the technical details of the usage calculation open to me for 
review.) 

Robert Webb 

On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 10:46:29 -0600 (CST) 
Mike Hammett  wrote: 
> The cost to the provider is irrelevant to the consumer. Cost to the 
>consumer is all the consumer should be concerned with. Competition, 
>industry and media would serve as the barometer to sensible or 
>ridiculous pricing. 
> 
> There are a myriad of ways to measure usage. I'm not sure there are 
>any certifications for any other billing relating to the Internet, so 
>why start now? 
> 
> 
> (My ISP doesn't charge for usage and I don't intend to until the 
>industry makes that shift. I'm just debating this side.) 
> 
> 
> - 
> Mike Hammett 
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> http://www.ics-il.com 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> http://www.midwest-ix.com 
> 
> 
> - Original Message - 
> 
>From: "Robert Webb"  
> To: "Mike Hammett"  
> Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group"  
> Sent: Saturday, January 9, 2016 10:37:23 AM 
> Subject: Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the 
>fan. 
> 
> The normal consumer has no way to correlate what the "real" cost is 
>as the 
> providers keep their "costs" for bandwidth, transit, etc. 
>proprietary 
> secrets and always lie to the consumer and muddy the picture of what 
>the ISP 
> actually pays for regarding bits! 
> 
> Additionally, until there can be proper tools that are "certified" 
>for 
> measuring usage, then usage based billing will never be viable. 
> 
> Robert Webb 
> 
> On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 10:11:29 -0600 (CST) 
> Mike Hammett  wrote: 
>> My point on usage based billing isn't meant to stifle anything, but 
>>to provide equitable service to everyone at a fair price. $10/gig 
>>certainly isn't a fair price for almost any network. People pay 
>>variable rates for water, electricity, gas, food, etc., etc. 
>> 
>> Is it necessarily a bad thing if people stop to think about what 
>>their usage costs? 
>> 
>> 
>> - 
>> Mike Hammett 
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>> http://www.ics-il.com 
> 
> 

RE: SMS gateways

[Frank Bulk]

Surprised no one has mentioned the Multimodem iSMS: 
http://www.multitech.com/brands/multimodem-isms

Been using it for 5+ years -- first three years the code wasn't stable, needing 
a reboot every few months, but the latest code has been stable for 2+ years.

Frank

-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of David Hubbard
Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2016 1:36 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: SMS gateways

Hey all, was curious if anyone has opinions on the FoxBox vs SMS Eagle boxes 
for sending SMS alerts directly to the cell network?

http://www.smsfoxbox.it/en/foxbox-iq.html/
http://www.smseagle.eu/store/en/devices/1-sms-eagle.html

Any alternative options would be appreciated too.  I saw Microcom’s iSMS modem 
mentioned in the list archives but it’s only 2G so likely won’t be viable much 
longer.

The other question, given the fact that they’re both GSM-based, is whether or 
not you know if AT or T-Mobile have cheap ‘machine’ plans for use by these 
types of devices.  We have all of our OpenGear out of band console servers on 
Verizon and they have these special ‘machine’ plans for $10/mo with very 
limited bandwidth, so that has allowed us to deploy a bunch of them without 
worrying about a huge phone bill.

Thanks,

David

Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.

[Scott Helms]

Comcast uses a standardized protocol called IPDR for their accounting and
if they're still using the same software collector that they were a few
years ago it was independently verified for accuracy.  IPDR had been part
of the DOCSIS protocol for nearly a decade and is publicly documented.

Now, what (if anything) they choose to zero rate or otherwise manipulate I
can't  speak on, but the collection of the usage is well understood,
independent of the CPE, and extremely accurate.
On Jan 9, 2016 12:05 PM, "Robert Webb"  wrote:

> Unfortunately when it comes to "competition" in the wireless world, even
> though there are multiple providers, the consumer will always be gouged
> given the attitude of today's providers to just follow what the other does.
> In my opinion, kind of a in the public eye form of collusion. So there will
> never be a true competition based market in the wireless given the current
> players.
>
> There should be certifications for measurement is that is what my bill is
> going to be based on as a consumer. My power meter, gas meter, water meter,
> etc. get replaced every so often for calibration and the particular utility
> will come out and swap or test on site if I think there is an issue.
>
> Unfortunately, providers like Comcast, yes, I know they aren't wireless,
> but their usage meter is a joke and a proprietary based joke at that. I do
> not think I have ever seen anyone from Comcast willing to describe exactly
> how their meter works and what is and is not counted towards usage. I am
> not a wireless expert, but my guess is that it would be even more difficult
> to accurately track usage on wireless given the portable nature.
>
> (In my area, luckily, my landline ISP doesn't charge or have caps either.
> But my wireless carrier has caps. And given the data hungry phones these
> days in which a lot of the data cannot be controlled by the user, then I
> certainly want the technical details of the usage calculation open to me
> for review.)
>
> Robert Webb
>
> On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 10:46:29 -0600 (CST)
>  Mike Hammett  wrote:
>
>> The cost to the provider is irrelevant to the consumer. Cost to the
>> consumer is all the consumer should be concerned with. Competition,
>> industry and media would serve as the barometer to sensible or ridiculous
>> pricing.
>> There are a myriad of ways to measure usage. I'm not sure there are any
>> certifications for any other billing relating to the Internet, so why start
>> now?
>>
>> (My ISP doesn't charge for usage and I don't intend to until the industry
>> makes that shift. I'm just debating this side.)
>>
>> - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com
>>
>> Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com
>>
>> - Original Message -
>>
>> From: "Robert Webb"  To: "Mike Hammett" <
>> na...@ics-il.net> Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" <
>> nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Saturday, January 9, 2016 10:37:23 AM Subject:
>> Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.
>> The normal consumer has no way to correlate what the "real" cost is as
>> the providers keep their "costs" for bandwidth, transit, etc. proprietary
>> secrets and always lie to the consumer and muddy the picture of what the
>> ISP actually pays for regarding bits!
>> Additionally, until there can be proper tools that are "certified" for
>> measuring usage, then usage based billing will never be viable.
>> Robert Webb
>> On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 10:11:29 -0600 (CST) Mike Hammett 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> My point on usage based billing isn't meant to stifle anything, but to
>>> provide equitable service to everyone at a fair price. $10/gig certainly
>>> isn't a fair price for almost any network. People pay variable rates for
>>> water, electricity, gas, food, etc., etc.
>>> Is it necessarily a bad thing if people stop to think about what their
>>> usage costs?
>>>
>>> - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: SMS gateways

[John Levine]

In article <006501d14b31$7c478e40$74d6aac0$@iname.com> you write:
>Surprised no one has mentioned the Multimodem iSMS: 
>http://www.multitech.com/brands/multimodem-isms
>
>Been using it for 5+ years -- first three years the code wasn't stable, 
>needing a reboot every few months,
>but the latest code has been stable for 2+ years.

It looked interesting until I got to the part where it says it uses a
2G GSM modem.  AT has said quite firmly that they will turn off
their 2G network in 2017, and press reports say that T-Mobile is
already turning off 2G in favor of LTE.

What do you plan to do instead next year?

Re: SMS gateways

[Jared Mauch]

On Sat, Jan 09, 2016 at 11:23:59PM -, John Levine wrote:
> In article <006501d14b31$7c478e40$74d6aac0$@iname.com> you write:
> >Surprised no one has mentioned the Multimodem iSMS: 
> >http://www.multitech.com/brands/multimodem-isms
> >
> >Been using it for 5+ years -- first three years the code wasn't stable, 
> >needing a reboot every few months,
> >but the latest code has been stable for 2+ years.
> 
> It looked interesting until I got to the part where it says it uses a
> 2G GSM modem.  AT has said quite firmly that they will turn off
> their 2G network in 2017, and press reports say that T-Mobile is
> already turning off 2G in favor of LTE.
> 
> What do you plan to do instead next year?

I last purchased a USB "3G modem" for around $12 including shipping
which supports SMS.  it doesn't need to use the 3G part for data though, just
for the control channel.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Unlocked-ZTE-MF110-3G-850-1900-2100-Mhz-GSM-USB-Mobile-Broadband-Modem-/121822901176

There are cheaper ones to be had, but this isn't exactly something
that is a budget breaker.  Get a good provider and life will be just
fine for you.  I have a T-Mobile SIM in mine and they don't charge for
most international texts like other carriers so makes a perfect SMS
device.  (Looks like HSPA+ LTE ones can be had around $40 without putting
much effort into it).

The biggsest problem I had was setting the AT command to make it
default to the right mode vs using usbmodeswitch in Linux, but mostly because
this was the first device I used like this in over a decade myself.

- Jared

-- 
Jared Mauch  | pgp key available via finger from ja...@puck.nether.net
clue++;  | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/  My statements are only mine.

Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.

[Todd Crane via NANOG]

At least Microsoft would get heat for unsolicited downloads. Why does Microsoft 
(allegedly) think they can download (unwanted or at least unsolicited) software 
to unsuspecting users computer, just to upsell them, at our expense? 20Gigs per 
household is a lot of data across a market. If it was metered, there would be 
at least some accountability.

> On Jan 9, 2016, at 12:56 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 09 Jan 2016 11:12:16 -0600, Mike Hammett said:
>> Bytes uploaded and\or downloaded. That's all that should matter. Initiated by
>> you or not.
> 
> You want to be the one explaining to your customer that the reason they
> got charged for 20G of unexpected transfer was because their 3 Windows 8
> machines each downloaded Windows 10 without telling them?



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.

[Ca By]

On Saturday, January 9, 2016, Constantine A. Murenin 
wrote:

> This is not a lossless 480p we're talking about, and most Android
> phones have been through quite a few generations of having at least
> 720p, if not 1080p or 1440p, and 5" displays.  I wouldn't at all be so
> quick to dismiss that there's no difference.
>
> Also, according to http://www.lighterra.com/papers/videoencodingh264/,
> for a high-quality 480p, you're supposed to have a 2.5Mbps link to
> accommodate a 1.6Mbps stream; and a few providers already stream at or
> above 1.5Mbps for 480p, including BBC at 1500, ESPN at 2000, iTunes at
> 1500 and Netflix at 1050 or 1750 (1050 results in lower quality 480p).
> Being throttled at 1.5Mbps would mean that 480p video from any of
> these provides, if forced at 480p, would either result in just enough
> stuttering or buffering issues to ruin the experience, or will be
> automatically downgraded to 360p (which is still 1400 for ESPN,
> meaning, it might even go to 240p).
>
> Moreover, I have a feeling that on HSPA+ their new throttling results
> in below 480p resolution, because the network is no longer afforded to
> have the bursts to compensate for the occasional variability of the
> connection.  (Google Galaxy Nexus is HSPA+ and 720p.)  So much for
> 480p and the DVD quality.
>
> C.
>
>

To disabuse anyone on this list about how video is treated in mobile, Page
11 has a good reality check on how every major mobile provider in the usa
actively adjusts video

 https://www3.cs.stonybrook.edu/~phillipa/papers/traffic-diff_imc15.pdf

Given that world, my opinion is stepping down abr is the least intrusive
method, verses active transcoding  Which modifies a copywrited work
between origin and consumer.

According to this tweet, "partners" control the bitrate to avoid exercising
abr , and thus no buffering

https://twitter.com/slidefuse/status/685373665882599424

So, that is a reasonable e2e approach given the world of mobile video
Just talking from an engineering perspective. The alternative is that there
is quiet arms race between access providers and video providers as
described in the first link.



On 8 January 2016 at 20:25, Mike Hammett >
> wrote:
> > I'm not certain that most consumers notice or care. How many people can
> notice 480p vs. 720p vs. 1080p on a 4" display? Now how many will notice
> the buffering or larger bills?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -
> > Mike Hammett
> > Intelligent Computing Solutions
> > http://www.ics-il.com
> >
> >
> >
> > Midwest Internet Exchange
> > http://www.midwest-ix.com
> >
> >
> > - Original Message -
> >
> > From: "Constantine A. Murenin" >
> > To: "Valdis Kletnieks" >
> > Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group"  >
> > Sent: Friday, January 8, 2016 10:07:06 PM
> > Subject: Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.
> >
> > On 7 January 2016 at 19:43, Valdis Kletnieks  > wrote:
> >> So we went round and round back in November regarding Binge On! and
> whether
> >> it was net neutrality. So here's some closure to that...
> >>
> >> The EFF did some testing and discovered that what T-Mobile is actually
> doing
> >> doesn't match what they said it was...
> >>
> >>
> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/01/eff-confirms-t-mobiles-bingeon-optimization-just-throttling-applies
> >>
> >> Apparently, John Legere, CEO of T-Mobile, doesn't know who the EFF is,
> >> or why they're giving him a hard time.
> >>
> >> "Part B of my answer is, who the fuck are you, anyway, EFF?" Legere
> said. "Why
> >> are you stirring up so much trouble, and who pays you?"
> >>
> >> http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/7/10733298/john-legere-binge-on-lie
> >>
> >> /me makes popcorn
> >
> > I don't know what people have been smoking, but I'd like to set the
> > record straight, once and for all.
> >
> > T-Mobile US said that ALL video will be affected from day 0!
> >
> > Here's my comment on
> >
> https://www.reddit.com/r/tmobile/comments/3sbbm5/netflix_hbo_gonow_sling_tv_showtime_hulu_espn_and/cwx16ya
> >
> > 2015-11-11: «Didn't T-Mobile say that all videos will automatically go
> > at 480p from that point on? If so, what's really the point of an extra
> > step, you know, of the service explicitly "applying" to participate?»
> >
> > I've taken the time to find the source material that must have made me
> > make such a comment, and, I FOUND IT!
> >
> > https://newsroom.t-mobile.com/media-kits/un-carrier-x.htm
> >
> >> Los Angeles, California — November 10, 2015
> > ...
> >
> >> Powered by new technology built in to T-Mobile’s network, Binge On
> optimizes video for mobile screens, minimizing data consumption while still
> delivering DVD or better quality (e.g. 480p or better). That means more
> reliable streaming for services that stream free with Binge On, and 

Re: GPON vs. GEPON

[Baldur Norddahl]

On 9 January 2016 at 07:45, Josh Reynolds  wrote:

> You might be surprised...
>
>
>
It is hard to be surprised when you have hard numbers. I run a network and
unsurprisingly know exactly how much traffic my users cause. That number is
currently about 2 Mbit/s peak aggregated per household. Do you need 100
Gbit/s instead of 40 Gbit/s? Yes you do if you carry traffic from more than
20,000 users or perhaps you have 10,000 users but want to plan for expected
traffic increase over the next two years.

But nobody plans their backbone so it can carry 20-30 Mbit/s aggregated per
household. Well if you do, you have no competition, because otherwise
someone else will figure out how to run a network at 1/10 the cost of what
you do, and you will go out of business.

Before someone points out the obvious: That math does not carry over to
GPON OLT planning (too few users for the aggregation). You will have higher
peak than 64x 2 Mbit/s on your OLT. But still, 2.4 Gbit/s shared among 64
users is currently more than sufficient that nobody is going to see any
limits on their download rate, even during peak. And that is with users on
1000 Mbit/s plans.

I have no idea what Google did or why. I have a feeling that my own hard
earned experiences overrides any hear say on that matter... Of course what
I am telling you might also be hear say (although directly from a primary
source) so do what you think is best. I am just sharing our experiences in
the spirit of this forum.

Regards,

Baldur