4 ms·

> any service can be accepted as part of "Binge On" Yet, we can see that YouTube, Google Play Movies, and Amazon Video haven't been set up yet - so there are

> any service can be accepted as part of "Binge On" Yet, we can see that YouTube, Google Play Movies, and Amazon Video haven't been set up yet - so there are obviously hurdles. And why is the business the only one that can apply when it's the user trying to make the choices?

toomuchtodo 11y ago
> And why is the business the only one that can apply when it's the user trying to make the choices? Because the business is required to coordinate with T-mobile on the technical side (source IP blocks, video streaming protocol). You're accepting a video stream degraded to a bitrate that's still acceptable on a mobile device for unlimited video consumption (which requires technical intervention).
- hotgoldminer 11y ago
  This is not scalable.
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    Is it not a bit premature to argue this considering BingeOn has only been recently released? ISPs have been performing traffic management since their inception two decades ago. I've done network engineering for about 1/3 of my 15 year career. To be blunt with you, its definitely scalable. Could you explain to me why it isn't?
    - dsp1234 11y ago
      its definitely scalable. Could you explain to me why it isn't? Imagine a world in which every ISP in the country had this system. Let's say that number is 1000 ISPs (with a typical 80/20 distribution). As a video streaming start up, that's 200 ISPs that would need to be contacted and technical measures put in to place. It's likely that at least some of them are going to have incompatible requirements. So now the bar for a new (possibly better) video service is not just maintaining browser compatibility, but also signing contracts and meeting technical limitations for 10-200 ISPs. Sure it works for exactly one company, but it doesn't work if the system is expanded to everyone. In other words, it's not scalable.
      - toomuchtodo 11y ago
        This is exactly how peering and transit setups work across ISPs. The burden is far lower than you describe. If you can't meet the technical requirements that provide T-Mobile the network benefit to support BingeOn, you don't get included in the program. Its pretty simple. If you're a video streaming startup, you're not going to be serving content to ISPs. Your CDN is. Your CDN would have a process in place to integrate with whatever ISPs wanted to support this. If you're attempting to service content directly from your own servers, you're either enormous, or stupid.
        amazon_not 11y ago
        > This is exactly how peering and transit setups work across ISPs. The burden is far lower than you describe. Only it's not. If you need Internet transit, all you have to do is buy transit from two to three transit providers and you are all set. You'll get as big and as fast pipes as you like and at a price cheaper than doing it yourself. There is no need to make bespoke deals with 200 ISPs are there would be if everybody started with this BingeOn crap. > If you're a video streaming startup, you're not going to be serving content to ISPs. Your CDN is. Only if you are made out of money and/or don't know what you are doing. > If you're attempting to service content directly from your own servers, you're either enormous, or stupid. Neither enormous not stupid, just competent. You on the other hand have obviously never done video streaming and don't know what you are talking about.
        toomuchtodo 11y ago
        > Neither enormous not stupid, just competent. You on the other hand have obviously never done video streaming and don't know what you are talking about. My last gig was managing the video streaming infrastructure for a major US broadcaster. I think I've got a grasp on how its done.
        dsp1234 11y ago
        Imagine that you didn't have to peer to level 3 and be done, but instead had to have peering contracts with every single network that your packets passed through. Your CDN would have a process in place to integrate So rates through CDNs go through the roof (even more than they are for streamed video content already) because now they have to peer every end user ISP, and as a video streaming service, those costs are passed on to you. So something that was previously "free" (so as not to be a net neutrality violation) has the same effect of increasing costs and reducing competition. And then on the flip side, if a startup is trying to build a new (possibly better) CDN company, itstill has the same problem. You didn't remove the problem, you just moved it, and it's still just as unscalable.
- chimeracoder 11y ago
  > You're accepting a video stream degraded to a bitrate that's still acceptable on a mobile device for unlimited video consumption (which requires technical intervention). If you read the EFF's report on this, they show that T-Mobile is not cooperating with Google, et. al. in order to provide this service. All they're doing is artificially throttling the connection their own end, and letting the video service's automatic bitrate selection take effect.
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    Is that because Google is using QUIC? Which uses UDP? Which T-mobile's BingeOn config doesn't support (as outlined in the very T-mobile docs referenced in this advocacy paper)?
    - untog 11y ago
      It shouldn't matter. If T-Mobile hasn't got a BingeOn agreement with a provider, they should be connecting to it just like they would if BingeOn were disabled. But that is not the case. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/01/eff-confirms-t-mobiles-bingeon-optimization-just-throttling-applies https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/01/eff-confirms-t-mobiles... "The first result of our test confirms that when Binge On is enabled, T-Mobile throttles all HTML5 video streams to around 1.5Mps, even when the phone is capable of downloading at higher speeds, and regardless of whether or not the video provider enrolled in Binge On."
      - toomuchtodo 11y ago
        Are we going to argue back and forth all day about this? That seems like an unproductive use of both of our times. I support T-mobile's zero rating. You do not. We can argue the technical details all day long. I no longer donate to the EFF after their campaign against T-Mobile. I also would donate to whatever SuperPAC attempts to lean on the FCC to ensure zero rating is permitted to continue (as it behooves me as a mobile customer; I don't care about your startup, in the general sense). Too often, Hacker News gets weighed down in the minutia, the little bits that don't matter to the non-technical. That's fine, of course. We love engineering for engineering's sake. But if you want to effect real change, remember that there aren't any strings to pull here to do that. Its simply an echo chamber of like minded folks with internet points to giveth or taketh away.
sib 11y ago
T-Mobile has just added Amazon Video (and others): http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/28/10859920/t-mobile-binge-on-adds-amazon-video-wwe-fox-news http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/28/10859920/t-mobile-binge-on... And: "you've now got the option of turning it [Binge On] off via shortcodes in your phone's dialer.Typing #BNG# and hitting send will show you whether it's currently enabled or switched off. #BOF# is the shortcode to turn off Binge On, and #BON# will reenable it."
- smileysteve 11y ago
  Oh cool! I had been watching originally, but hadn't seen this, thanks!

toomuchtodo 11y ago

> And why is the business the only one that can apply when it's the user trying to make the choices? Because the business is required to coordinate with T-mobile on the technical side (source IP blocks, video streaming protocol). You're accepting a video stream degraded to a bitrate that's still acceptable on a mobile device for unlimited video consumption (which requires technical intervention).

hotgoldminer 11y ago
This is not scalable.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  Is it not a bit premature to argue this considering BingeOn has only been recently released? ISPs have been performing traffic management since their inception two decades ago. I've done network engineering for about 1/3 of my 15 year career. To be blunt with you, its definitely scalable. Could you explain to me why it isn't?
  - dsp1234 11y ago
    its definitely scalable. Could you explain to me why it isn't? Imagine a world in which every ISP in the country had this system. Let's say that number is 1000 ISPs (with a typical 80/20 distribution). As a video streaming start up, that's 200 ISPs that would need to be contacted and technical measures put in to place. It's likely that at least some of them are going to have incompatible requirements. So now the bar for a new (possibly better) video service is not just maintaining browser compatibility, but also signing contracts and meeting technical limitations for 10-200 ISPs. Sure it works for exactly one company, but it doesn't work if the system is expanded to everyone. In other words, it's not scalable.
    - toomuchtodo 11y ago
      This is exactly how peering and transit setups work across ISPs. The burden is far lower than you describe. If you can't meet the technical requirements that provide T-Mobile the network benefit to support BingeOn, you don't get included in the program. Its pretty simple. If you're a video streaming startup, you're not going to be serving content to ISPs. Your CDN is. Your CDN would have a process in place to integrate with whatever ISPs wanted to support this. If you're attempting to service content directly from your own servers, you're either enormous, or stupid.
      - amazon_not 11y ago
        > This is exactly how peering and transit setups work across ISPs. The burden is far lower than you describe. Only it's not. If you need Internet transit, all you have to do is buy transit from two to three transit providers and you are all set. You'll get as big and as fast pipes as you like and at a price cheaper than doing it yourself. There is no need to make bespoke deals with 200 ISPs are there would be if everybody started with this BingeOn crap. > If you're a video streaming startup, you're not going to be serving content to ISPs. Your CDN is. Only if you are made out of money and/or don't know what you are doing. > If you're attempting to service content directly from your own servers, you're either enormous, or stupid. Neither enormous not stupid, just competent. You on the other hand have obviously never done video streaming and don't know what you are talking about.
        toomuchtodo 11y ago
        > Neither enormous not stupid, just competent. You on the other hand have obviously never done video streaming and don't know what you are talking about. My last gig was managing the video streaming infrastructure for a major US broadcaster. I think I've got a grasp on how its done.
      - dsp1234 11y ago
        Imagine that you didn't have to peer to level 3 and be done, but instead had to have peering contracts with every single network that your packets passed through. Your CDN would have a process in place to integrate So rates through CDNs go through the roof (even more than they are for streamed video content already) because now they have to peer every end user ISP, and as a video streaming service, those costs are passed on to you. So something that was previously "free" (so as not to be a net neutrality violation) has the same effect of increasing costs and reducing competition. And then on the flip side, if a startup is trying to build a new (possibly better) CDN company, itstill has the same problem. You didn't remove the problem, you just moved it, and it's still just as unscalable.
chimeracoder 11y ago
> You're accepting a video stream degraded to a bitrate that's still acceptable on a mobile device for unlimited video consumption (which requires technical intervention). If you read the EFF's report on this, they show that T-Mobile is not cooperating with Google, et. al. in order to provide this service. All they're doing is artificially throttling the connection their own end, and letting the video service's automatic bitrate selection take effect.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  Is that because Google is using QUIC? Which uses UDP? Which T-mobile's BingeOn config doesn't support (as outlined in the very T-mobile docs referenced in this advocacy paper)?
  - untog 11y ago
    It shouldn't matter. If T-Mobile hasn't got a BingeOn agreement with a provider, they should be connecting to it just like they would if BingeOn were disabled. But that is not the case. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/01/eff-confirms-t-mobiles-bingeon-optimization-just-throttling-applies https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/01/eff-confirms-t-mobiles... "The first result of our test confirms that when Binge On is enabled, T-Mobile throttles all HTML5 video streams to around 1.5Mps, even when the phone is capable of downloading at higher speeds, and regardless of whether or not the video provider enrolled in Binge On."
    - toomuchtodo 11y ago
      Are we going to argue back and forth all day about this? That seems like an unproductive use of both of our times. I support T-mobile's zero rating. You do not. We can argue the technical details all day long. I no longer donate to the EFF after their campaign against T-Mobile. I also would donate to whatever SuperPAC attempts to lean on the FCC to ensure zero rating is permitted to continue (as it behooves me as a mobile customer; I don't care about your startup, in the general sense). Too often, Hacker News gets weighed down in the minutia, the little bits that don't matter to the non-technical. That's fine, of course. We love engineering for engineering's sake. But if you want to effect real change, remember that there aren't any strings to pull here to do that. Its simply an echo chamber of like minded folks with internet points to giveth or taketh away.

sib 11y ago

T-Mobile has just added Amazon Video (and others): http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/28/10859920/t-mobile-binge-on-adds-amazon-video-wwe-fox-news http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/28/10859920/t-mobile-binge-on... And: "you've now got the option of turning it [Binge On] off via shortcodes in your phone's dialer.Typing #BNG# and hitting send will show you whether it's currently enabled or switched off. #BOF# is the shortcode to turn off Binge On, and #BON# will reenable it."

smileysteve 11y ago
Oh cool! I had been watching originally, but hadn't seen this, thanks!