Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Michael Thomas <mike () mtcc com>]

On 11/20/2015 08:16 AM, Scott Brim wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra () baylink com> 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.
> What I read was that as long as a video offerer marks its traffic and
> is certified in a few other ways, anyone can send video content
> cap-free. No I don't know what the criteria are. Does anyone here? I
> also think I remember that there is no significant cost to
> certification, i.e. this is not a paid fast lane.  If this is all
> true, this doesn't bother me, and could do everyone a favor by getting
> definitions clearer and getting traffic marked.


Why do you need certification? I doubt many people have a problem with 
qos marking,
but "certification" sort of gives me the creeps.

Mike