nanog mailing list archives
Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
From: Blake Hudson <blake () ispn net>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 16:04:34 -0600
Not that I mind getting significantly more service at little additional cost - as proposed by T-Mobile. But I would have preferred to simply get unlimited data usage (or a much larger monthly allotment) and had the freedom to use that data how I see fit. Comparing the two options, I think one is more neutral than the other.
Owen DeLong wrote on 11/20/2015 3:50 PM:
It’s a full page of standards in a relatively large font with decent spacing. Given that bluetooth is several hundred pages, I’d say this is pretty reasonable. Having read through the page, I don’t see anything onerous in the requirements. In fact, it looks to me like the bare minimum of reasonable and an expression by T-Mo of a willingness to expend a fair amount of effort to integrate content providers. I don’t see anything here that hurts net neutrality and I applaud this as actually being a potential boon to consumers and a potentially good model of how to implement ZRB in a net-neutral way going forward. OwenOn Nov 20, 2015, at 09:03 , Steve Mikulasik <Steve.Mikulasik () civeo com> wrote: That is much better than I thought. Although, I don't think the person who wrote this understands what UDP is. "Use of technology protocols that are demonstrated to prevent video stream detection, such as User Datagram Protocol “UDP” on any platform will exclude video streams from that content provider" -----Original Message----- From: Ian Smith [mailto:I.Smith () F5 com] Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 9:52 AM To: Steve Mikulasik <Steve.Mikulasik () civeo com>; Shane Ronan <shane () ronan-online com>; nanog () nanog org Subject: RE: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? http://www.t-mobile.com/content/dam/tmo/en-g/pdf/BingeOn-Video-Technical-Criteria-November-2015.pdf -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces () nanog org] On Behalf Of Steve Mikulasik Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 11:37 AM To: Shane Ronan <shane () ronan-online com>; nanog () nanog org Subject: RE: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? What are these technical requirements? I feel like these would punish small upstarts well helping protect large incumbent services from competition. Even if you don't demand payment, you can still hurt the fairness of the internet this way. -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces () nanog org] On Behalf Of Shane Ronan Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 9:25 AM To: nanog () nanog org Subject: Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? T-Mobile claims they are not accepting any payment from these content providers for inclusion in Binge On. "Onstage today, Legere said any company can apply to join the Binge On program. "Anyone who can meet our technical requirement, we’ll include," he said. "This is not a net neutrality problem." Legere pointed to the fact that Binge On doesn't charge providers for inclusion and customers don't pay to access it." http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/10/9704482/t-mobile-uncarrier-binge-on-netflix-hbo-streaming On 11/20/15 10:45 AM, Jay Ashworth 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. And I just said the same thing two different ways. Cause does anyone here think that T-mob is giving those *carriers* pride of place *for free*? Corporations don't - in my experience - give away lots of money out of the goodness of their hearts. Cheers, -- jr 'whacky weekend' a
Current thread:
- Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?, (continued)
- Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Scott Brim (Nov 20)
- Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Michael Thomas (Nov 20)
- Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Jay Ashworth (Nov 20)
- Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Shane Ronan (Nov 20)
- Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Josh Reynolds (Nov 20)
- Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Christopher Morrow (Nov 20)
- RE: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Steve Mikulasik (Nov 20)
- RE: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Ian Smith (Nov 20)
- RE: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Steve Mikulasik (Nov 20)
- Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Owen DeLong (Nov 20)
- Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Blake Hudson (Nov 20)
- Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Chris Adams (Nov 20)
- Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Owen DeLong (Nov 20)
- RE: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Keith Medcalf (Nov 28)
- Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Scott Brim (Nov 20)
- Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Owen DeLong (Nov 20)
- RE: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Steve Mikulasik (Nov 20)
- Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? joel jaeggli (Nov 21)
- Message not available
- Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Blake Hudson (Nov 20)
- Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Clay Curtis (Nov 20)
- Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Joly MacFie (Nov 20)