![nanog logo](/images/nanog-logo.png)
nanog mailing list archives
Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
From: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 14:12:01 -0800
Except there’s no revenue share here. According to T-Mobile, the streaming partners aren’t paying anything to T-Mo and T-Mo isn’t paying them. It’s kind of like zero-rating in that the customers don’t pay bandwidth charges, but it’s different in that the service provider isn’t being asked to subsidize the network provider (usual implementation of zero-rating). Owen
On Nov 23, 2015, at 10:42 , Christian Kuhtz <chkuhtz () microsoft com> wrote: I don't know if this is NN or not, but the concept is ancient. Even back in the dark ages of mobile, zero rating and associated rev share were very common. Whether this is relevant to NN or not is for lawyers. ChristianOn Nov 20, 2015, at 7:47 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra () baylink com> wrote: According to: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.engadget.com%2f2015%2f11%2f20%2ffcc-chairman-gives-t-mobiles-binge-on-the-thumbs-up%2f&data=01%7c01%7cchkuhtz%40microsoft.com%7c7c7a1c832d1a4d7d615008d2f1c1ebb0%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=XFz213dwbX7LmC2FwUAeJn5HP%2bAV9rU6b4dCatA%2b6FM%3d 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 -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra () baylink com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.bcp38.info&data=01%7c01%7cchkuhtz%40microsoft.com%7c7c7a1c832d1a4d7d615008d2f1c1ebb0%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=pqF%2fnrW6m6K0%2fdcNZO7pAm9xfEPpoYXHfaoS%2fpGZcsc%3d 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274
Current thread:
- Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?, (continued)
- 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)
- Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Lyle Giese (Nov 20)
- Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? William Herrin (Nov 20)
- Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Owen DeLong (Nov 23)
- Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Christopher Morrow (Nov 23)
- Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Owen DeLong (Nov 23)
- Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Mark Andrews (Nov 23)
- Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Owen DeLong (Nov 23)
- Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Baldur Norddahl (Nov 23)
- Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Owen DeLong (Nov 23)
- Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Mark Andrews (Nov 23)
- Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Keenan Tims (Nov 23)
- Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Mike Hammett (Nov 24)
- RE: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality? Tony Hain (Nov 26)