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

[Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists () gmail com>]

(CAUTION CAUTION CAUTION  - just a swag)

isn't this just moving content to v6 and/or behind the great-nat-of-tmo?

'reduce our need for NAT infra and incent customers to stop using NAT
requiring services' ?

On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Shane Ronan <shane () ronan-online com> wrote:
> 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