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

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

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.

Owen

> On 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