Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

Fri Nov 20 22:04:34 UTC 2015

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.
>
> Owen
>
>> On Nov 20, 2015, at 09:03 , Steve Mikulasik <Steve.Mikulasik at 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 at F5.com]
>> Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 9:52 AM
>> To: Steve Mikulasik <Steve.Mikulasik at civeo.com>; Shane Ronan <shane at ronan-online.com>; nanog at 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 at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Steve Mikulasik
>> Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 11:37 AM
>> To: Shane Ronan <shane at ronan-online.com>; nanog at 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 at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Shane Ronan
>> Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 9:25 AM
>> To: nanog at 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