Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
morrowc.lists at gmail.com
Fri Nov 20 16:33:46 UTC 2015
(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 at 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."
> On 11/20/15 10:45 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>> According to:
>> 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.
>> -- jr 'whacky weekend' a
More information about the NANOG