(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 <sh...@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 > >