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.mikula...@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.sm...@f5.com]
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 9:52 AM
To: Steve Mikulasik <steve.mikula...@civeo.com>; Shane Ronan
<sh...@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-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Steve Mikulasik
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 11:37 AM
To: Shane Ronan <sh...@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-boun...@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
