Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[kmedcalf at dessus.com (Keith Medcalf)]

Obviously this is designed so that the carrier knows what traffic to "disregard" in their feed to the NSA ... That is the sole purpose of it.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong
> Sent: Friday, 20 November, 2015 14:50
> To: Steve Mikulasik
> Cc: nanog at nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
> 
> 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
> >