[185967] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Scott Brim)
Fri Nov 20 11:17:04 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <10331631.4.1448034343772.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com>
From: Scott Brim <scott.brim@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 11:16:41 -0500
To: Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> 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.
What I read was that as long as a video offerer marks its traffic and
is certified in a few other ways, anyone can send video content
cap-free. No I don't know what the criteria are. Does anyone here? I
also think I remember that there is no significant cost to
certification, i.e. this is not a paid fast lane. If this is all
true, this doesn't bother me, and could do everyone a favor by getting
definitions clearer and getting traffic marked.
