[185969] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Michael Thomas)
Fri Nov 20 11:32:13 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 08:32:08 -0800
In-Reply-To: <CAPv4CP8y8UAd1_7Pu1oEotC+-Zrqgk9ap3MJqhuZ_bsb5WkGtA@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On 11/20/2015 08:16 AM, Scott Brim wrote:
> 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.
Why do you need certification? I doubt many people have a problem with
qos marking,
but "certification" sort of gives me the creeps.
Mike
