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 <[email protected]> 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:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 9:52 AM > To: Steve Mikulasik <[email protected]>; Shane Ronan > <[email protected]>; [email protected] > 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:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steve Mikulasik > Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 11:37 AM > To: Shane Ronan <[email protected]>; [email protected] > 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:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Shane Ronan > Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 9:25 AM > To: [email protected] > 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 >
