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-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong > Sent: Friday, 20 November, 2015 14:50 > To: Steve Mikulasik > Cc: nanog@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.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 > >