Appeals court upholds FCC's net neutrality order

Re:Appeals court upholds FCC's net neutrality order by dragonwriter on Tuesday June 14, 2016 @11:45AM (#11902762)

> They're problematic because they are fast lanes that prioritize content.

Zero-rating services aren't traffic prioritization, and the Open Internet Order forbids paid prioritization anyway. What they are is paid deals where data from one service isn't counted against data caps, which is a different form of favoritism.

> You can't compete against Netflix with T-Mobile users because Netflix's traffic gets priority.

No, you can't compete against Netflix with T-Mobile users (without making a similar deal with T-Mobile) because your data-intensive service will be charged against a limited usage quota while Netflix's won't.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Appeals court upholds FCC's net neutrality order by charlesz on Tuesday June 14, 2016 @12:46PM (#11903271)

Anyone can apply for T-Mobile's Music Freedom (zero-rated music streaming) and BingeOn (zero-rated video streaming) programs assuming you're providing legal content.

Edit: It's also worth noting that participation in the programs is free both for the provider and end user.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Appeals court upholds FCC's net neutrality order by ascagnel_ on Tuesday June 14, 2016 @01:50PM (#11903856)

Your edit is the most important piece, and lets T-Mobile spin it as a network optimization program instead of paid prioritization, regardless of how it may actually work.

[ Parent | on HN ]