Is net neutrality even law anymore? T-Mobile has had Binge on for a long time, which zero-rates certain video streaming services. And part of that was even under the old net neutrality laws.
Binge On doesn't fall under strict net neutrality, but they are at least publicly open to all lawful and licensed content audio/video providers, and the technical requirements are not very high. I don't know what the actual onboarding process is like, but they've got a lot of providers signed up...
I think they've got to be licensed for US customers, or T-Mobile USA isn't going to include them. Twitch does seem to be a notable missing provider; Amazon video is on the program though, so maybe there's some technical or product thing on Twitch's side.
Even US-only. Broadcast networks category is especially slim. They've anticipated this kind of scrutiny and claim no money is exchanged, but idk. Someone should try adding a random obscure service.
Net neutrality is the law in California, but T-Mobile says Binge On is ok because any video streaming service can participate for free. It sounds reasonable to me and apparently the California regulators are fine with it.
Here's the California law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Internet_Consumer_P.... T-Mobile Binge On is zero-rating. T-Mobile's claim is that they aren't getting paid for it, and that any video provider can participate, so they aren't only zero-rating "some content in a category". It sounds like that second part isn't true, so they are probably violating the law but nobody is being harmed so nobody has sued.
I agree that allowing any form of zero-rating is not full net neutrality because it isn't treating all packets the same, but I don't think it's fair to say that therefore there is no net neutrality in California. It's a very strong and effective law and gets like 95% of the way to full "dumb pipe" net neutrality.
