5 ms·

What I want to know is: Why is this suddenly a problem now? It was already done when T-mobile made Pandora/a few other music services not count against your dat

by null000 11y ago

What I want to know is: Why is this suddenly a problem now? It was already done when T-mobile made Pandora/a few other music services not count against your data cap - everyone seemed happy about it then, and much of the press enthused over T-mobile's innovativeness and daring. It also bothers me that I haven't seen any arguments that explain why this is bad in light of the fact that it's supposed to be based on infrastructure requirements, rather than payments, company affiliation, or otherwise. Instead of being used to squeeze small guys out of the picture, it looks more like a platform for getting more exposure and traffic than you would otherwise. It doesn't really pose a threat (except in slippery slope-esque situations) to the things that net neutrality claim to be protecting. Can't we all just be happy that, in a world of data caps, there's a company trying to chip away at the things you have to choose between spending data on? Does everything REALLY have to be a direct threat to the internet? Admittedly, I'd much rather see "no data caps ever" (there are plans for that, and they are pretty cheap on t-mobile) but I'm generally against letting perfect get in the way of good.

throwaway2048 11y ago
The most eloquent explanation of the problem of incentives this creates I've seen is that it dosen't incentivise your isp to provide the fastest, best service. Instead in a world where this is an accepted practice, in incentivises your ISP to provide awful, inadequate service to everyone that isn't paying them for special treatment. Eg, they will keep data caps tiny, because its better for them if every service with a lot of data usage comes to them to pay for a bypass. This is categorically massively punishing to smaller players without money and connections. In a nation where most people are served by what is effectively a non-competeing cartel of companies, allowing strong anti-user incentives to exist is a very bad idea, because they wont just be out-competed by a less exploitative company. Perfect isn't being the enemy of good in this case, "good enough" is being the enemy of things meaningfully improving, ever.
- netneutralish 11y ago
  Instead in a world where this is an accepted practice, in incentivises your ISP to provide awful, inadequate service to everyone that isn't paying them for special treatment. This is a valid concern when the carrier asks for money in exchange for "enhanced" fast lane service. However, in this case T-Mobile is undermining that argument completely by offering "any website or mobile app that offers streaming video [to] opt into its program with no charge. And T-Mobile users can turn off Binge On at any time." (Emphasis mine.) In a nation where most people are served by what is effectively a non-competeing cartel of companies, allowing strong anti-user incentives to exist is a very bad idea, because they wont just be out-competed by a less exploitative company. I generally agree with you about non-competing cartels of any stripe, but this particular case seems like it was designed to be consumer-friendly to T-Mobile's short-term financial detriment. Perhaps additional two data points will help: 1) Carriers (both fixed and wireless) that are not #1 in market share will sometimes engage in loss-promotions or tactics to gain subscriber share. The question often turns into "how long can X sustain this strategy, and how many subscribers will they lose when they're forced to downgrade offerings?" 2) American carriers are at war with each other, to the benefit of end subscribers.
ocdtrekkie 11y ago
It isn't "suddenly a problem now". Many of us said the exact same thing when T-Mobile announced their music plan. But we were drowned out by the excitement of people who didn't seem to know any better. It's unpopular to say this but "unlimited data" is not necessarily a consumer-friendly policy. We talk about data caps like it's a way to extort more money. But corporations have budgets they need to fill. If not data overages, they'd just raise your base plan pricing or add more fees. Unlimited data doesn't really reduce how much consumers pay. The difference... is how that money is distributed. For unlimited data plans, everyone pays the same. Which means the dude who torrents 50 gigs over 4G pays the same as my great aunt, who barely knows how to dial her phone. (But data plans are required for smartphones.) Tiered data is the first step towards making people who use their service more, pay a larger share of the money that, let's face it, our carrier is going to collect from us anyways. It's just hard for many of us in the tech circle to accept that. Because we're 1%ers. We use a disproportionately larger segment of data than everyone else. Should we pay more than people who barely use their phones? Absolutely. I'm not saying carriers don't overcharge, I'm not saying carriers don't add a lot of unnecessary fees. I'm not saying we don't have scary ISP monopolies in places where the government really should step in. But what I am saying is that metered data vs. unlimited data isn't the fight we want to pretend it is. And "unlimited data" plans with their restrictions against hosting a server on wire lines or against tethering on wireless is distinctly opposed to the values of net neutrality. And setting aside what services are free to use and not free to use furthers that not net neutral goal.
rhino369 11y ago
Net neutrality has always been a solution in search of a problem. The theory has always been that the big bad ISPs will destroy the internet for the little guy. Any FCC implementation of net neutrality should make sure customers are being harmed or some other anti-competitive actions are occuring. But telling Tmobile they can't allow free video on their network is an unwarranted intrusion into their business model. Should the government tell Google they have to charge for Gmail?
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  >Should the government tell Google they have to charge for Gmail? Mis-analogize much? Google isn't exactly an ISP like TMobile is. Also, email is text based and uses near-to-no bandwidth compared to video.
  - rhino369 11y ago
    You could come up with reasons why Google shouldn't be allowed to give away Gmail. They use their search monopoly. They monetize it by spying on the contents of the email. It's not a 1 to 1 parallel. I mostly meant why do you think Tmobile's business plan should be controlled by the FCC but Google should do what it wants.
    - jsprogrammer 11y ago
      >I mostly meant why do you think Tmobile's business plan should be controlled by the FCC but Google should do what it wants. The FCC controls TMobile's business plans in the way the FBI controls organized crime. If the principles of the Internet are to be maintained, traffic prioritization as a monetization scheme needs to be carefully monitored and most likely snuffed out.
- erose1 11y ago
  Their business model is supposed to be to provide access to all data, not to act as a gatekeeper and decide what sort of data people should consume. I don't think your comparison to Google is at all analogous to what is going on here.

by null000 11y ago

throwaway2048 11y ago

The most eloquent explanation of the problem of incentives this creates I've seen is that it dosen't incentivise your isp to provide the fastest, best service. Instead in a world where this is an accepted practice, in incentivises your ISP to provide awful, inadequate service to everyone that isn't paying them for special treatment. Eg, they will keep data caps tiny, because its better for them if every service with a lot of data usage comes to them to pay for a bypass. This is categorically massively punishing to smaller players without money and connections. In a nation where most people are served by what is effectively a non-competeing cartel of companies, allowing strong anti-user incentives to exist is a very bad idea, because they wont just be out-competed by a less exploitative company. Perfect isn't being the enemy of good in this case, "good enough" is being the enemy of things meaningfully improving, ever.

netneutralish 11y ago
Instead in a world where this is an accepted practice, in incentivises your ISP to provide awful, inadequate service to everyone that isn't paying them for special treatment. This is a valid concern when the carrier asks for money in exchange for "enhanced" fast lane service. However, in this case T-Mobile is undermining that argument completely by offering "any website or mobile app that offers streaming video [to] opt into its program with no charge. And T-Mobile users can turn off Binge On at any time." (Emphasis mine.) In a nation where most people are served by what is effectively a non-competeing cartel of companies, allowing strong anti-user incentives to exist is a very bad idea, because they wont just be out-competed by a less exploitative company. I generally agree with you about non-competing cartels of any stripe, but this particular case seems like it was designed to be consumer-friendly to T-Mobile's short-term financial detriment. Perhaps additional two data points will help: 1) Carriers (both fixed and wireless) that are not #1 in market share will sometimes engage in loss-promotions or tactics to gain subscriber share. The question often turns into "how long can X sustain this strategy, and how many subscribers will they lose when they're forced to downgrade offerings?" 2) American carriers are at war with each other, to the benefit of end subscribers.

ocdtrekkie 11y ago

It isn't "suddenly a problem now". Many of us said the exact same thing when T-Mobile announced their music plan. But we were drowned out by the excitement of people who didn't seem to know any better. It's unpopular to say this but "unlimited data" is not necessarily a consumer-friendly policy. We talk about data caps like it's a way to extort more money. But corporations have budgets they need to fill. If not data overages, they'd just raise your base plan pricing or add more fees. Unlimited data doesn't really reduce how much consumers pay. The difference... is how that money is distributed. For unlimited data plans, everyone pays the same. Which means the dude who torrents 50 gigs over 4G pays the same as my great aunt, who barely knows how to dial her phone. (But data plans are required for smartphones.) Tiered data is the first step towards making people who use their service more, pay a larger share of the money that, let's face it, our carrier is going to collect from us anyways. It's just hard for many of us in the tech circle to accept that. Because we're 1%ers. We use a disproportionately larger segment of data than everyone else. Should we pay more than people who barely use their phones? Absolutely. I'm not saying carriers don't overcharge, I'm not saying carriers don't add a lot of unnecessary fees. I'm not saying we don't have scary ISP monopolies in places where the government really should step in. But what I am saying is that metered data vs. unlimited data isn't the fight we want to pretend it is. And "unlimited data" plans with their restrictions against hosting a server on wire lines or against tethering on wireless is distinctly opposed to the values of net neutrality. And setting aside what services are free to use and not free to use furthers that not net neutral goal.

rhino369 11y ago

Net neutrality has always been a solution in search of a problem. The theory has always been that the big bad ISPs will destroy the internet for the little guy. Any FCC implementation of net neutrality should make sure customers are being harmed or some other anti-competitive actions are occuring. But telling Tmobile they can't allow free video on their network is an unwarranted intrusion into their business model. Should the government tell Google they have to charge for Gmail?

jsprogrammer 11y ago
>Should the government tell Google they have to charge for Gmail? Mis-analogize much? Google isn't exactly an ISP like TMobile is. Also, email is text based and uses near-to-no bandwidth compared to video.
- rhino369 11y ago
  You could come up with reasons why Google shouldn't be allowed to give away Gmail. They use their search monopoly. They monetize it by spying on the contents of the email. It's not a 1 to 1 parallel. I mostly meant why do you think Tmobile's business plan should be controlled by the FCC but Google should do what it wants.
  - jsprogrammer 11y ago
    >I mostly meant why do you think Tmobile's business plan should be controlled by the FCC but Google should do what it wants. The FCC controls TMobile's business plans in the way the FBI controls organized crime. If the principles of the Internet are to be maintained, traffic prioritization as a monetization scheme needs to be carefully monitored and most likely snuffed out.
erose1 11y ago
Their business model is supposed to be to provide access to all data, not to act as a gatekeeper and decide what sort of data people should consume. I don't think your comparison to Google is at all analogous to what is going on here.