12 ms·

T-Mobile's John Legere Goes Off the Deep End: 'Who the Fuck Are You, EFF?'

252 points by koja86 11y ago

chiph 11y ago
Poking an alligator with a short stick is likely to have bad consequences.
- isaacdl 11y ago
  Who's the alligator here?
- fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
  It's really just kind of sad.
askafriend 11y ago
The level of ignorance and intentional misdirection by Tmobile's CEO here is incredible. I say this as a customer :/
- spacemanmatt 11y ago
  Agreed. I don't even consider using my mobile bandwidth for video but that sort of network fuckery is appalling to me.
- coldpie 11y ago
  The short video sounds like what you'd hear from any salesperson to me. A rough outline of the talking points, but no real understanding of how what they're selling works. Which is OK, it's not their job to be technical, but it does sound really crummy when you actually do understand what they're talking about. For example, "proprietary technology" sounds good to whoever this guy usually talks to. It sounds like nonsense to us. The sales department. Am I right, engineers?
  - askafriend 11y ago
    What's even more appalling is that he so vehemently refuses to acknowledge the throttling of data throughput even after EFF reached out to TMobile separately and the company confirmed it. HIS OWN COMPANY CONFIRMED IT!!! That's just comedy.
    - netneutralish 11y ago
      It's various shades of spin. For unencrypted videos, T-Mobile might be using other techniques beyond throttling (e.g. downshifting the resolution). Or perhaps he's trying to get around strict throttling by claiming (in his head) that they're only throttling videos, while other data isn't being touched. I wonder if he's on an internal hunt to find out who confirmed to the EFF that videos were being "throttled".
zekevermillion 11y ago
I love this "proprietary technology" schtick, as if selective throttling isn't something that any carrier could implement. The hardest part of developing this technology was likely the legal analysis as to why it doesn't violate FCC net neutrality rules. My conspiracy theory is that TMO implemented a system which does not violate the rules, but is designed to get customers used to the concept of throttling. Then after some lobbying or political changes, the rules may change, and TMO will have both the infrastructure as well as complacent customers ready to pay extra (perhaps indirectly) for streaming content on mobile data plans.
- Avshalom 11y ago
  I'm pretty sure net neutrality rules just don't apply to wireless.
  - netneutralish 11y ago
    You were downvoted because you are incorrect. The whole point of this debate is that wireless carriers were re-classified to fall under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 and Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 last February. Here's an announcement: http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/fcc-approves-net-neutrality-rules-wireless-putting-future-zero-rating-plans/2015-02-26 http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/fcc-approves-net-neutral...
- Brotkrumen 11y ago
  I don't think they're after customer money. They want service provider money. If what telekom is trying in germany is a any indication, the plan is to move all traffic to the BingeOn mode. After that, they degrade services that are not paying them and zero-rate + allow higher bitrates for services that pay them. But "paying" is not cash if the talk in our startup scene is to be believed. Telekom is pulling out of startup incubating (after failing miserably) and are trying to use their position as an intermediary to get equity off of every new startup. How? Imagine a new startup "meflixtube": growth is good, funding is secured, everything looks great. Telekom notices and says "would be a shame if something degrading would happen to your service, ey? give us a few percent of equity and you'll get zero-rated, undegraded access to our customers". Now instead of getting a few $$$, they are in line to get a few 100 million $$$ when a few of the new startups take off. They can even make sure that the startups they have "convinced" don't get any competition by refusing the same deal to competitors. tl;dr: Telekom is not after customer money, their customer base is the market they "offer" to companies and zero-rated, undegraded data is their gate.
supergirl 11y ago
To me it sounds like he really doesn't know what EFF is.
- mistermumble 11y ago
  He knows. His question was not a question, it was an aggressive statement of FUD. He is backpedaling and now saying that "innovation" can be controversial. https://twitter.com/JohnLegere/status/685236769319587840 https://twitter.com/JohnLegere/status/685236769319587840
oneJob 11y ago
Looks like some old dude that is disempowered at his day job and wanted to get a quick video out to the world before settling into his recliner for his 7-Eleven pizza and slurpee dinner.
aluhut 11y ago
Yes, that's the (formerly) government-owned corporation arrogance we got used to in Germany. As a former customer I hope they choke on it one day.
SloopJon 11y ago
The "who pays you" FUD reminds me of the subpoena Personal Audio sought for a list of EFF donors in the podcasting patent case. The EFF is not a front for your competitors. People really care about this stuff.
- CaptSpify 11y ago
  To be fair, I can see why it looks and feels like AstroTurf to people who don't know any better. That kind of cynicism is probably pretty healthy for good reasons in companies like theirs.
  - ocdtrekkie 11y ago
    I mean, that's true, and Google has spent plenty of money on the EFF. But the reason I trust the EFF, unlike most companies/organizations/government officials Google 'donates' money to, is that the EFF has taken Google to task, recently even: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/dec/02/google-eff-ftc-privacy-chromebook-gmail-spying-students http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/dec/02/google-eff...
  - digi_owl 11y ago
    Except that anyone poking at the EFF history should quickly discover that they have been around for some time, and got started because of government overreach regarding computers and electronic networks.
    - CaptSpify 11y ago
      Oh, I agree. A basic google-search should have been enough to tip them off. And it seems they didn't even do that, so shame on them. I'm just saying their pre-search reaction is probably justified.
    - krisdol 11y ago
      Yes but so has congress and a good number of its members are fronts various industries' special-interests.
maxerickson 11y ago
Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10861391 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10861391 (still ranked ~80)
fweespeech 11y ago
Does anyone else find it disturbing he doesn't know who the EFF and their sources of income are?
- flurpitude 11y ago
  Not exactly disturbing, but revealing. Evidently he lives in a little corporate bubble and is out of touch with the concerns of many ordinary internet users.
  - zaphar 11y ago
    I would not call card carrying EFF members ordinary internet users. We may be vocal but the vast majority of the internet denizens don't know who the EFF is either. The EFF does represent the concerns that most ordinary internet users should have but I don't know that I would say most of the do have those concerns.
    - massysett 11y ago
      Here EFF is pushing government interference in the market, as pushed by an FCC that is exceeding its authority, all so that consumers can have less choice (after all, if they don't like Binge On, they can choose another carrier that does not have it.) Most users don't share the EFF's concern because what T-Mo is doing does not harm them, so I certainly don't see how users even "should" share EFF's concern here.
      - fweespeech 11y ago
        The problem with this is, ultimately, it allows providers to create the original "slow lane/fast lane" situation.
- amyjess 11y ago
  Could just be hyperbolic rhetoric.
- pessimizer 11y ago
technofiend 11y ago
If only Project Fi's cost/gb were competitive with T-Mobile so I could jump ship. For my volume of use (5-10GB/mo) T-Mobile is the cheapest provider in town. Google's convergence (i.e. bundling Fi+Fiber) in this space would be exciting if they could get their MVNO pricing competitive but I guess they'd have to buy T-Mobile or Sprint to make that happen because they're not going to sell minutes or data at a loss.
- netneutralish 11y ago
  For my volume of use (5-10GB/mo) T-Mobile is the cheapest provider in town. It's even cheaper if you don't opt out of BingeOn and can tolerate DVD (480p24) quality video streaming on your wireless device.
- mikeash 11y ago
  As long as people prioritize price above all other things, shenanigans like this will keep happening. If you're not willing to pay more for better service then your likes or dislikes don't matter in the end.
  - toolz 11y ago
    That's simply not true at all, if you're paying the lowest, that means you value money over extra service and provided ample opportunities for competition in the market place and customers that want cheap service. They'll get what they want. If there isn't ample competition or near perfect legislation, it doesn't matter what you pay, the service will eventually be held by a monopoly that can do almost whatever they damn well please. You don't fight monopolies by paying more money, because as long as that's your only focus, the bar to entering the market will continue to rise until eventually you can't afford the `good guy`.
    - mikeash 11y ago
      There's no monopoly in the US cell phone market. Competition is decently robust, with four major networks and a buttload of MVNOs. Right now, one network is pulling this throttling bullshit. If you don't like it, there are other choices. If you say "I wish I could switch but T-Mobile is cheaper" then what you're actually saying is that you don't care about the issue enough to pay for it, and that means the providers have no reason to care about it.
Phemist 11y ago
Apparently this is part of his image: http://www.fastcompany.com/3046877/who-the-is-this-guy-john-legeres-strategy-for-taking-new-customers-by-storm http://www.fastcompany.com/3046877/who-the-is-this-guy-john-... Be offensive, get millions of customers.
gz5 11y ago
WiFi is the long-term winner of Binge On. And that may be T-Mobile's objective? In most markets, TM can't compete head-to-head with the dominant LTE provider in that market. If other MNOs follow T-Mobile's lead (certainly not a given, but a possibility), then this moves the playing field to WiFi. And T-Mobile may prefer to play there.
- grandalf 11y ago
  Excellent point. This paper provides some examples of similar behavior and a game theoretic analysis: http://vita.mcafee.cc/PDF/feint.pdf http://vita.mcafee.cc/PDF/feint.pdf
- netneutralish 11y ago
  I wish I could upvote you more than once. BingeOn provides limited relief for consumers using data while on-net, and are the most advanced amongst the American wireless carriers around integrated WiFi services. For example, they were the first as far as I can tell to launch extensive WiFi calling and WiFi SMS, even extending to some American airlines (at least for WiFi SMS - calling is possible but socially unaccepted on planes). Wireless carriers as a general rule are all looking at WiFi offload capabilities especially as 802.11ad and up provide higher transmission rates (peak and average theoreticals). There is a race to perfect and bring to market seamless WiFi-base station handoffs (both ways) in real-world conditions. I suspect that will require a combination of channel (i.e. mobile devices) + wireless network upgrades, so in the meantime carriers need to bridge the gap. This is arguably a pretty good strategy assuming T-Mobile is expecting WiFi to handle even more of their traffic overtime.
  - zanny 11y ago
    Except what T-Mobile wants does not mean jack to what consumers want, and it is reflective of the times for a company to be trying to exploit consumers rather than provide value to them. Of course every carrier wants you using wifi instead of their network. Its not their expense, but you would still be paying them for it. But people are not subscribing to often ludicrous mobile plan bills to be told to not use it. We absolutely have the technology to provide a huge swathe of people broadband (as per the new FCC relabel) Internet access through long-range transmission based tech like GSM CDMA or WIMAX. That makes it insane to propose laying physical wire in the dirt or making an interconnected mesh of low power wifi routers as a substitute. The only real barrier is the draconian privatization of photons that makes up spectrum regulation. If we had a 95% open spectrum with some restricted for government and emergency communications you could easily have broad spectrum towers that could adapt to congestion and pair them with radios that will adapt frequency to optimize for range vs data rate vs congestion. The limitations are entirely artificial and that should be pissing people off.
Patriot 11y ago
We know who EFF is. But who the fuck are you John Legere and what the fuck is T-Mobile ?
grandalf 11y ago
The whole net neutrality debate is fraught with profound misunderstandings of how the internet works. This T-Mobile/EFF fiasco included. We think of bandwidth in terms of maximum throughput, which makes sense for a dedicated circuit, since often the customer of a dedicated circuit plans to keep it nearly saturated (consider an office phone system, for example). We also care about latency and packet loss, but these are generally application specific concerns. Internet browsing works pretty well with high latency, but VOIP does not. Generally, it's always possible to overbuild the circuit and exceed the minimum performance requirements. A small office could install a second T1 to handle the extremely rare case of all phones and all fax machines being in use at once, but it may prefer to save the money and use a single T1. The second T1 could be viewed along the lines of an insurance policy against a usage spike, and the decision not to buy it could be considered "living dangerously" or voluntarily exposing the company to that risk in exchange for money saved. T-Mobile is not selling a dedicated bandwidth circuit to its customers, in spite of what the EFF wants us to feel indignant about. Yes, we all know the slippery slope the EFF is concerned about, but what T-Mobile is doing is quite reasonable. Imagine that you are the only person using a cable modem in the whole neighborhood. There is ample bandwidth available to you. But if all the neighbors are also using it, there is throttling and prioritization going on so that the finite bandwidth can be shared optimally. What does optimally mean? That is very much in the eye of the beholder. Maybe you play network games and would prefer that the network be optimized for low latency and UDP. Maybe your neighbor runs a BitTorrent node. Maybe someone down the street downloads raw SETI data for some kind of analysis. Each person has a different optimal QoS that he/she wishes the service provider would impose on everyone else. T-Mobile has strong incentives to keep its customers happy. By analyzing the bandwidth usage, it has found a way to offer bandwidth at a lower cost by imposing a specific kind of QoS filter on the data. This is precisely the purpose of QoS, being able to "stretch" bandwidth to accommodate more traffic by placing limits and prioritization on the traffic, with the goal of meeting all of the application specific requirements that the circuit would ideally meet. So, quite reasonably, T-Mobile has found a way to constrain some of the most egregious bandwidth hogging behavior its customers do, and has engineered a way to offer the constrained service at an improved price and packaged in a way so customers perceive greater value from the service. Yes, there might be someone trying to download SETI data over the T-Mobile LTE connection, or trying to compete in networked gaming, or all sorts of edge cases, but like Amazon's choice of which products it offers as Prime, T-Mobile has chosen a broadly appealing QoS filter which will result in most customers perceiving better value. Additionally, it allows T-Mobile to leverage content providers in infrastructure planning risk, which helps reduce the amount of bandwidth speculation going on, and overall makes the circuit perform more like a dedicated circuit. This point is subtle but true. So while the T-Mobile CEO seems a bit over the top, the EFF has (I think) gone over the line in an ill-conceived attack on one of the more progressive service providers. I personally donate to the EFF and proudly display the laptop sticker, but I also understand QoS and the complexity of shared infrastructure planning.
brudgers 11y ago
T-Mobile's product is a move into creating a "wireless cable" company. In the long run, it's going to be cheaper to compete across many local markets by building towers than running last mile wires and contracting fleets of service technician vans. In the US, the fact that most regulation is at the Federal level, implies that such a move will be relatively unconstrained by local governments and less burdened by franchise fees and right of way agreements and negotiations with power companies for stringing wires on poles. I suspect that regulations requiring big carriers to provide access on their networks and access to their exchanges may be another advantage, but I'm not a telecom lawyer. It's probably a necessary move as video increasingly dominates bandwidth consumption. And my experience is that competition in the cable market tends to lead to better service. I'm not really sure this is a bigger affront to net neutrality than some CDN delivering stale content or Google and Bing customizing my search results. It's just that we've come to accept those things and tend to heap hate on cable company business practices.
- grandalf 11y ago
  > cable company business practices Nearly by definition, "cable company business practices" means shared bandwidth circuits, the business practices in question being network QoS attempts to make it profitable to offer shared network services at low cost. I'd love to see a mathematical analysis of how much FIOS would cost if everyone got a 100% dedicated circuit at anything close to the advertised specs. The hubbub about T-Mobile's policy is a misguided rant which idealistically supposes that all bandwidth should be sold in some idealized "dedicated" way with no QoS imposed. It certainly could be sold that way, but at a much higher price.
nfriedly 11y ago
This might be the only time I've ever been happy to not be a t-mobile customer. (Well, at least for reasons other than network coverage...)
elahd 11y ago
FWIW, he followed up in a Periscope chat: https://www.periscope.tv/w/aV8GYzE4NTc4fDF5b0tNZHpRbXFveFELqXKy00GCduhfapXi-Pw9hE0fOURv_nuD9m46Bcx_kQ== https://www.periscope.tv/w/aV8GYzE4NTc4fDF5b0tNZHpRbXFveFELq...
mvdwoord 11y ago
I did a short consultancy gig at T-Systems (also part of Deutsche Telekom, like T-Mobile). Apparently they had bad experiences with T-Mobile services so were in the process of switching to another provider. Funnily enough, T-Mobile was not such a big fan of the IT service provided by T-Systems, and was also looking for an alternative. Sounds like a very healthy company indeed. P.s. John, if you read this, I also pay for the EFF.
forrestthewoods 11y ago
"... you'd probably pick EFF. The group, which has been around forever..." Founded July 6, 1990; 25 years ago. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Frontier_Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Frontier_Foundation) What a curious definition of forever. I'm not always sure when the EFF is more interested in protecting digital rights or self-promotion. Some statements sure feel like the later.
- pessimizer 11y ago
  World-Wide-Web-forever. I don't think anyone was implying that they were around before utilization of electricity became common, or before the Warring States period in China.
zw123456 11y ago
The technology they are using basically is similar to the technologies other wireless providers have used for throttling which they sometimes call "video optimization", the word optimize here is from the perspective of the carrier meaning "use less bandwidth on our network. It works by re-sampling and reducing the video quality in terms of resolution (pixels) and also color fidelity (e.g. octree). The thinking is that people watching video content on their phones will not notice the difference because the screen is so much smaller. The reason a lot of carriers ran afoul of NetNeut is that they were applying it without the consent of the subscriber (for example some would apply it only when their network or a cell site was nearing capacity or for users who were "abusing" unlimited plans (abusing meaning actually using a lot). I am not sure if the user elects to use a service with reduced quality at a reduced cost is really a violation of Net-Neut or not, the cable companies offer regular definition and high definition TV at tiered pricing for example. All the wireless carriers are trying to get into the content business in various ways as the growth of the traditional business levels off. One add on to my own comment is that I forgot is that there is an allegation that Tmo is applying "video optimization" to content other than bingeon, which if true is a clear violation. It also is possible they are just incompetent too because that type of system they are using has to be programmed based on the 5-tuple source or destinations (and some other parameters) which it would not surprise me if they screwed that up).
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
cptskippy 11y ago
I feel like the EFF is arguing semantics and hasn't really made a valid argument about what's wrong with T-Mobile's approach. Yes T-Mobile is throttling and yes they're trying to relabel what they're doing to avoid all of the negative connotations that the term "throttling" brings wit it, but what are they doing that's harmful to the customer? I think it ultimately comes down to the fact that T-Mobile made it an opt-out feature instead of an opt-in one. The reality is that wireless bandwidth is constrained and sustained transfers at high rates degrade the overall experience of everyone using a particular cellular tower. T-Mobile, being particularly bandwidth constrained, is attempting to mitigate this issue. They're doing it by offering a service where if you allow your bandwidth for certain content types to be be throttled, then the bandwidth you use for certain qualifying services won't count against your data cap. They're offering a carrot, not threatening with a stick. Yes it's opt-out, but that was probably done intentionally because most folks won't notice the degradation or won't care, AND, more importantly, most people wouldn't bother to enable it if it were opt-in. If T-Mobile made it opt-in then their adoption rate would be lower so by making opt-out they're getting the greatest benefit. I just looked at my account and the toggle to turn Binge On off is easily accessible in my user profile. It's not a buried feature anywhere. The only possible gripe I could see is that the setting is granular and per-line making it marginally harder to disable, but that's also a benefit. I have multiple lines on my account but only 1 has unlimited data, so the ability to disable it for just that one line is nice and allows me to have my cake and eat it too.
- kodablah 11y ago
  Regardless of T-Mobile's intentions, this is on-by-default traffic shaping and content manipulation. They also weren't clear that this is only a throttling service and nothing more. My biggest issue is that it's on by default.
  - zw123456 11y ago
    Agreed, that is where they run afoul of NN in my view, if the customer is given a opt-in choice then it is OK. The parallel is regular cable service, you can select regular or HD where HD costs more, but it is your choice.

252 points by koja86 11y ago

chiph 11y ago

Poking an alligator with a short stick is likely to have bad consequences.

isaacdl 11y ago
Who's the alligator here?
fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
It's really just kind of sad.

askafriend 11y ago

The level of ignorance and intentional misdirection by Tmobile's CEO here is incredible. I say this as a customer :/

spacemanmatt 11y ago
Agreed. I don't even consider using my mobile bandwidth for video but that sort of network fuckery is appalling to me.
coldpie 11y ago
The short video sounds like what you'd hear from any salesperson to me. A rough outline of the talking points, but no real understanding of how what they're selling works. Which is OK, it's not their job to be technical, but it does sound really crummy when you actually do understand what they're talking about. For example, "proprietary technology" sounds good to whoever this guy usually talks to. It sounds like nonsense to us. The sales department. Am I right, engineers?
- askafriend 11y ago
  What's even more appalling is that he so vehemently refuses to acknowledge the throttling of data throughput even after EFF reached out to TMobile separately and the company confirmed it. HIS OWN COMPANY CONFIRMED IT!!! That's just comedy.
  - netneutralish 11y ago
    It's various shades of spin. For unencrypted videos, T-Mobile might be using other techniques beyond throttling (e.g. downshifting the resolution). Or perhaps he's trying to get around strict throttling by claiming (in his head) that they're only throttling videos, while other data isn't being touched. I wonder if he's on an internal hunt to find out who confirmed to the EFF that videos were being "throttled".

zekevermillion 11y ago

I love this "proprietary technology" schtick, as if selective throttling isn't something that any carrier could implement. The hardest part of developing this technology was likely the legal analysis as to why it doesn't violate FCC net neutrality rules. My conspiracy theory is that TMO implemented a system which does not violate the rules, but is designed to get customers used to the concept of throttling. Then after some lobbying or political changes, the rules may change, and TMO will have both the infrastructure as well as complacent customers ready to pay extra (perhaps indirectly) for streaming content on mobile data plans.

Avshalom 11y ago
I'm pretty sure net neutrality rules just don't apply to wireless.
- netneutralish 11y ago
  You were downvoted because you are incorrect. The whole point of this debate is that wireless carriers were re-classified to fall under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 and Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 last February. Here's an announcement: http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/fcc-approves-net-neutrality-rules-wireless-putting-future-zero-rating-plans/2015-02-26 http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/fcc-approves-net-neutral...
Brotkrumen 11y ago
I don't think they're after customer money. They want service provider money. If what telekom is trying in germany is a any indication, the plan is to move all traffic to the BingeOn mode. After that, they degrade services that are not paying them and zero-rate + allow higher bitrates for services that pay them. But "paying" is not cash if the talk in our startup scene is to be believed. Telekom is pulling out of startup incubating (after failing miserably) and are trying to use their position as an intermediary to get equity off of every new startup. How? Imagine a new startup "meflixtube": growth is good, funding is secured, everything looks great. Telekom notices and says "would be a shame if something degrading would happen to your service, ey? give us a few percent of equity and you'll get zero-rated, undegraded access to our customers". Now instead of getting a few $$$, they are in line to get a few 100 million $$$ when a few of the new startups take off. They can even make sure that the startups they have "convinced" don't get any competition by refusing the same deal to competitors. tl;dr: Telekom is not after customer money, their customer base is the market they "offer" to companies and zero-rated, undegraded data is their gate.

supergirl 11y ago

To me it sounds like he really doesn't know what EFF is.

mistermumble 11y ago
He knows. His question was not a question, it was an aggressive statement of FUD. He is backpedaling and now saying that "innovation" can be controversial. https://twitter.com/JohnLegere/status/685236769319587840 https://twitter.com/JohnLegere/status/685236769319587840

oneJob 11y ago

Looks like some old dude that is disempowered at his day job and wanted to get a quick video out to the world before settling into his recliner for his 7-Eleven pizza and slurpee dinner.

aluhut 11y ago

Yes, that's the (formerly) government-owned corporation arrogance we got used to in Germany. As a former customer I hope they choke on it one day.

SloopJon 11y ago

The "who pays you" FUD reminds me of the subpoena Personal Audio sought for a list of EFF donors in the podcasting patent case. The EFF is not a front for your competitors. People really care about this stuff.

CaptSpify 11y ago
To be fair, I can see why it looks and feels like AstroTurf to people who don't know any better. That kind of cynicism is probably pretty healthy for good reasons in companies like theirs.
- ocdtrekkie 11y ago
  I mean, that's true, and Google has spent plenty of money on the EFF. But the reason I trust the EFF, unlike most companies/organizations/government officials Google 'donates' money to, is that the EFF has taken Google to task, recently even: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/dec/02/google-eff-ftc-privacy-chromebook-gmail-spying-students http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/dec/02/google-eff...
- digi_owl 11y ago
  Except that anyone poking at the EFF history should quickly discover that they have been around for some time, and got started because of government overreach regarding computers and electronic networks.
  - CaptSpify 11y ago
    Oh, I agree. A basic google-search should have been enough to tip them off. And it seems they didn't even do that, so shame on them. I'm just saying their pre-search reaction is probably justified.
  - krisdol 11y ago
    Yes but so has congress and a good number of its members are fronts various industries' special-interests.

maxerickson 11y ago

Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10861391 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10861391 (still ranked ~80)

fweespeech 11y ago

Does anyone else find it disturbing he doesn't know who the EFF and their sources of income are?

flurpitude 11y ago
Not exactly disturbing, but revealing. Evidently he lives in a little corporate bubble and is out of touch with the concerns of many ordinary internet users.
- zaphar 11y ago
  I would not call card carrying EFF members ordinary internet users. We may be vocal but the vast majority of the internet denizens don't know who the EFF is either. The EFF does represent the concerns that most ordinary internet users should have but I don't know that I would say most of the do have those concerns.
  - massysett 11y ago
    Here EFF is pushing government interference in the market, as pushed by an FCC that is exceeding its authority, all so that consumers can have less choice (after all, if they don't like Binge On, they can choose another carrier that does not have it.) Most users don't share the EFF's concern because what T-Mo is doing does not harm them, so I certainly don't see how users even "should" share EFF's concern here.
    - fweespeech 11y ago
      The problem with this is, ultimately, it allows providers to create the original "slow lane/fast lane" situation.
amyjess 11y ago
Could just be hyperbolic rhetoric.
pessimizer 11y ago

technofiend 11y ago

If only Project Fi's cost/gb were competitive with T-Mobile so I could jump ship. For my volume of use (5-10GB/mo) T-Mobile is the cheapest provider in town. Google's convergence (i.e. bundling Fi+Fiber) in this space would be exciting if they could get their MVNO pricing competitive but I guess they'd have to buy T-Mobile or Sprint to make that happen because they're not going to sell minutes or data at a loss.

netneutralish 11y ago
For my volume of use (5-10GB/mo) T-Mobile is the cheapest provider in town. It's even cheaper if you don't opt out of BingeOn and can tolerate DVD (480p24) quality video streaming on your wireless device.
mikeash 11y ago
As long as people prioritize price above all other things, shenanigans like this will keep happening. If you're not willing to pay more for better service then your likes or dislikes don't matter in the end.
- toolz 11y ago
  That's simply not true at all, if you're paying the lowest, that means you value money over extra service and provided ample opportunities for competition in the market place and customers that want cheap service. They'll get what they want. If there isn't ample competition or near perfect legislation, it doesn't matter what you pay, the service will eventually be held by a monopoly that can do almost whatever they damn well please. You don't fight monopolies by paying more money, because as long as that's your only focus, the bar to entering the market will continue to rise until eventually you can't afford the `good guy`.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    There's no monopoly in the US cell phone market. Competition is decently robust, with four major networks and a buttload of MVNOs. Right now, one network is pulling this throttling bullshit. If you don't like it, there are other choices. If you say "I wish I could switch but T-Mobile is cheaper" then what you're actually saying is that you don't care about the issue enough to pay for it, and that means the providers have no reason to care about it.

Phemist 11y ago

Apparently this is part of his image: http://www.fastcompany.com/3046877/who-the-is-this-guy-john-legeres-strategy-for-taking-new-customers-by-storm http://www.fastcompany.com/3046877/who-the-is-this-guy-john-... Be offensive, get millions of customers.

gz5 11y ago

WiFi is the long-term winner of Binge On. And that may be T-Mobile's objective? In most markets, TM can't compete head-to-head with the dominant LTE provider in that market. If other MNOs follow T-Mobile's lead (certainly not a given, but a possibility), then this moves the playing field to WiFi. And T-Mobile may prefer to play there.

grandalf 11y ago
Excellent point. This paper provides some examples of similar behavior and a game theoretic analysis: http://vita.mcafee.cc/PDF/feint.pdf http://vita.mcafee.cc/PDF/feint.pdf
netneutralish 11y ago
I wish I could upvote you more than once. BingeOn provides limited relief for consumers using data while on-net, and are the most advanced amongst the American wireless carriers around integrated WiFi services. For example, they were the first as far as I can tell to launch extensive WiFi calling and WiFi SMS, even extending to some American airlines (at least for WiFi SMS - calling is possible but socially unaccepted on planes). Wireless carriers as a general rule are all looking at WiFi offload capabilities especially as 802.11ad and up provide higher transmission rates (peak and average theoreticals). There is a race to perfect and bring to market seamless WiFi-base station handoffs (both ways) in real-world conditions. I suspect that will require a combination of channel (i.e. mobile devices) + wireless network upgrades, so in the meantime carriers need to bridge the gap. This is arguably a pretty good strategy assuming T-Mobile is expecting WiFi to handle even more of their traffic overtime.
- zanny 11y ago
  Except what T-Mobile wants does not mean jack to what consumers want, and it is reflective of the times for a company to be trying to exploit consumers rather than provide value to them. Of course every carrier wants you using wifi instead of their network. Its not their expense, but you would still be paying them for it. But people are not subscribing to often ludicrous mobile plan bills to be told to not use it. We absolutely have the technology to provide a huge swathe of people broadband (as per the new FCC relabel) Internet access through long-range transmission based tech like GSM CDMA or WIMAX. That makes it insane to propose laying physical wire in the dirt or making an interconnected mesh of low power wifi routers as a substitute. The only real barrier is the draconian privatization of photons that makes up spectrum regulation. If we had a 95% open spectrum with some restricted for government and emergency communications you could easily have broad spectrum towers that could adapt to congestion and pair them with radios that will adapt frequency to optimize for range vs data rate vs congestion. The limitations are entirely artificial and that should be pissing people off.

Patriot 11y ago

We know who EFF is. But who the fuck are you John Legere and what the fuck is T-Mobile ?

grandalf 11y ago

The whole net neutrality debate is fraught with profound misunderstandings of how the internet works. This T-Mobile/EFF fiasco included. We think of bandwidth in terms of maximum throughput, which makes sense for a dedicated circuit, since often the customer of a dedicated circuit plans to keep it nearly saturated (consider an office phone system, for example). We also care about latency and packet loss, but these are generally application specific concerns. Internet browsing works pretty well with high latency, but VOIP does not. Generally, it's always possible to overbuild the circuit and exceed the minimum performance requirements. A small office could install a second T1 to handle the extremely rare case of all phones and all fax machines being in use at once, but it may prefer to save the money and use a single T1. The second T1 could be viewed along the lines of an insurance policy against a usage spike, and the decision not to buy it could be considered "living dangerously" or voluntarily exposing the company to that risk in exchange for money saved. T-Mobile is not selling a dedicated bandwidth circuit to its customers, in spite of what the EFF wants us to feel indignant about. Yes, we all know the slippery slope the EFF is concerned about, but what T-Mobile is doing is quite reasonable. Imagine that you are the only person using a cable modem in the whole neighborhood. There is ample bandwidth available to you. But if all the neighbors are also using it, there is throttling and prioritization going on so that the finite bandwidth can be shared optimally. What does optimally mean? That is very much in the eye of the beholder. Maybe you play network games and would prefer that the network be optimized for low latency and UDP. Maybe your neighbor runs a BitTorrent node. Maybe someone down the street downloads raw SETI data for some kind of analysis. Each person has a different optimal QoS that he/she wishes the service provider would impose on everyone else. T-Mobile has strong incentives to keep its customers happy. By analyzing the bandwidth usage, it has found a way to offer bandwidth at a lower cost by imposing a specific kind of QoS filter on the data. This is precisely the purpose of QoS, being able to "stretch" bandwidth to accommodate more traffic by placing limits and prioritization on the traffic, with the goal of meeting all of the application specific requirements that the circuit would ideally meet. So, quite reasonably, T-Mobile has found a way to constrain some of the most egregious bandwidth hogging behavior its customers do, and has engineered a way to offer the constrained service at an improved price and packaged in a way so customers perceive greater value from the service. Yes, there might be someone trying to download SETI data over the T-Mobile LTE connection, or trying to compete in networked gaming, or all sorts of edge cases, but like Amazon's choice of which products it offers as Prime, T-Mobile has chosen a broadly appealing QoS filter which will result in most customers perceiving better value. Additionally, it allows T-Mobile to leverage content providers in infrastructure planning risk, which helps reduce the amount of bandwidth speculation going on, and overall makes the circuit perform more like a dedicated circuit. This point is subtle but true. So while the T-Mobile CEO seems a bit over the top, the EFF has (I think) gone over the line in an ill-conceived attack on one of the more progressive service providers. I personally donate to the EFF and proudly display the laptop sticker, but I also understand QoS and the complexity of shared infrastructure planning.

brudgers 11y ago

T-Mobile's product is a move into creating a "wireless cable" company. In the long run, it's going to be cheaper to compete across many local markets by building towers than running last mile wires and contracting fleets of service technician vans. In the US, the fact that most regulation is at the Federal level, implies that such a move will be relatively unconstrained by local governments and less burdened by franchise fees and right of way agreements and negotiations with power companies for stringing wires on poles. I suspect that regulations requiring big carriers to provide access on their networks and access to their exchanges may be another advantage, but I'm not a telecom lawyer. It's probably a necessary move as video increasingly dominates bandwidth consumption. And my experience is that competition in the cable market tends to lead to better service. I'm not really sure this is a bigger affront to net neutrality than some CDN delivering stale content or Google and Bing customizing my search results. It's just that we've come to accept those things and tend to heap hate on cable company business practices.

grandalf 11y ago
> cable company business practices Nearly by definition, "cable company business practices" means shared bandwidth circuits, the business practices in question being network QoS attempts to make it profitable to offer shared network services at low cost. I'd love to see a mathematical analysis of how much FIOS would cost if everyone got a 100% dedicated circuit at anything close to the advertised specs. The hubbub about T-Mobile's policy is a misguided rant which idealistically supposes that all bandwidth should be sold in some idealized "dedicated" way with no QoS imposed. It certainly could be sold that way, but at a much higher price.

nfriedly 11y ago

This might be the only time I've ever been happy to not be a t-mobile customer. (Well, at least for reasons other than network coverage...)

elahd 11y ago

FWIW, he followed up in a Periscope chat: https://www.periscope.tv/w/aV8GYzE4NTc4fDF5b0tNZHpRbXFveFELqXKy00GCduhfapXi-Pw9hE0fOURv_nuD9m46Bcx_kQ== https://www.periscope.tv/w/aV8GYzE4NTc4fDF5b0tNZHpRbXFveFELq...

mvdwoord 11y ago

I did a short consultancy gig at T-Systems (also part of Deutsche Telekom, like T-Mobile). Apparently they had bad experiences with T-Mobile services so were in the process of switching to another provider. Funnily enough, T-Mobile was not such a big fan of the IT service provided by T-Systems, and was also looking for an alternative. Sounds like a very healthy company indeed. P.s. John, if you read this, I also pay for the EFF.

forrestthewoods 11y ago

"... you'd probably pick EFF. The group, which has been around forever..." Founded July 6, 1990; 25 years ago. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Frontier_Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Frontier_Foundation) What a curious definition of forever. I'm not always sure when the EFF is more interested in protecting digital rights or self-promotion. Some statements sure feel like the later.

pessimizer 11y ago
World-Wide-Web-forever. I don't think anyone was implying that they were around before utilization of electricity became common, or before the Warring States period in China.

zw123456 11y ago

The technology they are using basically is similar to the technologies other wireless providers have used for throttling which they sometimes call "video optimization", the word optimize here is from the perspective of the carrier meaning "use less bandwidth on our network. It works by re-sampling and reducing the video quality in terms of resolution (pixels) and also color fidelity (e.g. octree). The thinking is that people watching video content on their phones will not notice the difference because the screen is so much smaller. The reason a lot of carriers ran afoul of NetNeut is that they were applying it without the consent of the subscriber (for example some would apply it only when their network or a cell site was nearing capacity or for users who were "abusing" unlimited plans (abusing meaning actually using a lot). I am not sure if the user elects to use a service with reduced quality at a reduced cost is really a violation of Net-Neut or not, the cable companies offer regular definition and high definition TV at tiered pricing for example. All the wireless carriers are trying to get into the content business in various ways as the growth of the traditional business levels off. One add on to my own comment is that I forgot is that there is an allegation that Tmo is applying "video optimization" to content other than bingeon, which if true is a clear violation. It also is possible they are just incompetent too because that type of system they are using has to be programmed based on the 5-tuple source or destinations (and some other parameters) which it would not surprise me if they screwed that up).

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

cptskippy 11y ago

I feel like the EFF is arguing semantics and hasn't really made a valid argument about what's wrong with T-Mobile's approach. Yes T-Mobile is throttling and yes they're trying to relabel what they're doing to avoid all of the negative connotations that the term "throttling" brings wit it, but what are they doing that's harmful to the customer? I think it ultimately comes down to the fact that T-Mobile made it an opt-out feature instead of an opt-in one. The reality is that wireless bandwidth is constrained and sustained transfers at high rates degrade the overall experience of everyone using a particular cellular tower. T-Mobile, being particularly bandwidth constrained, is attempting to mitigate this issue. They're doing it by offering a service where if you allow your bandwidth for certain content types to be be throttled, then the bandwidth you use for certain qualifying services won't count against your data cap. They're offering a carrot, not threatening with a stick. Yes it's opt-out, but that was probably done intentionally because most folks won't notice the degradation or won't care, AND, more importantly, most people wouldn't bother to enable it if it were opt-in. If T-Mobile made it opt-in then their adoption rate would be lower so by making opt-out they're getting the greatest benefit. I just looked at my account and the toggle to turn Binge On off is easily accessible in my user profile. It's not a buried feature anywhere. The only possible gripe I could see is that the setting is granular and per-line making it marginally harder to disable, but that's also a benefit. I have multiple lines on my account but only 1 has unlimited data, so the ability to disable it for just that one line is nice and allows me to have my cake and eat it too.

kodablah 11y ago
Regardless of T-Mobile's intentions, this is on-by-default traffic shaping and content manipulation. They also weren't clear that this is only a throttling service and nothing more. My biggest issue is that it's on by default.
- zw123456 11y ago
  Agreed, that is where they run afoul of NN in my view, if the customer is given a opt-in choice then it is OK. The parallel is regular cable service, you can select regular or HD where HD costs more, but it is your choice.