5 ms·

I love this "proprietary technology" schtick, as if selective throttling isn't something that any carrier could implement. The hardest part of developing this t

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.
- mikeash 11y ago
  This is spot on, and it's why "free" offerings are still a major net neutrality worry. Even if there's nothing underhanded going on with them initially, it sets the stage for trouble. I find "proprietary technology" claims amusing because to me that is such an obviously bad thing, and bragging about it is like General Mills bragging that every box of Wheaties is contaminated with mercury and PCBs.
  - netneutralish 11y ago
    To play devil's advocate here, does this mean companies shouldn't even offer time-limited freebies (e.g. promotional offerings "Buy 2 data packages for the price of 1! Limited Time offer!")? Or is the worry that only indefinitely free offerings can set the stage for trouble later? To me both viewpoints set the stage for trouble, except the indefinite free offering is a darker shade of gray.
    - subway 11y ago
      The issue isn't free/paid, but variations in communications service performance based on the content of the communications or the parties involved.
      - mikeash 11y ago
        Yes, exactly. I didn't mean to say that all "free" things are a net neutrality problem, only that policies which affect different traffic differently are still problematic when they're free. For example, if T-Mobile started charging $10/month to access Spotify on their network, that's an obvious net neutrality problem. What I'm saying is that if T-Mobile lets you access Spotify for free on their network, that is also a net neutrality problem, although many people see it as just a bonus. Stuff where an entire plan is free is fine. It's when different traffic is treated differently that net neutrality comes in.
      - netneutralish 11y ago
        Except where such variations in communications service are explicitly authorized by the consumer. A counter example that I bet T-Mobile is waiting to deploy is parental control. As strange as it sounds, there are actually families that pay to have their wireless carrier restrict adult content while on-net. EDIT: "As strange as it sounds" refers to the fact that most parental control solutions are network-based, when in fact a proper parental control solution should be client-based because as soon as your child goes to WiFi at MacDonalds/Starbucks they probably have access to all the adult content they want to see by bypassing the wireless carrier parental control network controls.
netneutralish 11y ago
Proprietary technology meant technology vendor technology bought and used by T-Mobile, not that it was proprietary to T-Mobile, unless Legere believes that T-Mobile's specific call flows or specific snowflake network configuration is part of this definition. So other carriers sure could implement the same thing, but nobody is crazy enough to do that until they figure out how T-Mobile subscribers and the FCC respond.

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.

mikeash 11y ago
This is spot on, and it's why "free" offerings are still a major net neutrality worry. Even if there's nothing underhanded going on with them initially, it sets the stage for trouble. I find "proprietary technology" claims amusing because to me that is such an obviously bad thing, and bragging about it is like General Mills bragging that every box of Wheaties is contaminated with mercury and PCBs.
- netneutralish 11y ago
  To play devil's advocate here, does this mean companies shouldn't even offer time-limited freebies (e.g. promotional offerings "Buy 2 data packages for the price of 1! Limited Time offer!")? Or is the worry that only indefinitely free offerings can set the stage for trouble later? To me both viewpoints set the stage for trouble, except the indefinite free offering is a darker shade of gray.
  - subway 11y ago
    The issue isn't free/paid, but variations in communications service performance based on the content of the communications or the parties involved.
    - mikeash 11y ago
      Yes, exactly. I didn't mean to say that all "free" things are a net neutrality problem, only that policies which affect different traffic differently are still problematic when they're free. For example, if T-Mobile started charging $10/month to access Spotify on their network, that's an obvious net neutrality problem. What I'm saying is that if T-Mobile lets you access Spotify for free on their network, that is also a net neutrality problem, although many people see it as just a bonus. Stuff where an entire plan is free is fine. It's when different traffic is treated differently that net neutrality comes in.
    - netneutralish 11y ago
      Except where such variations in communications service are explicitly authorized by the consumer. A counter example that I bet T-Mobile is waiting to deploy is parental control. As strange as it sounds, there are actually families that pay to have their wireless carrier restrict adult content while on-net. EDIT: "As strange as it sounds" refers to the fact that most parental control solutions are network-based, when in fact a proper parental control solution should be client-based because as soon as your child goes to WiFi at MacDonalds/Starbucks they probably have access to all the adult content they want to see by bypassing the wireless carrier parental control network controls.

netneutralish 11y ago

Proprietary technology meant technology vendor technology bought and used by T-Mobile, not that it was proprietary to T-Mobile, unless Legere believes that T-Mobile's specific call flows or specific snowflake network configuration is part of this definition. So other carriers sure could implement the same thing, but nobody is crazy enough to do that until they figure out how T-Mobile subscribers and the FCC respond.