5 ms·

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

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.
      - hmahncke 11y ago
        Speaking as a parent, the problem with client based controls is access to the client without an argument.
        netneutralish 11y ago
        As a parent, and as a person working in the wireless industry, I share this frustration. The main issue is that a true client-based parental-control solution will: a) eat up more data as the client's parental control component needs to continually update its URL database; b) require more CPU and RAM (i.e. more expensive phone) if you want a better "content inspection" engine (since URLs are notoriously easy to bypass); c) you are willfully acting as a MITM and creating a backdoor by forcing all content to be decrypted in some way for the solution to work effectively and only controlled by you (the parent), which may (or may not) compromise your stance on the issue of e2e encryption, privacy and security; d) (your point above and following from c) having to personally safeguard and secure your child's device; e) on Android, is it even possible to not root the device? Where's there's a will, there's a way: most kids with smartphones coupled with an incentive to bypass controls (Minecraft was a good example given above) could easily root their device, or eventually social engineer their parents into choosing future devices that are rootable.
netneutralish 11y ago
After that, they degrade services that are not paying them and zero-rate + allow higher bitrates for services that pay them. "degrade services that are not paying them" and "allow higher bitrates for services that pay them" would even more blatantly violate FCC net neutrality in the US. T-Mobile here is circumventing this by only zero-rating with an opt-out mechanism. If they tried to pull a stunt like Deutsche Telekom in Germany, they'd be fined in no time by the FCC in a clear and shut case. They are doing something far more subtle here in the US. EDIT: For clarity, Deutsche Telekom is a majority shareholder of T-Mobile USA.
- Brotkrumen 11y ago
  I hope you are right. FCC lauds BingeOn though and T-mobile might argue that it's a customers choice to degrade videos of non-zero rated partners.

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.
    - hmahncke 11y ago
      Speaking as a parent, the problem with client based controls is access to the client without an argument.
      - netneutralish 11y ago
        As a parent, and as a person working in the wireless industry, I share this frustration. The main issue is that a true client-based parental-control solution will: a) eat up more data as the client's parental control component needs to continually update its URL database; b) require more CPU and RAM (i.e. more expensive phone) if you want a better "content inspection" engine (since URLs are notoriously easy to bypass); c) you are willfully acting as a MITM and creating a backdoor by forcing all content to be decrypted in some way for the solution to work effectively and only controlled by you (the parent), which may (or may not) compromise your stance on the issue of e2e encryption, privacy and security; d) (your point above and following from c) having to personally safeguard and secure your child's device; e) on Android, is it even possible to not root the device? Where's there's a will, there's a way: most kids with smartphones coupled with an incentive to bypass controls (Minecraft was a good example given above) could easily root their device, or eventually social engineer their parents into choosing future devices that are rootable.

netneutralish 11y ago

After that, they degrade services that are not paying them and zero-rate + allow higher bitrates for services that pay them. "degrade services that are not paying them" and "allow higher bitrates for services that pay them" would even more blatantly violate FCC net neutrality in the US. T-Mobile here is circumventing this by only zero-rating with an opt-out mechanism. If they tried to pull a stunt like Deutsche Telekom in Germany, they'd be fined in no time by the FCC in a clear and shut case. They are doing something far more subtle here in the US. EDIT: For clarity, Deutsche Telekom is a majority shareholder of T-Mobile USA.

Brotkrumen 11y ago
I hope you are right. FCC lauds BingeOn though and T-mobile might argue that it's a customers choice to degrade videos of non-zero rated partners.