3 ms·

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 ye

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.
  - cptskippy 11y ago
    They are giving the user a choice, they just defaulted to opt-out instead of opt-in. It's like when you buy something online and get auto-subscribed to a mailing list. You still have the option to turn it off.
    - kodablah 11y ago
      They made the choice for them. You would think differently if this were an on-by-default service compressing PNGs to JPEG or automatically minifying other content in the name of bandwidth saving. It's a dangerous slope for companies to turn on content manipulation at will. The free market has a hard time punishing them (or even knowing) for large telcos and ISPs. This is the crux of the NN legislation argument.
      - cptskippy 11y ago
        They chose a default, the choice to change that default is still with the customer. It's also very granular so you can choose for each individual line how you want your service. While content manipulation would give pause for concern, as it does with Comcast's data cap notifications, that isn't what T-Mobile is doing. They're not altering the traffic, they're altering the transport rate which is very different. By lowering the bandwidth of certain content types, they're triggering the adaptive technologies employed by services to behave differently. One of the EFF's gripes was that the pipe constriction was indiscriminate and thus services that didn't employ adaptive technologies experienced buffering and stuttering issues. That's probably the only legitimate point they made.
- wmeredith 11y ago
  The on by default crap is my rub as well. I was wondering why my video streaming went to shit a month back. Now I know (and have turned it off). T-Mobile's network is one of the weakest, if not the weakest, of the big 4 telcos. It's theirs or Sprint's. I went with them anyway because they appeared to be "less evil" than Verizon or ATT. But after all is said and done, if I'm a slave to a hostile corporate overload anyway, I may as well get good coverage. After the last few weeks of T-Mobile and their CEO's shenanigans, I'll just go with Verizon from now on.
- cptskippy 11y ago
  I think the opt-out nature of it was a calculated risk they felt they needed to take.
radley 11y ago
T-Mobile: “T-Mobile utilizes streaming video optimization technology throughout its network to help customers stretch their high-speed data while streaming video.” EFF: T-Mobile seems to be arguing that downgrading video quality is not actually throttling, but we disagree. "Throttling" means that when a video stream hits T-Mobile's network, its bandwidth is capped. If the video provider's server has the capability to adapt the quality of the video, then the server can do that—but it is the video provider that is using "adaptive video technology," not T-Mobile. In other words, T-Mobile just constrains the bandwidth, and it's up to video providers to make sure their videos stream smoothly. This isn't semantics—it's apples and oranges. If T-Mobile wanted to give its customers more choice, it would have made Binge On opt-in, not opt-out. And if Binge On was really about helping customers stretch their data, then T-Mobile wouldn’t have automatically enabled Binge On for customers with unlimited data. They would also zero-rate all videos they throttle, not just the videos of providers who have enrolled. - https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/01/binge-lite-ask-truth-about-t-mobile-video-throttling https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/01/binge-lite-ask-truth-a...
- cptskippy 11y ago
  T-Mobile's line is pure marketing BS to make what is basically QoS sound like something more advanced than what it is. It's not like we've never seen this sort of reality distortion before have we? The EFF is right that it's throttling and T-Mobile is right for not wanting to call it throttling for very obvious reasons. And It is also "adaptive video technology", the EFF seems to think that term has any predefined meaning but it doesn't, T-Mobile literally made it up. I disagree with the EFF's assertions about opt-in vs opt-out, they seems to not want to accept reality and why T-Mobile is doing this. T-Mobile, and anyone who isn't AT&T or Verizon, is very bandwidth constrained because of the way spectrum is auctioned off. They are trying to maintain acceptable service for their customers but can't if everyone is streaming 1080p video from the internet. While throttling is usually a poor decision for bandwidth management, persistent streaming is an exception where it helps. By turning this on by default, they're freeing up a lot of congestion. Most people won't know or care and those that do have a way to turn the service off. That being said, T-Mobile isn't just degrading service, they're offering you incentives for accepting the degraded service. If you don't want the offering, you can turn it off easily.

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.
- cptskippy 11y ago
  They are giving the user a choice, they just defaulted to opt-out instead of opt-in. It's like when you buy something online and get auto-subscribed to a mailing list. You still have the option to turn it off.
  - kodablah 11y ago
    They made the choice for them. You would think differently if this were an on-by-default service compressing PNGs to JPEG or automatically minifying other content in the name of bandwidth saving. It's a dangerous slope for companies to turn on content manipulation at will. The free market has a hard time punishing them (or even knowing) for large telcos and ISPs. This is the crux of the NN legislation argument.
    - cptskippy 11y ago
      They chose a default, the choice to change that default is still with the customer. It's also very granular so you can choose for each individual line how you want your service. While content manipulation would give pause for concern, as it does with Comcast's data cap notifications, that isn't what T-Mobile is doing. They're not altering the traffic, they're altering the transport rate which is very different. By lowering the bandwidth of certain content types, they're triggering the adaptive technologies employed by services to behave differently. One of the EFF's gripes was that the pipe constriction was indiscriminate and thus services that didn't employ adaptive technologies experienced buffering and stuttering issues. That's probably the only legitimate point they made.
wmeredith 11y ago
The on by default crap is my rub as well. I was wondering why my video streaming went to shit a month back. Now I know (and have turned it off). T-Mobile's network is one of the weakest, if not the weakest, of the big 4 telcos. It's theirs or Sprint's. I went with them anyway because they appeared to be "less evil" than Verizon or ATT. But after all is said and done, if I'm a slave to a hostile corporate overload anyway, I may as well get good coverage. After the last few weeks of T-Mobile and their CEO's shenanigans, I'll just go with Verizon from now on.
cptskippy 11y ago
I think the opt-out nature of it was a calculated risk they felt they needed to take.

radley 11y ago

T-Mobile: “T-Mobile utilizes streaming video optimization technology throughout its network to help customers stretch their high-speed data while streaming video.” EFF: T-Mobile seems to be arguing that downgrading video quality is not actually throttling, but we disagree. "Throttling" means that when a video stream hits T-Mobile's network, its bandwidth is capped. If the video provider's server has the capability to adapt the quality of the video, then the server can do that—but it is the video provider that is using "adaptive video technology," not T-Mobile. In other words, T-Mobile just constrains the bandwidth, and it's up to video providers to make sure their videos stream smoothly. This isn't semantics—it's apples and oranges. If T-Mobile wanted to give its customers more choice, it would have made Binge On opt-in, not opt-out. And if Binge On was really about helping customers stretch their data, then T-Mobile wouldn’t have automatically enabled Binge On for customers with unlimited data. They would also zero-rate all videos they throttle, not just the videos of providers who have enrolled. - https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/01/binge-lite-ask-truth-about-t-mobile-video-throttling https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/01/binge-lite-ask-truth-a...

cptskippy 11y ago
T-Mobile's line is pure marketing BS to make what is basically QoS sound like something more advanced than what it is. It's not like we've never seen this sort of reality distortion before have we? The EFF is right that it's throttling and T-Mobile is right for not wanting to call it throttling for very obvious reasons. And It is also "adaptive video technology", the EFF seems to think that term has any predefined meaning but it doesn't, T-Mobile literally made it up. I disagree with the EFF's assertions about opt-in vs opt-out, they seems to not want to accept reality and why T-Mobile is doing this. T-Mobile, and anyone who isn't AT&T or Verizon, is very bandwidth constrained because of the way spectrum is auctioned off. They are trying to maintain acceptable service for their customers but can't if everyone is streaming 1080p video from the internet. While throttling is usually a poor decision for bandwidth management, persistent streaming is an exception where it helps. By turning this on by default, they're freeing up a lot of congestion. Most people won't know or care and those that do have a way to turn the service off. That being said, T-Mobile isn't just degrading service, they're offering you incentives for accepting the degraded service. If you don't want the offering, you can turn it off easily.