4 ms·
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 se
by 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 agoThey 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 agoThey 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 agoThey 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.