4 ms·

As an EFF supporter and conflicted T-mobile customer I'm glad he issued this apology. No, it doesn't mean that he and the EFF are on the same page, but at least

As an EFF supporter and conflicted T-mobile customer I'm glad he issued this apology. No, it doesn't mean that he and the EFF are on the same page, but at least he is acknowledging that they are an organization to work with rather than dismiss outright. I'm going to attempt to give him the benefit of the doubt and allow that he may have been unfamiliar with the EFF and had suspected that they represented primarily the interests of T-Mobile's competitors rather than individuals. Also, I think that while Binge On was announced and promoted in a dishonest way, there is room for people who agree on the importance of net neutrality to disagree on whether such a program has a place on a neutral internet.

fossuser 11y ago
I like him actually - his initial response paired with this strikes me as authentic, that he really did think they were some interest group funded by Verizon or something. Unfortunate it was the EFF he thought this of, but his defense of binge on seems well reasoned and isn't surrounded in the normal corporate speak that usually comes from the CEO of a big company.
- ChuckMcM 11y ago
  There has always been a risk with being "authentic" although some people can pull it off. One of the things I've noticed about people fairly far up in large organizations is that they have filled their brain with all the various aspects of running that organization and have very little space for things they don't normally interact with. I can completely believe he didn't even know what EFF was beyond "something in the computer space" because it was probably irrelevant information until the twitter bomb.
- SixSigma 11y ago
  If you're the CEO of an ISP and you don't know who the EFF is then jeesh!
revelation 11y ago
If you advertise something in a way that makes it appear to be a blatant net neutrality violation (free traffic for Netflix, pay for the rest), then well, people are going to think it's a blatant net neutrality violation. In practice, BingeOn appears to be a program where you get free traffic if you agree to be throttled to 1.5Mbps. That is not a net neutrality violation at all. That's a perfectly sane product for an ISP to offer. They should have just skipped the Netflix and video rhetoric (and have it apply to all traffic, but that is really of little consequence).
- Bud 11y ago
  No, it certainly does violate net neutrality, because the 1.5Mbps cap does not apply equally to all traffic. Case closed.
- rhino369 11y ago
  It is still a violation of net neutrality because it discriminates by source of packets and application type. But who cares. Net Neutrality was supposed to be a means to an end (a fair and open internet). What Tmobile is doing isn't a challenge to the end. In the long fight for net neutrality many proponents have begun to think about net neutrality as the end itself. Who cares. Leave Tmo alone. They are disrupting the mobile carrier market.
  - revelation 11y ago
    BingeOn in it's current implementation is, just throttling everything to 1.5Mbps isn't. And it would have the same effect, essentially.
    - rhino369 11y ago
      Which is an argument for why net neutrality is a stupid rule.
    - gcb0 11y ago
      not the same dammit. it's exactly what's being discussed. imagine you're Google or Netflix, you have auto adapting streaming, so your clients can see a video in real time at 1.5mbps, though low quality. now your competitor had only HD streaming because it is prepared for a market where everyone have 4G so it assumes 2mbps and up. now a isp just decided it's impossible to whatch real time video on that service, which may have been the reason i signed up for internet access in the first place!
shkkmo 11y ago
If you read the whole 'letter' from John Legere: https://newsroom.t-mobile.com/issues-insights-blog/open-letter-to-consumers-about-binge-on.htm https://newsroom.t-mobile.com/issues-insights-blog/open-lett... I am less inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt because what I see as intentional decietful statements: > Can you imagine the disappointment, if people saw our TV commercials about Binge On, then went to watch 10 hours of video expecting it to be free, and only THEN learned that they needed to go into their settings to activate this new benefit? That’s how the Carriers would do it, but not T-Mobile. Everyone has it from day 1, period. > But here’s the thing, and this is one of the reasons that Binge On is a VERY “pro” net neutrality capability -- you can turn it on and off in your MyTMobile account – whenever you want. Turn it on and off at will. First he claims the they just HAD to opt everyone in because lots of people won't figure how to opt in/out. Then the claims is it VERY "pro" net neutrality because everyone can easily opt in/out. No wonder he thinks 'right now some people may be confused'.
- ptk 11y ago
  I'm actually ok with that explanation. He's absolutely right about people not opting in and then complaining after the fact. Don't you remember the dust-up following the auto-enabled iOS "Wi-Fi Assist"? If people can easily opt in and out of the Binge On program AND it's made crystal clear to them how to do so, that's a perfectly reasonable path in my opinion. However, if it requires a notarized letter and 3-month delay to make a change, that's obviously an issue.
  - shkkmo 11y ago
    Oh, I believe their explanation of why they opted people in by default. I think that very explanation contradicts their claim that Binge On is '"pro" Net Neutrality'. The majority of people will not know/remember that Binge On exists when they encounter the throttling. This means any any service that wants to offer High Definition video will need to educate each customer on the specific opt-out steps for that customer's Carrier/MVNO and operating system. What happens when different versions of a crappy MVNO's settings app has the opt-out toggle in a different spot in their menu tree with a different name? > that's a perfectly reasonable path in my opinion T-Mobile is a pretty consumer friendly company and I really appreciate what they have done for the US Carrier market. However signaling to other Carriers and MVNOs that these kinds of programs are acceptable takes us towards a path that is very bad for Net Neutrality.
shkkmo 11y ago
> there is room for people who agree on the importance of net neutrality to disagree on whether such a program has a place on a neutral internet. If you agree that Net Neutrality is important on mobile, then you by definition agree that it is important to not have across the content based throttling or degradation decided by a 'third party' (i.e. not the client or server). Why does this matter? If this sort of program becomes standard, the available market for those wishing to offer high definition mobile video will be highly constrained by the increased friction of educating people how to opt-out (not all carriers will make this as easy as T-Mobile). This doesn't have to be Netflix, it could be a remote Doctor using WiFi to stream High Definition video of an ongoing surgery to get an emergency consult from a Specialist via his phone or hotspot. There are times when "incredibly high resolution rates that are barely detectable by the human eye" are incredibly important and it should not up to T-Mobile to decide when that is. It should be up to the client and/or the server (and it should be done via an open protocol.)

fossuser 11y ago

I like him actually - his initial response paired with this strikes me as authentic, that he really did think they were some interest group funded by Verizon or something. Unfortunate it was the EFF he thought this of, but his defense of binge on seems well reasoned and isn't surrounded in the normal corporate speak that usually comes from the CEO of a big company.

ChuckMcM 11y ago
There has always been a risk with being "authentic" although some people can pull it off. One of the things I've noticed about people fairly far up in large organizations is that they have filled their brain with all the various aspects of running that organization and have very little space for things they don't normally interact with. I can completely believe he didn't even know what EFF was beyond "something in the computer space" because it was probably irrelevant information until the twitter bomb.
SixSigma 11y ago
If you're the CEO of an ISP and you don't know who the EFF is then jeesh!

revelation 11y ago

If you advertise something in a way that makes it appear to be a blatant net neutrality violation (free traffic for Netflix, pay for the rest), then well, people are going to think it's a blatant net neutrality violation. In practice, BingeOn appears to be a program where you get free traffic if you agree to be throttled to 1.5Mbps. That is not a net neutrality violation at all. That's a perfectly sane product for an ISP to offer. They should have just skipped the Netflix and video rhetoric (and have it apply to all traffic, but that is really of little consequence).

Bud 11y ago
No, it certainly does violate net neutrality, because the 1.5Mbps cap does not apply equally to all traffic. Case closed.
rhino369 11y ago
It is still a violation of net neutrality because it discriminates by source of packets and application type. But who cares. Net Neutrality was supposed to be a means to an end (a fair and open internet). What Tmobile is doing isn't a challenge to the end. In the long fight for net neutrality many proponents have begun to think about net neutrality as the end itself. Who cares. Leave Tmo alone. They are disrupting the mobile carrier market.
- revelation 11y ago
  BingeOn in it's current implementation is, just throttling everything to 1.5Mbps isn't. And it would have the same effect, essentially.
  - rhino369 11y ago
    Which is an argument for why net neutrality is a stupid rule.
  - gcb0 11y ago
    not the same dammit. it's exactly what's being discussed. imagine you're Google or Netflix, you have auto adapting streaming, so your clients can see a video in real time at 1.5mbps, though low quality. now your competitor had only HD streaming because it is prepared for a market where everyone have 4G so it assumes 2mbps and up. now a isp just decided it's impossible to whatch real time video on that service, which may have been the reason i signed up for internet access in the first place!

shkkmo 11y ago

If you read the whole 'letter' from John Legere: https://newsroom.t-mobile.com/issues-insights-blog/open-letter-to-consumers-about-binge-on.htm https://newsroom.t-mobile.com/issues-insights-blog/open-lett... I am less inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt because what I see as intentional decietful statements: > Can you imagine the disappointment, if people saw our TV commercials about Binge On, then went to watch 10 hours of video expecting it to be free, and only THEN learned that they needed to go into their settings to activate this new benefit? That’s how the Carriers would do it, but not T-Mobile. Everyone has it from day 1, period. > But here’s the thing, and this is one of the reasons that Binge On is a VERY “pro” net neutrality capability -- you can turn it on and off in your MyTMobile account – whenever you want. Turn it on and off at will. First he claims the they just HAD to opt everyone in because lots of people won't figure how to opt in/out. Then the claims is it VERY "pro" net neutrality because everyone can easily opt in/out. No wonder he thinks 'right now some people may be confused'.

ptk 11y ago
I'm actually ok with that explanation. He's absolutely right about people not opting in and then complaining after the fact. Don't you remember the dust-up following the auto-enabled iOS "Wi-Fi Assist"? If people can easily opt in and out of the Binge On program AND it's made crystal clear to them how to do so, that's a perfectly reasonable path in my opinion. However, if it requires a notarized letter and 3-month delay to make a change, that's obviously an issue.
- shkkmo 11y ago
  Oh, I believe their explanation of why they opted people in by default. I think that very explanation contradicts their claim that Binge On is '"pro" Net Neutrality'. The majority of people will not know/remember that Binge On exists when they encounter the throttling. This means any any service that wants to offer High Definition video will need to educate each customer on the specific opt-out steps for that customer's Carrier/MVNO and operating system. What happens when different versions of a crappy MVNO's settings app has the opt-out toggle in a different spot in their menu tree with a different name? > that's a perfectly reasonable path in my opinion T-Mobile is a pretty consumer friendly company and I really appreciate what they have done for the US Carrier market. However signaling to other Carriers and MVNOs that these kinds of programs are acceptable takes us towards a path that is very bad for Net Neutrality.

shkkmo 11y ago

> there is room for people who agree on the importance of net neutrality to disagree on whether such a program has a place on a neutral internet. If you agree that Net Neutrality is important on mobile, then you by definition agree that it is important to not have across the content based throttling or degradation decided by a 'third party' (i.e. not the client or server). Why does this matter? If this sort of program becomes standard, the available market for those wishing to offer high definition mobile video will be highly constrained by the increased friction of educating people how to opt-out (not all carriers will make this as easy as T-Mobile). This doesn't have to be Netflix, it could be a remote Doctor using WiFi to stream High Definition video of an ongoing surgery to get an emergency consult from a Specialist via his phone or hotspot. There are times when "incredibly high resolution rates that are barely detectable by the human eye" are incredibly important and it should not up to T-Mobile to decide when that is. It should be up to the client and/or the server (and it should be done via an open protocol.)