4 ms·

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

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
> What Tmobile is doing isn't a challenge to the end. Yes, it is a direct challenge to the free and open internet. It closes mobile internet towards a specific use (HD video) based on the decision of a third party who does not know if HD video is needed or desired. The high bitrate could be critical to the application in question (for example a medical video consultation, a collaborative image editing tool, or some as-yet un-invented use that may now never happen) T-mobile could disrupt the mobile carrier market by pushing for open protocols by which the client or server can indicate that lower bitrate videos (or lower resolution images) are acceptable or preferred. Not to mention the fact that each Carrier/MVNO requiring a startup to implement their specific technical requirements to be eligible for Zero Rating has a direct, negative impact on competition.

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

> What Tmobile is doing isn't a challenge to the end. Yes, it is a direct challenge to the free and open internet. It closes mobile internet towards a specific use (HD video) based on the decision of a third party who does not know if HD video is needed or desired. The high bitrate could be critical to the application in question (for example a medical video consultation, a collaborative image editing tool, or some as-yet un-invented use that may now never happen) T-mobile could disrupt the mobile carrier market by pushing for open protocols by which the client or server can indicate that lower bitrate videos (or lower resolution images) are acceptable or preferred. Not to mention the fact that each Carrier/MVNO requiring a startup to implement their specific technical requirements to be eligible for Zero Rating has a direct, negative impact on competition.