4 ms·
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 foll
by 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 agoOh, 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.