9 ms·

T-Mobile’s Binge on Violates Key Net Neutrality Principles [pdf]

96 points by sinak 11y ago

csoete 11y ago
t-mobile does the same with spotify in germany. really bad for competing services.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  Competing services can apply to be included in the program based on technical specifications (limit your bitrate, clearly identify the traffic as video).
  - smileysteve 11y ago
    Sure, in theory, but in practice we're seeing big companies like Amazon Music, Google Play Videos, Youtube not being able to move on just T-Mobile. Complexity also increases as each ISP gets to choose their own rules. Besides, I, as a consumer want to be able to use Amazon Prime Music / Video at 0, whether Amazon wants to take the time to set it up or not.
    - toomuchtodo 11y ago
      Unfortunately, as a consumer, you don't have the technical resources to integrate your video provider with T-Mobile for them to support BingeOn. Your options are to wait, or move to another cellular provider (which doesn't, of course, have BingeOn). That is why BingeOn is offered. T-Mobile receives a network efficiency benefit, which they pass along to their users as unlimited video. Just because the user complains they want something, doesn't mean they get it. As always, the customer is not always right.
  - akmiller 11y ago
    So bend to our will and provide what we demand and we will deliver your content with the same advantages as we do for others. How is that not a net neutrality issue???
    - toomuchtodo 11y ago
      Limiting your bitrate for network efficiency isn't unreasonable. A user can even opt out FFS!
pilom 11y ago
The problem for Net Neutrality advocates is that T-Mobile's customers don't care one bit. They love the fact that they don't have to pay for streaming video and that they pay less for video on non-supported services. It is even causing customers of other carriers to ask their carriers to not be net neutral so that they can save money. This is one case where net neutrality is not anti-consumer or anti-competitive and it is hurting the net neutrality case to make such a big deal about it.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- mrwumpus 11y ago
  This is anti-consumer because it takes the decision of which streaming provider that I want to use as a consumer and puts it into the hands of my Internet provider. This is anti-competetive because if I am the creator of a new streaming service, I do not have a level playing field with the competing "free" streaming services offered at zero rating. I may also be forced to play ball with this provider in order to comply with the demands to be zero-rated, again limiting my ability to be competitive.
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    You have other mobile providers to pick from, and can also opt out of BingeOn if you elect to stay on T-Mobile. The people complaining are those who are pedantic about net neutrality. That's not how you're going to win over 300 million Americans. (As untog mentions elsewhere in this thread, "This is how net neutrality dies, if we're not careful.") Disclaimer: T-Mobile customer, previous EFF contributor who stopped donating after their campaign against T-Mobile's BingeOn
    - unethical_ban 11y ago
      In principle, I think Binge On is an example of poor net neutrality. It's a service provider engaging in a conflict of interest with content creators. I think those two roles should always be separate. Similar to Comcast owning NBC and degrading performance of other streaming services: It's immoral. What T-Mo is doing is the same: They are charging you more to access your local music server, or your friend's startup, than they are for the 'big players' in the market. It's harmful in the long term. Disclaimer: T-Mobile customer, current EFF contributor
duaneb 11y ago
Real question: does the fact that you can disable it ameliorate the situation at all? They are not forcing their customers out of freedom. I always assumed there would be customized services that sacrificed freedom for cost—so long as it is not the only feasible option, I don't see a problem here.
- pavanky 11y ago
  Net Neutrality was never about just the customers / consumers. The argument has been made fairly frequently saying Net Neutrality is good for consumers (and it is, in the long run), but it is much more than that. It also allows small companies to compete freely instead of favoring large incumbent companies. Imagine a world in which Hulu came out first and was zero rated but Netflix was just trying to gain customers. Which service do you think the consumers would be using ? This is exactly what is happening now, except Netflix, spotify and other services are the large incumbents. Anything new is being penalized because they don't have the customers or voice.
  - duaneb 11y ago
    > Anything new is being penalized because they don't have the customers or voice. This is only on the burst option, though. This is just as much in the consumer's hands as it is the business's. This is precisely why I disabled it—I don't want to have to consider a brand's political standing with T-Mobile to figure out what kind of service I get.
- rhino369 11y ago
  I think they'd have a decent argument that it's just a user controlled QOS feature, except it discriminates against certain services and applications by zero rating data. If binge on just zero rated any compliant data streams with user acceptance they might have a decent argument they are compliant with net neutrality. But since I can't set up my Plex server to comply, it's a violation.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
disposition2 11y ago
I appreciate that the paper does discuss AT&T, Verizon and Comcast also offering zero rating but only in the case that content is provided by AT&T, Verizon or Comcast.
untog 11y ago
This is how net neutrality dies, if we're not careful. As a T-Mobile customer I browse /r/tmobile every now and then. It's an odd place, full of "fans" of T-Mobile (a concept I can't wrap my head around - users literally have flairs of "bleeding magenta"!), and the net neutrality debate there is fascinating. In short, many think this is not a net neutrality violation because any service can be accepted as part of "Binge On" if they apply to it. It is not anti-competitive, thus, not a net neutrality violation. Thing is, they're not wrong, per se. Because there isn't an actual accepted definition for "net neutrality". For me, it's strict - the carrier is carrying bits and bytes, and doesn't know/care what they are. For others, it is an anti-competition stance. Here's the problem: "Binge On" is great, in theory. Unlimited video! Even as a die-hard net neutrality supporter, next time I'm staying in a hotel with expensive wi-fi, I could load up Netflix on my phone and Chromecast it to the TV. Awesome. What's the net neutrality counter argument that is equally as enticing to customers? It's a tough sell.
- schnevets 11y ago
  Yeah, Net Neutrality was a lot easier to get behind when no service providers were really marketing the alternative. This controversy is similar to the Internet.org debate in India.
  - chimeracoder 11y ago
    > This controversy is similar to the Internet.org debate in India. The difference with Internet.org ("Free Basics") is that, in India, it's very easy to show Free Basics as a move by a foreign country to essentially "buy" India's poor and rural citizens citizens (and therefore, its sovereignty). Given the particular history of India's colonization under British rule, this is a message that resonates very well, which is why advocacy groups have been very successful in garnering opposition to Free Basics. Those who remember colonial rule in India or the decades following are not exactly thrilled about the idea of signing over their rights or power to a foreign corporate entity. That experience is different in the US, so its reception hasn't seen the same level of opposition here as it does in India.
- fleitz 11y ago
shakermakr 11y ago
Down vote all you want, but let's be honest. We here are nerds. We know the fundamentals of how the Internet works. And cost occurs somewhere. This ain't all for free. There are electricity bills to pay, bandwidth with 3rd parties to pay for, and blades to physically source. Video on demand is damn resource intensive. This isn't about delivering bytes which UTF-16 decoded speak about about a government. This isn't about delivering bytes which primarily educate. this is about Netflix n' Chill. It's about watching Modern Family on the commute home, and consumers loving it. A lot of the cost for this love, especially in mobile, is paid for by the ISPs. They have to physically deliver this traffic to your device via nodes for $19.99 a month. And damn them if a loading spinner appears. "My Internets rubbish...I'm gonna switch to Acme Internet...they have free Netflix streaming." So let's not lose focus: all software we write is for the end consumer...we need to create great, appreciated experiences for our users, otherwise they just unsubscribe. T-Mobile is doing just that. This isn't a philisophical debate. It's about providing end users what they want. And they want Netflix on their mobile without costing them more. And lambasting T-Mobile for doing such is missing the entire constitution of the Internet. Let them eat cake!
- gregwtmtno 11y ago
  No, it's about me being able to get the content of my choice at the same rate as the big boys. If I want to watch a programming live stream (I'm not much for modern family.), I should be able to do it at the same cost as any other bits over the air. Here, producers that that pay T-mobile will have an advantage. In ten years, we'll be boxed back into the same tired old content like we are with cable television. No thanks.
  - bmelton 11y ago
    And if you opt out of BingeOn, you have exactly that.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - gregwtmtno 11y ago
rootusrootus 11y ago
The fundamental problem here is lack of real competition. If the transport market was not dominated by just a few players, it would not be necessary to use regulation to try and enforce someone's definition of net neutrality. What I want to see is the gov't step in and break up the providers and maintain the last mile network as a public utility. Wireless isn't exactly the same as a wired network, obviously, but wireless bandwidth isn't unlimited either.
mwsherman 11y ago
It’s free shipping. I know people don’t like to hear this. The market for mobile “shippers” is more competitive than that in the physical world, in fact. The analogy is not perfect, but if one objects to this then one objects to Amazon or vendors offering free shipping, which is a benefit that puts them ahead of competitors, and (might) lead the consumer to include it in their decision-making. This also shows the tension between neutrality advocacy and consumer benefit. In a PR sense, it’s very hard to win, when most consumers only see the benefit. (I happen to side with consumers on this.)
- amazon_not 11y ago
  Imagine if only Fedex got to decide who got free shipping?
  - maxerickson 11y ago
    Fedex probably does charge different prices to different shippers. Which I think for the purposes of the comparison you are making is the same thing (that is, Fedex does make exclusive deals that are advantageous to Fedex).
    - amazon_not 11y ago
      Different prices, sure. Free shipping, not so much.
      - maxerickson 11y ago
        Doesn't the exclusivity matter more than the free?
        amazon_not 11y ago
        No. If Fedex won't deal with you then you can always go to UPS. Free is the kingmaker. If Fedex is free, you will do whatever it takes to get on their "good boy" list. You cannot afford to pay for shipping if your competitors are getting it for free.

96 points by sinak 11y ago

csoete 11y ago

t-mobile does the same with spotify in germany. really bad for competing services.

toomuchtodo 11y ago
Competing services can apply to be included in the program based on technical specifications (limit your bitrate, clearly identify the traffic as video).
- smileysteve 11y ago
  Sure, in theory, but in practice we're seeing big companies like Amazon Music, Google Play Videos, Youtube not being able to move on just T-Mobile. Complexity also increases as each ISP gets to choose their own rules. Besides, I, as a consumer want to be able to use Amazon Prime Music / Video at 0, whether Amazon wants to take the time to set it up or not.
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    Unfortunately, as a consumer, you don't have the technical resources to integrate your video provider with T-Mobile for them to support BingeOn. Your options are to wait, or move to another cellular provider (which doesn't, of course, have BingeOn). That is why BingeOn is offered. T-Mobile receives a network efficiency benefit, which they pass along to their users as unlimited video. Just because the user complains they want something, doesn't mean they get it. As always, the customer is not always right.
- akmiller 11y ago
  So bend to our will and provide what we demand and we will deliver your content with the same advantages as we do for others. How is that not a net neutrality issue???
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    Limiting your bitrate for network efficiency isn't unreasonable. A user can even opt out FFS!

pilom 11y ago

The problem for Net Neutrality advocates is that T-Mobile's customers don't care one bit. They love the fact that they don't have to pay for streaming video and that they pay less for video on non-supported services. It is even causing customers of other carriers to ask their carriers to not be net neutral so that they can save money. This is one case where net neutrality is not anti-consumer or anti-competitive and it is hurting the net neutrality case to make such a big deal about it.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
mrwumpus 11y ago
This is anti-consumer because it takes the decision of which streaming provider that I want to use as a consumer and puts it into the hands of my Internet provider. This is anti-competetive because if I am the creator of a new streaming service, I do not have a level playing field with the competing "free" streaming services offered at zero rating. I may also be forced to play ball with this provider in order to comply with the demands to be zero-rated, again limiting my ability to be competitive.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  You have other mobile providers to pick from, and can also opt out of BingeOn if you elect to stay on T-Mobile. The people complaining are those who are pedantic about net neutrality. That's not how you're going to win over 300 million Americans. (As untog mentions elsewhere in this thread, "This is how net neutrality dies, if we're not careful.") Disclaimer: T-Mobile customer, previous EFF contributor who stopped donating after their campaign against T-Mobile's BingeOn
  - unethical_ban 11y ago
    In principle, I think Binge On is an example of poor net neutrality. It's a service provider engaging in a conflict of interest with content creators. I think those two roles should always be separate. Similar to Comcast owning NBC and degrading performance of other streaming services: It's immoral. What T-Mo is doing is the same: They are charging you more to access your local music server, or your friend's startup, than they are for the 'big players' in the market. It's harmful in the long term. Disclaimer: T-Mobile customer, current EFF contributor

duaneb 11y ago

Real question: does the fact that you can disable it ameliorate the situation at all? They are not forcing their customers out of freedom. I always assumed there would be customized services that sacrificed freedom for cost—so long as it is not the only feasible option, I don't see a problem here.

pavanky 11y ago
Net Neutrality was never about just the customers / consumers. The argument has been made fairly frequently saying Net Neutrality is good for consumers (and it is, in the long run), but it is much more than that. It also allows small companies to compete freely instead of favoring large incumbent companies. Imagine a world in which Hulu came out first and was zero rated but Netflix was just trying to gain customers. Which service do you think the consumers would be using ? This is exactly what is happening now, except Netflix, spotify and other services are the large incumbents. Anything new is being penalized because they don't have the customers or voice.
- duaneb 11y ago
  > Anything new is being penalized because they don't have the customers or voice. This is only on the burst option, though. This is just as much in the consumer's hands as it is the business's. This is precisely why I disabled it—I don't want to have to consider a brand's political standing with T-Mobile to figure out what kind of service I get.
rhino369 11y ago
I think they'd have a decent argument that it's just a user controlled QOS feature, except it discriminates against certain services and applications by zero rating data. If binge on just zero rated any compliant data streams with user acceptance they might have a decent argument they are compliant with net neutrality. But since I can't set up my Plex server to comply, it's a violation.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

disposition2 11y ago

I appreciate that the paper does discuss AT&T, Verizon and Comcast also offering zero rating but only in the case that content is provided by AT&T, Verizon or Comcast.

untog 11y ago

This is how net neutrality dies, if we're not careful. As a T-Mobile customer I browse /r/tmobile every now and then. It's an odd place, full of "fans" of T-Mobile (a concept I can't wrap my head around - users literally have flairs of "bleeding magenta"!), and the net neutrality debate there is fascinating. In short, many think this is not a net neutrality violation because any service can be accepted as part of "Binge On" if they apply to it. It is not anti-competitive, thus, not a net neutrality violation. Thing is, they're not wrong, per se. Because there isn't an actual accepted definition for "net neutrality". For me, it's strict - the carrier is carrying bits and bytes, and doesn't know/care what they are. For others, it is an anti-competition stance. Here's the problem: "Binge On" is great, in theory. Unlimited video! Even as a die-hard net neutrality supporter, next time I'm staying in a hotel with expensive wi-fi, I could load up Netflix on my phone and Chromecast it to the TV. Awesome. What's the net neutrality counter argument that is equally as enticing to customers? It's a tough sell.

schnevets 11y ago
Yeah, Net Neutrality was a lot easier to get behind when no service providers were really marketing the alternative. This controversy is similar to the Internet.org debate in India.
- chimeracoder 11y ago
  > This controversy is similar to the Internet.org debate in India. The difference with Internet.org ("Free Basics") is that, in India, it's very easy to show Free Basics as a move by a foreign country to essentially "buy" India's poor and rural citizens citizens (and therefore, its sovereignty). Given the particular history of India's colonization under British rule, this is a message that resonates very well, which is why advocacy groups have been very successful in garnering opposition to Free Basics. Those who remember colonial rule in India or the decades following are not exactly thrilled about the idea of signing over their rights or power to a foreign corporate entity. That experience is different in the US, so its reception hasn't seen the same level of opposition here as it does in India.
fleitz 11y ago

shakermakr 11y ago

Down vote all you want, but let's be honest. We here are nerds. We know the fundamentals of how the Internet works. And cost occurs somewhere. This ain't all for free. There are electricity bills to pay, bandwidth with 3rd parties to pay for, and blades to physically source. Video on demand is damn resource intensive. This isn't about delivering bytes which UTF-16 decoded speak about about a government. This isn't about delivering bytes which primarily educate. this is about Netflix n' Chill. It's about watching Modern Family on the commute home, and consumers loving it. A lot of the cost for this love, especially in mobile, is paid for by the ISPs. They have to physically deliver this traffic to your device via nodes for $19.99 a month. And damn them if a loading spinner appears. "My Internets rubbish...I'm gonna switch to Acme Internet...they have free Netflix streaming." So let's not lose focus: all software we write is for the end consumer...we need to create great, appreciated experiences for our users, otherwise they just unsubscribe. T-Mobile is doing just that. This isn't a philisophical debate. It's about providing end users what they want. And they want Netflix on their mobile without costing them more. And lambasting T-Mobile for doing such is missing the entire constitution of the Internet. Let them eat cake!

gregwtmtno 11y ago
No, it's about me being able to get the content of my choice at the same rate as the big boys. If I want to watch a programming live stream (I'm not much for modern family.), I should be able to do it at the same cost as any other bits over the air. Here, producers that that pay T-mobile will have an advantage. In ten years, we'll be boxed back into the same tired old content like we are with cable television. No thanks.
- bmelton 11y ago
  And if you opt out of BingeOn, you have exactly that.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - gregwtmtno 11y ago

rootusrootus 11y ago

The fundamental problem here is lack of real competition. If the transport market was not dominated by just a few players, it would not be necessary to use regulation to try and enforce someone's definition of net neutrality. What I want to see is the gov't step in and break up the providers and maintain the last mile network as a public utility. Wireless isn't exactly the same as a wired network, obviously, but wireless bandwidth isn't unlimited either.

mwsherman 11y ago

It’s free shipping. I know people don’t like to hear this. The market for mobile “shippers” is more competitive than that in the physical world, in fact. The analogy is not perfect, but if one objects to this then one objects to Amazon or vendors offering free shipping, which is a benefit that puts them ahead of competitors, and (might) lead the consumer to include it in their decision-making. This also shows the tension between neutrality advocacy and consumer benefit. In a PR sense, it’s very hard to win, when most consumers only see the benefit. (I happen to side with consumers on this.)

amazon_not 11y ago
Imagine if only Fedex got to decide who got free shipping?
- maxerickson 11y ago
  Fedex probably does charge different prices to different shippers. Which I think for the purposes of the comparison you are making is the same thing (that is, Fedex does make exclusive deals that are advantageous to Fedex).
  - amazon_not 11y ago
    Different prices, sure. Free shipping, not so much.
    - maxerickson 11y ago
      Doesn't the exclusivity matter more than the free?
      - amazon_not 11y ago
        No. If Fedex won't deal with you then you can always go to UPS. Free is the kingmaker. If Fedex is free, you will do whatever it takes to get on their "good boy" list. You cannot afford to pay for shipping if your competitors are getting it for free.