4 ms·

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

by 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
    - toomuchtodo 11y ago
      "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." That's the crux though, right? If they can make their network more efficient by offering services in specific ways that consumers can opt-out of, why shouldn't they be allowed to? Because we like the principal that all bits are equal, regardless of protocol, service, or network? Because that just ain't the case. It doesn't take a CCIE to tell you that. EDIT: Yes, I agree that T-Mobile would be doing something "bad" if they were performing these activities for "real" anticompetitive purposes (promoting their own services, like AT&T and Comcast do). But if they're truly using it as a network management tool, which it appears they are based on the technical requirements, why should it not be allowed? Especially if you can opt-out?
      - nitrogen 11y ago
        Because on the other side, not everyone can opt in. Also, it's misleading marketing.
        toomuchtodo 11y ago
        > Because on the other side, not everyone can opt in. Can you provide evidence of this? That you're not permitted to opt in if you've met their technical guidelines? > Also, it's misleading marketing. Can you explain which part is misleading?
        brtt 11y ago
        if it was opt-in (edit: for the consumer) instead does that change the argument in any way? I remember that being a common recommended consideration when the program launched.
      - unethical_ban 11y ago
        So if T-Mobile had an open, technically feasible process by which any service could participate in the program given technical criteria, it would be a step in the right direction. example: If product X can provide this many CDN nodes and this much peering directly to T-Mo, then they are allowed to participate in Binge-On.
- sliverstorm 11y ago
  There's absolutely nothing stopping you from continuing to use your preferred streaming provider. On an individual consumer level, the worst possible outcome is you continue to pay the same prices you always paid to access the same service you always used.
  - amazon_not 11y ago
    Current data plan prices aren't exactly cheap and you get a discount for using "approved" services. Nothing is stopping you from going on as before, but T-Mo's actions strongly influence consumer behavior and they get to pick the winners.
msie 11y ago
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. Early in the morning, this sentence seems off.
devsquid 11y ago
No it doesn't. It shows that supporters of net neutrality understand the issue is deeper than just "someone is slowing down access to specific content on the net and thats bad". This is anti-competitive, t-mobile is the gate keeper for what services can stream for 'free' on their service.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  Does T-Mobile have a monopoly on mobile service in the US? Last time I checked, they were #3 out of 4 carriers. They don't have enough ground for it to be considered anticompetitive.
  - vkou 11y ago
    It's not anticompetitive with respect to other carriers, it's anticompetitive with respect to non-Binge web services.
    - toomuchtodo 11y ago
      As a T-Mobile customer, I don't care about other non-Binge web services. I'm paying T-Mobile, not them. Meet their BingeOn guidelines, or make the value prop compelling enough for me to burn my data quota up on you. Otherwise, you're asking me to subsidize your service through my monthly rates to allow your innovation or "freedom of expression".
      - nitrogen 11y ago
        ...and that's exactly why discriminatory deals like BingeOn should not be allowed. If Tmo wants to offer unlimited 2mbit traffic, let them offer it for all sites equally.
        toomuchtodo 11y ago
        I'd rather not subsidize an interpretation of idealism through my mobile bills.
untog 11y ago
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. I disagree. What if I want to use my phone connection to remote desktop into servers a lot? I don't get a BingeOn allowance for that. Why not?
- bobby_9x 11y ago
  T-mobile won't give you the BingOn allowance for this. If they lose in court, you will still need to pay for this and for videos.
  - untog 11y ago
    Yes, I know. But my point is why should I penalized as a "remote desktop user", when a "video user" is not?
    - toomuchtodo 11y ago
      You're not being penalized. You're simply not being granted an advantage of zero rated traffic because you're using network traffic (an encrypted remote desktop session) that can't be managed in the same way video traffic can be. Not all bits are created equally.
      - untog 11y ago
        You're not being penalized. You're simply not being granted an advantage But is there a meaningful difference there? Not all bits are created equally. That notion is literally the core of the Net Neutrality debate. --- EDIT: I replied to another post which someone deleted before I could submit. So an elaboration on my point above: At the end of the day, it's all marketing. Remote desktop being the "standard rate" and Video being free isn't meaningfully different from Video being the "standard rate" and remote desktop being "standard rate * 1.5". It's just how it's being sold to you.
        deleted 11y ago
zekevermillion 11y ago
I'm not sure BingeOn does in fact violate the rules. The Stanford article seems more like advocacy than scholarship, though the author makes reasonable arguments that are worth considering. TMO's strategy, if I can impute such a thing based on public info, is to introduce a service that doesn't technically violate the rules but does get customers used to the idea that mobile carriers can impose their own technically, if not legally discriminatory limits, on third-party services. TMO can be patient to wait for the customer mindset to change, or the rules to change, and then pow start figuring out how to monetize this strategy. I'm sure your right that the average TMO customer is oblivious to the politics of this, and/or is happy to make the Faustian bargain if it means their Downton Abbey reruns buffer a bit faster.

by pilom 11y ago

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
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    "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." That's the crux though, right? If they can make their network more efficient by offering services in specific ways that consumers can opt-out of, why shouldn't they be allowed to? Because we like the principal that all bits are equal, regardless of protocol, service, or network? Because that just ain't the case. It doesn't take a CCIE to tell you that. EDIT: Yes, I agree that T-Mobile would be doing something "bad" if they were performing these activities for "real" anticompetitive purposes (promoting their own services, like AT&T and Comcast do). But if they're truly using it as a network management tool, which it appears they are based on the technical requirements, why should it not be allowed? Especially if you can opt-out?
    - nitrogen 11y ago
      Because on the other side, not everyone can opt in. Also, it's misleading marketing.
      - toomuchtodo 11y ago
        > Because on the other side, not everyone can opt in. Can you provide evidence of this? That you're not permitted to opt in if you've met their technical guidelines? > Also, it's misleading marketing. Can you explain which part is misleading?
      - brtt 11y ago
        if it was opt-in (edit: for the consumer) instead does that change the argument in any way? I remember that being a common recommended consideration when the program launched.
    - unethical_ban 11y ago
      So if T-Mobile had an open, technically feasible process by which any service could participate in the program given technical criteria, it would be a step in the right direction. example: If product X can provide this many CDN nodes and this much peering directly to T-Mo, then they are allowed to participate in Binge-On.
sliverstorm 11y ago
There's absolutely nothing stopping you from continuing to use your preferred streaming provider. On an individual consumer level, the worst possible outcome is you continue to pay the same prices you always paid to access the same service you always used.
- amazon_not 11y ago
  Current data plan prices aren't exactly cheap and you get a discount for using "approved" services. Nothing is stopping you from going on as before, but T-Mo's actions strongly influence consumer behavior and they get to pick the winners.

msie 11y ago

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. Early in the morning, this sentence seems off.

devsquid 11y ago

No it doesn't. It shows that supporters of net neutrality understand the issue is deeper than just "someone is slowing down access to specific content on the net and thats bad". This is anti-competitive, t-mobile is the gate keeper for what services can stream for 'free' on their service.

toomuchtodo 11y ago
Does T-Mobile have a monopoly on mobile service in the US? Last time I checked, they were #3 out of 4 carriers. They don't have enough ground for it to be considered anticompetitive.
- vkou 11y ago
  It's not anticompetitive with respect to other carriers, it's anticompetitive with respect to non-Binge web services.
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    As a T-Mobile customer, I don't care about other non-Binge web services. I'm paying T-Mobile, not them. Meet their BingeOn guidelines, or make the value prop compelling enough for me to burn my data quota up on you. Otherwise, you're asking me to subsidize your service through my monthly rates to allow your innovation or "freedom of expression".
    - nitrogen 11y ago
      ...and that's exactly why discriminatory deals like BingeOn should not be allowed. If Tmo wants to offer unlimited 2mbit traffic, let them offer it for all sites equally.
      - toomuchtodo 11y ago
        I'd rather not subsidize an interpretation of idealism through my mobile bills.

untog 11y ago

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. I disagree. What if I want to use my phone connection to remote desktop into servers a lot? I don't get a BingeOn allowance for that. Why not?

bobby_9x 11y ago
T-mobile won't give you the BingOn allowance for this. If they lose in court, you will still need to pay for this and for videos.
- untog 11y ago
  Yes, I know. But my point is why should I penalized as a "remote desktop user", when a "video user" is not?
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    You're not being penalized. You're simply not being granted an advantage of zero rated traffic because you're using network traffic (an encrypted remote desktop session) that can't be managed in the same way video traffic can be. Not all bits are created equally.
    - untog 11y ago
      You're not being penalized. You're simply not being granted an advantage But is there a meaningful difference there? Not all bits are created equally. That notion is literally the core of the Net Neutrality debate. --- EDIT: I replied to another post which someone deleted before I could submit. So an elaboration on my point above: At the end of the day, it's all marketing. Remote desktop being the "standard rate" and Video being free isn't meaningfully different from Video being the "standard rate" and remote desktop being "standard rate * 1.5". It's just how it's being sold to you.
      - deleted 11y ago

zekevermillion 11y ago

I'm not sure BingeOn does in fact violate the rules. The Stanford article seems more like advocacy than scholarship, though the author makes reasonable arguments that are worth considering. TMO's strategy, if I can impute such a thing based on public info, is to introduce a service that doesn't technically violate the rules but does get customers used to the idea that mobile carriers can impose their own technically, if not legally discriminatory limits, on third-party services. TMO can be patient to wait for the customer mindset to change, or the rules to change, and then pow start figuring out how to monetize this strategy. I'm sure your right that the average TMO customer is oblivious to the politics of this, and/or is happy to make the Faustian bargain if it means their Downton Abbey reruns buffer a bit faster.