2 ms·
So there's basically no principle at stake here at all? If they throttle YouTube and you don't use it, that's OK. If they throttle Netflix and you do use it, yo
by untog 11y ago
So there's basically no principle at stake here at all? If they throttle YouTube and you don't use it, that's OK. If they throttle Netflix and you do use it, you'll oppose it?
That seems exceptionally short sighted, but to each their own. As you say, I doubt we're going to change each other's minds here.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago> So there's basically no principle at stake here at all? There is, but you're fighting the wrong fight. Twiddling bits for network management = okay. Twiddling bits because you own a network and a content provider = not okay. Get back to me when you're fighting the right fight, and I'm more than happy to help.
- dsp1234 11y agoTwiddling bits for network management = okay. If this was twiddling bits for network management, then they would be done at the point where they throttle all video (which they are doing). But they are going past that, and also giving it away 'for free' to end users, but only if a service signs up. So in either case (whether a service is signed up for BingeOn or not), a streaming service is having their videos throttled. So what benefit does T-Mobile get by giving away it's 'twiddled bits'? One answer is 'to try to make network neutrality violations more palatible'. However no answer could be 'traffic management' because they are already doing it regardless of the BingeOn status of the provider.