4 ms·

So why does no one complain when they benefit from non-net neutrality: https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/6/16262086/t-mobile-free-netflix-family-plan-deal https:/

So why does no one complain when they benefit from non-net neutrality: https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/6/16262086/t-mobile-free-netflix-family-plan-deal https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/6/16262086/t-mobile-free-net... See the comments and tell me if I missed any.

0xfeba 9y ago
I don't see how do I benefit from a wireless carrier giving me a credit for Netflix access... on their unlimited plan? They aren't zero-rating it AFAICT.
shkkmo 9y ago
This article is discussing a give away of netflix accounts to people with unlimited data account, which isn't a net-neutrality issue (while still an example of the anti-competitive desires that encourage major ISPs to push to end net neutrality). However, the prior action, an opt-out scheme to limit bandwidth of streaming video in exchange for zero-rating certain approved streaming providers was vigorously opposed here on HN.
techsupporter 9y ago
If T-Mobile wants to pay for something on my behalf, I don't think that's a violation of network neutrality principles for two reasons: First, T-Mobile isn't saying "we pay for your Netflix subscription and we block access to Hulu." Second, the service is opt-in at the customer's discretion. Giving the customer* a choice is the biggest point of the neutrality argument. If the customer, from an open marketplace, makes the decision, fine. If the service provider, particularly in a natural monopoly position, imposes service-specific limitations on the customer, not fine. To my mind, T-Mobile's BingeOn (and rate limiting for subscribers who don't have the ONE Plus add-on) is closer to a violation than simply paying for Netflix subscriptions. * Not that you used this word, but I'm on a mission: I intentionally write "customer" instead of "consumer." We are not consumers; we are customers paying money for a service.
- ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  T-Mobile isn't paying for something on your behalf. You're paying for cell service. They've just decided to charge you a different rate (in this case, nothing) for YouTube traffic and the like than for everything else. It gives favor and preference to the large established services which are included (by making them free/cheaper for consumers to use), which hurts small startups trying to disrupt the market. Binge On is the exact definition of a net neutrality violation, but since it's not available "a la carte" as an "add-on", nobody's really talking about it. Free things pass under the radar. Zero rating by T-Mobile hasn't been blocked by the FCC's existing rules which is one of the reason's I'm in support of the repeal: The orders being repealed aren't even protecting our net neutrality successfully.
  - eropple 9y ago
    "It's not perfect, so burn it down" has very rarely been a wise decision in the light of history.
    - superdug 9y ago
      I mean, not to be a wise-ass, but have you seen who's been appointed to the FCC, EPA, HHS, and other three letter orgs? FCC is saying net neutrality is bad, EPA is saying that climate change is natural and can't be affected by humans and isn't actually happening, and HHS is basically saying that being poor is a poor persons fault for being poor in the first place.
      - eropple 9y ago
        I am well aware! They are burning things down. "Well, things are imperfect as-is, so let's give them some extra gasoline" makes me raise both eyebrows.
  - takeda 9y ago
    Perfect is the enemy of good. Because one thing is a bit iffy, let's throw the whole regulation out? BingeOn initially had opposition, until T-Mobile gave customers option to disable it, and also opened it up so anyone who satisfied requirements (in particular had streaming that quality adapted to the bandwidth) could join for free. Honestly I would support FCC stepping in and said that this can't be done even though I'm T-Mobile customer.
8ytecoder 9y ago
Zero rating is a complex subject. Prior FCC chairman had vowed to look at zero rating on a case by case basis. In the case of T-Mobile, they treated all video services the same and more important did not own a competing video service that they prioritized unfairly over others. Seems sensible to me.
- betterunix2 9y ago
  I can see objections to T-Mobile's plan: It is a layering violation, since the network is dictating application requirements (the video streaming technology must be "T-Mobile friendly" to benefit from the zero-rating). It fails when users use VPNs, because the network cannot inspect packets or determine which service is used. Likewise with proxy servers, Tor, etc. It is not applied equally to all streaming services; T-Mobile maintains a list of registered services that is not even remotely comprehensive. So yes, this is a net neutrality violation, even if it is not the sort of behavior prohibited by the 2015 rules.
- takeda 9y ago
  Yeah I also don't think it is not an issue, but even though I'm T-Mobile customer, I think FCC should block it. It's equivalent of replacing blacklisting with whitelisting. In the end you can achieve the same thing what NN supposed to block, so allowing it creates a loophole (e.g. start provide only plans with ridiculously small data caps, and do zero rating on affiliates)
betterunix2 9y ago
I complained about that plan, as did many other net neutrality advocates. I even included an objection in my comment to the FCC on this very proceeding; among other things, T-Mobile's scheme fails when people use VPNs, it represents a layering violation, it violates the end-to-end principle, and it stifles innovation even for those services that are zero-rated (by preventing them from deploying new technologies effectively, since the network is dictating application requirements). So yeah, you did miss something, and comments on The Verge are basically just noise.
takeda 9y ago
A lot of people complained about that. After that T-Mobile added option to easily disable it. I still think FCC should step in and not allow that because it is treating selected traffic differently. Edit: I thought you were talking about Binge On, which probably supported your point better. Anyway in this case they are just including extra service membership in the plan what that has to do with NN?

0xfeba 9y ago

I don't see how do I benefit from a wireless carrier giving me a credit for Netflix access... on their unlimited plan? They aren't zero-rating it AFAICT.

shkkmo 9y ago

This article is discussing a give away of netflix accounts to people with unlimited data account, which isn't a net-neutrality issue (while still an example of the anti-competitive desires that encourage major ISPs to push to end net neutrality). However, the prior action, an opt-out scheme to limit bandwidth of streaming video in exchange for zero-rating certain approved streaming providers was vigorously opposed here on HN.

techsupporter 9y ago

If T-Mobile wants to pay for something on my behalf, I don't think that's a violation of network neutrality principles for two reasons: First, T-Mobile isn't saying "we pay for your Netflix subscription and we block access to Hulu." Second, the service is opt-in at the customer's discretion. Giving the customer* a choice is the biggest point of the neutrality argument. If the customer, from an open marketplace, makes the decision, fine. If the service provider, particularly in a natural monopoly position, imposes service-specific limitations on the customer, not fine. To my mind, T-Mobile's BingeOn (and rate limiting for subscribers who don't have the ONE Plus add-on) is closer to a violation than simply paying for Netflix subscriptions. * Not that you used this word, but I'm on a mission: I intentionally write "customer" instead of "consumer." We are not consumers; we are customers paying money for a service.

ocdtrekkie 9y ago
T-Mobile isn't paying for something on your behalf. You're paying for cell service. They've just decided to charge you a different rate (in this case, nothing) for YouTube traffic and the like than for everything else. It gives favor and preference to the large established services which are included (by making them free/cheaper for consumers to use), which hurts small startups trying to disrupt the market. Binge On is the exact definition of a net neutrality violation, but since it's not available "a la carte" as an "add-on", nobody's really talking about it. Free things pass under the radar. Zero rating by T-Mobile hasn't been blocked by the FCC's existing rules which is one of the reason's I'm in support of the repeal: The orders being repealed aren't even protecting our net neutrality successfully.
- eropple 9y ago
  "It's not perfect, so burn it down" has very rarely been a wise decision in the light of history.
  - superdug 9y ago
    I mean, not to be a wise-ass, but have you seen who's been appointed to the FCC, EPA, HHS, and other three letter orgs? FCC is saying net neutrality is bad, EPA is saying that climate change is natural and can't be affected by humans and isn't actually happening, and HHS is basically saying that being poor is a poor persons fault for being poor in the first place.
    - eropple 9y ago
      I am well aware! They are burning things down. "Well, things are imperfect as-is, so let's give them some extra gasoline" makes me raise both eyebrows.
- takeda 9y ago
  Perfect is the enemy of good. Because one thing is a bit iffy, let's throw the whole regulation out? BingeOn initially had opposition, until T-Mobile gave customers option to disable it, and also opened it up so anyone who satisfied requirements (in particular had streaming that quality adapted to the bandwidth) could join for free. Honestly I would support FCC stepping in and said that this can't be done even though I'm T-Mobile customer.

8ytecoder 9y ago

Zero rating is a complex subject. Prior FCC chairman had vowed to look at zero rating on a case by case basis. In the case of T-Mobile, they treated all video services the same and more important did not own a competing video service that they prioritized unfairly over others. Seems sensible to me.

betterunix2 9y ago
I can see objections to T-Mobile's plan: It is a layering violation, since the network is dictating application requirements (the video streaming technology must be "T-Mobile friendly" to benefit from the zero-rating). It fails when users use VPNs, because the network cannot inspect packets or determine which service is used. Likewise with proxy servers, Tor, etc. It is not applied equally to all streaming services; T-Mobile maintains a list of registered services that is not even remotely comprehensive. So yes, this is a net neutrality violation, even if it is not the sort of behavior prohibited by the 2015 rules.
takeda 9y ago
Yeah I also don't think it is not an issue, but even though I'm T-Mobile customer, I think FCC should block it. It's equivalent of replacing blacklisting with whitelisting. In the end you can achieve the same thing what NN supposed to block, so allowing it creates a loophole (e.g. start provide only plans with ridiculously small data caps, and do zero rating on affiliates)

betterunix2 9y ago

I complained about that plan, as did many other net neutrality advocates. I even included an objection in my comment to the FCC on this very proceeding; among other things, T-Mobile's scheme fails when people use VPNs, it represents a layering violation, it violates the end-to-end principle, and it stifles innovation even for those services that are zero-rated (by preventing them from deploying new technologies effectively, since the network is dictating application requirements). So yeah, you did miss something, and comments on The Verge are basically just noise.

takeda 9y ago

A lot of people complained about that. After that T-Mobile added option to easily disable it. I still think FCC should step in and not allow that because it is treating selected traffic differently. Edit: I thought you were talking about Binge On, which probably supported your point better. Anyway in this case they are just including extra service membership in the plan what that has to do with NN?