5 ms·

> AT&T does have a plan where any provider can sign up to pay for their customers' data use, which is different from waiving costs for certain large, establishe

> AT&T does have a plan where any provider can sign up to pay for their customers' data use, which is different from waiving costs for certain large, established sites. Wait, how is that different?

ves 9y ago
It’s like a customer-acquisition cost shouldered by the company, and presumably an option available to all companies. Zero-metering or other things being discussed privilege a fixed, arbitrary list of companies/websites, which is why they’re bad. Also, the extra cost is shouldered by either the ISP or the customer, which is like the company/website in question benefiting from a negative externality.
geofft 9y ago
It's not great, but it's open to everyone who "just" has money, reducing it to the previously not-quite-solved problem of giving capital to potential upstarts. As a Spotify competitor, you can't just sign up for Binge On, unless perhaps you have connections with people who work at T-Mobile.
- tzs 9y ago
  > As a Spotify competitor, you can't just sign up for Binge On, unless perhaps you have connections with people who work at T-Mobile. Binge On is video. The zero-rating program for music is Music Freedom. If you are a Spotify competitor and want to get included in Music Freedom, you contact T-Mobile at the email address documented in the Music Freedom. You don't need any inside connections. T-Mobile's stated policy is to get as many music streaming services as possible covered. For video providers who want to be included in Binge On, there is a different T-Mobile address to mail to, also documented on the T-Mobile site. For Binge On, the video service can actually choose one of four ways to participate: 1. Do nothing. Their content will not be zero-rated. If a T-Mobile customer has enabled Binge On T-Mobile will try to optimize the bandwidth usage if it can detect the video. 2. Be zero-rated. T-Mobile detects and optimized bandwidth usage. 3. Be zero-rated. The video service detects when the customer is on T-Mobile and handle optimizing bandwidth. 4. Disallow Binge On. Their content will not be zero-rated, and T-Mobile will not try to optimize its bandwidth use for customers who have Binge On enabled. Here are the technical details: https://www.t-mobile.com/content/dam/tmo/en-g/pdf/BingeOn-Video-Technical-Criteria-March-2016.pdf https://www.t-mobile.com/content/dam/tmo/en-g/pdf/BingeOn-Vi...
  - kuschku 9y ago
    I’ve tried joining Stream On (the term for T-Mobile#s Binge On and Music Freedom outside the US), but the requirements are insane. 4 weeks before I make any changes to any service I run via Stream On, I need to inform T-Mobile, and they have to approve the changes, or can end Stream On immediately. All Stream On content needs to run via separate hostnames, and has to transmit the hostname in cleartext. I have to be using forms of adaptive streaming, the bandwidth will be limited during this so that the user at most will be able to watch 480p videos. 50'000 EUR fine for each violation from my side, no fines if T-Mobile just kicks me out. And so on and so on. It’s ridiculous. Give me a single form where I enter a URL, and it’ll be zero-rated – or don’t zero-rate anything.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
    > T-Mobile's stated policy is to get as many music streaming services as possible covered. While that may be a stated policy, it is also obviously a lie. Obviously, they only want specific kinds of services covered, or else they would just drop this crap in the first place, as that is the only and totally straightforward way to make sure that all services are covered. If I run a bittorrent-based streaming service, they do not want to cover that. It's pure propaganda that they want to cover as many services as possible.
    - tzs 9y ago
      I believe I read that participating providers are identified by IP address. Wouldn't that be technically unfeasible for a bittorrent-based provider?
      - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
        So?! Yes, it probably would be ... but how is it my responsibility that they chose to identify services in a manner that inherently discriminates against certain services? If it was true that they intended to cover as many services as possible, they would not have chosen an identification method that obviously doesn't work for some services ... or for that matter, not introduced any distinction at all, and instead just increased the data cap, which would automatically work for all services.

> AT&T does have a plan where any provider can sign up to pay for their customers' data use, which is different from waiving costs for certain large, established sites. Wait, how is that different?

ves 9y ago

It’s like a customer-acquisition cost shouldered by the company, and presumably an option available to all companies. Zero-metering or other things being discussed privilege a fixed, arbitrary list of companies/websites, which is why they’re bad. Also, the extra cost is shouldered by either the ISP or the customer, which is like the company/website in question benefiting from a negative externality.

geofft 9y ago

It's not great, but it's open to everyone who "just" has money, reducing it to the previously not-quite-solved problem of giving capital to potential upstarts. As a Spotify competitor, you can't just sign up for Binge On, unless perhaps you have connections with people who work at T-Mobile.

tzs 9y ago
> As a Spotify competitor, you can't just sign up for Binge On, unless perhaps you have connections with people who work at T-Mobile. Binge On is video. The zero-rating program for music is Music Freedom. If you are a Spotify competitor and want to get included in Music Freedom, you contact T-Mobile at the email address documented in the Music Freedom. You don't need any inside connections. T-Mobile's stated policy is to get as many music streaming services as possible covered. For video providers who want to be included in Binge On, there is a different T-Mobile address to mail to, also documented on the T-Mobile site. For Binge On, the video service can actually choose one of four ways to participate: 1. Do nothing. Their content will not be zero-rated. If a T-Mobile customer has enabled Binge On T-Mobile will try to optimize the bandwidth usage if it can detect the video. 2. Be zero-rated. T-Mobile detects and optimized bandwidth usage. 3. Be zero-rated. The video service detects when the customer is on T-Mobile and handle optimizing bandwidth. 4. Disallow Binge On. Their content will not be zero-rated, and T-Mobile will not try to optimize its bandwidth use for customers who have Binge On enabled. Here are the technical details: https://www.t-mobile.com/content/dam/tmo/en-g/pdf/BingeOn-Video-Technical-Criteria-March-2016.pdf https://www.t-mobile.com/content/dam/tmo/en-g/pdf/BingeOn-Vi...
- kuschku 9y ago
  I’ve tried joining Stream On (the term for T-Mobile#s Binge On and Music Freedom outside the US), but the requirements are insane. 4 weeks before I make any changes to any service I run via Stream On, I need to inform T-Mobile, and they have to approve the changes, or can end Stream On immediately. All Stream On content needs to run via separate hostnames, and has to transmit the hostname in cleartext. I have to be using forms of adaptive streaming, the bandwidth will be limited during this so that the user at most will be able to watch 480p videos. 50'000 EUR fine for each violation from my side, no fines if T-Mobile just kicks me out. And so on and so on. It’s ridiculous. Give me a single form where I enter a URL, and it’ll be zero-rated – or don’t zero-rate anything.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
  > T-Mobile's stated policy is to get as many music streaming services as possible covered. While that may be a stated policy, it is also obviously a lie. Obviously, they only want specific kinds of services covered, or else they would just drop this crap in the first place, as that is the only and totally straightforward way to make sure that all services are covered. If I run a bittorrent-based streaming service, they do not want to cover that. It's pure propaganda that they want to cover as many services as possible.
  - tzs 9y ago
    I believe I read that participating providers are identified by IP address. Wouldn't that be technically unfeasible for a bittorrent-based provider?
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
      So?! Yes, it probably would be ... but how is it my responsibility that they chose to identify services in a manner that inherently discriminates against certain services? If it was true that they intended to cover as many services as possible, they would not have chosen an identification method that obviously doesn't work for some services ... or for that matter, not introduced any distinction at all, and instead just increased the data cap, which would automatically work for all services.