4 ms·

This is a major breach of net neutrality. T-Mobile wants to give customers free bandwidth to one type of service, while charging for bandwidth going eleswhere.

This is a major breach of net neutrality. T-Mobile wants to give customers free bandwidth to one type of service, while charging for bandwidth going eleswhere. The network costs are identical: it's not the place of a neutral ISP to discriminate on the contents of the bytes! (edit to correct error -- it's not restricted to T-Mobile's own music service. Mea culpa) (full disclosure: I'm a T-Mobile customer)

hkmurakami 12y ago
My first reaction was: "Hooray!" Then my immediate next reaction was "NOOOOOOO"
- mikeash 12y ago
  I anticipate great amusement watching people try to reconcile their hatred of data caps for their love of net neutrality. My own reaction was pretty much the same. "Awesome! Wait, awful!"
  - hkmurakami 12y ago
    I'm soooo torn about my $30 prepaid T-mobile plan now :(
- eob 12y ago
  Exactly. I'm not sure if this was a simple "let people have free music. That'll up our subscriber count" play or some masterful psyop mindtrick.
  - sroerick 12y ago
    It doesn't have to be masterful. T-Mobile can't issue a press release about free data, if everybody has unlimited data.
Igglyboo 12y ago
Until t-mobile says that other services will cost more, I see no problem with letting music be free.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- sroerick 12y ago
  Try building a small indie label web streaming music startup. And asking your customers to pay more because you don't have a T-Mobile partnership. "Letting music be free", as long as it participates in a corporate subsidy, no thanks.
  - chez17 12y ago
    I honestly don't understand your position. This was data that was being charged for before, now as a service to their customers they aren't charging for it. This is an attempt to gain more customers, it's not charging extra for other services, you have everything you had before, now if you choose to use these services you don't get the data billed to your account. It's not charging more for a fast lane, it's giving something away for advertising purposes. I am a web developer, net neutrality is very important to me, I just don't see how this is a major offense to that. Can you explain your position some more?
    - sroerick 12y ago
      First off, I take issue with your argument that this data costs money, and therefore making it free isn't an issue. The data costs money because the telecom industry has spent the last decade prying unlimited data plans out of the cold dead hands of your grandfathers. Do you remember AOL and the whole 600 minutes free spectacle? Do you remember how stupid that was? How many people do you know who either still have a grandfathered cell phone plan? How many people do you know who are angry that their grarndfathered plans are gone? Secondly, I take issue here because I have a strong libre-culture philosophy, and I really strongly believe you should be able to stream, download, remix, or publish everything. This policy by T-Mobile means that any hope of libre content on mobile is getting dimmer. This, combined with the artificial scarcity I mentioned before, make the game feel rigged.
sroerick 12y ago
Make no mistake, Rhapsody is the real winner here.
turing 12y ago
T-Mobile is claiming that they are not sponsorships and that Spotify, Rhapsody, Pandora, and the other launch partners are not paying for data-exempt status[1]. That said, this still raises serious net-neutrality red flags. 1. http://www.theverge.com/2014/6/18/5822996/t-mobile-music-freedom-net-neutrality http://www.theverge.com/2014/6/18/5822996/t-mobile-music-fre...
- sroerick 12y ago
  Yes. The article makes the point, the issue is not charging for access, the issue is creating a corporate barrier to entry in the market. What if I'm a musician hacker, and I want to release a album app like Bjork or Jay-Z did? Do I get free data too?
  - Touche 12y ago
    This issue is also T-Mobile violating customer privacy.
    - sroerick 12y ago
      Great point.
      - jbigelow76 12y ago
        The article mentions T-Mob's "unRadio" app. I would assume that using the app would require opting in to the data inspection requirements.
    - ahomescu1 12y ago
      How? I imagine it's implemented as "don't meter packets going to these IPs", for Pandora/whatever's streaming IP addresses. Adding some extra firewall/software rules doesn't violate privacy IMHO.
  - IBM 12y ago
    Why is that a concern to me though (I'm representing the public)? Net neutrality proponents regularly couch their rhetoric in being an issue for the public's interest. To me it seems like one industry (tech/web companies) jockeying over another industry (telcos/cable) to accrue the benefits/cost savings to themselves. Start ups and other businesses that exist on the web don't like the idea of sponsored data because it could possibly raise their costs of doing business, but again why is that something the public should care about and that government should step in to prevent? No one is providing Jolla with protections or subsidies to better compete with Apple or Samsung, but yet the web companies in pushing for net neutrality (and waging a great PR campaign that enlists the greater public to their side) are essentially asking for one. Maybe your music start up will have to pay carriers to better compete with Spotify or Apple, that's really your problem and perhaps you'll have to suck up the additional operating expense.
whyenot 12y ago
It's also fantastic for tmobile customers who like music. If it reduces my monthly bill, I'm all for it.
batiudrami 12y ago
This is something what was very common when 3G first became available in Australia - you'd have a very low data limit (~200MB) but could pay extra for unlimited access to other services (like $4/m for unlimited Facebook or whatever) - basically that 'nightmare scenario' net nutrality image which has been going around for years[1]. I don't think it was very sucessful (this was before the the iPhone and the changes it brought so browsing the internet on your dubmphone sucked anyway) and was gradually phased out. Another comparison, many Australian providers already have a 'freezone'[2] which does not count towards your download limit. This is sometimes paid sponsorship (Australian Football streaming is free on Telstra) and sometimes due to peering agreements or house run servers (many ISPs run their own Steam content servers) which make data through certain channels considerably cheaper for the ISP. That said, from a consumer perspective, I would be stoked if my telco said that I could have free music streaming at no extra cost, though. It might just be a positive customer benefit, or it may be something more sinister - who knows. [1] http://i.imgur.com/UguEpIm.jpg http://i.imgur.com/UguEpIm.jpg [2] http://freezone.iinet.net.au/ http://freezone.iinet.net.au/
girvo 12y ago
Yeah it is a breach of net neutrality... but mobile hasn't ever really had net neutrality anyway, not like we've had with fixed line internet. Mobile and fixed line connect to the same internet, but through very different means and with very different obstacles in implementation (mobile having far more), so I'm not 100% sure that this is a bad thing... but it could become one.
politician 12y ago
Step 1) Announce free music-colored bits Step 2) Report monthly bandwidth usage by bit color Step 3) Bill monthly by colored segments Step 4) Ratchet up the price of bandwidth by increasing the charges related to one colored bit bucket while periodically offering discounts on other colored bit buckets to maintain market share and drive marketing messages. Not the typical 3 steps to profit, but close -- and without a hand-wavy step 2. If this works, expect the rest of the industry to follow shortly.
eli 12y ago
There has never been net neutrality on mobile. For the longest time it was against Verizon TOS to use any VoIP apps on a tethered connection.

hkmurakami 12y ago

My first reaction was: "Hooray!" Then my immediate next reaction was "NOOOOOOO"

mikeash 12y ago
I anticipate great amusement watching people try to reconcile their hatred of data caps for their love of net neutrality. My own reaction was pretty much the same. "Awesome! Wait, awful!"
- hkmurakami 12y ago
  I'm soooo torn about my $30 prepaid T-mobile plan now :(
eob 12y ago
Exactly. I'm not sure if this was a simple "let people have free music. That'll up our subscriber count" play or some masterful psyop mindtrick.
- sroerick 12y ago
  It doesn't have to be masterful. T-Mobile can't issue a press release about free data, if everybody has unlimited data.

Igglyboo 12y ago

Until t-mobile says that other services will cost more, I see no problem with letting music be free.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
sroerick 12y ago
Try building a small indie label web streaming music startup. And asking your customers to pay more because you don't have a T-Mobile partnership. "Letting music be free", as long as it participates in a corporate subsidy, no thanks.
- chez17 12y ago
  I honestly don't understand your position. This was data that was being charged for before, now as a service to their customers they aren't charging for it. This is an attempt to gain more customers, it's not charging extra for other services, you have everything you had before, now if you choose to use these services you don't get the data billed to your account. It's not charging more for a fast lane, it's giving something away for advertising purposes. I am a web developer, net neutrality is very important to me, I just don't see how this is a major offense to that. Can you explain your position some more?
  - sroerick 12y ago
    First off, I take issue with your argument that this data costs money, and therefore making it free isn't an issue. The data costs money because the telecom industry has spent the last decade prying unlimited data plans out of the cold dead hands of your grandfathers. Do you remember AOL and the whole 600 minutes free spectacle? Do you remember how stupid that was? How many people do you know who either still have a grandfathered cell phone plan? How many people do you know who are angry that their grarndfathered plans are gone? Secondly, I take issue here because I have a strong libre-culture philosophy, and I really strongly believe you should be able to stream, download, remix, or publish everything. This policy by T-Mobile means that any hope of libre content on mobile is getting dimmer. This, combined with the artificial scarcity I mentioned before, make the game feel rigged.

sroerick 12y ago

Make no mistake, Rhapsody is the real winner here.

turing 12y ago

T-Mobile is claiming that they are not sponsorships and that Spotify, Rhapsody, Pandora, and the other launch partners are not paying for data-exempt status[1]. That said, this still raises serious net-neutrality red flags. 1. http://www.theverge.com/2014/6/18/5822996/t-mobile-music-freedom-net-neutrality http://www.theverge.com/2014/6/18/5822996/t-mobile-music-fre...

sroerick 12y ago
Yes. The article makes the point, the issue is not charging for access, the issue is creating a corporate barrier to entry in the market. What if I'm a musician hacker, and I want to release a album app like Bjork or Jay-Z did? Do I get free data too?
- Touche 12y ago
  This issue is also T-Mobile violating customer privacy.
  - sroerick 12y ago
    Great point.
    - jbigelow76 12y ago
      The article mentions T-Mob's "unRadio" app. I would assume that using the app would require opting in to the data inspection requirements.
  - ahomescu1 12y ago
    How? I imagine it's implemented as "don't meter packets going to these IPs", for Pandora/whatever's streaming IP addresses. Adding some extra firewall/software rules doesn't violate privacy IMHO.
- IBM 12y ago
  Why is that a concern to me though (I'm representing the public)? Net neutrality proponents regularly couch their rhetoric in being an issue for the public's interest. To me it seems like one industry (tech/web companies) jockeying over another industry (telcos/cable) to accrue the benefits/cost savings to themselves. Start ups and other businesses that exist on the web don't like the idea of sponsored data because it could possibly raise their costs of doing business, but again why is that something the public should care about and that government should step in to prevent? No one is providing Jolla with protections or subsidies to better compete with Apple or Samsung, but yet the web companies in pushing for net neutrality (and waging a great PR campaign that enlists the greater public to their side) are essentially asking for one. Maybe your music start up will have to pay carriers to better compete with Spotify or Apple, that's really your problem and perhaps you'll have to suck up the additional operating expense.

whyenot 12y ago

It's also fantastic for tmobile customers who like music. If it reduces my monthly bill, I'm all for it.

batiudrami 12y ago

This is something what was very common when 3G first became available in Australia - you'd have a very low data limit (~200MB) but could pay extra for unlimited access to other services (like $4/m for unlimited Facebook or whatever) - basically that 'nightmare scenario' net nutrality image which has been going around for years[1]. I don't think it was very sucessful (this was before the the iPhone and the changes it brought so browsing the internet on your dubmphone sucked anyway) and was gradually phased out. Another comparison, many Australian providers already have a 'freezone'[2] which does not count towards your download limit. This is sometimes paid sponsorship (Australian Football streaming is free on Telstra) and sometimes due to peering agreements or house run servers (many ISPs run their own Steam content servers) which make data through certain channels considerably cheaper for the ISP. That said, from a consumer perspective, I would be stoked if my telco said that I could have free music streaming at no extra cost, though. It might just be a positive customer benefit, or it may be something more sinister - who knows. [1] http://i.imgur.com/UguEpIm.jpg http://i.imgur.com/UguEpIm.jpg [2] http://freezone.iinet.net.au/ http://freezone.iinet.net.au/

girvo 12y ago

Yeah it is a breach of net neutrality... but mobile hasn't ever really had net neutrality anyway, not like we've had with fixed line internet. Mobile and fixed line connect to the same internet, but through very different means and with very different obstacles in implementation (mobile having far more), so I'm not 100% sure that this is a bad thing... but it could become one.

politician 12y ago

Step 1) Announce free music-colored bits Step 2) Report monthly bandwidth usage by bit color Step 3) Bill monthly by colored segments Step 4) Ratchet up the price of bandwidth by increasing the charges related to one colored bit bucket while periodically offering discounts on other colored bit buckets to maintain market share and drive marketing messages. Not the typical 3 steps to profit, but close -- and without a hand-wavy step 2. If this works, expect the rest of the industry to follow shortly.

eli 12y ago

There has never been net neutrality on mobile. For the longest time it was against Verizon TOS to use any VoIP apps on a tethered connection.