3 ms·

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 mu

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.
  - ewoodrich 12y ago
    > I take issue with your argument that this data costs money I don't get what you are trying to say here. It certainly costs T-Mobile something to provide additional data, and pretending otherwise isn't an effective argument.
- jmgrosen 12y ago
  T-Mobile customers will be much more likely to stay with the established brand (e.g. Spotify) because they get free data for it, whereas an indie-Spotify, because it is smaller and doesn't have the awareness, doesn't have a deal with T-Mobile, and thus customers will be less inclined to choose such an alternative.
  - jbigelow76 12y ago
    That's a marketing problem for indie-Spotify, not a net neutrality problem. When Google's Chromecast offered 3 free months of Netflix with a purchase was that an attack on net neutrality issue too since it didn't drive equal sign up opportunities to Hulu?
    - Touche 12y ago
      I'm confused, what does net neutrality mean if not being neutral to bits on the internet?
      - jack-r-abbit 12y ago
        Text messages are bits. They used to cost per text and now they don't. Nobody got up in arms about that. Why is this different?
        Touche 12y ago
        Text messages aren't on the internet.
        jack-r-abbit 12y ago
        They get to my phone the same way the music does... from a cell tower. I don't really care how the carrier got them to the tower. Bits are bits, right?
        Touche 12y ago
- politician 12y ago
  This position seeks to establish the concept that bits have a color, and that different colors have different costs. The tactic is to create market segmentation out of whole cloth. The next step is to report data usage as different buckets -- "Web Site-colored bits", "Popular Web Site-colored bits", "Music-colored bits", and "Video-colored bits". Eventually, they will charge different rates for different colors of bits. Now, today, yeah, sure, it looks like a Too Good To Be True giveaway. My advice? Look twice.
  - gergles 12y ago
    They already color bits; tethering bits cost more than non-tethering bits.
- mikeash 12y ago
  If nothing else, it's normalizing the idea that ISPs treat different kinds of data differently instead of being the dumb pipes they want them to be. It's also not available on all of their plans. So now we're basically seeing, "pay more for better access to Spotify etc." Which is not all that far from something like, "Verizon FiOS brought to you by Bing! ($5/month additional charge for access to Google.)"
jbigelow76 12y ago
This seems like a loss leader [1] for T-Mobile. Despite your theoretical indie label service it doesn't have anything to do with net neutrality. T-Mobile deciding to forego revenue as marketing gimmick is different than T-Mobile double dipping by charging streaming service providers to utilize capacity the customer has already paid for. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_leader http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_leader
- Touche 12y ago
  If they're treating data differently by what type it is, I don't see how this isn't about net neutrality.
  - jbigelow76 12y ago
    I don't see how they are "treating" data from Rhapsody different than how they are treating data from XBox Music or Beats differently when examined at the network level. This promotion is at the accounting level only. When the two become intertwined like Netflix/Verizon/Level 3 peering drama then I agree with you. But unless somebody can demonstrate T-Mobile degrading the quality of the network traffic for non-Rhapsody streamers I don't think this has anything to do with net neutrality. There is a line between marketing/cross promotions business relationships and encroachment on net neutrality, consumers need to be vigilant, but the line does exist.
    - Touche 12y ago
      They are treating Rhapsody data different from Hacker News data. Or data from my personal blog. That they are consistent among their partners is irrelevant.
- sroerick 12y ago
  > Despite your theoretical indie label service it doesn't have anything to do with net neutrality. I respectfully disagree. Net Neutrality is not simply about carriers charging for" double dipping. It is, at its heart, a free speech issue. It is about certain forms of speech being treated with economic preference. It is about maintaining the low barrier of entry that makes the internet so valuable.

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.
- ewoodrich 12y ago
  > I take issue with your argument that this data costs money I don't get what you are trying to say here. It certainly costs T-Mobile something to provide additional data, and pretending otherwise isn't an effective argument.
jmgrosen 12y ago
T-Mobile customers will be much more likely to stay with the established brand (e.g. Spotify) because they get free data for it, whereas an indie-Spotify, because it is smaller and doesn't have the awareness, doesn't have a deal with T-Mobile, and thus customers will be less inclined to choose such an alternative.
- jbigelow76 12y ago
  That's a marketing problem for indie-Spotify, not a net neutrality problem. When Google's Chromecast offered 3 free months of Netflix with a purchase was that an attack on net neutrality issue too since it didn't drive equal sign up opportunities to Hulu?
  - Touche 12y ago
    I'm confused, what does net neutrality mean if not being neutral to bits on the internet?
    - jack-r-abbit 12y ago
      Text messages are bits. They used to cost per text and now they don't. Nobody got up in arms about that. Why is this different?
      - Touche 12y ago
        Text messages aren't on the internet.
        jack-r-abbit 12y ago
        They get to my phone the same way the music does... from a cell tower. I don't really care how the carrier got them to the tower. Bits are bits, right?
        Touche 12y ago
politician 12y ago
This position seeks to establish the concept that bits have a color, and that different colors have different costs. The tactic is to create market segmentation out of whole cloth. The next step is to report data usage as different buckets -- "Web Site-colored bits", "Popular Web Site-colored bits", "Music-colored bits", and "Video-colored bits". Eventually, they will charge different rates for different colors of bits. Now, today, yeah, sure, it looks like a Too Good To Be True giveaway. My advice? Look twice.
- gergles 12y ago
  They already color bits; tethering bits cost more than non-tethering bits.
mikeash 12y ago
If nothing else, it's normalizing the idea that ISPs treat different kinds of data differently instead of being the dumb pipes they want them to be. It's also not available on all of their plans. So now we're basically seeing, "pay more for better access to Spotify etc." Which is not all that far from something like, "Verizon FiOS brought to you by Bing! ($5/month additional charge for access to Google.)"

jbigelow76 12y ago

This seems like a loss leader [1] for T-Mobile. Despite your theoretical indie label service it doesn't have anything to do with net neutrality. T-Mobile deciding to forego revenue as marketing gimmick is different than T-Mobile double dipping by charging streaming service providers to utilize capacity the customer has already paid for. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_leader http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_leader

Touche 12y ago
If they're treating data differently by what type it is, I don't see how this isn't about net neutrality.
- jbigelow76 12y ago
  I don't see how they are "treating" data from Rhapsody different than how they are treating data from XBox Music or Beats differently when examined at the network level. This promotion is at the accounting level only. When the two become intertwined like Netflix/Verizon/Level 3 peering drama then I agree with you. But unless somebody can demonstrate T-Mobile degrading the quality of the network traffic for non-Rhapsody streamers I don't think this has anything to do with net neutrality. There is a line between marketing/cross promotions business relationships and encroachment on net neutrality, consumers need to be vigilant, but the line does exist.
  - Touche 12y ago
    They are treating Rhapsody data different from Hacker News data. Or data from my personal blog. That they are consistent among their partners is irrelevant.
sroerick 12y ago
> Despite your theoretical indie label service it doesn't have anything to do with net neutrality. I respectfully disagree. Net Neutrality is not simply about carriers charging for" double dipping. It is, at its heart, a free speech issue. It is about certain forms of speech being treated with economic preference. It is about maintaining the low barrier of entry that makes the internet so valuable.