3 ms·

To me, the thing that I don't want to see is some web sites being throttled (or blocked!) on broadband. Considering most (wired) broadband is bandwidth-limited

To me, the thing that I don't want to see is some web sites being throttled (or blocked!) on broadband. Considering most (wired) broadband is bandwidth-limited at this point, varying that bandwidth limit based on what site I'm talking with just feels wrong, and I'd love to see the practice banned, because as you mention, a lot of users have no choice in what broadband they can subscribe to. Wireless broadband is almost all capped in the quantity that you can use, however, and the T-Mobile "free streaming" options mentioned give you something extra for "free." This is in stark contrast to blocking/limiting something you're paying for, and I would be fine with this limited exception in the wireless space. But what I would like to see, since this is effectively a utility, is for that "free streaming" to be available on an equal opportunity basis: And T-Mobile seems to be doing exactly that by allowing customers to vote on what services to include. What feels like unfair competition is (as you mention) Comcast shaking down its competition by way of not providing customers equal access. And until that last-mile competition problem has been otherwise resolved (Google Fiber everywhere?), I think we do need those regulations to prevent monopolistic behaviors.

lavamantis 12y ago
The T-Mobile deal seems great at first blush. You get more stuff for free - yay! But, what if you're a startup streaming music service, and T-Mobile does NOT include you in their list of cap-free streaming? Good luck competing with the other providers. Perhaps a solution would be to classify types of services, and then make ANY company in that service eligible for the cap-free streaming. So, if you're a startup in the music streaming space, you are automatically included along with all the others. Then the telcos could provide packages of free services without harming innovation and competition.
- SomeCallMeTim 12y ago
  I get that. But streaming for free over mobile is far from the only way to compete. T-Mobile is the third-largest carrier in the US. Probably a small minority of T-Mobile users even know about the free streaming feature. If your business plan requires that tiny market segment to bootstrap you, then you need a new business plan. I just don't see it as a big enough differentiator to kill a new service, even if other carriers started doing something similar to T-Mobile. A new streaming service doesn't need to rely on free mobile streaming at all to bootstrap; if its focus were mobile streaming, a better answer could be to pre-cache hours worth of streams when on wifi. I end up in dead areas frequently, and I end up in roaming areas where T-Mobile won't give me data at all. I'd love a service that would auto-cache exactly the music I like to listen to so I could play it when roaming. I've heard Spotify CAN cache, but it's too expensive for my tastes. Something like a cacheable Pandora would be nice. But my point is that while yes, it grants an edge to certain established businesses, it's not an insurmountable barrier. Not like Comcast throttling Netflix; if you can't use the service in its primary form, it's DOA. And T-Mobile seems to be adding new services pretty quickly: Even indie stations like Radio Paradise are on the list.
chimeracoder 12y ago
> But what I would like to see, since this is effectively a utility, is for that "free streaming" to be available on an equal opportunity basis: And T-Mobile seems to be doing exactly that by allowing customers to vote on what services to include. That's not an equal-opportunity basis, as consumers can't (or won't) vote for a company that doesn't exist yet. This raises the barrier to entry for startups even further, because now they have to get enough brand recognition to beat out established competitors in this vote just to reach some segment of the market[0]. As if the barriers to entry for startups disrupting music distribution aren't already high enough! :) [0] T-mobile has a small market share, but what if Verizon did it? Remember that there are only four non-virtual carriers in the US, so if just one of the two big guys (Verizon and AT&T) does it, it'll dramatically tilt the odds away from startups even more.
- SomeCallMeTim 12y ago
  See my comment here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8683425 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8683425

lavamantis 12y ago

The T-Mobile deal seems great at first blush. You get more stuff for free - yay! But, what if you're a startup streaming music service, and T-Mobile does NOT include you in their list of cap-free streaming? Good luck competing with the other providers. Perhaps a solution would be to classify types of services, and then make ANY company in that service eligible for the cap-free streaming. So, if you're a startup in the music streaming space, you are automatically included along with all the others. Then the telcos could provide packages of free services without harming innovation and competition.

SomeCallMeTim 12y ago
I get that. But streaming for free over mobile is far from the only way to compete. T-Mobile is the third-largest carrier in the US. Probably a small minority of T-Mobile users even know about the free streaming feature. If your business plan requires that tiny market segment to bootstrap you, then you need a new business plan. I just don't see it as a big enough differentiator to kill a new service, even if other carriers started doing something similar to T-Mobile. A new streaming service doesn't need to rely on free mobile streaming at all to bootstrap; if its focus were mobile streaming, a better answer could be to pre-cache hours worth of streams when on wifi. I end up in dead areas frequently, and I end up in roaming areas where T-Mobile won't give me data at all. I'd love a service that would auto-cache exactly the music I like to listen to so I could play it when roaming. I've heard Spotify CAN cache, but it's too expensive for my tastes. Something like a cacheable Pandora would be nice. But my point is that while yes, it grants an edge to certain established businesses, it's not an insurmountable barrier. Not like Comcast throttling Netflix; if you can't use the service in its primary form, it's DOA. And T-Mobile seems to be adding new services pretty quickly: Even indie stations like Radio Paradise are on the list.

chimeracoder 12y ago

> But what I would like to see, since this is effectively a utility, is for that "free streaming" to be available on an equal opportunity basis: And T-Mobile seems to be doing exactly that by allowing customers to vote on what services to include. That's not an equal-opportunity basis, as consumers can't (or won't) vote for a company that doesn't exist yet. This raises the barrier to entry for startups even further, because now they have to get enough brand recognition to beat out established competitors in this vote just to reach some segment of the market[0]. As if the barriers to entry for startups disrupting music distribution aren't already high enough! :) [0] T-mobile has a small market share, but what if Verizon did it? Remember that there are only four non-virtual carriers in the US, so if just one of the two big guys (Verizon and AT&T) does it, it'll dramatically tilt the odds away from startups even more.

SomeCallMeTim 12y ago
See my comment here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8683425 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8683425