T-Mobile's Binge On Violates Net Neutrality, Says Stanford Report (tmonews.com)

An anonymous reader writes: The debate over whether or not Binge On violates Net Neutrality has been raging ever since the service was announced in November. The latest party to weigh in is Barbara van Schewick, law professor at Stanford University.

In a new report published today — and filed to the FCC, as well — van Schewick says that Binge on "violates key net neutrality principles" and "is likely to violate the FCC's general conduct rule." She goes on to make several arguments against Binge On, saying that services in Binge On distorts competition because they're zero-rated and because video creators are more likely to use those providers for their content, as the zero-rated content is more attractive to consumers.

Comments

Screw users!

[Anonymous Coward]

Lobby lobby lobby lobby lobby...

Tough Shit

[Anonymous Coward]

Any content provider can sign up to be part of Binge On. You want to participate great! If not well beware the consequences.

Re:Tough Shit

[davester666]

That's exactly the problem. End-users paid for the data AND bandwidth. T-Mobile is fucking up the data stream the end-user has already paid for, so they can strong-arm the provider into kicking in some more money.

This is EXACTLY the situation net neutrality is supposed to be used for to kick in the nuts of the CEO of T-Mobile.

Re:Tough Shit

[meadow]

I agree. I still side with T-Mobile on this. Binge-On is no different than a browser plugin I use and consider essential called "YouTube High Definition" which I use to automatically restrict all YouTube videos on my laptop to no higher than 720p resolution. That is because there is no discernible difference above it for most of the videos I watch and because with the crappy bandwidth I get (all the crap in the news about fiber upgrades is basically a complete farce) with DSL over the POTS line, anything above 720p tends to be choppy.

Obviously if you're on a phone you would not really want or need anything above 480p in most cases. I think Binge-On and similar features with other carriers are a convenience for customers and, at least with my MetroPCS service, we were clearly notified of the availability of the feature and it trivial to toggle it on or off.

Perhaps the "controversy" going on is just people crapping their pants for no reason.

Re:Tough Shit

[meadow]

You are full of it. They are not fucking up anything. They simply have provided a feature to be able to limit videos being watched on the phone at a ridiculously high bitrate such as 2k or 4k which would be overkill for such small screens. And it can easily be toggled on or off.

Please stop crapping your pants about this.

Re:Tough Shit

[davester666]

Yes, there is a HUGE problem with netflix streaming their movies at 4K to mobile phones. or even at 2K. wait, no. no they don't.

t-mobile is improperly altering the communications between you and the content provider, and not at your request or the providers.

And to go "oh, the video on this service is crappy. hmm, it's set for 720p, so it should pretty clear. oh, wait, t-mobile is fucking up the stream. I have to tell t-mobile I want a good video stream from netflix." couldn't be simpler or more obvious to end-users.

Re:Tough Shit

[meadow]

What are you saying? The setting T-Mobile is using is, I think I remember from last reading, is *higher* than 720p. And if you happen to be tethering some device with a hi-res display through the phone then you can just toggle the service temporarily off.

Re:Tough Shit

[davester666]

First, it defaults to ON, and includes companies that aren't part of binge-on
second, from t-mobiles site, it's 480p.
third, for the typical end user, they would go "oh, the video quality in netflix is crap, even though I set the quality on the netflix service to 720p and then 1080p" which is more likely for the end-user to say
a) "I guess Netflix has crappy video quality"
b) "The internet is slow right now"
or
c) "Oh, T-Mobile is throttling Netflix, I have to figure out how to make T-Mobile stop throttling it"

Re:Tough Shit

[meadow]

480 is exactly what I would want on a 5-inch display phone. Even on a 15-inch laptop I often watch videos at 480 p.

As for your comments, if you are too stupid to read the communication the carrier sent to you notifying you of it, that's your problem.

And I'm sure if you were having an unwarranted crap-fit about your resolution because you ignored the communication, and called their support number, they would have immediately told you what was going on and given you the same information that was in the communication you failed to read.

Re:Tough Shit

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, tough shit for T-Mobile when they get slapped with some hefty fines and ordered to offer service equally.

This is really fucking low of T-Mobile. You either offer unlimited or you don't.

Re:Tough Shit

[gfxguy]

I have T-Mobile, and it sounds like you don't even understand the problem. I get 6GB a month. If I watch anything from list of providers supported with binge on, it counts as ZERO bandwidth that I've paid for. Why exactly do you think I should complain about not having netflix counted against my data?

Re:Tough Shit

[davester666]

1. And of course, your personal preference should be mirrored across all of T-Mobiles customers. Because everyone has the same wants, needs and desires. Why does anyone even bother making 1080p televisions?

2. T-Mobile KNOWS that nobody reads their communications. It's exactly why T-Mobile defaults this to opt-out instead of opt-in. Even if their email to their customers had a giant "Enable This Feature" button, virtually nobody would press it to enable the feature. T-Mobile knows that even if they called each of their customers and explained Binge and then asked them if they wanted it enabled, most customers would say "No".

3. Except:
-virtually everyone ignores this "communication" [letter/email/flyer] as the spam that it is. t-mobile knows this
-the vast majority of T-Mobiles customers have no idea of the implications of this feature, that it screws up ALL video, or how to resolve it. they would either just wind up watching the crappy video, or calling, say, Netflix and complain to them about the poor video, and maybe Netflix tech support will figure out "oh, your on t-mobile. t-mobile is screwing up your video, phone them on how to fix this problem"

Re:Tough Shit

[JoeMerchant]

Calling it a "freebie" or discount doesn't change the fact that it's a preferred provider tariff scheme.

Neutrality means that everybody gets equal access, not that the really big players get to push their traffic for less.

Re:Tough Shit

[meadow]

1. Its not a personal preference it is sensible. If you don't realize that > 480p resolution on a 5 inch display is overkill you are stupid. Whether you are deliberately being stupid to be a prick for arguments' sake I don't know, but you are stupid.

2. It wasn't an e-mail it was a clearly worded txt so the rest of your rant is BS.

I'm through arguing about this. If you were too stupid to 1) not read the fucking txt; 2) not realize that 480p is more than sufficient and in fact highly preferable for a 5 inch display with a device on a measured-rate plan with generally limited bandwidth, and 3) call tech support if you thought there was a problem then too bad.

Re:Tough Shit

[Anonymous Coward]

I have T-Mobile too, you stupid, pretentious fuck.

The reason you should care is because it's FUCKING ILLEGAL. They need to either offer unlimited to everything or to nothing. Only a boot licking shill would be "content" with their 6GB when you should be pushing for T-Mobile to give you unlimited data to all. You think unlimited Netflix is a bonus, but it's not because you're still paying extra for it and T-Mobile is still breaking the law to provide it.

Re:Tough Shit

[kwbauer]

And that is exactly the problem with regulations. We are now asking the government to enforce a regulation to the detriment of the consumer. Pretty damned awesome, ain't it.

Re: Tough Shit

[Anonymous Coward]

My phone is capable of more than 480p. Just because your preference might be to own an inferior device or to not use it to its full capabilities doesn't mean it should be the default.

Wha?

[ichthus]

So, T-mobile puts a program in place that benefits its customers by keeping streaming content off the meters, and this is a problem? Who was net neutrality supposed to benefit again?

Re:Wha?

[suutar]

Some streaming content. Not all (though it will throttle all. Yeah, slowed down and still counts against data). not really "neutral".

Re:Wha?

[Anonymous Coward]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance

Re:Wha?

[ichthus]

So it would be better if they metered everything?

Re:Wha?

[AvitarX]

This is what I'm wondering too.

If an open access (for providers) program allows consumers to get zero rated content violates neutrality, as a consumer, I may need to change my stance on this.

Right apology letters to my senators and representatives and ask them to work on this issue with the lobbyists.

This isn't like Comcast streaming On Demand being zero rated while my Netflix isn't, and Netflix isn't allowed in on it, this is Carriers and Producers coming together to give consumers an option for zero rated content. Producers can sign up with very little cost or penalty.

Re:Wha?

[bano]

But the act of opting in or opting out of Binge does not have any financial difference to the customer. It's not you pay $amount for Binge+Throttled or $amounted for capped+non-throttled. I think that matters when we discuss if it's "neutral" or not.

Re:Wha?

[BradleyUffner]

In my opinion this does not violate net neutrality because they give users some content for free.
It violates net neutrality because it actively snoops and disrupts the packets of non-participating content providers.

Re:Wha?

[Anonymous Coward]

Better? No.
Neutral? Yes.

That's the point of net neutrality, show no favoritism. For good or ill.

Re:Wha?

[BradleyUffner]

It would be fine if they didn't slow down (throttle) the streams on non-participating content providers.

Re:Wha?

[allquixotic]

It would be better if they lowered the cost per gigabyte of metered data to something reasonable, so you can use your phone for something other than watching Netflix and checking your email.

Re:Wha?

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be better if they lowered the cost per gigabyte of metered data to something reasonable, so you can use your phone for something other than watching Netflix and checking your email.

Or, you could watch TV on your television, use your phone for making phone calls, and stop trying to watch TV on a 5 inch screen.

Problem solved.

Re:Wha?

[Anonymous Coward]

Throttling would be fine if the customer could choose the rate they want to receive.
64kbit would be fine for ad content.

Re:Wha?

[ichthus]

No it doesn't. Your service is full speed (as fast as the back haul, towers and your phone can go) for everything. This goes until you reach a certain quantity (like 3 gigs per month), then EVERYTHING is slowed down. The only difference is that the streaming content from popular providers is not metered, and so it doesn't count against your 3 gigs per month.

Re:Wha?

[rahvin112]

It would be better if they were tampering with the video streaming market by favoring one group over another. That's the point of net neutrality, we don't want the phone and cable companies deciding the winners and losers in the video streaming market.

I doesn't matter if this is good for some consumers, it's bad for the market. Your support only means you are willing to sell out future use of the network for an immediate short term benefit.

Re:Wha?

[jeffmflanagan]

Not slowed down, which would cause stuttering. It's streamed at a lower bitrate to reduce the user's cost from non-free streaming data. This is under the user's control, not T-Mobile's. You can choose to potentially burn up your data allowance by streaming at 1080p if you want.

I do think they failed to do enough to inform the users of their new service. I only learned of this when I logged into t-Mobile to pay my bill, and a note on the new opt-out data-saving feature popped up.

The free from some sources issue does indeed seem to violate the principles of net-neutrality.

Re:Wha?

[BradleyUffner]

It has been repeatedly proven that BingeOn throttles all video streams all the time. It just doesn't charge you for the one on their white-list.

Re:Wha?

[suutar]

I had not heard that the user had the ability to de-throttle non-binge sources. Thanks!

Re:Wha?

[gstoddart]

Well, they give themselves an unfair advantage against their competitors, yes ... so if they're going to meter someone else's traffic, they need to meter their own ... or it becomes "nice connection, shame if something happened to it".

If you want net neutrality, not being able to tilt the playing field in your favor is part of that. If you don't want net neutrality, they can just decide to block your Netflix access.

It really is two sides of the same coin, because it prevents them making their service cheaper by virtue of charging you for someone else's traffic, and calling theirs free.

If they'd charge you for the bandwidth from one site, they can't just give you the same bandwidth for free and pretend that's different ... they could use that to put competitors out of business and then charge through the nose.

Re:Wha?

[ichthus]

No, I believe a byte is a byte, no matter where it comes from, and should be charged as such. But, I recognize the necessity to meter a limited resource like wireless bandwidth. This effort by T-Mobile is not a way for choosing winners and losers -- it's a way of giving their customers added benefit of not having to limit their binge watching (I torrent, so this doesn't even affect me, anyway) during each month.

Re:Wha?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, T-mobile puts a program in place that benefits its customers by keeping streaming content off the meters, and this is a problem?

It doesn't benefit consumers, and it's a giant fucking problem. You're just OK with ISP's being able to anoint the preferred content providers? How the fuck could that ever end well for the consumer?

Re:Wha?

[danbob999]

It would be more neutral. You can be against net neutrality if you want to. Just admit it.

Re:Wha?

[AvitarX]

I somewhat agree with this on principal.

The throttling of other video to extend data usage should be:
1) optional
and/or
2) explaioned closer.

the small print, we also optimize other video services so you can stream more of them too (or however it was phrased) was not prominent enough to be right IMO, but certainly I would think meets the legal threshold of this is a consumer making the choice, which I think would count as neutral.

Re:Wha?

[AvitarX]

they also tell you they're optimizing video so that you use less data (in reality they're throttling and counting on the provider to optimize), but it's not totally sneaky, only like 50%.

Re:Wha?

[Anonymous Coward]

NN means your data can only flow over Level 3 and other backbone networks so they can charge you all the money you can bear and make the consumer experience as bad as possible with high costs for everyone 10 years ago NN was about access to all legal information and not having ISP's block access to legal data. now it's socialism

Re:Wha?

[sumdumass]

I have made this case from the beginning. It would seem that going above and beyond what the customer pays for is just as taboo as not delivering what was paid for. They don't want any more or less.

Re:Wha?

[radarskiy]

"This effort by T-Mobile is not a way for choosing winners and losers"

It explcitly is chosing, because *only some providers* get to be zero rated and it is T-mobile that decides.

Re:Wha?

[radarskiy]

Only some providers are not throttled, so it changes the relative value of different providers to the customer outside of any inherent property of the provider.

Re:Wha?

[jonnythan]

The customers don't benefit when the entire industry is harmed. Imagine Comcast and Time Warner metering Netflix to 1 GB/month while letting you use their own video services without metering. Netflix would basically cease to exist, and take their programming along with them.

This is why net neutrality as a concept exists - so that the delivery companies don't get to decide which content providers are allowed to exist.

Re:Wha?

[jonnythan]

That's because T-Mobile doesn't have the market clout to extort those companies.

Re:Wha?

[MrSome]

Hey! You're the guy from The Settlers commercial for DirecTV aren't you?

Re:Wha?

[hey!]

Well, I'm convinced people have forgotten what it was like in the pre-iPhone days, when cell phone companies set themselves up as gatekeepers. You'd have a phone with a camera, but often you couldn't get the pictures off it without purchasing a monthly "picture mail" service. You could look up news and information, but only on the phone company's crappy and expensive WAP information service.

This represents the state to which the phone companies would like to return: where they can monetize the things you do with your phone rather sell bulk bandwidth as a commodity whose price and value you can (oh, horror!) easily compare with price and value other carriers. They'd like the comparison to be based on intangible, hard-to-measure things (e.g., is Hulu more important to me than YouTube?).

Now the T-Mobile offering has the advantage that it applies to services that many people demonstrably want. But you have to ask where this leads. What it'll inevitably lead to is various carriers cutting exclusive deals with various providers. As long as carriers have to compete in a total apples-to-apples manner, well fine. But what every businessman (I know I've been there) wants is to get out of that and offer something to his clients that will make it painful to switch. "Commodity" is a dirty word for vendors, which means it is a very happy word -- in the long run at least -- for consumers.

Re:Wha?

[Registered Coward v2]

Some streaming content. Not all (though it will throttle all. Yeah, slowed down and still counts against data). not really "neutral".

They should offer Binge On content at lower resolution as they do now, all the rest without the resolution changed but metered with the option to run Binge On content on the same terms. Then there should be no issue about net neutrality.

Re:Wha?

[radarskiy]

" It would seem that going above and beyond what the customer pays for is just as taboo as not delivering what was paid for."

Those are not actually different situations. The claimed baseline can be moved around arbitrarily, but the relative performance is identical and the price charged is unaffected..

Re:Wha?

[Obfuscant]

As a T-Mobile customer, I can tell you that I've never watched Netflix on my phone, and it can't handle the mail. So, I always use my phone for something other than watching Netflix and checking email. Mostly I use it ... as a phone, and I get SMS texts on it. Works great for both.

And, at times, I use it as a NAP so my more capable tablet can be used for email or other network browsing.

Binge On benefits consumers and those content providers that choose to participate. This is a Good Thing. Getting rid of Binge On would change nothing for the providers who chose not to participate, so they get no benefit out of getting rid of it.

As for the "throttling", it is throttling that still supports streaming video while allowing other users and services access to the bandwidth. You're getting to do what the system was designed for. It isn't "download a really big file really fast so you can then spend an hour watching it...".

It would be better if they lowered the cost per gigabyte of metered data to something reasonable,

Since there are no overage charges for most customers, the "cost per gigabyte" is the cost of your data plan divided by the number of gigabytes you actually use. You can lower the "cost per gigabyte" yourself by downloading more data. If you say "but I'm using all the data I want already", then why would lowering the cost per gigabyte change anything? If you're not using all the data you want, use more. It don't cost nothin'.

Re:Wha?

[ichthus]

Ok, so it's like I said, except they're applying QOS to video streams. So?

Re:Wha?

[amRadioHed]

They don't show favoritism though, as any provider can freely join the program.

Re:Wha?

[amRadioHed]

Any provider is free to join the program, T-Mobile doesn't decide.

Re:Wha?

[amRadioHed]

This is a slippery slope argument. When and if a carrier offers a Binge On-like program but exclusively applying to their preferred partners than it will be a terrible violation of net neutrality and an unacceptable situation. As long as Bing On is freely offered to any video provider who would like to take advantage of it than we have nothing like the situation you are concerned about.

Re:Wha?

[hey!]

It's only a slippery slope if you don't show a reason for the particular consequences you anticipate. Otherwise you can't argue about consequences at all.

Re:Wha?

[AvitarX]

They aren't though, if a server doesn't give up lower quality video for slow connections it doesn't work at all, and of you want to download a video for later viewing using your 30+mbps, its going to take 20 times longer.

Look at my other posts, I think it's a great policy, but honestly, it's a seperate feature from BingeOn, and it's not very prominently stated.

It's an option I'd turn on if I had a metered connection even. But it is not really part of providing zero metered traffic.

I still think this is a minor quibble, and the mention of it could very well arguably make it a consumer choice, and not non-neutral, but it's weird that they were sneaky about it.

Re:Wha?

[AvitarX]

Or, it's because Tmobile wanted to let their customers stream as much as they wanted as a selling point, and they had to do it in a neutral way because of the law.

I personally think that BingeOn is
1) network neutral
2) proof that all of the complaints about "innovating" services that the other providers said wouldn't be possible with net nuetrality was a bunch of bullshit.

But, if BingeOn in not network neutral, I'm left, as a consumer, believing that maybe the big corps were correct, and network neutrality is going to hurt me as a consumer.

Re:Wha?

[Anonymous Coward]

wrong again.

If Binge-on is enabled, then all video is throttled to the same lower bitrate. but non-participating video traffic still counts against your dataplan. if ABC video joins their program, then its traffic will no longer count against your cap. Alternately, you can log into your account and disable Binge-On. When you do, no video will be throttled to the lower bitrate, and ALL of it will count against your data plan's cap.

Would you prefer they change the default setting and disable Binge-On for all users? Then those that want to enjoy free (participating) video can enable Binge-On with the understanding that ALL VIDEO traffic is going to be throttled, and the non-participant video traffic, though throttled, is going to count against their data plans's cap.

Personally, for every YouTube video I watch on my phone, even if I'm only 'watching it' for the audio, I change the bitrate to 140k. In fact, I do that on my table for any video that I'm only going to be listening to...why would I want 1080p video if I'm not actually going to watch it.

Re:Wha?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the bar for becoming a preferred content provider is on the ground. It' can't be lowered. T-Mobile didn't annoint them you sinner. It means that nearly every content provider* can send a note to T-Mobile and join their program.

Note: North Korea, Sudan, and other countries on the U.S.'s blacklist can't participate.

Re:Wha?

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

"Can't handle the mail"? What does that even mean? I've got an older S3, using the K9 mail app, and have never had an issue with my email. I've been using this phone for almost four years...the only annoyance was getting attachments. But your not forced to use the built-in mail app, there are numerous other apps you can get. With the MX Player almost all video works, although a small screen really isn't much fun to watch anything but short clips, web videos, etc.

Re:Wha?

[amRadioHed]

Nope, it's a slippery slope because you are claiming your worst case situation is an inevitable result. If it's not inevitable, and in fact T-Mobile is happy with the plan as it is than it's nonsense to criticise the plan on the grounds of what you fear it could become.

Re: Wha?

[AvitarX]

As a T-Mobile user, I can say I have better speed than my comcast account in most of my area, and I used it to watch Netflix when traveling.

Now I even use it as a hotspot to watch 0 rated Netflix (or hulu ) on a laptop where it often out performs shitty hotel WiFi.

  Additionally, though I've always had unlimited data, I have been worried that of I regularly break 20gb there may be issues, with binge on I'm less so.

Note, theyjnever complaigned about my data, but I've been worried.

Re:Wha?

[imgod2u]

Technically correct (admittedly the best kind) but the spirit of net neutrality isn't violated in the way T-Mobile does this. T-Mobile lets any streaming service opt for this and gauges which services to add based on demand of its consumer base. So it would seem that whether or not Binge On violates net neutrality would depend on how well they honor this principle. I could see the argument that this *allows* T-Mobile to pick winners and losers but so long as they're transparent about how they pick services, and that transparency shows it's strictly guided by consumer demand, I see no issue here.

Re:Wha?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope. From an earlier discussion, if you have Binge turned on, all streaming video is throttled from every provider, even if it's a file you uploaded to dropbox with a changed extension to conceal it. Even if you're not streaming, but just downloading it to save locally for later consumption.

No provider is advantaged. The Binge On mode has many problems, but discriminating against providers isn't one of them.

Re:Wha?

[hey!]

it's nonsense to criticise the plan on the grounds of what you fear it could become.

Not if my fear is well-founded. I speak as someone who's worked for many years with telecom companies as a developer/business partner, and I can tell you they hate being in the commodity bandwidth business and they're always looking for a way to differentiate themselves from their competitors. The Binge On program is such an attempt, but it's not a sustainable differentiation because anyone can copy it. So what's the next logical step?

Is it inevitable that phone companies who do this will attempt to negotiate exclusive or discriminatory deals with content providers? Well, not in the same sense that if I release a rock from my hand it will fall, but few things in business are. If you want to be nitpicky, I suppose you can say the "Binge On" program is a good one; it's the fact that telecom companies can favor one some content over others is bad, and that in turn is contingent upon the assumption that businesses act in ways that maximize their profits.

Re:Wha?

[Anonymous Coward]

> So, T-mobile puts a program in place that benefits its customers by keeping streaming content off the meters, and this is a problem? Who was net neutrality supposed to benefit again?

So, T-mobile puts a program in place that erects barriers to entry by protecting the positions of incumbent services, and this is a problem? Who was net neutrality supposed to benefit again?

FTFY

By saying that "services X,Y, and Z are no longer subject to metering," that means that any new services that compete with them are at an unfair disadvantage.

Re:Wha?

[Obfuscant]

"Can't handle the mail"? What does that even mean?

That means that the mail app I use (also K9) chokes when trying to access my mail email server. "Can't handle" seems like a good, non-technical description. It was intended to convey the idea that not only do I not use my phone for "checking mail", I cannot.

Re:Wha?

[amRadioHed]

The "Binge On" program is considered by many people to be a overall good one for everyone involved, unlike the future you describe. Obviously you think your fears are well-founded but that is still very much a matter of your opinion. Feel free to say "I told you so" when and if your fears come true.

Re:Wha?

[hey!]

Never said it wasn't my opinion, but practically any assertion about the future has to be regarded as an opinion. But I think it's a reasonable opinion, because it's based on only three assumptions (1) if the binge on program is successful, then other companies will offer same deal; (2) that those companies will subsequently try to differentiate their offerings in a way their competitors can't copy; (3) Once they have successfully differentiated their offerings they will structure those offerings in the way that maximizes the revenue they can extract. None of these assumptions is particularly radical, they're all based on commonplace marketing strategies that telecom providers actually used in the past when they competed based on access to content.

To be clear, I have no problem with the proximate consequences of the program, so if it's possible to forestall the product differentiation stage of my presumed scenario I have no problem with anyone providing meter free video service, even though this technically violates some definitions of net neutrality. As long as vendors are still essentially competing based on network service. But since Verizon Communications Inc. v. FCC there is no legal barrier to any service providers negotiating exclusive or discriminatory side deals or monetizing access to certain resources. It's all legal and good for the bottom line.

Re:Wha?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not an exact analogy. Even after you deplete your LTE allowance on T-Mob, you can still stream other non-Binge video. And all video is recompressed to the same level. Which is generally ok unless you are using binge-on to feed a standard TV through your mobile.

Re:Wha?

[sumdumass]

But they can be completely different situations which is the point. Even the argument that if a customer subscribes to a 3 meg budget connection and Netflix gets delivered at 6 meg while nothing else is slowed below 3m, it would be evil. If i wanted to set up a cable like access company and only allow 1 meg http but all streaming video is as fast as it can be served, it is evil because you couldn't torrent at unlimited speeds even though the service is clearly marketed as something other than internet service.

Re:Wha?

[BronsCon]

T-Mobile doesn't charge per gigabyte for metered data, they give you unlimited 2g speeds and an LTE allotment, or unlimited LTE.

Re:Wha?

[BronsCon]

T-Mobile lets any streaming service opt for this and gauges which services to add based on demand of its consumer base.

Technically incorrect (admittedly the worst kind). T-Mobile lets any streaming service opt in for this and gauges which services to reach out to based on demand of its customer base.

You don't have to wait for T-Mobile to come to you, it's a form and a few phone calls and yes, you can register even your personal video collection as a streaming service (and your music collection for their zero-rated music streaming offering, as well).

Re:Wha?

[Noah Haders]

What does zero rated mean.

Re:Wha?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not necessarily. Couple your hypothetical with the existing scenario, and you have a perfect study of ComCast potentially losing customers to T-Mobile. Eventually, if ComCast loses enough customers, they would have to relent.

Dear God, could you imagine if the government stepped in when dial-up was giving way to DSL and Cable and told the DSL and cable providers they couldn't offer better speed than dial-up because it's only fair to people still on AOL? WTF.

Re:Wha?

[Anonymous Coward]

"video creators are more likely to use those providers for their content, as the zero-rated content is more attractive to consumers"

Yeah, I thought this was what we called a free market, in which competition reigns supreme and provides benefits for the consumers. What? I can stream all my favorite shows from my favorite provider for free on T-Mobile? Sign me up!

Re:Wha?

[BronsCon]

The only barrier to entry is filling out a form and making a few phone calls to register your streaming service. They don't even charge a registration fee for fuck's sake. That's some huge barrier right there, eh?

Re: Wha?

[bill_mcgonigle]

Who was net neutrality supposed to benefit again?

The government - the FCC gets to regulate the Internet. Users are screwed, just as we knew would happen from when this was first proposed.

Re:Wha?

[davester666]

Except they fuck up the connections between end-users and content providers that haven't "joined" the program.

Re:Wha?

[grmoc]

Nope, you're wrong. It isn't a universal good. It is a way for T-mo to blackmail providers into "opting in" because they eff-up the packets from providers who don't.

This isn't theoretical.

Oh, and they require that you don't use HTTPS, which means that they're saying FU to your privacy, etc.

So, no, you're really wrong.

Re:Wha?

[Anonymous Coward]

Incorrect.

Any provider who is willing to turn off HTTPS, etc. and allows T-mo to modify their content can "opt in" and limits to a certain resolution (instead of bitrate, I mean, what kind of stupidity is this? So, I can encode something in H263 720p that is the same bitrate as a 1080p VP9, but the latter isn't allowed because of arbitary stupidity?)
In other words, selling out your privacy, allowing insecure content, and screwing up with incentives to improve techbnology and user experience.

If t-mo just throttled the packets in a reasonable way instead of all of the other crap (and made it opt-in instead of opt-out as it is right now), then sure.

Re:Wha?

[grmoc]

Correct. They throttle video streams even for those services that have not opted in.
Oh, and for a service to opt in, you need to disable serving over HTTPS, and you have to allow T-mo to modify the video, etc.

So, it is entirely not neutral.

Zero rate content inevitably comes back to cost consumers more. Work out the game theory: Someone always pays for this, and since the consumers are the money source in this every time, they inevitably pay one way or another. Zero-rating simply provides an easy way to distort the market, which benefits only the carrier.

A more reasonable plan would be to throttle everyone after they use some amount of bytes, and ignore content type, etc. and not require the providers to use insecure protocols, modification, etc.

Re:Wha?

[grmoc]

This is incorrect.
They throttle any video site down, even if you're paying for the bandwidth unless you, the consumer, opt out of bing-on completely, which requires jumping through hoops.

Re:Wha?

[grmoc]

This is amusing.

Carrier: We're going to raise the rates for everyone (someone has to pay for the bandwidth, and this always ends up coming from the consumer), but then we're going to give you insecure, lower-quality video for "free". .... and, apparently, people cheer.

They shouldn't be happy with this. They're paying more for worse service, and letting the carrier dictate the terms of their user experience instead of the market.

Re:Wha?

[grmoc]

Incorrect.
You must also disable any HTTPS, and allow t-mobile to modify your content.
Who knows what else they are able to do with the content now that they can snoop on it and modify it.

Yeay!?

Re:Wha?

[meadow]

I *totally* agree. The people who are trying to relate this to net neutrality (which I strongly support) seem to be the ones causing damage here, not the other way around.

Re:Wha?

[BronsCon]

Nope. T-Mobile is not modifying content, they're throttling a specific class of content and relying on your platform to provide a stream that fits into the 1.5Mbps allotment. Every legitimate document and article discussing the offering makes this very clear. That is to say, my sources include T-Mobile itself (though I can't find the link at the moment), the EFF, the report we're actually discussing here (see page 18 and the table on page 19, HTTPS is allowed, but requires further intervention by T-Mobile for participation), and a whole slew of other legitimate internet commentary.

More to the point, the worst thing that can possibly happen to a non-participating provider who uses HTTPS or a protocol that makes it impossible for T-Mobile to determine that the data is a video stream is... nothing. T-Mobile can't determine that the data is a video stream and, so, does not throttle it. Simple as pie. (as an aside, this explains why I'm able to stream 1080p from YouTube with Binge-On enabled, so I'm glad I actually read the full report and learned something new and interesting; you should, perhaps, try it)

If you have a source for your information, identify and link to it; otherwise, kindly stop spreading FUD, your UID is low enough that you should know better.

Re:Wha?

[amRadioHed]

You again. Enough with your FUD bullshit. Please show me who's T-Mobile rates have gone up or stfu.

Re:Wha?

[gfxguy]

Yes... if I by "fuck up" you mean they streamline it so that it doesn't stutter and pause because you're trying to watch something at 8x the resolution that you could possibly need on your phone, then sure, they fuck it up... and you can disable it if you prefer.

Re: Wha?

[gfxguy]

I've had a similar experience... I ran a speed test app, and while at home on my wifi network, I got the maximum speed comcast was giving me, between 25 and 30mbs, with T-Mobile - admittedly near a tower, I was getting 75.

Re:Wha?

[davester666]

yeah, it's a huge problem that pretty much all content providers default to streaming 4K video.

all the major content providers automatically reduce quality to stream better.

this is PRIMARILY for t-mobile's benefit, not end-users.

Re:Wha?

[gfxguy]

I was assuming he used that expression to mean it counts for zero bytes against your LTE limit.

Re:Wha?

[gfxguy]

I get what you're saying, but it's still not really comparable. First of all, t-mobile isn't pushing their own content in direct competition with other content providers. Second, they are not charging anybody any extra to get more bandwidth... nobody is paying any extra money to t-mobile, all they are doing is altering bandwidth requirements for video streams coming from content providers who have joined the program. In essence, those companies are actually now using less bandwidth on the data provider's network - and they're happy about it... and the program is open to any content provider that wants to join.

magine Comcast and Time Warner metering Netflix to 1 GB/month while letting you use their own video services without metering.

That is almost exactly opposite what's going on - T-Mobile is actually allowing companies like Netflix to be used without metering, and they're not restricting anybody else, so if you have "X" gigabytes a month of LTE, you can still use it any way you want, and nobody is throttled or restricted to extort some extra payment.... AND you can continue to use 2G after you've used all your LTE - and if you have a decent plan, that becomes unlikely because so many providers are doing this program that the majority of your high use data doesn't count against you at all.

Re:Wha?

[gfxguy]

If they'd charge you for the bandwidth from one site, they can't just give you the same bandwidth for free and pretend that's different ... they could use that to put competitors out of business and then charge through the nose.

But T-Mobile isn't competing with the content providers. That's the whole problem with Comcast and AT&T and the other cable companies - they were offering their own streaming services and so they were competing with content only providers.

Moreover, what you're missing is they are NOT giving you the same bandwidth for free. For the content providers that sign up, they are actually modifying the streaming video and giving you LESS bandwidth so that A) it doesn't clog up their network, so that B) you're far less likely to have playback issues because you're using a fraction of the bandwidth, and if that affects the quality then C) you can opt out or D) live with it for the sake of not having it counted against your LTE limit.

So here's a program that offers options, it's opt-out-able, there's no conflict of interest since t-mobile is not competing against the content providers, they're giving you (virtually unnoticeable) reduced quality in exchange for not counting it against your bandwidth and, if you're not happy about it, you can opt out. I really don't see what the problem is.

Re:Wha?

[gfxguy]

I don't understand the use of the word "throttle" here. I know what you're trying to say, but no provider's bandwidth is being throttled - you just don't NEED as much bandwidth anymore, which actually helps things flow more freely over the network.

Re:Wha?

[gfxguy]

Yes - it reduces the bandwidth flowing over their networks; t-mobile can get a lot of benefit from that. But being that it's optional AND potentially beneficial to the consumer, then so what?

Re:Wha?

[JoeMerchant]

Cutting traffic on the network by 75% by reducing video quality that many people don't care about is a good thing for all users who might otherwise not be able to access the network due to congestion. If it bothers you opt out, including to another provider if you feel that put out by having to change a checkbox.

Now - making this traffic free while other traffic is metered.... um, not exactly neutral.

Re:Wha?

[Noah Haders]

you know i'm not compelled? it sounds like TMo is trying to innovate in order to compete for customers by offering a better service, and the competitors instead of innovating are using government regulators to squash them. typical.

Re:Wha?

[Noah Haders]

TMo says the program is open to anybody who wants to participate. nobody's getting excluded if they don't want to.

Re:Wha?

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't show favoritism though, as any provider can freely join the program.

At no cost to themselves or their customers and without modifying their content or allowing others to modify it for them?

Re:Wha?

[gfxguy]

I agree.

Re:Wha?

[gfxguy]

But this is still the opposite problem with an internet provider throttling bandwidth to content providers that don't pay an extra fee, and as such, it's not really a problem. If I'm paying comcast and I want to watch netflix, netflix shouldn't have to pay because I am comcast's customer and I'm already paying for the bandwidth - that's why it should be illegal to charge content providers. With T-Mobile, I'm the customer and I'm choosing to participate in this program that benefits me, the content provider, and the service provider. As the customer, I'M in control, and if I don't like the reduced bandwidth video, I can opt out entirely.

Re:Wha?

[mgcarley]

They don't throttle anything if you turn BingeOn off by logging in to my.t-mobile.com...

But when I'm watching on a phone or tablet, I'd rather use less data and stream at 480p than 1080p - I've personally found the difference to be negligible. I even used my TM Z915 Hotspot to stream Netflix from my Tablet to my Chromecast in a hotel room a couple of weeks ago and it was perfectly fine (and not having to put up with the hotel wifi made it even better).

Disclaimer: my company is a value-added reseller and has the ability to sell services utilizing all 4 of the major carriers, but, I prefer TM because overall I like most of what they're doing (even though we aren't allowed to offer BingeOn as a benefit to our own subscribers... yet).

Re:Wha?

[mgcarley]

Except these aren't TM's services and BingeOn includes Go90, Verizon's streaming service, as a kind of middle-finger poke at Verizon, in addition to which, there aren't any significant hurdles for being included in the list of BingeOn providers.

Re:Wha?

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

Weird...do you get at least 3G on the phone? The only time k9 has choked is when I accesses the Trash folder without emptying first, but it had over 2,000 messages in it. I constantly have 50+ emails in the inbox, often half unread. Never had a problem except for the above. Have you tried accessing your email on the phone while on wifi after turning off the mobile network? Process of elimination, clean out the inbox, try only wifi, make sure the settings are correct in K9 (since it has two different places to put the mail server info in, which is annoying lol), etc. I also download video clips (usually under 100mb) all the time using Turbo Download Manager, and even on 3g they only take a few minutes. There are a few spots in my place I can get 4g, then it's the same speed as wifi via DSL.

Re:Wha?

[JoeMerchant]

content providers that don't pay an extra fee

Calling it a discount (or free) for some, but not all, is the EXACT SAME THING as charging some and not others.

Re:Wha?

[allquixotic]

Clearly you never leave your house. I tried taking my TV with me on a train trip once, and it came unplugged from the coax in my room before I made it out the front door.

Also, I can't get cable or fiber to the premises where I live. I asked around in the local government and they are not doing anything specific to block them from coming here; the companies just seem wholly uninterested in coming here. We have median household income above the national median in my community, all the houses are being lived in (no "For Sale" properties), and we're fairly typical suburban population density (somewhat more land per property than town houses, but less than those big $1mil+ 3-story houses in some of the wealthier communities).

They *just won't come here* for reasons unknown.

Can't get Verizon or Xfinity to provide any reason why they refuse to come here, nor will they entertain monetary offers in the 5-figs range for paying them to come here. They Just Won't. The only answer I have been able to get in the past 7 years is "We'll put you on the list of people requesting service, thanks, bye."

Now, you could say "move", but that would almost certainly entail having my entire family get new jobs, because housing prices increase exponentially while cubic feet and land area decrease the closer I get to my workplace, so we'd have to move somewhere that magically has Verizon FiOS, but many/most of those places that I've identified have been too far away for us to commute reasonably to our workplaces. And I'm not keen on having to take out a second mortgage now that our house is already paid-off (we bought it at fair market value during a period of "ordinary" (not especially high or low) housing cost during the mid-80s). To get a house equivalent to what we have now in an area with FiOS would cost 5x to 6x more and would make it nearly impossible for us to ever retire because we couldn't afford to live AND pay off the mortgage.

The ONLY viable Internet connection at modern speeds in our area is 4G LTE. We actually have a plethora of choices to pick from; T-Mobile, Sprint, Verizon and AT&T (plus multiple MVNOs operating on the infrastructure of any of the above companies) all offer service here, but unless you're grandfathered in to a true unlimited plan (which, thankfully, I am), *new* customers are completely unable to get any kind of service that could serve as a substitute for having a modern landline-based ISP.

And no, 3 Mbps ADSL that constantly drops out is not acceptable.

My family is caught in a "doughnut hole" where market forces, public policy and private companies' negligence have combined in a triple-whammy to prevent us from having any viable options for Internet connectivity, which for technologists can literally be career-ending (ever try to check out one of those 2 GB Git repos over ADSL? No? Lucky you.) And nobody, not even fellow consumers, seems to give a shit.

So, no -- fuck everyone out there who keeps repeating the same tired line that "it's not technically possible to provide unlimited data to everyone over cellular". Bull fucking shit. There are solutions, but people refuse to do them, and all they'll do is complain about how it's impossible.

Increase tower density until it IS possible. Decommission outdated technologies like 2G and run LTE on their spectrum. Change public policy to allow towers to be built anywhere. Use carrier-grade, high-freq directional microwave towers for communication between towers so you don't have to wire up every single tower with landlines. Deploy LTE microcells or femtocells on street corners so you don't have to wire up an entire community with FTTP (and then offer the community unlimited LTE). Let individuals deploy their own repeaters on their own property to carry LTE a little further and offer better signal to a community in a valley or with marginal signal due to distance from the nearest company tower. There are ways to do this, but nobody will acknowledge the problem, and would happily go on letting a majority of

Just in case the summary wasn't clear

[ClickOnThis]

From TFA:

van Schewick second argument is that Binge On limits user choice because it allows customers to watch an unlimited amount of some services but a limited amount of others. She uses Amazon Prime as an example of a provider that would be limited with Binge On, but that service was added to the free streaming portion of Binge On yesterday.

[emphasis added]

Re:Just in case the summary wasn't clear

[Anonymous Coward]

I obviously misunderstood, but wasn't the original net neutrality argument was restricted to hard/landline based delivery, because of the limitations of over-the-air frequencies?

Re:Just in case the summary wasn't clear

[Anonymous Coward]

Technology has moved on.

You should too.

Re:Just in case the summary wasn't clear

[Anonymous Coward]

Has it really, though? Can the VZW network at the airport physically handle a neighborhood's worth of Netflix usage the way a neighborhood's copper/fiber network can?

Good. Next target, Comcast.

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope they make a similar ruling about Comcast and how their own internet streaming options don't count towards the data cap but Netflix does.

Re:Good. Next target, Comcast.

[u19925]

Favoring your own website is not a violation of net neutrality law. If TMobile provides its own radio and does not count toward data plan, it is perfectly fine. Net neutrality will never ban this kind of practice unless the provider is a monopoly.

Re:Good. Next target, Comcast.

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean a monopoly like Comcast has paid for in many places?

Re:Good. Next target, Comcast.

[Anonymous Coward]

For an extra $35/mo, Comcast does let you opt-out of data caps in most areas. 90/12.5 internet for about $100/mo with no cap isn't a bad deal for the US until fiber is an option.

They claim that it's a trial and they can "cancel at any time".
I will do the same immediately if unlimited is removed.

Everyone please let the FCC know this is fucked up

[Anonymous Coward]

FCC Complaint site

And please forward this link so TMobile is smacked down hard and fined. If end-runs around NN are allowed to fly, we're going to see more of these flagrant "opt-out" violations from your ISPs to the point you'll have to hire someone to disable them every month for non-throttled Internet service.

Nope

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as they continue allowing any steaming service to participate without favoritism, it's not a neutrality problem. The instant they deny _any_ streaming provider who meets the same requirements as all others, then it becomes a problem.

Re:Nope

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

As long as they continue allowing any steaming service to participate without favoritism...

A service wanting to connect to T-Mobile has to fill out an application with them to get into their system. That means they are the gate keeper. The only reason they'd even want services to apply is because they want to be able to say no, and that is not in the spirit of Net Neutrality.

If the service was truly neutral there wouldn't be any application process, it'd be an automated check to meet certain technical specs.

Re:Nope

[Anonymous Coward]

T-Mobile customers agreed to this in the TOS. This is all just hoopla, as a judge would rule for T-Mobile, citing first-semester law school classes, things like a contract is a contract, and customers agreed to the Binge-On terms. There has yet to be a single EULA thrown out of a courtroom, so it is obvious where the precedent lies.

Re:Nope

[Anonymous Coward]

(OP here) You are only right if T-Mobile actually denies any application for reasons other than not meeting the technical requirements. Have they?

Re:Nope

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Um, no. T-Mobile customers signing a contract won't make Binge-On consistent with Net Neutrality.

Re:Nope

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

It doesn't matter as long as they can. Again, if the process is purely technical (meaning then it is net-neutral) then no application is necessary.

Re:Nope

[Anonymous Coward]

You know this is completely about cooperative throttling with the providers so that service degradation is cooperative. If you're using any one of the roughly dozen popular video streaming services, then there's a little admin overhead to set up the system. In fact, it appears that they're already doing that to everyone hosting using those services. Tempest in a teapot, if you believe that the purpose of T-Mobile is to provide quality service.

Re:Nope

[grmoc]

Their "technical requirements" don't actually make technical sense, however, and distort the market by putting an arbitrary cap on resolutions (instead of bitrate) and requiring the video to be snoopable and modifiable.

If they said: Hey, the user can opt in (instead of opting out) to "Free" service, and all they need to do is opt-in, and have the content provider react to whatever throttling that t-mobile is doing, then it'd be fine. That isn't what they're doing.

Incidentally, *someone* has to pay for the bandwidth capacity. The end-user always ends up paying either directly, or indirectly for this.
All zero-rating does in this case is allow the provider leverage to pick winners and losers (and so extort money from the content provider and/or users).

I said same in apr-2015

[u19925]

See http://slashdot.org/users2.pl?... (Search TMobile).

Re:I said same in apr-2015

[SeaFox]

You know you can link to individual comments?
You're not a new fish.

well, thats F**king stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

While utilizing the law to ones own end is nothing new, that basically sounds like other data providers trying to justify their own practices and shoot down competition.

Then AT&T Uverse is also illegal

[jetkust]

Uverse Internet/Video is on same pileline. But U-verse video doesn't count against data cap while all other streaming services do.

Re:Then AT&T Uverse is also illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see the relation. Unless you're implying that all companies that provide TV Service AND Internet Service are breaking the law because they somehow aren't capping services they provide as a separate paid-for subscription over the same content delivery method....

Same token, UVerse charges for TV Service - it happens to be delivered via network. And, it doesn't go outside AT&T's network to get there.

Re:Then AT&T Uverse is also illegal

[tsqr]

Uverse Internet/Video is on same pileline. But U-verse video doesn't count against data cap while all other streaming services do.

What data cap are you talking about here? I have Uverse TV and Internet, and there isn't any data cap on Internet usage (or if there is, it's so large that watching several hours of Netflix HD every evening doesn't hit it). But if I use my Verizon mobile account to watch content recorded on my Uverse DVR when I'm out of WiFi coverage, then yes it would count against my Verizon data cap. Personally, I prefer to watch television content on my television and not on my phone, so the Verizon cap is not an issue.

Re:Then AT&T Uverse is also illegal

[jetkust]

There's always a cap: http://www.att.com/esupport/ar... Ranges from 150GB to 1TB (for gigabit service) (which is interesting because at full speed you'd blow the cap in 2 hours) Also, some people, like myself, use mobile hotspot tethering to stream to their television which Binge-On also claims to support.

Not a problem, nothing to see here

[gurps_npc]

The main difference between Binge on and other services that DID violate Net Neutrality is that Binge on is free.

Any company in the world is allowed to offer free services to people. That is not a problem.

The problem was when you charged customers for X, but then refused to give them X because company Y refused to pay you.

By making Binge On free, they have neatly avoided Net Neutrality problems.

No one has the right to charge me for X and then refuse to give me X because company Y doesn't pay you. But if you are giving my X for free, you can limit it however you desire.

Re:Not a problem, nothing to see here

[BradleyUffner]

By making Binge On free, they have neatly avoided Net Neutrality problems.

I'm fine with giving things away for free, but deep packet inspection in order to throttle the streams of non-participating content providers is still a violation of net neutrality.

Re:Not a problem, nothing to see here

[rahvin112]

Binge on allows T-Mobile a say in who wins the video streaming business by deciding who's free and who's not. That's bad.

Re:Not a problem, nothing to see here

[jeffmflanagan]

> but deep packet inspection in order to throttle the streams of non-participating content providers is still a violation of net neutrality.

Even when it's the user who decides whether lower bitrate streams are selected, as is the case here? I wouldn't think that would be a violation.

Re:Not a problem, nothing to see here

[jetkust]

Not really. T-Mobile doesn't care what services are used, just as long as the services meet their bandwidth and video quality requirements.

Re:Not a problem, nothing to see here

[BradleyUffner]

Even when it's the user who decides whether lower bitrate streams are selected, as is the case here? I wouldn't think that would be a violation.

I wouldn't have a problem with it if the user could actually manage a list of URLs that BingeOn affected.

Re:Not a problem, nothing to see here

[radarskiy]

Extorting the video providers to get on the special list is not what anyone would call "free".

Re:Not a problem, nothing to see here

[gurps_npc]

Extort? Going to companies and trying to convince them to pay for access to customers of your free service is called running an Advertising based business.

Extortion requires a threat. Offering a service is not a threat. It becomes a threat when you REMOVE or take away something. Binge On is not removing or taking away anything.

Re:Not a problem, nothing to see here

[gurps_npc]

Yes, they have a say - just as NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX all have a say about who wins the streaming content over radio business.

That by itself is NOT bad.

It is simply a business.

If T Mobile was someone to prevent a competitor from offering a similar free internet service, that would be bad.

Re:Not a problem, nothing to see here

[radarskiy]

"Binge On is not removing or taking away anything."

It is throttling some video providers and not others, and T-mobile gets to decide who gets a good connection and who gets a bad one. That is very much taking away something.

Re:Not a problem, nothing to see here

[duke_cheetah2003]

By making Binge On free, they have neatly avoided Net Neutrality problems.

Bzzzt. Wrong. Even free, the classification of certain data as unmetered, in my opinion, violates net neutrality. To play fair, they'd have to make all data unmetered, or metered. The whole point of net neutrality is you cannot give any favoritism to anything, all data needs to be treated the same, regardless of what that data is.

I know what T-Mobile is doing is supposed to be a benefit but it's still going against what net neutrality means.

Re:Not a problem, nothing to see here

[BronsCon]

Actualy, no. The providers themselves get to decide whether they want to participate. If they do, they make sure they meet the technical requirements and apply. If they don't, they don't. If they apply and they meet the technical requirements, they can participate; otherwise they can not (either because they didn't apply or they technically cannot participate); they can always fix what's broken with their service and apply again. It's even free to do so.

Re:Not a problem, nothing to see here

[BronsCon]

The reality is that the providers are required to comply with net neutrality laws, except at the request of their customers. A customer is free to ask their ISP to throttle a certain class of data and the ISP is then free to do so; that is all that is happening here.

Re:Not a problem, nothing to see here

[grmoc]

They throttle providers who've not opted in even when you're paying for the bytes, however.
So, they're exactly doing what you're saying should be unacceptabe:
There charging you for X bytes, but not providing them at the same level of service because those providers didn't reduce the quality to an arbitrary resolution (instead of bitrate, which MAY have made some sense), and didn't make the content modifiable and snoopable (HTTP is *required* if video is to be unthrottled).

Re:Not a problem, nothing to see here

[grmoc]

This.

Re: Not a problem, nothing to see here

[Anonymous Coward]

You can. Opt out.

Re:Not a problem, nothing to see here

[Anonymous Coward]

This.

Ahh...so you decided to use your other sockpuppets ("radarskiy", "gurps_npc") to troll this thread?

Re: Not a problem, nothing to see here

[Anonymous Coward]

That's fantastic, my choices boil down to "bend over" or "fuck off".

Re:Not a problem, nothing to see here

[radarskiy]

I am much too lazy to deal with more than one account.

Re:Not a problem, nothing to see here

[radarskiy]

T-mobile gets to decide on the criteria, therefore they get to decide who passes.

Re: Not a problem, nothing to see here

[BronsCon]

And at this point it seems that T-Mobile's criteria are that it is technically feasible for you to participate and that you apply. Can you let them actually do something wrong before you seek to punish them?

Re:Not a problem, nothing to see here

[MHolmesIV]

Er? Access to Binge on is free for providers. No one has to pay to be added to the list.

This was called out specifically in their briefing, and is mentioned in their binge on materials.

Now, some providers co-marketed with t-mobile to get prime placement on the _advertised_ list. There's nothing wrong with that. If apple buys an Ad on TV, does that make Dell not exist?

That is utterly stupid

[SuperKendall]

The user always had a limited about of data they could use - all binge on does is EXPAND USER CHOICE by letting some things not count against the data cap.

If you eliminate Binge On and all you have left is the same exact status for watching Amazon Prime that you had with the Binge On service, then Binge On did NOT IMPACT user choice.

In fact Binge On ALSO expands user choice from the sense that now you are not consuming data through Netflix any longer so you have more to use with Binge On....

I absolutely despite Network Neutrality advocates for this kind of idiotic non-think that backwardfies every single thing they talk about. They literally cannot think straight about anything.

Re:That is utterly stupid

[mechtech256]

It's not about users, it's about the massive transfer of control to the carriers with net neutrality violating programs like this. All content providers now have to conform to Tmobile's throttling rules in order to qualify for special status, and these rules are subject to change at Tmobile's whim.

In addition, video services NOT INCLUDED IN BINGE-ON are also being throttled while other types of traffic are not throttled. This is a textbook violation of net neutrality.

It's about control. Users and content creators should have control of the internet, and carriers should be blind carriers of data. That's the entire point of net neutrality.

Re:That is utterly stupid

[BradleyUffner]

In fact Binge On ALSO expands user choice from the sense that now you are not consuming data through Netflix any longer so you have more to use with Binge On....

By that logic they could expand user choice by completely blocking Netflix.

Re:That is utterly stupid

[rahvin112]

Binge on allows T-Mobile to have a say in who wins the video streaming market. In time that ability to influence will be worth money and they will start charging for it.

The reality is the Binge on is T-Mobile using it's status as network provider to decide who will win the most video streaming business. That's bad for everyone, even if helps some of their customers.

Re:That is utterly stupid

[SuperKendall]

Obviously not because it literally blocks access.

By omitting a service as counting against data you have expanded available data for every other service on the internet. If you are not in any way blocking access then it's not violating anything (the user can always disable Binge On so there is never a blockage or even throttling of any other service that the user did not request)

That is the very definition of a win-win and anyone who complains about that should probably not be allowed to breed (now THAT is limiting user choice).

Re:That is utterly stupid

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

The user always had a limited about of data they could use - all binge on does is EXPAND USER CHOICE by letting some things not count against the data cap.

So if Comcast let's their own video feeds through for free but never Netflix, that's clearly not a conflict of interest, right?

Re:That is utterly stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

They're already throttling data; this is very much about cooperatively throttling video data with the providers instead of brute force throttling which leads to choppy video. Given their relative lack of bandwidth compared to the FCC's puppetmasters, they want to do is to provide service that gracefully degrades instead of the AT&T approach of fucking you with overage fees.

Re:That is utterly stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

it's not about T-Mo, stupid I bet Netflix loves this because it gives their CDN boxes extra life. there is a switch over to 4K which means more bandwidth per user. except now you have thousands of customers agreeing to use less bandwidth leaving more of it for the 4K users and extending the life of expensive hardware. Google doesn't care because they use a scale out model of hardware and add storage daily. For Netflix on the other hand replacing a CDN server is expensive in dollars and time

Re:That is utterly stupid

[slinches]

Binge on allows T-Mobile to have a say in who wins the video streaming market

How so? There are simple rules for inclusion in the program which are applied equally to all and not inherently unfair as far as I can tell.

Please let me know when there are any services that have been excluded after requesting access and I'll listen. Until that happens, the perception of possible abuse is insufficient to prove this is anything other than an effort by T-Mobile to better serve their customers.

Re:That is utterly stupid

[radarskiy]

" EXPAND USER CHOICE"

It's not expanding user choice if it is T-mobile that get to decide who are the favored video providers that get to avoid the throttling.

Re:That is utterly stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

It leads to a scenario where you can be offered a very low usage cap along with a bunch of "unmetered" services the phone company wants you to use (read: gets kickbacks for)

If you're ok with a 10 meg limit and unlimited streaming from T-Mobile's business partner only, that's the road you're on.

Re:That is utterly stupid

[radarskiy]

"There are simple rules for inclusion in the program"

T-mobile decides on the criteria, therefore they implicitly get to decide who gets included by changing the rules.

Re:That is utterly stupid

[Registered Coward v2]

Users and content creators should have control of the internet, and carriers should be blind carriers of data. That's the entire point of net neutrality.

That's fine, but the result is metering and higher costs.

Re:That is utterly stupid

[Actually, I do RTFA]

I should point out that all market failures arise from user choice. It's the choice of everyone to use IE that killed Netscape. Now, that choice was made cause MS made it very, very easy to use IE if you had a Windows computer. And then all the web site developers made a choice to anticipate IE's non-standards parsing because 99% of browsers were IE. And then other people made a choice to drop Netscape, cause sites didn't look good.

Then a bunch of corporations made a choice to use ActiveX components because JS didn't exist in IE yet. Then not rewriting all that code was a choice that made fiscal sense, and only necessitated staying on IE platforms.

All sane, rational choices.

Re:That is utterly stupid

[amRadioHed]

How about stop with the FUD and get back to us when that situation happens, ok? As the plan is now all video services can freely join and no one is getting any kickbacks and T-Mobile is not decreasing data plans either.

Re:That is utterly stupid

[amRadioHed]

"Until that happens, the perception of possible abuse is insufficient to prove this is anything other than an effort by T-Mobile to better serve their customers."

Re:That is utterly stupid

[amRadioHed]

Except that's not the same situation at all. This is more like if Comcast let their own video feeds though for free, as well as Netflix's and any other services who chose to participate.

Re:That is utterly stupid

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

There isn't anything compelling T-Mobile to accept an application. Comcast, in that same scenario, would be free to reject their competition for any frivilous reason. There's no reason to even have an application process if everybody is accepted.

Re:That is utterly stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Well T-mobile moved that choice to the providers, they gave a list of purely technical requirements that any content provider is free to implement. Now if they made the list unrealistic, overly costly or fucked with the results after the fact that would be worth mentioning. Right now its not any more evil than requiring an IPv4/IPv6 capable device for internet access.

Re:That is utterly stupid

[BronsCon]

There isn't anything compelling Apple to support iPhones for longer than Google's legally binding 2 year major version and 3 year (or 18mo from removal from Google Store, whichever is longer) security update policy, but Apple fans are allowed to pull that out every time it comes up. And we let it stand because Apple has, historically, done just that. Until T-Mobile denies a legitimate application (and we'll surely hear about it if they ever do), we must either allow the "T-Mobile allows anyone to apply" argument or cease to allow the "Apple supports their phones longer" argument, because they're based on the exact same standard.

Re:That is utterly stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Your Apple analogy here doesn't make any particular sense in this context, were you just gambling on one being an Apple lover or something?

Re:That is utterly stupid

[grmoc]

Oh boy.

Lets pare this down to the mechanics of what is happening:
Users pay money to carrier, which builds infrastructure which supports X bandwidth.
Instead of giving everyone (n people) X/n bandwidth, they say that they'll offer some fixed bandwidth.. unless you're watching video.
If you're watching video, they'll screw with the packets (even if you're paying for them) unless you've opted out entirely of the binge-on program.
A provider must provide 720p video (even if they could have provided 1080p or better with the same bandwidth), unsecured (you must use HTTP only), and allow t-mobile to modify the content.

It reduces user choice: They CANNOT receive the video they are quite literally paying for unless that video provider has opted in by reducing security and providing shittier quality.

Re:That is utterly stupid

[grmoc]

You pay higher costs either way because someone needs to pay for the bandwidth.
With zero-rating, however, the carrier gets to extract concessions out of either the user or the content provider, increasing overall costs at higher rates because they can do things that actively harm the user when they want to extract more "value" from the content provider.

Re:That is utterly stupid

[grmoc]

It isn't FUD when it is happening.
Troll on man, troll on!

Re:That is utterly stupid

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

If acceptance is only about meeting techical requirements then the process should be automated. The only reason T-Mobile has to want anybody to apply is that they only intend to let so many services through. Youtube, for example, already meets that criteria but they still have to apply.

Re:That is utterly stupid

[amRadioHed]

None of what he said is happening, unless you've got some secret knowledge no one else is privy to.

Re: That is utterly stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Stupid. Opt out you fucking twit. How hard is that to understand?

Re:That is utterly stupid

[BronsCon]

No, I know the person I was replying to is no Apple lover. Clearly, you're missing my point; lack of anything (obvious to the causal observer) compelling a company to act in the best interest of their customer does not mean the company won't do so. Case in point: Apple. And, historically, T-Mobile for the past few years; they're surely not the same T-Mobile they were then I swore I'd never do business with them again after my experience with them 13 years ago; if they were, I wouldn't be doing business with them today.

Re:That is utterly stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

You pay higher costs either way because someone needs to pay for the bandwidth.
With zero-rating, however, the carrier gets to extract concessions out of either the user or the content provider, increasing overall costs at higher rates because they can do things that actively harm the user when they want to extract more "value" from the content provider.

Hey clueless dipshit troll "grmoc"... I think you are finally getting the idea here.

With BingeOn enabled and all video throttled regardless of source, the tradeoff is any provider that signed up with TMO get's their video passed to you at no charge to your data cap. So, you are benefiting in that case and not having to pay anything for the benefit; the "average man on the street" is not likely to complain about that. For sites that don't want to sign up with TMO, and dipshit trolls like you are clueless enough to keep BingeOn enabled when you access those sites, then you "pay the price" in both data cap and slower speeds, and all because you are being a stupid dipshit troll that can't figure out how to properly use the BingeOn technology. Get the picture? I doubt that you do.

As for having to turn off HTTPS, how do you think video optimization services work? On encrypted video streams? I seriously doubt it. Just lowering the bitrate on encrypted streams could result in periodic video stuttering and other forms of poor playback, but I bet you want that, right?

In the case of BingeOn "enabled", either the provider is transcoding the video down to 480p for BingeOn or TMO is doing it. If TMO is doing the transcoding, then they need an unencrypted stream. So why transcode the video to a lower resolution rather than just reducing the bitrate? Simple, go Google this term "video quality factor", also called "Qf".

If you take the time to do the math and the comparisons between video resolutions at the same Qf value , you will see that lower video resolutions, like 480p, actually have lower bitrates compared to 720p, 1080p, and 4K. After doing the research and learning how the math works, go examine the Qf value of any "higher than 480p" online video and note the Qf value. I bet that value is between 0.09 and 0.20; almost all online video content I have found is in that range, and that is based on many months of data analysis when I worked in that business. Your online reading on Qf should tell you that the average human being cannot tell the difference between Qf=0.10 and Qf=0.20; anything better than 0.10 (like 0.20) cannot be seen as "better". That is quite possibly why most online video providers encode their content in that Qf range (0.10 - 0.20); I can't say what Netflix does as my research did not include them.

If your worries about watching video require "privacy", and therefore HTTPS by logical extension, then you should carefully reconsider your arguments on privacy. Any wireless carrier can READ ANY URL that you are sending to ANY WEB SITE even if the content provided via that URL is encrypted. So if the URL contains anything that reveals your odd/twisted/perverted/sick video viewing behaviors, then your whing about demanding privacy and HTTPS is a total RED HERRING of an argument.

Re:That is utterly stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

There isn't anything compelling T-Mobile to accept an application. Comcast, in that same scenario, would be free to reject their competition for any frivilous reason. There's no reason to even have an application process if everybody is accepted.

Does anyone have any citation showing that any online video provider that applied to TMO was refused?

I thought so. Just a repeated FUD statement from a clueless troll.

HEY TROLL...REPEATING THE SAME LIE OVER AND OVER AGAIN WILL NOT MAKE IT COME TRUE

Re:That is utterly stupid

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Then explain why they need an application process.

That's a can of worms...

[pushing-robot]

Online users choose content providers with web sites over content providers without web sites. Ergo, the WWW distorts competition and should be shut down.

Re:That's a can of worms...

[Anonymous Coward]

Net neutrality pretty clearly refers to competition between content providers on the internet. That's actually what the first word, 'net', refers to.

Re:That's a can of worms...

[BronsCon]

Yes, and the internet is a lot more than the web; pushing-robot's point stands.

Re:That's a can of worms...

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone can run an HTTP server and serve a web site. It's an open standard and the technology is, in fact, implemented by plenty of capital-F Free software. The same cannot be said about climbing in bed with an ISP. Imagine the nightmare if Comcast got to decide which streaming service you could use. You'd have to buy a new house to switch from Netflix to Hulu.

That is still stupid

[SuperKendall]

In addition, video services NOT INCLUDED IN BINGE-ON are also being throttled

This is at the users request (the user enables binge on and the throttling setting).

Are you really saying that I as a network user have no right to request a service throttle data for me to a lower amount? Really?

So network neutrality then was never about helping users, but placating control nazis like yourself because someone somewhere might be getting a deal you are not getting. Everyone else must suffer because you cannot be on top. Moronic.

It is about control, but apparently your desire to limit what a network can do for me. Thanks for nothing.

Re:That is still stupid

[vel-ex-tech]

In addition, video services NOT INCLUDED IN BINGE-ON are also being throttled

This is at the users request (the user enables binge on and the throttling setting).

To quote an EFF article:

T-Mobile's Binge On service could have been great. Giving customers a choice about how to use their data so that they can stream more video without hitting their data cap is a wonderful idea. Unfortunately, T-Mobile botched the roll out. Without asking, they made it the default for all of their customers.

I also found a The Verge article that confirms that throttling goes away once Binge On is disabled:

T-Mobile was throttling all video traffic over its network, including video downloads, for all customers who had not disabled the Binge On feature that the company automatically enabled for everyone in November.

All in all, I think this is a mountain out of a molehill. The biggest problem was how T-Mobile rolled it out. If they would have made it opt-in at roll out instead of opt-out, the issue would be much more clear, and I don't think it would have become a net neutrality matter.

I'm not sure if it's a bugbear that non-Binge On videos get throttled when Binge On is active. I could go either way on that one. (Or better yet, T-Mobile should have made it an option.)

Actually, what I really want to know is why T-Mobile doesn't just apologize and disable it for everybody. Problem solved imho.

Re:That is still stupid

[parkinglot777]

someone somewhere might be getting a deal you are not getting.

That's exactly why there is net neutrality.

Everyone else must suffer because you cannot be on top

Hmm... I don't get this... If you can be on top, why would everyone be happy when everyone can't be on top like you are???

Re:That is still stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you really saying that I as a network user have no right to request a service throttle data for me to a lower amount? Really?"

You have no right to request a service throttle SOME data differently than others. That's exactly what we are saying.

If T-Mobile wants to give extra data, or cheaper data, that's perfectly fine.

This is FOR YOUR OWN GOOD.

Re:That is still stupid

[radarskiy]

"This is at the users request (the user enables binge on and the throttling setting)."

T-mobile's intention is that only video providers on a list that they decide would be included. The fact that provider not on that list are not being throttles is actually a bug from their perspective.

Not only are they violating net neutrality, they can't even correctly violate net neutrality.

Re:That is still stupid

[radarskiy]

"Are you really saying that I as a network user have no right to request a service throttle data for me to a lower amount?"

Irrelevant to the discussion, because that is not one of the available options.

The choices are a) throttle all video providers, or b) remove throttling for video providers on a list that T-mobile decides.

Re:That is still stupid

[amRadioHed]

Actually, what I really want to know is why T-Mobile doesn't just apologize and disable it for everybody. Problem solved imho.

They already pissed off the people who don't want Bing On enabled, now you want them to piss off the people who do want it, too?

Honestly though, I feel the people who did get pissed off about this really need to get a life. Yes, T-Mobile should have made this opt-in, but what's done is done and anyone who is aware of the program and doesn't like it for whatever reason can disable it in less time than it takes to post an angry comment online.

Re:That is still stupid

[amRadioHed]

The reality is that video data is not the same as other data. Throttling all data increases load times for web pages and slows down apps and downloads. Throttling video streams reduces the bitrate of the stream that is sent (assuming a typical modern streaming service) so that I get a lower resolution video but probably doesn't result in any noticeable change to the user who is watching on a 5" screen. So it's perfectly reasonable for a user to wish to have only their video data throttled.

Re:That is still stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

wrong again.

Binge-On either throttles all video traffic when its on, or doesn't throttle any traffic when its off.

When its on, participating traffic is free, non-participating traffic is not free.

Re:That is still stupid

[BronsCon]

The biggest problem was how T-Mobile rolled it out.

I've been with T-Mobile since they rolled out their Simple Choice plans and I've been a bleeding-edge adopter of every add-on and benefit service they've offered since (with the exception of JUMP! since I had just upgraded my phone and wasn't eligible until I was due for another upgrade; I'm using that too, now, as it costs less than the insurance I previously had and includes a few subscriptions I was previously paying for) and I have to say how T-Mobile rolls things out is always their biggest problem. Without fail, it's 3 months of service and/or billing issues with anything new from them, then they sort it out, credit the account, and give me a free month of service (or, as in one case, a free year of unlimited LTE in the form of a $240 bill credit, back when that would have cost $20/mo). And the credits and freebies, above and beyond refunding any billing error, are always given of their own volition, never at my request.

As much as I can complain about their seeming inability to roll out a new service smoothly, I can't complain about their compensation program at all.

Re:That is still stupid

[BronsCon]

disable it in less time than it takes to post an angry comment online

Yes, very quickly, in fact. Dial #264# (#BNG#) to check your Binge-On status, #263# (#BOF#) to turn it off, and #266# (#BON#) to turn it on. Yes, really, it's that simple.

Re:That is still stupid

[grmoc]

In which case they should opt-in. But paying for the bandwidth and not getting it is clearly not what I paid for.

Re:That is still stupid

[grmoc]

They *are* throttling providers not on the list, though!
You get to pay for the bytes *and* have them throttled.

Re: That is still stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

You are getting the bandwidth you fucking dolt. What is wrong with you morons?

Re: That is still stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

You are getting the bandwidth you fucking dolt. What is wrong with you morons?

"grmoc" is a clueless dipshit troll that probably whines whenever a place doesn't have free Wi-Fi...

So "AC"... don't feed the trolls

Re:That is still stupid

[radarskiy]

T-mobile couldn't even screw over their customers correctly.
Need better evil corporations.

Re:Everyone please let the FCC know this is fucked

[Anonymous Coward]

Why?

Since they throttle everything it complies

[Anonymous Coward]

throttling all video services the same even if they don't have a tmobile arrangement means they comply.

Re:Since they throttle everything it complies

[grmoc]

Huh?
They're throttling bytes that you're paying for because a content provider didn't accept some arbitrary restrictions (remove encryption, make video resolution (not bitrate) some arbitrary value, etc).

This means they're not treating the bytes you're *paying for* the same.

The Reg had a reasonable response to this

[oik]

I'm with them: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...

Re:The Reg had a reasonable response to this

[MobyDisk]

The Register's article seems logical if you assume network neutrality meant something else. One of the biggest problems NN had is that some very powerful corporations tried to redefine NN to mean "no throttling" or some other such thing.

The quote that best sums it up the confusion is this:

The usual reasons for detecting witchcraft neutrality violations are absent. It isn’t compulsory. It isn’t a rent-seeking scheme. It isn’t constraining choice. It isn’t disadvantaging anyone;

Those things they listed aren't what a network neutrality violation is. (I have no idea what a "rent-seeking" scheme is. Can someone explain what they meant?)

Network neutrality is the principle that all information on the network is treated the same. That the service provider does not alter the content, throttle it, or limit it it. It doesn't matter whether or not those alterations/throttles/limits are optional or compulsory. The problem with service providers doing this is that they distort the market. They make people prefer certain video providers, social networking sites, online shopping services, or whatever they limit it to. It makes it so that companies can't fairly compete. People who use this plan are constrained in that, once they go above their limits, they can only access certain services. As opposed to normal users, who just pay for more bandwidth and can see everything; or see nothing at all.

The fact that it isn't compulsory is irrelevant. This is one of the most disconcerting things about neutrality violations: customers might actually *prefer* the non-neutral plans. If you told someone "I can give you the entire internet for $60/month" or "I can give you iTunes and Netflix for $1/month" you can bet that a lot of people will choose the latter option. And those companies would *love* it because the service provider just got a whole lot of people to stop using Google Play Music and Amazon Prime. And the ISP might not even need a kickback from those companies to do it Maybe they just wanted to limit their bandwidth consumption by setting up proxy servers - but they couldn't do it for the whole internet. So they offer a subset of the full internet, and *bam* they can save themselves and customers lots of money.

They need different standards for cellular, IMO.

[King_TJ]

Net Neutrality is a complicated, sticky bunch of legislation that has some benefits, but also a lot of rough edges, IMO.

This "Binge On" fiasco with T-Mobile is a great example. Here you have a service which is beneficial to the consumer, really. (I have T-Mobile and it's a win for me. I'm not a huge user of video on mobile devices in the first place, but I may as well get the bonus of un-metered viewing of content from any providers on-board with their program, just like they did with unlimited music streaming with "partners".) I do understand how by "the letter of the law", they violate Net Neutrality as it stands currently.

BUT, why are we so worried about this for cellular data at this time? We all know cellular is a very different animal than something like FiOS or cable broadband or even AT&T U-Verse service. Cellular bandwidth is very limited, based on only having so many towers in a given area and only so much capacity each tower can handle. You generally pay for cellular data in a metered fashion, and it's generally understood you use data on it a a supplement to a land-based Internet broadband service. (Heck, that's what the cellular services are really doing in the first place .... picking up Internet connections from land based services and adding value for you by putting it out over the airwaves for your subscribed device to use wirelessly.)

When I'm on an unmetered cable or fiber based circuit, I expect to be able to pull data from any place I can connect to that serves it out, without interference from my ISP (or one upstream) artificially limiting some of it. On cellular? I expect a slow, somewhat unreliable connection that may drop out as I travel around (nature of the beast), and know that I'm probably getting billed by pre-paying for some small allotment of megabytes of data per month. At that point, it doesn't negatively impact me if some carrier is "playing favorites" by forming partnerships to let me stream some of the partner content without it counting against that cap. It just improves my total experience of how much I can do for a given monthly cost.

If there's *anything* T-Mobile might do to be more in line with the law? Perhaps they should make Binge On an "opt in" vs. "opt out" option? When you're not using it, everything works as per usual for all cellular carriers.....

Am I the only one confused by Binge On?

[LordKronos]

I find the whole concept of Binge On very confusing, and it makes me feel like there's something fundamental I don't understand.

With typical wired service through your cable company, the most limited resource is on the other side of your ISP, and that's why the ISPs want to get websites like youtube and netflix to cache content locally to reduce that expense. With wireless service, of course that same resource limitation and expense still exists, but by far the much bigger resource limitation is between your phone and the cell tower. That's why cellular plans have much lower bandwidth caps than wired service.

So what sense does binge on make (from tmobiles perspective)? Yes, it reduces their outside bandwidth expense, but I thought that's kind of backward. Perhaps they'll save a few bucks on the backbone connectivity costs, but by making that content free from data caps, they're actually encouraging people to start using services they otherwise might not have used due to that caps, thus greatly increasing utilization of the more limited (and much more difficult to expand) wireless bandwidth.

So what am I missing?

Re:Am I the only one confused by Binge On?

[Anonymous Coward]

I just assume they got kickbacks from those services. Otherwise, why would they do any of this? Maybe they invest in those services?

Re:Am I the only one confused by Binge On?

[Anonymous Coward]

They are throttling the services that participate in Binge On, this reduces the impact they have on their network. But I'm guessing the big gain here for them is in the marketing, where they use this service to (try to) gain more customers.

I agree it's a benefit to me

[rsilvergun]

I'm a T-Mobile customer too. I could care less about HD video on my el-cheapo LG phone. And yes I can opt out... But I still don't trust T-Mobile. Companies have a nasty way of chipping away at the sorts of protections that Net Neutrality affords.

What I'd really like to see is a 32 hour work week and mandatory voting in the States. Force people to take part in democracy and give them the time and resources to do so. If I felt the public at large had the wherewithal to keep constant vigil over all the shit corporations do I'd be all for it. But until that day I've got to rely on regulatory commodities that have been circumvented since I was a wee lad.

Re:I agree it's a benefit to me

[Rockoon]

I'm a T-Mobile customer [...] I still don't trust T-Mobile.

I see your real problem.

a) You have been giving money to your enemy.
b) You plan to eagerly continue to give money to your enemy.

Let us know when you take the first step and accept responsibility.

Free, Net Neutral Access at 1.5 Mbps

[popdookey]

This article, and too many of the the comments, are completely clueless. I chose to get a T-Mobile hotspot because of Binge On. My responsibility as a consumer requires some due diligence. I learned that I could stream content from providers for free if they participated in a programs that would reduce the quality of my video to that which could be carried at 1.5 Mbps. Great for a mobile device, tablet, and even a laptop. Not so great for a 4K TV.

But I knew this because it was a hotspot from a mobile provider with a clearly stated policy about what to expect for free. If I wanted to use all of the 6GB I paid for at full resolution watching any video service I wanted, then all I had to do was to turn off Binge On. Wow. Such a violation of my rights as a net user.

Let's repeat. T-Mobile offers a free video feed at 1.5mbps. Free net access at 1.5mbps. How Net Neutral can one be?