Net Neutrality Advocates To FCC: Put the Kibosh On Internet Freebies (cnet.com)

An anonymous reader cites a CNET report:Net neutrality advocates demand action. Representatives from Fight the Future, the Center for Media Justice and Free Press on Friday hand-delivered a 6-foot tall package containing 100,000 letters of complaint to the Federal Communications Commission. They ask the agency to take action against AT&T, Comcast, T-Mobile and Verizon for violating the agency's Open Internet order by offering so-called zero-rating service plans. While the practice offers some benefits to customers, critics say it violates the agency's Net neutrality principles, which requires all services on the internet be treated the same. They claim it puts smaller competitors at a disadvantage and highlights the fact that data caps are unnecessary. Carriers say they are simply experimenting with new business models that will make their service more affordable for consumers.

Comments

"Freebies" are neither free nor zero cost

[mrchaotica]

They're paid for by increasing the price on everything else, and they reduce your freedom by increasing the cost of making alternative choices.

Re:"Freebies" are neither free nor zero cost

[Anonymous Coward]

They're paid for by increasing the price on everything else, and they reduce your freedom by increasing the cost of making alternative choices.

And if you choose not to use those services: Fuck you, pay for them anyway.

Re:"Freebies" are neither free nor zero cost

[jittles]

They're paid for by increasing the price on everything else, and they reduce your freedom by increasing the cost of making alternative choices.

In the case of T-Mobile developers are opting in to having their data stream recompressed by T-mobile. It's not increasing the cost of anything else. T-Mobile saves money on this because they're not blasting out a 10Mbps stream to a 4 inch cellphone that can't possibly display that resolution. Sure if you're plugging your cell phone into your TV to stream video at home, it may affect you. However, they are not charging anyone for this, the service is open to everyone, and is completely voluntary. The data stream does not get routed any differently from a QoS standpoint but it makes a huge difference to the Network's ability to relieve congestion. If anything, the app developers should allow T-mobile users to opt in/out of using that endpoint on T-mobile but I see no reason for T-mobile to be forbidden to provide the service as it is.

Re: "Freebies" are neither free nor zero cost

[Karlt1]

That would be a nice argument if it weren't for the pesky fact that T- mobile has the cheapest data rates and free international roaming.

Re:"Freebies" are neither free nor zero cost

[bluefoxlucid]

In some cases, they avoid a $1,000 cost by accepting a $10 cost.

Re:"Freebies" are neither free nor zero cost

[meerling]

Yeah, that's part of being in an organization of any kind. Resources are shifted to where they're needed.
Do you really think your digestive system should give up the majority of the calcium it collects to the skeletal system?

Re:"Freebies" are neither free nor zero cost

[pnutjam]

Wait, are we talking about ESPN now?

Re:LOL

[Austerity Empowers]

But curling tho

kibosh

[ailnlv]

I thought I had a pretty decent grip of the english language, but what's a kibosh?

Re:kibosh

[cdrudge]

If only there were some type of a book or service that you could use to look up a definition of the kibosh...

Re:kibosh

[TechyImmigrant]

I thought I had a pretty decent grip of the english language, but what's a kibosh?

Kibosh is/was British English vernacular. It seems to be spreading though.

Re:kibosh

[Captain Splendid]

I'm confused. Isn't that what he just did?

Sure he did. He just took the longer, more annoying route.

Re:kibosh

[ailnlv]

being annoying is half the fun

Re:kibosh

[TechyImmigrant]

I didn't know that. I'm British, but I've lived in the States for 16 years. I haven't noticed it being used over here. It is standard parlance in the UK. I imagine it will be used in reference to the economy and personal freedoms given what's been going on in the past couple of days.

Re:kibosh

[Captain Splendid]

I would have gone with stupid, but sure, whatever works for you, really.

Re:kibosh

[Captain Splendid]

"stupid" is replacing "fun", not "annoying".

Hope that helps, moron.

Re:kibosh

[mschuyler]

Nope. It's English. First known use was 1836 by Charles Dickens. But it still is common in the US. No need to look up the definition.

Re:kibosh

[BronsCon]

Bah, they're both fun.

Re: kibosh

[MercTech]

Crushing with connotations of Kaiju stepping on everything.

As a visual example of the concept; I give you Bambi meets Godzilla
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-wUdetAAlY

Demand the symmetrical dumb pipe

[fustakrakich]

Accept no substitutes!

Here we go!

[mveloso]

Now the "net neutrality" supporters are going to screw everyone with their demands that anything that isn't crappy, lowest-common-denominator service is a rule violation.

Re:Here we go!

[sumdumass]

You would need the ability to actually compete for that to happen. As it is now with cell phones, only a handful of companies have the rights to regulated frequencies and use their previous infrastructure to cut capital costs on roll-out and expansion. Everyone else has to lease from them.

The reality is, the lowest cost anyone can go is the lowest one of the more expensive players will allow across their network when a third party company leases access from them. And that is actually limited because they peer with each other so portions of some costs will end up matching costs on another network.

This isn't a situation where you could design or re-purpose a cell phone tomorrow and go into business. The FCC regulates spectrum and it is sold to a select few who ultimately control it. If this was a widget business concept and you could make widgets in your garage and compete, you would be right. But the principles of the matter dictates otherwise.

Binge on

[cdrudge]

T-Mobile's Binge on does offer free streaming (both radio and tv) for qualified rate plans. But I was under the impression that any provider could opt in or out of the program once they met the technical criteria for the reduced bitrate streams. It saves the provider bandwidth to get the stream to T-mobile, and it saves t-mobile bandwidth to get it to the customer. There's no denying any service access to T-Mobile's customers, requiring bribe money to T-Mobile in order to be included in the service, nor prioritizing any service over another as far as I can tell (but could be wrong).

Is this any different really than Netflix's Open Connect for instance? It seems to be an advantage for everyone without being a detriment to anyone.

Re:Binge on

[Obfuscant]

T-Mobile's Binge on does offer free streaming (both radio and tv) for qualified rate plans.

No, it offers streaming that does not count against your 4G data limits. You pay for the streaming, just not on a per-byte basis.

But I was under the impression that any provider could opt in or out of the program once they met the technical criteria for the reduced bitrate streams.

That's right.

It saves the provider bandwidth to get the stream to T-mobile, and it saves t-mobile bandwidth to get it to the customer.

Yes, and that's why it's a good deal for everyone involved. EVERYONE. And that's also why it doesn't prove that bandwidth caps are unnecessary, because this is, in effect, a bandwidth cap too. If you voluntarily limit your bandwidth so that other people can share the same resources, then your bandwidth doesn't get counted.

Let me say that again: Binge On is a bandwidth cap. It is not a total use cap, it is a speed cap. And speed is more important in determining service levels than totals.

nor prioritizing any service over another as far as I can tell (but could be wrong).

You are right. Content providers who complain about Binge On only do so because they choose not to limit streaming speeds and don't charge rates that can compete once you include the data plan charges that their service would incur.

And consumers who complain about this are just dog-in-the-manger or sour-grapes fools.

Re:Binge on

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

The issue is they get to pick and choose which services they allow a zero rating on. If that doesn't worry you a lot, then consider that the other major players offer television and phone service as well. It is so easy to imagine Comcast saying "oh, gee, Netflix isn't meeting our criteria. Sorry. But, hey, our streaming service is better anyway..."

Re: Binge on

[Karlt1]

T-mobile is very open about their criteria and there hasn't been a single report of a video or audio service that wanted to be a part of Binge On and couldn't. They don't advertise it, but I believe there is a porn site that is part of Binge On - so there isn't discrimination bAded on content type either.

Re: Binge on

[cdrudge]

They don't advertise it, but I believe there is a porn site that is part of Binge On

If you go to the Binge On page and click on the link "See list of all streaming services", scroll to the bottom of the pop up box and say you're over 18, they say that MiKandi and
Streamate. So they aren't advertising it, but they do mention it.

Re:Binge on

[cdrudge]

T-Mobile's Binge on does offer free streaming (both radio and tv) for qualified rate plans.

No, it offers streaming that does not count against your 4G data limits. You pay for the streaming, just not on a per-byte basis.

That's what I meant. It's semantics. Since I qualified it with with "for qualified rate plans" obviously it's not free as in no cost. It's free as in no additional cost for it not to count against your caps.

Re:Binge on

[mrchaotica]

But I was under the impression that any provider could opt in or out of the program once they met the technical criteria for the reduced bitrate streams.

First of all, that "technical criteria" is way too vague to be useful in actually implementing a Binge-On-compliant service. Second, it still requires that the content provider in question "partner" (i.e., create a business agreement) with T-Mobile. What they need is a specific set of technical requirements such that anyone running a web server can configure it in a certain way and the content will automatically qualify for the program, with no business agreement required.

Re: Binge on

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

T-mobile is very open about their criteria and there hasn't been a single report of a video or audio service that wanted to be a part of Binge On and couldn't.

It doesn't matter. You still have to apply and they have to accept.

Re: Binge on

[Karlt1]

So you would rather T-mobile not offer their customers unlimited video and audio streaming to its customers just because a company has to meet certain technical requirements and apply and accept?

Who benefits if T-mobile discontinues Binge-On?

Re: Binge on

[mrchaotica]

T-mobile is very open about their criteria and there hasn't been a single report of a video or audio service that wanted to be a part of Binge On and couldn't.

I want my home server to be part of Binge On, but I doubt T-Mobile's business partnerships department has the time to talk to me (or the millions upon millions of other non-commercial operators).

Re: Binge on

[mrchaotica]

So you would rather T-mobile not offer their customers unlimited video and audio streaming to its customers just because a company has to meet certain technical requirements and apply and accept?

As a T-Mobile customer, YES!

"Meet[ing] certain technical requirements" is perfectly fine, but having to be a company or apply for permission are entirely unacceptable!

Re: Binge on

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

I'd rather T-Mobile just say "here's a 1 megabit unlimited plan, enjoy!"

 

Who benefits if T-mobile discontinues Binge-On?

The rest of the internet that's not on that list.

Re:Binge on

[Obfuscant]

The issue is they get to pick and choose which services they allow a zero rating on. If that doesn't worry you a lot,

No, they don't pick and choose, so no, that doesn't worry me a lot. In fact, even if they DID pick and choose it wouldn't worry me at all. If someone will voluntarily slow their traffic down so that everyone else can get a bigger piece of the limited pie, then I'm fine with that, and if their data doesn't get counted because of that, I don't really care.

Re: Binge on

[Obfuscant]

but I doubt T-Mobile's business partnerships department has the time to talk to me (or the millions upon millions of other non-commercial operators).

That you think there are millions upon millions of content providers who would want to qualify for Binge On shows how far out in left field you really are. And the fact that you are basing your rant against T-Mobile on "I doubt that" instead of "they won't let me" shows a lot, too.

If you go look at the requirements, you'll see:

As with the Music Freedom offering that came before it, T-Mobile wants to encourage as many content providers as possible to participate. In any event, there is no charge regardless of your choice.

No charge to the provider. All you have to do is coordinate your service with T-Mobile. Your customer gets cheaper service, you get a happier customer, and T-Mobile is able to better manage the limited 4G data service they provide. They also get to advertise you as a Binge On content provider. Win-win-win.

If you want to be a dick and screw your customer by first refusing to participate, and then trying to demand that he has to pay for every byte he gets, then why should he be your customer in the first place?

Re:Binge on

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

No, they don't pick and choose...

Then why even have an application process?

Re:Binge on

[Obfuscant]

First of all, that "technical criteria" is way too vague to be useful in actually implementing a Binge-On-compliant service.

From the requirements pdf I've already provided a link to:

T-Mobile will work with content providers to ensure that our networks work together to properly detect video. We will continue to work with content providers as new traffic identification means are needed in the event of future technology enhancement or changes.

Oh My God, a PDF overview of a complicated technical system doesn't provide you immediately with enough information to be able to implement it. How could they DARE be so obtuse?

Second, it still requires that the content provider in question "partner" (i.e., create a business agreement) with T-Mobile.

Wow, what a burden: "provide video in a format we can detect is video and you're good". That's some onerous "business agreement".

What they need is a specific set of technical requirements such that anyone running a web server can configure it in a certain way and the content will automatically qualify for the program, with no business agreement required.

First, Binge On is not directed towards generic "web servers", it's specific to video and audio media. "Web servers" aren't the best servers for that kind of material, although they can.

Second, have you asked them if they have such a technical document? And I'm sure they thank you for your demands on how they need to run their business.

Do you have ANY reference that says that participating in Binge On is such a hardship to anyone? Not just "I doubt that" or "probably", but "I tried and couldn't"?

Re:Binge on

[Obfuscant]

Then why even have an application process?

You've got to be kidding, or a troll. So they can know which sources are participating and which aren't, of course. They can't just throttle all video and audio streams that pass through their systems, because maybe their customer isn't streaming them, maybe they're downloading them and want to pay for that service and use their data that way.

The fact remains. Meet the criteria, you're good. Don't care to meet them, go on about your life as if nothing was different and let other people benefit from something you can't or won't do. Being sour-grapes because you can't benefit from something is ridiculous.

Re:Binge on

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

You've got to be kidding, or a troll.

Settle down. This isn't a credibility debate.

The fact remains. Meet the criteria, you're good.

Then why not automate the process? Or, better yet, just offer a one megabit pipe and just publish the specs so those sites can provide good service to their customers?

Re:Binge on

[Obfuscant]

Settle down.

Troll talk.

Then why not automate the process?

Because they don't want to. Because they can't. I don't know. You don't know.

Or, better yet, just offer a one megabit pipe and just publish the specs so those sites can provide good service to their customers?

I've already covered this, but this screws people who actually use their mobile device for more than just watching videos. A 400 second wait to download a 50Mb PDF is unacceptable; a 400 second video that takes 390 seconds to stream is just fine.

Why not just meet the technical standards and talk to T-Mobile so YOUR CUSTOMERS can benefit from this program? What do you have against your own customers? You want them to pay full rate for your streaming video instead of getting a break, so you must really dislike them.

Re:Binge on

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Troll talk.

... Okie dokie. Well, give me a little credit, at least I didn't make up something about you and act as if it's true.

Because they don't want to. Because they can't. I don't know. You don't know.

So they don't pick and choose, but they decide to use an approach where they must pick and choose... but, no you don't know, I don't know, what's happening, the room is spinning!!

Why not just meet the technical standards and talk to T-Mobile so YOUR CUSTOMERS can benefit from this program? What do you have against your own customers? You want them to pay full rate for your streaming video instead of getting a break, so you must really dislike them.

Do you have me mixed up with someone else or did you just hallucinate a fictional backstory for me?

Re:Binge on

[Obfuscant]

... Okie dokie. Well, give me a little credit, at least I didn't make up something about you and act as if it's true.

More troll talk.

So they don't pick and choose, but they decide to use an approach where they must pick and choose...

So who is making things up and pretending they are true? There's no "pick and choose". YOU choose to meet the technical requirements or you choose not to. They don't choose anything.

Do you have me mixed up with someone else or did you just hallucinate a fictional backstory for me?

I have no idea what you're complaining about here. We're talking about a video streaming service provided by certain content providers to their customers. Why would ANYONE, you included, want to screw over their customers by refusing to some technical limits to the streaming rate of their content so those customers have to pay full rate for the content -- that they can't use any faster than the limit T-Mobile wants the provider to limit itself to. Whether that's YOU or some other content provider, the question is the same.

But all you can do is avoid the question, so I guess that answers it. You don't want to participate so damn if anyone should be able to.

Re:Binge on

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

YOU choose to meet the technical requirements or you choose not to. They don't choose anything.

... until after your application is sent in.

I have no idea what you're complaining about here.

Really? Heh. I told you several times.

Re:Binge on

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Please link to a single instance of them saying "no" to a service that met their technical requirements.

Is it your assertion that they cannot for some reason say no? If that's what you're saying, then why have a human-required application process at all?

Re:Binge on

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

It is my assertion that they have never said "no", and moreover, they have made it clear they are willing to partner with anyone regardless of content.

What if Microsoft or Comcast made that promise?

It helps customers.

It does not. If you don't believe me, picture Verizon offering this service in light of how they treated Netflix.

Re: Binge on

[sumdumass]

Why don't you try to register it and find out. Report back your findings and if your home server actually meets the same qualifications as the others or not (if you are talking streaming verses hosting apps and documents)

I use to doubt I could find a job after punching out a supervisor and getting fired but eventually I ran out of savings and I had to look for one. To my surprise, I was wrong and it didn't take long to get hired. That was 35 years ago but I cannot fathom any acceptable reason why it would be different when all you do is doubt you can do it without trying. It is sort of like winning the lottery I guess. You simply cannot win or lose if you do not play. So try participating and then complain when they won't let you play.

Re:Binge on

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Are you willing to talk about the actual subject, rather than straw-men?

Straw man... right. Anyway. If T-Mobile is successful with this plan there is nothing to stop AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, etc from creating a similar service. AT&T and Verizon actually offer their own services that most of the applicants for Binge-On compete with. We've already seen how Verizon will behave when given the chance. So, yes, the answer to my question is important because basically what you're saying is: "It's not against Net Neutrality because I trust this particular corporation!"

Uhh... I don't even know how to reply to that. it's very hard to take anything you say seriously.

Of course not, you disagree so you're not listening to me anyway. We're not discussing this, after all, we're debating it. You have absolutely no interest in pondering what it means for a company to prefer specific web-services over others. It's a shame you weren't one of the lucky FIOS customers with 200 megabits of service but couldn't get a 2 megabit stream from Netflix.

So: people are saved money and bandwidth, they can participate or not, any content provider can participate or not, nobody is forced to, there's no content-based restrictions whatsoever... and you are apparently upset?

There is a very big restriction there. They have to apply. Every time you guys talk about this you hand-wave away the application process as "oh it's just a technical thing, they never turn services down!" So if this process is so simple that they just have to meet technical criteria, why have an application process involved at all? The answer is simple: They are reserving the right to say no. Whether they actually do or not is immaterial. Their failure (that we know of) to reject a service during a period of high visibility is not an indication that their process is in keeping with Net Neutrality. The fact that you're banking on their good behavior really should be a sign, after-all this is what we all gripe about with Apple's App Store process.

Re: Binge on

[Karlt1]

You can already get an unlimited high speed internet plan from T-mobile.

And how does the rest of the Internet benefit from taking away the option from T-mobile customers to not have to pay for unlimited data and still get unlimited video?

Re:Binge on

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

That should be easy to figure out, show me a list of all who have applied.

Re: Binge on

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

How long do you think it'll take for T-Mobile to approve a thousand sites?

Re: Binge on

[Karlt1]

Are there 1000 sites on the Internet that deliver legal streaming video to a wide audience? We can speak hypothetically all day but can you post one video hosting site that has applied to be on Binge-On that was not allowed to be on it?

How many sites that host live streaming video that are not on Binge On could even handle 100-500 video streams at once?

Re:Binge on

[Obfuscant]

... until after your application is sent in.

Which you have never done, so you have no idea what happens after that. According to T-Mobile, there is no "choosing", it's "meet the technical standards." Whether you do that or not is YOUR choice, not theirs.

Really? Heh. I told you several times.

No, you haven't. You claimed I was making up some "fictional backstory" for you, and I have idea what the hell you are talking about. Nor do you, it seems.

Re:Binge on

[Obfuscant]

If T-Mobile is successful with this plan there is nothing to stop AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, etc from creating a similar service. AT&T and Verizon actually offer their own services

That's right. Were AT&T or Verizon to offer the same program as T-Mobile there would be nothing to stop them, because THEY TOO would not be violating net neutrality. It doesn't matter if they have their own services (I don't know what streaming video services AT&T or Verizon wireless provide, don't care, don't need to.) What matters is if they unfairly exclude content providers from their version of Binge On. If they provide a level playing field, there is equal opportunity for content providers to participate. But you cannot prove they would not have a level playing field, all you can do is fictionalize and demonize and make it up about a non-existing AT&T/Verizon program, just like you are making things up about Binge On and T-Mobile. OMG, a provider having to register with T-Mobile before T-Mobile will modify the streaming content for them is so, I mean, it's just, umm, a GOOD THING.

You have absolutely no interest in pondering what it means for a company to prefer specific web-services over others.

You still haven't comprehended that Binge On has nothing to do with web services, it's a video and audio streaming issue.

There is a very big restriction there. They have to apply.

Which isn't much of a restriction.

why have an application process involved at all?

BECAUSE THEY CANNOT SIMPLY ASSUME THAT A VIDEO SERVER WANTS TO PARTICIPATE IN BINGE ON, THEY HAVE TO HAVE A REQUEST TO BE PART OF THE PROGRAM. JFC, do you read nothing anyone says to you? Read the damn technical brief for goodness sake. Look at option 2 in particular. T-Mobile will OPTIMIZE YOUR VIDEO STREAM FOR YOU -- if you are a participating provider. How do they know if you are a participating provider WITHOUT YOU TELLING THEM YOU WANT TO BE? That's the "application" you keep whining about.

So NO, they cannot simply assume you as a content provider WANT to participate, so YOU HAVE TO TELL THEM. Is that really that hard to understand?

And NO, trying to force people who want to stream video while avoiding data limits to buy a "1Mbps unlimited" service is asinine, arrogant, and technically stupid. People do more than just stream videos with their phones, and forcing them into a pitiful slow data rate for ALL activities so they don't have to pay extra for video streaming is, as I said, arrogant, asinine, and technically moronic.

You have no argument against T-Mobile, and that's why you keep bringing up Comcast or Verizon or AT&T as proof why T-Mobile shouldn't be able to do what it is doing. You keep complaining how T-Mobile is prioritizing web sites when web traffic is not the issue. You keep claiming that T-Mobile is excluding content providers without a shred of evidence to back that up. The truth is, T-Mobile is NOT violating net neutrality with Binge On no matter what other vendors are doing, and hammering on them for their evil wrongdoings here is just trolling.

Re: Binge on

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Do a porn search some time, you'll find a thousand. Oh and as for the list of denied sites, there's no transparency there, we'll never know until it makes headlines on Slashdot. One beautiful perk of requiring an application is the endless supply of excuses for why they don't have it today.

Re:Binge on

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Whether you do that or not is YOUR choice, not theirs.

Then why not automate it? Why make this a require a human being when there are thousands of sites out there?

You claimed I was making up some "fictional backstory" for you, and I have idea what the hell you are talking about.

So you're saying that I haven't made the same repetitive point over and over again in this thread. Okie dokie.

Re:Binge on

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

The burden is yours to provide evidence for the existence of this problem.

I did. They put a human being in between the process for ascertaining the technical validity of the service of a website. It doesn't make sense to do that. That, in and of itself, is a violation of Net Neutrality.
 
 

Show us that this problem exists, and THEN we'll get upset about it. .

Heh. History shall repeat itself.

Re: Binge on

[Karlt1]

You'll never know? The internet goes into an outrage every time there is a rejection from the Apple App Store. I'm sure someone would have reported it.

Re:Binge on

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

What matters is if they unfairly exclude content providers from their version of Binge On.

Yeah, like taking an endless amount of time to approve applications because there's a meatbag in the way. Show me an automated approval section, or alternatively a user-submitted list of services they would like on the unlimited channel, and you'll see me happily recede into the shadows.

Which isn't much of a restriction.

Serious? How long do you think they can go quiet after a submission?

BECAUSE THEY CANNOT SIMPLY ASSUME THAT A VIDEO SERVER WANTS TO PARTICIPATE IN BINGE ON, THEY HAVE TO HAVE A REQUEST TO BE PART OF THE PROGRAM.

Right. Somebody in charge at a web-service goes to the T-Mobile website, types in some stuff, clicks "Submit", and the T-Mobile server runs a few tests and goes 'Approved'. You don't need a human for that unless you want things to be slow or you have criteria for choosing services that a computer cannot make.

You have no argument against T-Mobile...

Wrong. They're using humans where they don't need to.

...and that's why you keep bringing up Comcast or Verizon or AT&T as proof why T-Mobile shouldn't be able to do what it is doing.

Bringing it up because it's an example of why "Oh but T-Mobile is a good friendly company that loves me and my family and they've invited me to come join them in candyland!" is a faulty approach to ascertaining the breadth of this issue.

Re: Binge on

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

If I were T-Mobile I would accept every application I got while all the eyes are on me. I would even accept unlikely to be popular sites like PornHub to prove how nice I am.

Re:Binge on

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Is there a compelling reason to make a human give a thumbs up on a site that need only meet technical requirements that his computer would judge for him anyway?

Re:Binge on

[mrchaotica]

Oh My God, a PDF overview of a complicated technical system doesn't provide you immediately with enough information to be able to implement it. How could they DARE be so obtuse?

Okay then, link to the specific documentation! Show me where it's posted on the Internet! 'Cause I've looked for it, and found nothing.

The fact that that particular PDF overview doesn't explain in detail is not the problem; the problem is that there is nothing else provided.

Second, have you asked them if they have such a technical document?

Yes, I tried today. I called 1-800-tmobile, was put on hold for 15 minutes and was then told to send an email to bingeon@t-mobile.com. I did so, and got the following reply:

Video is the number one way people use wireless data and with Binge On we are setting video free! With Binge On, customers on eligible plans can stream video from some of the most popular streaming services without ever using their high-speed data! Our goal is to continue to add video streaming services over time from any compatible service.

 For a list of the current included services click http://t-mobile.com/bingeon

 This mailbox is not monitored by customer care. For account information please visit https://my.t-mobile.com/

 For additional questions or comments about our Binge On announcement, please reach out to TForce@T-Mobile.com.

 If you are a video streaming service provider looking to have your service added to Binge On our product team will follow up with you by email in the near future.

Binge On!

The Un-Carrier

This is an automated reply. Please do not respond directly to this e-mail message.

We'll see what happens next.

More to the point, though, do you really expect everyone on the Internet who serves video or audio to contact T-Mobile and ask? That's fucking stupid! T-mobile has neither the manpower nor the time to handle it manually for everyone like that; it's abundantly clear that they intend this to be for "some of the most popular streaming services" (that's a direct quote from the email above, by the way), leaving everything else as second-class.

Re:Binge on

[mrchaotica]

Yes, of course they have fully described technical standards for this.

Oh really? Prove it! Link or it didn't happen!

If there really is "no restriction" as you say, the "fully described technical standards" will be posted online at some easily accessible URL. I couldn't find it, but clearly you can -- or you're an asshat who needs to fuck off.

Re: Binge on

[BronsCon]

If your streaming provider of choice doesn't meet the technical requirements because, say, they use a stateless protocol like UDP, or an encrypted protocol like HTTS, so T-Mobile can't detect their video without their help in doing so, you'd rather they be unable to participate at all and you miss out on the benefit of Binge-On for that provider? Hulu streams via HTTPS, Netflix streams via HTTPS, YouTube streams via HTTPS or UDP depending on whether it is a live stream or a file. Those are just three examples, but they're the biggest three, and they could not participate in Binge-On if there were no application process.

And how is T-Mobile to know whether a given provider can support a 1.5Mbps or lower stream? What automated process can they implement that won't introduce quality issues for the user? They can't just look at how fast the server sends data, because a server firing off packets at, say, 10Mbps could be sending parts of a 1.5Mbps stream in advance for buffering, or it could be sending a 10Mbps stream in realtime. They can't just throttle to 1.5Mbps and call it good because a service that doesn't support a bitrate that low will spend a lot of time buffering but T-Mobile only seens a constant flow of data, they don't see the spinner on your screen that indicates buffering.

They absolutely need an application process, to allow companies to declare their preferences and to ensure that they're detecting video streams properly and not causing service issues for video providers. There are two options for participation and two options for non-participation; the first "non-participation" option is to simply do nothing, ignore Binge-On, and T-Mobile will throttle your service but not zero-rate; this is fine if your service supports 1.5Mbps streaming and you just don't care. The second "non-participation" option is to opt out of the throttling, which is what you'd want to do if your service doesn't support 1.5Mbps or lower bitrates (which, incidentally, also means you're unable to serve the 63% of US households who are on 1.5Mbps or slower connections). The two "participation" options involve either providing 1.5Mbps or slower stream options, in which case you can use one of the caveat protocols referred to in my first paragraph as your stream won't need to be modified by T-Mobile, or allowing T-Mobile to modify (re-compress) your stream in-transit, in which case you have to stream in plain HTTP so T-Mobile can intercept it for re-compression.

Since that latter option runs afoul of copyright if done without permission, T-Mobile, again, must have an application process in place in order to obtain that permission.

And, by the way, you don't have to be a company to apply; just as with Music Freedom, you can register your personal video server. I can't find the link at the moment but I read about someone doing this with Music Freedom at one point, which prompted me to do the same back when I was still on the 2GB plan, so I can personally confirm it to be true. Whether or not you'll believe me is another issue, but I couldn't really care less about that.

Re: Binge on

[BronsCon]

How does someone on AT&T benefit from T-Mobile dropping a service? I guess their ego benefits, as T-Mobile customers would no longer have a superior offering available to them, but AT&T's offering doesn't actually improve.

Re: Binge on

[BronsCon]

Oh and as for the list of denied sites, there's no transparency there, we'll never know until it makes headlines on Slashdot.

Maybe you'll never know unless it makes headlines on Slashdot, but most of us refer to other sources and/or actually work in the industry. With all the controversy surrounding Binge-On, do you really not think the first provider to be denied for a non-technical reason, or to not receive T-Mobile's promised assistance in resolving such technical issues, won't run to the news outlets with their story? Really?

Being the first Binge-On decline would be a massive PR opportunity for a streaming provider and it would be idiotic not to report the occurrence. If it happened, we'd know within minutes. Maybe you wouldn't find out for a day or two when it was finally posted to Slashdot, but the rest of the world would be well aware.

Re: Binge on

[BronsCon]

Try it, I'm sure you'll be pleasantly surprised. I know I was when they allowed me to register my personal music server for Music Freedom back when I was on the 2GB plan; they could have just as well said "no, pay us another $30/mo for unlimited" but they didn't, they just said "what's the domain and current IP address?"

Re:Binge on

[BronsCon]

Because they:

A) Can't identify video streamed over stateless protocols like UDP; they need a process (like oh, say, an application) for providers to let them know about these streams

B) Can't identify video streamed over encrypted protocols like HTTPS; they need a process (like oh, say, an application) for providers to let them know about these streams

C) Can't legally re-compress (modify) copyrighted content without the consent of the copyright holder or their agent; they need a process (like oh, say, an application) for providers to provide consent for this

Those are the three biggest reasons. There are more. Should I go on?

Re:Binge on

[BronsCon]

basically what you're saying is: "It's not against Net Neutrality because I trust this particular corporation!"

I think what's being said is actually "It's not against Net Neutrality because T-Mobile is operating from a neutral position, accepting any and every application that meets the technical requirements, not charging for participation, and not directly competing with program participants."

It's a problem when Comcast throttles Netflix while demanding payment from them because Comcast offers a competing service. It's a problem when AT&T or Verizon zero-rate their own services while not allowing other services to apply for the same preferential treatment. It would not be a problem if AT&T or Verizon operated a similar program and, similarly, accepted any and every application that met the technical requirements, didn't charge, and wasn't in direct competition with program participants.

It is not T-Mobile's fault, nor their problem, that AT&T and Verizon have positioned themselves to be legally unable to provide this type of service.

Re:Binge on

[BronsCon]

So the biggest complaint you have is "people have to say they want it"?

And the hypocrisy, here, is that he'd likewise complain if you were giving out free punches to the face or kicks to the groin and didn't confirm that he wanted one before delivering it.

Re:Binge on

[BronsCon]

Show me an automated approval section, or alternatively a user-submitted list of services they would like on the unlimited channel, and you'll see me happily recede into the shadows.

You can find out how to request that a service be added to Binge-On here by clicking the link titled "Request a video streaming service to Binge On " and following the instructions in the resultant lightbox. I'll even save you the trouble of clicking; here's what it says:

Want to see your favorite video streaming service added to Binge On?

We want all of your favorite video streaming services to be included as a part of Binge On. If your go-to video streaming service isn’t part of the program yet, tweet us your favorite service @TMobile, along with the hashtag #BingeOn. If they meet our requirements, we’ll investigate the feasibility of adding them. No one pays to join and no money is exchanged. If you are a streaming service provider Click here, send us an email and we’ll get back to you to begin the process. For more information about technical criteria, Click here. T-Mobile will review all submissions to ensure identification of video stream and technical requirements, including optimization for mobile viewing. Only T-Mobile is committed to maximizing YOUR choice and providing access to as many great providers as possible.

It would appear that the list you are requesting is available by searching Twitter for the hashtag #BingeOn. Alternately, you can probably click the mailto: link provided and email them to request that list.

Just a quick browse through those search results reveals the following user requests: beIN Sports, Amazon Video (which is already participating), twitch.tv, Periscope, DiSH Network (interestingly, DirecTV participates), byutv, MSNBC, CNN, Watch ABC, and FOX NOW. That's 10, all requested in the past 10 days; the list, of course, goes on.

Re:Binge on

[BronsCon]

If they did this to everyone's content without permission, you'd probably be here bitching that they were not giving people a choice.

If they did this to everyone's content without permission, they'd run afoul of copyright law and get sued to hell and back.

Re:Binge on

[BronsCon]

More to the point, though, do you really expect everyone on the Internet who serves video or audio to contact T-Mobile and ask? That's fucking stupid! T-mobile has neither the manpower nor the time to handle it manually for everyone like that

Let's see... if it takes 15 minutes (and that's being pessimistic) to review and approve an application for a site that already meets the requirements, an employee working an 8 hour shift can approve 32 per day, on average. Let's say there are 10,000 providers wishing to participate and 8,000 of them meet the technical requirements and get the 15min approval, it would take one lone employee 250 days to process all of those applications. A team of 10? Under a month. Of the remaining 2,000 sites, assume half need to provide a lit of hosts, or a netblock from which they'll be serving video, because their streams are served over a UDP-based protocol or HTTPS, this adds, say, another 15 minutes to the process, so it'll take a team of 10 a total of 2 months to process those 1,000 sites. That leaves the remaining 1,000 sites for the team of to to occupy themselves with for the rest of their employment with T-Mobile.

If you think 3 months is a long time to process 9,000 sites, consider than they've had barely 90 applications in 7 months. At that rate, I think they'll be able to keep up; though, it'll take another 65 years for the rest of the applications to come in.

Re:Binge on

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

This debate I'm having with this guy has been going on in two separate threads, because of that there is some missing context. He is of the opinion that T-Mobile's way of doing it is the *ONLY* way to do it, which frankly I find kind of sickening. That quote of mine is me teasing him for his inability to see past what's in front of him. On a day-to-day basis he sees all sorts of examples that could be applied as alternatives, but that part of his brain was turned off for this discussion.

But I can see how you read it in a completely different way that is totally relevant to this conversation. I meant something completely different but, you're right, it does read exactly the way that you saw it.

So for you I'd like to clarify: I wasn't intending to say the masses should be able to tell T-Mobile who to add. In our debate I suggested that T-Mobile just provide an unlimited 1 megabit channel. That's basically what they're already doing, only they've drawn up their own whitelist to declare which domains get throttled. His complaint was that if you do it that way then you run into problems because some things you want at the faster speeds. He's not wrong about that, in fact some of the people that reviewed Binge On complained that the throttling of those specific sites has had some unintended consequences similar to what he described. I made a remark that it was a solvable problem, to which he insisted it wasn't.

I was poking fun at his willful blindness by suggesting to him that instead of T-Mobile playing gate-keeper, that you just let the customers come up with their own 'slow list' of domains that they get zero-rated on. T-Mobile provides their innovative service and does so without violating Net Neutrality. It's far more consumer-friendly.

Re:Binge on

[BronsCon]

Trust that I've read all comments on this page, including both of the threads you've referenced. You'll likely note that I replied to comments in the other thread, as well, specifically pointing out why T-Mobile must have an application process for Binge-On. Letting the customers come up with their own "slow list" doesn't get around the copyright issues with re-compressing video streams (I don't agree with it, but it's modification under current laws), nor does it help with encrypted or otherwise undetectable streams.

Also, do you really think your typical user is going to know which hosts Netflix streams video from? Here's a hint, it's not netflix.com. Adding netflix.com to a user-defined list won't have the desired effect and will simply cause a shitload of headaches for all involved when customers complain of being billed for Netflix streaming despite having added netflix.com to their list. The reason Netflix streams can't simply be detected is that Netflix streams over HTTPS, so T-Mobile can't tell what the data is, only the source IP (which may or may not reverse to the domain the user added to their list), which is why T-Mobile has an application process that involves providers who use encrypted or stateless protocols providing a list of hosts from which their content is streamed.

I'm not sure what you think is consumer-friendly about a service that not only won't work as expected due to technical limitations, but will also get the provider sued to hell and back, increasing prices and ending the service that got them sued in the first place.

Re:Binge on

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

I'm not sure what you think is consumer-friendly about a service that not only won't work as expected due to technical limitations...

They already have a service that doesn't work as expected due to technical limitations. "Just wait, maybe one day your favorite site will become available!" Some of the reviews go into detail about other surprises that customers of that service encounter, feel free to peruse them at your leisure. As for the problem with whitelisting all the appropriate places, that's such a frivolous issue that I came up with 3 different solutions while walking out to my mailbox. It's just a whitelist for sites to use a slower channel. If it's really that difficult then just make a 'fast and slow' switch, you pick which plan you want to use. Seriously, T-Mobile's solution is so bass-ackwards I don't understand why anybody on this site in particular isn't making a fart noise whenever it's mentioned.

I have to admit you have lost me on the video recompression. I honestly don't have the slightest idea what that is in reference to. All of the 'optimization' that T-Mobile thinks it needs human eyes to verify is making sure the video stream fits within a 1 megabit pipe. If a site fails to do that, which is hard to picture since most sites including Youtube (who took a surprisingly long time to become available...) have a mode like that because of mobile phone usage, then buff...buu...buv.b..buffering. There is no recompression on T-Mobile's end involved. I don't think it would work, I cannot imagine a way it could work, I even agree with you that I don't know how they'd even do it because of encryption. (I do have doubts as to whether that's actually a copyright issue, but I feel that's a very different discussion.)

Re:Binge on

[BronsCon]

As for the problem with whitelisting all the appropriate places, that's such a frivolous issue that I came up with 3 different solutions while walking out to my mailbox.

Somehow I doubt it. You seem the type who would either make shit up or provide the details, and I see no details.

Speaking of details, you keep getting so many details of how Binge-On actually works flat out wrong despite being constantly corrected that there's not point in anyone continuing to discuss it with you until you can demonstrate that you actually know what the hell you're talking about. I don't want to accuse you of trolling, because I see you post around here a lot and I can't say I've seen that from you before, but the only other options are willful ignorance or idiocy.

Re:Binge on

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

You're ready to pound your fists on the keyboard because I didn't rattle off a quick list of ideas that you were just going to find frivolous reasons to shoot down? The important point is that there are plenty of ways to do it, it has to be done anyway to even apply to Binge On. It would be dirt simple for a site aiming to work with the service to provide an 'Add us to Binge on!' button that gets all of the pertinent info into the right spot.

I know you need to pin something on me to get your easy 'face-saving' way out, but that's just off-topic.

Re:Binge on

[BronsCon]

You're ready to pound your fists on the keyboard because I didn't rattle off a quick list of ideas that you were just going to find frivolous reasons to shoot down?

No fist-pounding here, and certainly not because you wouldn't rattle off a nonexistent list of ideas. That you think I would find them frivolous speaks volumes about the supposed ideas on that list; either they exist and even you find them frivolous, or they do not exist and you know all you can come up with will fit your projected description.

The important point is that there are plenty of ways to do it, it has to be done anyway to even apply to Binge On.

So you never claimed there was no reason for Binge-On to have an application process and that it should be able to be fully automated?

why have a human-required application process at all?

There is a very big restriction there. They have to apply. Every time you guys talk about this you hand-wave away the application process as "oh it's just a technical thing, they never turn services down!" So if this process is so simple that they just have to meet technical criteria, why have an application process involved at all?

Show me an automated approval section

Well, there's 3 from this thread alone. I'm sure if I looked harder I'd find more. People don't change or drop strong arguments, yet you've changed your argument several times and eventually dropped the argument that no application process is needed.

I know you need to pin something on me to get your easy 'face-saving' way out, but that's just off-topic.

First of all, what was off-topic? Second, go review my posting history and say that again. Given the above, who's trying to save face? Your problem is that you forget that the conversation above each of your comments serves as a text record of what you said before it, and that anyone reading that far will have already read that record.

Re:Binge on

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

That you think I would find them frivolous speaks volumes...

Heh. I didn't say the ideas were frivolous. Actually what I said was that you would find frivolous reasons to dismiss them, like the willful lack of reading comprehension that you demonstrated right here and again later in your post.

So you never claimed there was no reason for Binge-On to have an application process and that it should be able to be fully automated?

why have a human-required application process at all?

Again, you are in such a hurry to find something to be critical of you're cannibalizing your own point. A "set this up for me" button is automation. A form to fill out and email to T-Mobile is not.

Heh. I'm sorry, this is amusing. It's almost like you included my rebuttal for me to save time or something.

First of all, what was off-topic?

Your attempt to bail on the discussion because I didn't bother writing an essay on using well-established tools on the internet to send a few strings of data around to which you would find issue with then humorously declare impossible. That's not what we're actually discussing.

Re:Binge on

[BronsCon]

Meh... actually go through the process, then talk to me about its ins and outs. It's a very similar process to the one they've used for Music Freedom for years; and that's a process I've actually been through. We can argue all day about this but the fact remains that I am, and will be, much more familiar with the subject than you.

Re:Binge on

[BronsCon]

I was bit hasty in my response...

Again, you are in such a hurry to find something to be critical of you're cannibalizing your own point. A "set this up for me" button is automation. A form to fill out and email to T-Mobile is not.

I'm sorry, this is amusing. It's almost like you ignored the quote immediately following the one you claim rebuts my argument:

There is a very big restriction there. They have to apply. Every time you guys talk about this you hand-wave away the application process as "oh it's just a technical thing, they never turn services down!" So if this process is so simple that they just have to meet technical criteria, why have an application process involved at all?

Further, I never attempted to bail on the discussion; you'll note that my point about you not providing the "list" you supposedly came up with (which you refer to as me attempting to bail) is, in fact, followed by yet another point furthering the discussion. Were I bailing, I'd have said the first part and left it at that.

Re:Binge on

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

I 'ignored' it for brevity. Everything you quoted supports me. The whole point I've been making this entire time is that there is a human being making the decision. The argument is that the rules are purely technical in nature so it doesn't matter that there's a human there. The question about the application process was to draw out an answer as to why a human has to be involved in the first place. Not one person has provided one. In fact, I have a nice lonely little question earlier in this thread still waiting to be replied to.

Oh and the "set this up for me" button... it bypasses the need for an application process. Yes, you are still being hasty in your replies.

Further, I never attempted to bail on the discussion...

Yes, you did. That was the whole point of the "no point in continuing to discuss this..." comment you made. It was a dare for me to produce something you can nitpick with an out that lets you jab your nose in the air. I wouldn't normally mind, but we're talking about human beings here and you want to nitpick an alternative to a process that is already flawed.

Re:Binge on

[BronsCon]

I'm bailing now because you're all over the place. You want the last word, go ahead and post; I'm done with you. Your arguments are inconsistent and barely coherent...

Re:Binge on

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

All over the place? Heh. If that were actually true it'd work to your benefit, you'd have something to argue with. I've said the same thing over and over again. Consistently. I even went as far as to not stray off-topic. That one thing that I've said over and over again is the one thing that neither you or the other participant has been able to provide an answer to. THAT is why you're bailing.

So yes, I am going to take you up on that last word. The goal of a mobile ISP is to take your money and send you as little data as possible. In fact, this whole Binge On concept, is strictly about sending less data out. The less data they send out, the more money in their pockets. They've created a system to serve this purpose with the feel good word 'unlimited', but it violates Net Neutrality. Your acceptance of that little issue is that you trust them. That's it. You have provided no reason to find their human-based application process acceptable other than you like them. You're willing to cannibalize Net Neutrality because: free shit!

Okie doke, I'm done. We're cool. I do hope you have the good rest of your Sunday.

Re:Binge on

[BronsCon]

As far as the debate is concerned, I'll let your word stand, because I did say I would do that. I just want to throw this out there, though: I'm on an unlimited LTE plan so I really don't have a dog in this race; "free shit!" doesn't come into my argument, as I can stream all I want at full-bandwidth to begin with. I do have an answer to the question "why is the application process human-based" if that's really your only sticking point; again, I ceded the last word to you, I'm more than happy to provide that answer, though, if you care to insist.

If you happen to feel that I've usurped your last word on the matter, feel free to post again, with the understanding that I will reply to correct any false assumptions you've made about me.

Re:Binge on

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Actually, I can do you one better. I can apologize to you because I finally ran across the video re-compression detail you were talking about and...oopsie... I jammed my foot in my mouth.

You see, I recently ran across an article that basically describes Binge On as a throttled pipe. While describing that, they left out the part that the video streams pass through T-Mobile's servers to recompress the stream. Either I read a bad article or only read half of that. I clearly need to to go research this some more. This is news to me as of ten minutes ago.

So I have two things for you: First is that I'm sorry for using my ignorance to frustrate you. Second is I think I see what you might say about the human interaction, and you may have a point, but I do say that with hesitation.

I really thought this was just a slow pipe that uses a whitelist, my whole discussion with you was based on that error.

I still feel this violates Net Neutrality. Even if I concede that the human intervention is a necessary evil, I say 'nope! find another approach!'. As I said before, the very nature of these companies compels them to under-deliver.

Now is my turn to leave you with the last word. There'll be no lost honor in using words like dipshit or moron. I only have me to blame.

Re:Binge on

[BronsCon]

Ah! Another like myself, not afraid to admit when wrong. I reserve the insults for those who let their ego cloud their argument.

I understand about not having seen the re-compression detail before; it's not an easy bit to find (though it's inferred, to a degree, in the "Technical Requirements" PDF, with the slightly different wording "where possible" between options 1 and 2), which is why I try to drop that detail into these arguments whenever I see them. I honestly don't recall where I found it (or I'd have provided a reference for it early on); if you could post that link for me, it would be greatly appreciated.

I disagree that it violates net neutrality, as it is being done only at the customer's request. The mandate only specifies that the ISP must provide a "lane" where all traffic is treated equally, it does not preclude them honoring customer-initiated or customer-specified QoS (or similar) rules, which is what I consider this to be. The FCC apparently agrees with that stance, as Wheeler himself applauded T-Mobile for doing it. In that vein, I wish ISPs in general would honor customer-specified QoS flags; relative only to the customer's other traffic, of course. Sadly, I think ISPs will try to claim that NN prevents this, but that's a load of crap IMO.

Either way, the end result of Binge-On is that the user gets more video for the same price. It's one of the most consumer-friendly things I've seen a wireless carrier do and I'm sure it undercuts their data sales by a fair bit. Could it be more consumer-friendly? Sure, everything could. But hey, it's a start!

In all honesty, I really am waiting for them to deny an application, the ensuing media shitstorm will be one of epic proportions. I don't think they're gonna, though; I think this is really just a trial to see if their network can handle dripping to 1.5Mbps rather than 128Kbps (though I got 320Kbps regularly when I went over 2GB when I was on that plan) when LTE allotments run out. Only time will tell, but I view the "The Binge On offering may be discontinued at any time" at the bottom of the "Technical Requirements" PDF as a canary to that effect.

Re:Binge on

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Thank you.

I think I found the link you requested here. Well I feel a little less like a Dingus. I think I failed to read the article in its entirety. Here are some sound bites:

Our last finding is that T-Mobileâ(TM)s video âoeoptimizationâ doesnâ(TM)t actually alter or enhance the video stream for delivery to a mobile device over a mobile network in any way. 2 This means T-Mobileâ(TM)s âoeoptimizationâ consists entirely of throttling the video streamâ(TM)s throughput down to 1.5Mbps. If the video is more than 480p and the server sending the video doesnâ(TM)t have a way to reduce or adapt the bitrate of the video as itâ(TM)s being streamed, the result is stuttering and uneven streamingâ"exactly the opposite of the experience T-Mobile claims their âoeoptimizationâ will have.

And the '2' footnote:

We determined this by comparing the hash of a downloaded video file to the hash of the same file on the server; in all of our tests, the hash was identical.

Admittedly I cannot find the time right now to read the article in its entirety but I cannot find any reference to the video re-encoding. The first time I saw anything about that was yesterday when I wandered through the Slashdot thread. I probably saw that it came from the EFF so I put it down after that. The idea of T-Mobile actually re-encoding the video streams is very counter-intuitive to me so I hadn't even really considered it as a possibility. Why recompress a compressed video when on the service side they can recompress the full quality video?

I disagree that it violates net neutrality, as it is being done only at the customer's request.

By 'customer' do you mean T-Mobile is the customer or that the video service is? My understanding is that the service provider has to be the one to make the request to T-Mobile...?

Either way, my stance on this is that if a service provider has to jump through extra hoops to get to one ISP's customers then boom we're back into not-neutrality. I am a little confused by your statement so I'll say this much at least: If the customer, the person with the smartphone can request that a particular site be zero rated, and it doesn't matter what site that is, I am fine with that, but I say that assuming it doesn't mean T-Mobile has to enter into a contract with another entity to accomplish that.

In all honesty, I really am waiting for them to deny an application, the ensuing media shitstorm will be one of epic proportions.

I wish the cell carriers would offer an unlimited but slow pipe. I'd happily pay a fair amount for a 3 megabit un-metered connection. Luckily I still have an unlimited plan through AT&T but the contracts are over, so I imagine I'll be shopping come 2017.

To your point, though, I've got ten bucks on someone trying to get their own personal server zero-rated. If I had the time I'd do it myself. "I need to keep an eye on my cat while I'm at work!" Heh.

Re:Binge on

[Obfuscant]

He is of the opinion that T-Mobile's way of doing it is the *ONLY* way to do it,

You lie.

So for you I'd like to clarify: I wasn't intending to say the masses should be able to tell T-Mobile who to add.

And yet, T-Mobile has a way for the "masses" to tell them who should be added. That awful evil T-Mobile will actually allow the USERS to tell them the providers they would like added.

I suggested that T-Mobile just provide an unlimited 1 megabit channel.

And I've told you why that would screw a lot of people who want to watch videos on their mobiles AND do other things, like read email or PDFs or download books or a lot of other things. You'd limit them to a 1Mbps "channel" when they're doing non-video things, and that's just ridiculous. Yet you fail to see the problem with that option.

that you just let the customers come up with their own 'slow list' of domains that they get zero-rated on.

And you've been told repeatedly why that is not a valid option.

T-Mobile provides their innovative service and does so without violating Net Neutrality.

T-Mobile already provides an innovative service without violating net neutrality. You'd rather just lie and make things up guessing and pretending that they're going to deny you access to Binge On because you want to play sour grapes and spew nonsense.

Re:Binge on

[Obfuscant]

Okay then, link to the specific documentation! Show me where it's posted on the Internet! 'Cause I've looked for it, and found nothing.

Contact T-Mobile. They'll send you the info. It doesn't have to be "on the interwebs" for it to be available to you. You already know how to get it.

And you've already used that option.

More to the point, though, do you really expect everyone on the Internet who serves video or audio to contact T-Mobile and ask? That's fucking stupid!

Yes, it is stupid to try to claim I said anything like that. I expect content providers who want to help their customers to save money to do so. I expect content providers who don't want to to do nothing.

it's abundantly clear that they intend this to be for "some of the most popular streaming services"

They intend it to be for anyone who asks, and they expect that Mon and Pop Streaming Inc won't bother asking. They expect the small timers to not bother and the customers of the small timers to not bother, because the small timers aren't sending that much data. If they were, they'd be "popular".

leaving everything else as second-class.

By their own choice.

Re:Binge on

[BronsCon]

You're getting 2 replies from me because the number of quote blocks has triggered the "Lameness filter". Fucking Slashdot...

By 'customer' do you mean T-Mobile is the customer or that the video service is? My understanding is that the service provider has to be the one to make the request to T-Mobile...?

Both, actually. Binge-On can be turned off and on on a line-by-line basis with a simple shortcode.

Either way, my stance on this is that if a service provider has to jump through extra hoops to get to one ISP's customers then boom we're back into not-neutrality.

And I fully agree with this. However, no service provider has to jump through any hoops to get to any T-Mobile user. Some services might work less than optimally (yes, I'm understating this) for users with Binge-On enabled, but that's at the user's choice and they can turn Binge-On off if it's a bother. This is very much unlike what Comcast and Verizon did with Netflix, where the end user didn't have a say in the matter. I would fully agree that this applied to Binge-On if it was not user-controllable; I also do agree that they, perhaps, option 4 should be the default and option 1 shouldn't exist, but I do understand that they implemented it the way they did in order to get more video providers on-board early on. It does seem a bit punitive, though. Likewise, it should be opt-in for the end user, another change I think they should make. All-in-all, though, the basic underpinnings of the idea are sound, IMO.

If the customer, the person with the smartphone can request that a particular site be zero rated, and it doesn't matter what site that is, I am fine with that

This comes back to "where does Netflix actually stream from?"

You did offer a solution to that, an "Add to Binge-On" button, which I didn't address at the time, so I'll go ahead and do that now. First of all, I like that you're thinking like this, please don't take my dismantling of this idea personally; do what it seems you're good at doing, take my analysis, and improve on the idea. Who knows, maybe by the end of this we'll have a workable solution T-Mobile can implement.

The first issue I see is that it requires each site to implement the button. Additionally, the button would require access to the user's T-Mobile account in order to set the configuration for the site; I think this one's going to be a dealbreaker, as it means potentially giving the kids the keys to the kingdom, on to of the high potential for security issues. In order to work on a line-by-line basis, as Binge-On currently does, it would mean every line would have to have its own login, as well. I can think of a few solutions for this, but I'm not sure how workable any of them would actually be in practice; one of those is a phone#+PIN "login" that only allows access to the Binge-On list.

Re:Binge on

[BronsCon]

Still hitting the lameness filter... WTF? Looks like it's getting split into 3 or more replies...

Another issue I see is that, in order to eliminate the "service providers having to register with T-Mobile" issue, clicking the button would have to add every host (by IP address, since not every host will reverse to the site's domain name) to the user's list; there would need to be some mechanism by which to keep that list up to date as new hosts are added and old hosts are removed. This also becomes problematic for sites using 3rd-party CDNs, as they'll have no idea which hosts to list; additionally, listing such a CDN would affect all sites which use it, not just the site being added.

One solution for the first part of this issue is to require sites to register so they can maintain a list of hosts; this would still require manual intervention on T-Mobile's side, at least to audit to ensure that competing sites don't use the list to screw each other; think one download site adding another download site's hosts to its hosts list, rather than its own, so users adding site A to their list still get fast downloads from sit A, but site B slows down immensely. The only solution I can come up with for the CDN problem is for T-Mo to do deep packet inspection, rather than just looking at headers, to detect the HTTP Referrer header so they can apply the throttle and zero-rate to any content included on a given site's pages; this, however, only works for HTTP and would cause a huge outcry over the T-Mobile "looking at all of our traffic"; it also wouldn't work for HTTPS at all.

Now, as for why I'm writing this wall of text to pick apart your idea: you've presented me with a puzzle of sorts, one which I can't seem to solve. The question, then, is "does a solution exist?" and, perhaps, this is something we can sort out together.

I wish the cell carriers would offer an unlimited but slow pipe. I'd happily pay a fair amount for a 3 megabit un-metered connection.

Agreed with regard to the offering. I wouldn't user it, personally, but I'm sure my wife would, so my bill would still drop a bit. I do still think Binge-On is just a test of the waters for increasing the "over limit" speed from 128Kbps to 1.5Mbps. I don't think 3Mbps will happen, but we'll likely see 1.5 in the next year or two.

Re:Binge on

[BronsCon]

Luckily I still have an unlimited plan through AT&T but the contracts are over, so I imagine I'll be shopping come 2017.

I lost my AT&T unlimited plan (because reasons; AT&T was just dicking me around) and had to suck it up on their 4GB plan while my wife got to keep her unlimited. Whatever, I wasn't a heavy data user at the time, but unlimited would have been nice just in case. It was a completely unrelated set of circumstances that lead us to switch to T-Mobile, but we haven't looked back since. The only place I've been without coverage is in Randle, WA, where the only viable carrier is US Cellular; I hear they now have a roaming agreement with T-Mo, so that should work there as well, at least for phones that support band 12. My wife lost signal in a few places between CA and WA, but I chalk that up to the iPhone 6 Plus she was using at the time not supporting band 12.

I know you have an ideological stance against Binge-On, but I hope you'll give them a serious look if you do leave AT their service really is top-notch now. The only caveat is that anything new they do will be a shit show for exactly 90 days. Without fail. I've subscribed to literally every new thing they've put out on the past 3 years and I had either service, support, or billing issues with each and every one of them in the first 90 days, all resolved on or around day 91.

To your point, though, I've got ten bucks on someone trying to get their own personal server zero-rated. If I had the time I'd do it myself. "I need to keep an eye on my cat while I'm at work!" Heh.

I might do it for kicks, to see if they'll allow it. I did it for Music Freedom back when I was on the 2GB plan, after reading about someone else having done so; I was surprised when what I read actually turned out to be true.

I don't know what was up with the lameness filter, I've written much longer posts, with many more quotes. Sorry about breaking it up like this.

Re:Binge on

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

And yet, T-Mobile has a way for the "masses" to tell them who should be added.

Are you saying I can go sign up... say.. cinemassacre.com for them? Just curious, all I saw was a way to tweet out your interest.

And you've been told repeatedly why that is not a valid option.

Heh. Whatever you say, man.

T-Mobile already provides an innovative service without violating net neutrality.

Neither are true.

Re:Binge on

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

So.. earlier today I wrote a fairly detailed response to you and I got bitten by the lameness filter. I got a little frustrated with that (not your fault, Slashdot likes to bite me on these sometimes and I really don't know why) so I decided to wait until I got home to send you the summary version.

I agree with your assessment that those are difficult problems to overcome, and I'm not exactly blooming with answers. What I can do, instead, is tell you the three different ideas that I had. It does mean drastically shifting the discussion away from your post. That bugs me actually because it makes it sound like I wasn't paying attention to your post. The best I can do is tell you that actually I did go over all of them. I swing around back again because I want to touch on something you mentioned.

First is just a simple "Fast/Slow" button. Give me the metered pipe that's fast, then give me an app that lets me log into my account and flip a switch as to whether I want fast or slow. The reason for this is my phone idles a LOT and doesn't need a lot of speed to do that. I don't know how much data my phone consumes but most of the day it's getting notifcations, background refreshes on things like Dropbox (i.e. auto upload of photos), and sometimes it's eating data because I use the phone as a GPS. I'd leave it on slow-and-cheap and toggle it on 'fast' in those relatively cases where I do need to speed it up.

The second option is that each service has an XML file describing the pertinent details that the ISP would need to know. Now I should warn you I'm still stick in "slow pipe" land. I haven't fully assimilated the 're-encoding of videos' approach that T-Mobile is using so, for the sake of this discussion, am setting that aside. I feel like that alone is a huge violation of Net Neutrality but because I don't know how it actually works I don't feel like inserting my foot again. :D

So basically a site like.. oh.. cinemassacre.com would have a URL like "www.cinemassacre.com/OneMegabitProfile.xml". It contains domains, addresses, and whatever other technical information (Not credentials!) that any ISP (not just T-Mobile) would need to say "Ah, these streams automatically go down the slow pipe. It does require some setup on the service's end, but I figured there'd be a concession for that anyway since the Binge On service requires an application.

The third... well this was kinda half-baked and dumb, but couldn't some ports be reserved for the video streaming and have just those throttled?

I do have an issue with Binge-On but it's really just about the application process. I'm not angry at T-Mobile. In fact they're probably who I'm going to go to next once my contract is up with AT&T. (Let's see if they hang on to my unlimited plan...)

I haveta wrap this up, hope this message finds you well.

Re:Binge on

[BronsCon]

I'm not sure what's up with that lameness filter. Feel free to drop that long-ass response into an email (yes, that *is* my real email up there -- or at least an alias thereof) and we can quit littering this page with our ramblings.

I actually really like your first option; it's very similar to something I mentioned (or agreed with, now I can't remember) in a thread on DSLReports.com a few weeks back. If I recall correctly (and this is why I'm glad to have a text record of what I've said -- my brain is broken when it comes to remembering details of conversations) my point was that Binge-On may be a trial for that; it was during this conversation with you that I theorized about it being a trial run for increasing the "over-limit" bandwidth.

The second option, I feel, would at least require some form of manual auditing to ensure that site A didn't add the servers of site B to hamstring them, leaving their own servers at full speed. I could even see site A paying site C in an unrelated field to add site B's servers, so the function still worked for users of site A who wanted it, but random users of site C would have problems on site B, particularly if site B happened to be a service that didn't function well at lower bitrates. If that makes sense. I do generally like the idea, but we both know people aren't trustworthy enough to be given that power unmoderated. Then, there's the issue of CDNs; remember, this is ostensibly not about T-Mobile's bandwidth to the internet, but the user's bandwidth to the tower, so T-Mobile colocating servers for the CDNs doesn't really solve that (unless we're being lied to, that is).

The third option, well... I agree with your assessment, but I don't want to leave it at that. I'd actually be really happy to see this one happen, for a variety of reasons, but for the very same reasons I know it won't. First of all, it would require service providers to switch to those ports, they'd have to release new versions of their apps to use those ports, and only those ports, which might be a rather large undertaking for some of them; and the support headache of people insisting zero-rating should work with their old version and not wanting to upgrade for whatever reason. Ugh... don't even get me started about people not wanting to upgrade... one of my clients is about to release V12 of their application and they still have people using V8 and complaining that new modules don't work for them. When I first started working for them 6 years ago (almost to the day, interestingly), V9 was old, so V8 is ancient by now. They'd have to be able to serve video on the old ports as well as the new, which honestly would be the least of their problems. That said, as for why I'd actually want to see this: anything over those ports would be zero-rated. That means torrents. Lots and lots of torrents. And, ostensibly, it would be throttled per-connection (as it is now), not in aggregate, so it really wouldn't affect torrents in the slightest; which, of course, is why it'll never happen.

I'm really glad you shared those ideas with me; I really do like the first one and hope T-Mo takes that direction at some point, as it really puts all the control in the user's hand, where it belongs. There would still need to be some application process for providers who can't deliver a 1.5Mbps stream to grant T-Mobile transcoding/re-compression rights for their streams, limited to this specific purpose, but that would be a secondary and completely optional process; it could even be something T-Mo does by proxy, setting up am industry association that obtains these rights on behalf of all association members, allowing any ISP to join. In that way, providers wouldn't have to make deals with each ISP, they could just apply to the association and grand rights across the board. And, if they didn't apply, no big deal, their service might experience issues when the "slow" option is turned on, if they can't stream at a low enough bitrate.

I think we're getting somewhere here; T-Mobile should pe

Re:Binge on

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Hey Man, I'm sorry to be slow to respond, work went from slow to really busy. So unfortunately I need to bail on this conversation. Perhaps I'll see you in the next topic?

Re:Binge on

[BronsCon]

No worries, see you around, it's been good!

Re:Binge on

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Cheers, and thank you for both putting up with my silliness and for helping me understand this topic better. I've got a lot more to think about.

Lower cost, because 75%-85% less bandwidth

[raymorris]

Using the most well-known example, Binge On delivers 480p video using adaptive bit rate around 1 Mbps. Regular ( non-Binge) Youtube is about 4 Mbps normally, 8 Mbps at highest quality.

By using Binge On, you agree to lower quality video (which still looks fine on a 4" screen), and in exchange they exempt it from caps. They actual cost of transferring 1 Mbps is much lower than the cost of 4 Mbps or 8 Mbps. There's not an increased price to pay for, it's a cost-saving system.

Re:Lower cost, because 75%-85% less bandwidth

[mrchaotica]

Using the most well-known example, Binge On...

Is Binge On really the most well-known example? When I think of Net Neutrality violations, I think of Comcast and its extortion of Netflix.

I will say though that Binge on is the least offensive example, which is why I object to you citing it here. T-Mobile is doing the wrong thing for the right reasons, but that is extremely atypical: every other ISP that's violating Net Neutrality that I know of is (e.g. Comcast, Verizon, etc.) doing so as a naked grab for money and control. Those typical examples are the ones we should be basing our discussion around.

Re:Lower cost, because 75%-85% less bandwidth

[bluefoxlucid]

Binge On is 1.5Mbps. You can cram 720p in that at high quality.

Re:Lower cost, because 75%-85% less bandwidth

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

I will say though that Binge on is the least offensive example, which is why I object to you citing it here. T-Mobile is doing the wrong thing for the right reasons...every other ISP that's violating Net Neutrality that I know of is (e.g. Comcast, Verizon, etc.) doing so as a naked grab for money and control

Cherry picking certain services is a naked grab for money and control. They're offering specific services for free to differentiate themselves from other cellular carriers. The only reason it's seemingly tolerable with T-Mobile is they don't provide services that would be a conflict of interest. Wait till AT&T tries it.

It's wrong either way. Sorry. If they really were being altruistic they'd just offer a 1mb unlimited plan and just ask the service providers to fit within that pipe, none of this "Fill out these forms and we'll get back to you in 6-8 weeks" nonsense.

Re:Lower cost, because 75%-85% less bandwidth

[mrchaotica]

Hi, Comcast Shill! How's life at the call center these days? Still shitty?

FYI, Netflix called it exactly that:

"It is extortion when Comcast fails to provide its own customers the broadband speed they've paid for unless Netflix also pays a ransom."

Re:Lower cost, because 75%-85% less bandwidth

[Obfuscant]

They're offering specific services for free to differentiate themselves from other cellular carriers.

Oh My God, how DARE they offer specific services for free to differentiate themselves from other cellular carriers. I guess you're too wrapped up in your net neutrality hysteria to recognize that one cellular company offering different services than another has NOTHING to do with net neutrality.

If they really were being altruistic they'd just offer a 1mb unlimited plan and just ask the service providers to fit within that pipe,

You're trying to screw the people who want more than 1Mbps for some things but also want to watch video on their phones without it counting against their data plan. I know when I'm downloading a 50Mb PDF of some manual, I don't want to wait more than five minutes to get it, but I would be perfectly happy if the 5 minute video I'm watching takes 4:59 to transport across the net.

none of this "Fill out these forms and we'll get back to you in 6-8 weeks" nonsense.

Since you've never done it, and you've never been told "we'll get back to you in 6-8 weeks", you're talking out your ass. And so what if the registration process isn't instantaneous? You're setting up a long-term relationship and it's benefiting YOUR CUSTOMERS to do it. Why are you so outraged that you can do something simple to save YOUR CUSTOMERS money?

Re:Lower cost, because 75%-85% less bandwidth

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

I guess you're too wrapped up in your net neutrality hysteria to recognize that one cellular company offering different services than another has NOTHING to do with net neutrality.

Close. I'm wrapped up in net neutrality... which is why I see why this service violates it. They. Control. Who. Gets. Zero. Rated. You can go through the entire range of human emotion about how you feel about the service, even sexual gratification, it doesn't change that underlying fact.

I know when I'm downloading a 50Mb PDF of some manual, I don't want to wait more than five minutes to get it, but I would be perfectly happy if the 5 minute video I'm watching takes 4:59 to transport across the net.

Gee., if only computers were advanced enough to provide a simple solution to that problem.

Since you've never done it, and you've never been told "we'll get back to you in 6-8 weeks", you're talking out your ass.

"This is inconvenient so I will make a fart noise and pretend that's a rebuttal." If it's only a matter of meeting technical requirements, then there's no need for an application process. They chose to approve, by hand, who gets through. Geeeee I wonder whyyyyyyyyyyyyyy????

Why are you so outraged that you can do something simple to save YOUR CUSTOMERS money?

I don't want my ISP choosing which websites it likes best. We already tried that approach, that's why we have Net Neutrality now.

Re:Lower cost, because 75%-85% less bandwidth

[gfxguy]

The difference between the Comcast/Netflix issue and Binge On is that they are pretty much completely opposite. Comcast's customers are already paying for the bandwidth they use to watch Netflix - not only would Comcast be double dipping on that data, but because they offer a competing service it amounts to an anti-competitive practice. T-Mobile is not only not charging the content providers a damn thing, they're also benefiting their customers - so it's not anti-competitive nor anti-consumer, especially given the fact that it's an optional service. The problem isn't with the concept of net neutrality, per se, but in this case if it can be used to shut down a service that, frankly, benefits EVERYBODY involved, then the legislation is simply far too overreaching.

And, on top of that, people with comcast often have very little in the way of options for high speed internet - either services that are not as fast, or are far more expensive. Cell phone service, on the other hand, is a far more competitive industry - there's choice of several big providers virtually nationwide, as well as a number of smaller providers just about everywhere in the U.S.

Re:Lower cost, because 75%-85% less bandwidth

[gfxguy]

You're setting up a long-term relationship and it's benefiting YOUR CUSTOMERS to do it. Why are you so outraged that you can do something simple to save YOUR CUSTOMERS money?

It's what I don't get... the customers benefit (the most important thing); no content providers get screwed (unlike comcast charging content providers); any content provider can sign up.... the customers benefit, the streaming companies benefit (happier customers and lower bandwidth for THEM, too), and T-Mobile benefits. I don't understand why people are complaining.... yes, they say it hurts streaming services that don't sign up, but is there a single case of T-Mobile rejecting a legitimate service?

Re:Lower cost, because 75%-85% less bandwidth

[Obfuscant]

Close. I'm wrapped up in net neutrality...

And you're complaining that T-Mobile offers different services than other carriers as proof their violation.

They. Control. Who. Gets. Zero. Rated.

Meet. The. Technical. Standards. And. Register. That. Fact. With. Them. And. You. Can. Play., Too. That's the underlying fact.

Gee., if only computers were advanced enough to provide a simple solution to that problem.

Are you really so dense that you cannot see that forcing people who want to watch videos without overstepping their data limits into a 1Mbps plan (just so you can feel good about screwing them, I guess) means that anything not video related will take forever to download? No, there is no "computer" solution to that problem. If you are on a 1Mbps plan then that's what you get.

Oh, wait, there IS a computer solution: provide a video stream to T-Mobile that meets the technical standards (for the computer) and be a part of Binge On and your customers get the data without it counting against their limits, and they can still download non-video content at full speed. There's the solution -- but you can't allow it because you don't want to even try to participate.

"This is inconvenient so I will make a fart noise and pretend that's a rebuttal."

You're still talking out your ass. It's your "fart noise" that is pretending to be a rebuttal.

If it's only a matter of meeting technical requirements, then there's no need for an application process.

Asked and answered. Yes, there is. Move on to some other excuse.

I don't want my ISP choosing which websites it likes best.

T-Mobile isn't doing that. YOU are choosing not to participate in a system that will save them money. YOU choose, not T-Mobile. But you can't stand that some people have chosen to do so, so it must be eliminated for all, even though it doesn't hurt you in any way. And it has nothing to do with websites, it has to do with video and audio streaming services. That you cannot differentiate between the two means you have no technical background to discuss this.

Re:Lower cost, because 75%-85% less bandwidth

[sumdumass]

They are under some impression that only selected few can actually stream on this low bandwidth so those who build a business model out of large bandwidth streaming will be prejudiced.

They think this is the same as Time Warner offering an internet phone service and purposely screwing with streams from competitors (except with video and no one being rejected or screwed as long as they follow the same rules and if they don't, they follow the normal rules).

So in short, it is a bad thing because it is not an "everyone is identically equal things". It's sort of like a product of everyone getting first place trophies at a pissing contest or whatever sport these kids are into today.

Re:Lower cost, because 75%-85% less bandwidth

[BronsCon]

But it wasn't Comcast extorting Netflix, it was Comcast extorting their own customers to shill for them and pressure Netflix to pay up. It was Comcast's own customers who Comcast had by the balls.

Re:Lower cost, because 75%-85% less bandwidth

[BronsCon]

Cherry picking certain services is a naked grab for money and control.

And that's not what T-Mobile is doing. They don't pick, they process applications for participation. Thus far they've denied nobody who was technically capable of participating (e.g. they could identify the video content and it was available at an acceptable bitrate) and those who were denied on technical grounds were offered assistance from T-Mobile, at no charge, to help fix the technical issues.

Re:Lower cost, because 75%-85% less bandwidth

[BronsCon]

They are under some impression that only selected few can actually stream on this low bandwidth so those who build a business model out of large bandwidth streaming will be prejudiced.

And my answer to that argument, whenever I see it, is that 63% of US households are still on 1.5Mbps or slower wireline connections. Those companies have no right to complain about opportunity cost if they're already unable to serve over half of their potential market due to their inability to stream at Binge-On eligible bitrates of 1.5Mbps or lower. I usually post references as well, but, as I'm not arguing here, I'm not going to waste the time.

That usually sets them right the hell off, they throw a fit, try to discredit my sources, fail, call me names, take their ball, and go home.

T-Mobile's Binge On

[mrchaotica]

Binge On is an interesting pseudo-exception.

First of all, what I wrote still applies: it may not be increasing cost, but it's reducing the quality for the same cost, which is more-or-less equivalent. That's not to say it's a bad thing -- I, for one, love paying minimal costs as long as the quality is barely sufficient! I value-engineer my entire lifestyle, and plan to be able to retire 20 years early because of it. But I digress...

The problem -- and the reason I have Binge On disabled on my account as a matter of principle, even though I would be perfectly happy with compressed video -- is that it's implemented on a site-by-site basis. If I could ask T-Mobile to compress and zero-rate all video streaming, both from big providers like Youtube and Netflix and from any random small server (or when streaming video from the phone to elsewhere, for that matter), then I would have no objection to it whatsoever. On the contrary, it would be great! It would also then be categorized as "perfectly-acceptable QoS" rather than "a violation of net neutrality."

Re:T-Mobile's Binge On

[jittles]

The problem -- and the reason I have Binge On disabled on my account as a matter of principle, even though I would be perfectly happy with compressed video -- is that it's implemented on a site-by-site basis. If I could ask T-Mobile to compress and zero-rate all video streaming, both from big providers like Youtube and Netflix and from any random small server (or when streaming video from the phone to elsewhere, for that matter), then I would have no objection to it whatsoever. On the contrary, it would be great! It would also then be categorized as "perfectly-acceptable QoS" rather than "a violation of net neutrality."

You have to use T-Mobile's API so that they can ensure the stream parameters are appropriate. If you use HTTPS or an encrypted video/audio feed then T-Mobile could not do anything to reduce the demand on the network. That's the problem. If you're going to disable it on moral grounds then I would say that it should be disabled due to the fact that T-Mobile can basically see exactly what you're streaming using the Binge On. Realistically, though, they may have already known what you were streaming anyway just based on the request.

Re:T-Mobile's Binge On

[cdrudge]

It appears from option 3 here that the content provider still could provide a https or otherwise encrypted feed and still qualify for the zero rating. T-mobile has to be able to detect the video feed, so perhaps such content needs to be served from a particular host, ip, port, etc. But it doesn't appear that they have to have visibility into the actual content.

Re:T-Mobile's Binge On

[mrchaotica]

You have to use T-Mobile's API so that they can ensure the stream parameters are appropriate.

Okay, fine: what API? I looked for the RFC, but can't find it.

Link to the publicly-accessible documentation for it, explaining how any random server operator can implement it without "partnering" with T-Mobile, and I will be perfectly satisfied.

Re:T-Mobile's Binge On

[gfxguy]

Except that if it bothers you then you can opt out. I simply can't agree with any of the arguments against Binge-On... T-Mobile benefits, sure, but so do the customers - and certainly no one loses out on anything if they opt out to get the higher quality. If there's a single thing that should be changed is that it should be opt-in, instead.

Re:T-Mobile's Binge On

[BronsCon]

If I could ask T-Mobile to compress and zero-rate all video streaming, both from big providers like Youtube and Netflix and from any random small server (or when streaming video from the phone to elsewhere, for that matter), then I would have no objection to it whatsoever.

And if T-Mobile wouldn't run afoul of copyright laws by automatically doing that without explicit permission from the providers, I'm sure they'd offer it. However, unless a provider opts in and, in doing so, agrees to allow T-Mobile to alter their content, T-Mobile legally can not do so, as that would be a violation of net neutrality and copyright.

What you're principled against, then, is the application of copyright to the field of network management, as it prevents such a consumer-friendly system from even being implemented in a net-neutral manner.

Re:T-Mobile's Binge On

[mrchaotica]

Does the caching proxy discriminate between domains? Does the ISP require websites (note: not the ISP's "users"; I'm talking about the party at the other end of the connection) to "partner" with it to opt-in to being cached?

If the answers are "no," then there's no problem.

If the answers are "yes," but all you have to do to "opt in" is something like setting your HTTP cache-control header to "public" then that's fine too.

If the answers are "yes," and you have to manually call up the ISP and ask them to manually enable it for your site, that starts to be a problem (because it's unreasonable to expect every website operator to manually coordinate with every ISP). That's what's wrong with Binge On.

If the answers are "yes" and the ISP expects each website operator to pay it for the privilege (the Comcast/Netflix extortion model), then that's totally and completely unacceptable.

Lower cost, not the same cost

[raymorris]

> it may not be increasing cost, but it's reducing the quality for the same cost, which is more-or-less equivalent.

It's NOT the same cost. On a phone (these are phone companies), it's providing approximately the same quality at much lower cost.

> If I could ask T-Mobile to compress and zero-rate all video streaming, both from big providers like Youtube and Netflix and from any random small server (or when streaming video from the phone to elsewhere, for that matter), then I would have no objection to it whatsoever.

Perhaps it is unfortunate that "any random small server" doesn't use the protocols, codecs, bit rates, etc that Youtube and Netflix agreed to. Maybe you can find a way to get everyone to agree on those particulars. Until then, it's used for video providers who use compatible settings.

Re:Lower cost, not the same cost

[mrchaotica]

Perhaps it is unfortunate that "any random small server" doesn't use the protocols, codecs, bit rates, etc that Youtube and Netflix agreed to.

Have you investigated the process of getting content enabled for Binge On? I actually have. It has nothing to do with protocols, bit rates, standards etc. (i.e., something that any random admin could enable by tweaking some server settings) and everything to do with having your corporation sign a contractual agreement with T-Mobile.

If the process for enabling it were only technical and accessible to any server operator instead of instead of bureaucratic, I would have no problem with it.

Re:Lower cost, not the same cost

[rahvin112]

That contract and agreement allows T-Mobile to pick the winners and losers in Video. Do you really want T-Mobile being the arbiter of which video services survive?

Because I sure as hell don't, just like I don't want Verizon, ATT or Sprint doing it either. This is what net-neutrality is about. If you allow these companies to make these contracts it won't be very long before they are the ones deciding which companies succeed and which fail and shortly after that they will put a toll on that selection. This is all inevitable. Though T-Mobiles plan right now may not being harming anything I guarantee it hangs around and gains power and it will.

Re:Lower cost, not the same cost

[mrchaotica]

Did you reply to the wrong post? I ask because your complaint is the same one I've been making, but you phrased it as if you thought you were disagreeing with me.

Re:Lower cost, not the same cost

[BronsCon]

I implore either of you to show me a single application that was denied on non-technical grounds, or even one denied on technical grounds for which T-Mobile didn't offer to work with the applicant to come to a solution. Just because a fork can be used to determine who lives and dies (fork to the aorta, for example) doesn't mean we disallow forks; we outlaw that particular use of a fork and get on with our lives. Likewise, we don't prevent a company from offering this type of service in the manner in which T-Mobile is, we simply make it illegal to institute unfair policies around the service, which we've already done, and we get on with our lives, which some of us have yet to do.

Re:Lower cost, not the same cost

[mrchaotica]

I implore either of you to show me a single application that was denied on non-technical grounds

You're missing the point, which is that it's unreasonable for an "application" to be necessary in the first place. There needs to be a way to set it up without the need for human manual intervention between the content provider and T-Mobile, because manual intervention cannot possibly scale to every content provider on the Internet (or every ISP on the planet, after they all follow T-Mobile's lead). Having Youtube's people coordinate with T-Mobile's people is one thing; having Joe Random Admin with a Shoutcast server in his basement coordinate with Bob's Internet Service and Bait Shop in Bumfuckistan, North Dakota is quite another!

Re:Lower cost, not the same cost

[BronsCon]

You're missing the point, which is that it's unreasonable for an "application" to be necessary in the first place.

When not every service can stream at 1.5Mbps or less and one of the ways Binge-On works is to re-compress the video stream in those instances, they absolutely do need explicit permission to modify the copyrighted content traversing their network. That is just one purpose served by the application process. This is something T-Mobile can, for legal reasons, not automatically do.

Further, if served over HTTPS, which they can't read, or a stateless protocol like UDP, they can't detect the video stream in the first place, let alone re-compress it if necessary. The application process also includes steps that help T-Mobile identify these streams. One way they enable this is by allowing the video provider to provide a list of hosts from which their content is streamed, so T-Mobile can know to throttle (if necessary) and count that data in Binge-On. The application process also serves to ensure that these video streams, which they otherwise can't throttle or zero-rate in the first place, don't begin experiencing issues once they become part of the program. This is done by working with the video provider to ensure that their streams sent to T-Mobile's network use a bitrate of 1.5Mbps or less on average. This is something T-Mobile can, for technical reasons, not automatically do.

So you're saying it's unreasonable for T-Mobile to seek permission to modify copyrighted content they do not own, rather than simply ignoring copyright, and seek assistance in identifying otherwise unidentifiable content, rather than waving their magic wand and making it so. I'm sorry, I just can't entertain that as a serious argument.

Having Youtube's people coordinate with T-Mobile's people is one thing; having Joe Random Admin with a Shoutcast server in his basement coordinate with Bob's Internet Service and Bait Shop in Bumfuckistan, North Dakota is quite another!

And one of those has nothing, whatsoever, to do with what we're talking about.

Re: No no no njo ni no!

[MightyYar]

Sorry but why can't software make optimum resource allocations? Or actors with access to dataand systems never before possible?

You are projecting. I think technology may indeed make the traditional free market obsolete. But I remain skeptical until there is at least one example.

Almost all economies on earth have more regulation, better buildings, and lower total cost of ownership than US.

You don't seem to be arguing against a free market - you seem to be arguing for a free market with a different set of regulations. This is not an example of a computer-controlled command economy.

Also the free market is a fantasy

I am not an idealist - I'm quite pragmatic. I don't think I ever said there was an ideal free market, so you are building up a straw man.

Of course economic efficiency is not the goal of a capitialist

By definition, someone who does not want free markets is not a capitalist. Perhaps you mean people who falsely claim to want capitalism?

Re:No no no njo ni no!

[meerling]

Also the 'Free Market' is a type of economic utopia. The same as all the other utopian theories out there, none of them exist in the real world, and all attempts at creating one have failed miserably.
You can easily research what an actual Free Market is, if you can get around the B.S. and marketing trash from people that either don't know what it is or don't care.

Re:Wait, what?

[BronsCon]

Last time I checked the price of cable and data services has never gone down, ever.

I used to pay $100/mo for a 1Mbps connection. I now pay $150/mo for a 75Mbps connection. Yes, $150 is more than $100, but it's less than the $7500 you'd expect if the $100-per-1Mbps pricing hadn't gone down.