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

[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.

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.

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

[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

[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).

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]

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."

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: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.