Slashdot Mirror
EFF Accuses T-Mobile of Violating Net Neutrality With Throttled Video (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader writes: T-Mobile's new "unlimited" data plan that throttles video has upset the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), which accuses the company of violating net neutrality principles. The new $70-per-month unlimited data plan "limits video to about 480p resolution and requires customers to pay an extra $25 per month for high-definition video," reports Ars Technica. "Going forward, this will be the only plan offered to new T-Mobile customers, though existing subscribers can keep their current prices and data allotments." EFF Senior Staff Technologist Jeremy Gillula told the Daily Dot, "From what we've read thus far it seems like T-Mobile's new plan to charge its customers extra to not throttle video runs directly afoul of the principle of net neutrality." The FCC's net neutrality rules ban throttling, though Ars notes "there's a difference between violating 'the principle of net neutrality' and violating the FCC's specific rules, which have exceptions to the throttling ban and allow for case-by-case judgements." "Because our no-throttling rule addresses instances in which a broadband provider targets particular content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices, it does not address a practice of slowing down an end user's connection to the internet based on a choice made by the end user," says the FCC's Open Internet Order (PDF). "For instance, a broadband provider may offer a data plan in which a subscriber receives a set amount of data at one speed tier and any remaining data at a lower tier." The EFF is still determining whether or not to file a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission.
You can turn it off and spend be charged and the regular rate, or watch it low bandwidth for free.
I guess you don't live in a place where people ride buses and trains???
How are they detecting "video streams" in order to throttle it?
Based on host (e.g. known domain names for video hosts)?
Based on protocol (e.g. blocking known streaming protocols)?
Deep packet inspection?
If they are detecting based on host, that's a net neutrality violation since they are discriminating between "video hosts they know about and throttle" and "video hosts they dont know about and don't throttle". If they are attempting to detect based on protocols or port numbers, it wont work for things that use standard HTTP as the underlying protocol or that use port numbers other than the ones they are expecting. And if they are trying some form of packet inspection, good luck doing that on an encrypted HTTPS YouTube stream.
Also I wonder how they are enforcing the 480p restriction. Are they re-encoding the videos? Blocking streams higher than 480p? Something else? (and again, good luck doing that on an encrypted HTTPS YouTube stream)
More to the point, you could probably easily get around whatever they are doing with a VPN and I bet you could find a suitable VPN provider for less than the $25 T-Mobile wants for unlocking high definition video...
I want 1080p YouTube videos on my phone. My phone has a 1080p screen, and even at native resolution it's already a pain in the ass to make out any text, captions, or fine details (mouse cursors, HP bars, wires and gauges, whathaveyou). Downscaling the video to <1.5Mbps 480p and blowing it back up again doesn't help legibility any.
If you nerds want to relive the 90s, nothing's stopping you from transcoding everything you watch to 64Kbps RealMedia(tm) first. I certainly wouldn't pay anyone to run a Minecraft filter on all my video, though, and I doubly wouldn't pay them again to unfuck it.
DATABASE WOW WOW
When they started this throttling thing, only a small number of video sources were "free" and I complained that this was a blatant violation of net neutrality.
But now they appear to be throttling all video across the board so all content is degraded equally. It's hard to argue that this isn't neutral.
" It's hard to argue that this isn't neutral."
It's only neutral if you consider the subset of "video services they detect" that TMobile chose. It's to slow some packets coming to you as bandwidth limited, even though you are paying for that service, not some selected subset of those packets.
They're throttling some services vs other services, you could make your selective argument about any subset they choose to select.
e.g. They throttle news papers based in New York.... well at least they're treating all newspapers in New York equally..... its hard to argue that this isn't neutral and in no way targets the New York Times.
e.g. They throttle all video from social media sites equallty, its hard to argue that this isn't neutral, and in no way designed to cap Facebooks video replay.
How is this "throttling"? All T-Mobile is pointing out is that bandwidth is a limited resource. If you want more of it, you need to pay for it. How is that any different than the days when we moved from 56K dial up to broadband?
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
Now this is honest -- unlimited but with video throttling, more for no video throttling. You accept a known agreement which also recognizes the reality.
Compare vs. sneakily extorting some of what you pay Netflix or they will crapify your Netflix, contrary to their agreement.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Netflix charges for hd too though it is only a dollar. how is it different from what tmobile is doing?