Slashdot Mirror
Sprint Charging 'Unlimited' Users $20 More for Unthrottled Video (dslreports.com)
Sprint has a new "unlimited" data plan for users that want to watch videos in full-HD (1080p) screen resolution. Dubbed "Unlimited Freedom Premium" plan, it offers the same features as the "Unlimited Freedom" plan with the bonus of allowing users to stream videos in full-HD. Also, it costs $20 extra. DSLReports points out the obvious:Last week we noted that Sprint unveiled its new Unlimited Freedom plan, which provides unlimited text, voice and data for $60 a month for one line, $40 a month for a second line, and $30 a month for every line thereafter (up to a maxiumum of 10). But the plan also, following on T-Mobile's heels, throttles all video by default to 480p, a move that has raised the hackles of net neutrality advocates.
480p ought to be enough for anybody.
preventing me from watching youtube and netflix in full HD all day long
Why do we still allow these companies to openly commit fraud?
Unless they're giving special treatment to video from certain places, the streamer tears aren't really reaching me.
If all videos including those from the carrier are 480p then it isn't a network neutrality issue. Please don't muddy the waters for the technically illiterate people writing laws.
I wonder, could you use a VPN app to get full-rate video?
.
The onslaught of news fees is all about profit, not benefit to customers.
What fraud? They just claim that there are no data caps. Where do they say that you can watch as high a resolution as you like? Geez, millennials - give them something even for free, and they'll bitch about you not giving them enough!!!
You want to waste society's bandwidth for cat videos? Pay for it!
There's unlimited and there's unlimited unlimited.
If you want decent pings it's better to go for the Unlimited Freedom Premium Plus plan (+ $15).
If you want high bandwidth all the time (+ $25) go for the Unlimited Freedom Premium Plus Super Unlimited.
If you want high bandwidth all the time including after using 10GB per month (+ $20 to avoid high-usage throttling) go for the Unlimited Freedom Premium Plus Super Unlimited HD Supreme Ultra Free.
However, it's still pretty shit and will get worse in the future when they introduce new upgrades, so make sure to keep up on any "even less-limited unlimited" upgrades whenever they offer them.
It's unlimited data not unlimited resolution.
How is telling someone "unlimited video streaming at 480p," and then delivering unlimited video streaming at 480p, fraud by any possible definition?
You want to waste society's bandwidth on cat videos? Then YOU pay for it!
Actually it isn't false, fraud or anything like that. Unlimited is per traffic, not the instant peak speed. Paying X for 4mbps and X+20 for 8mbps is fair
Do people really have to watch HD videos on cellular? Can't they wait until they get home near their WiFi's? I thought that the rationale behind unlimited data was in case people needed to have a VOIP or FaceTime/Hangout/Duo call at a place where they were not near their Broadband network, not for watching Starwars on their iPhone
Those are the worst guys from the bunch, selling anything and everything they could, overcharging for shit all the time, multiple class action lawsuit, laying to customers and shareholders. STAY AWAY!
Dubbed "Unlimited Freedom Premium" plan, ...
I thought you couldn't put a premium on Freedom -- especially "Unlimited" kind.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Someone remind me wtf Unlimited means?
It sounds like their systems make the decision based on resolution and not datarate. What would happen if one tried to watch, say, a 1 or 2mbps 1080 stream from Twitch? Whether it would look like ass is another issue.
Does anyone know how this would work with a tethered phone providing internet to a computer via USB? I live in a very rural area but have an antenna on the roof and booster that gives me 4g full bars almost and my Sprint Unlimited is my only way to connect to the internet. Would streamed videos be limited to 480p on the computer or is it limited to being displayed on the phone?
Here's your unlimited package, please be aware of the following limits we imposed
Nice. So EXACTLY what people expected to happen is happening even WITH the FCC's new rules. What I don't get is why the FCC doesn't seem to be doing anything about it. Maybe its the idea that it is 'all streaming video' but then how does Sprint actually know the data stream is 'streaming video'? Do they somehow check the data stream? That seems unlikely if I connect to a source via https & thus encrypt the traffic. Do they apply it by 'source' e.g. if its a Netflix stream or Youtube stream then they 'know' its streaming video but if that's the case then this isn't being applied equally at all but to specific sources & THAT would violate net neutrality & the new FCC rules.
A cap can be on the amount of data or on the content of that data. If they treat the content differently because of what it is, then that's not neutral, is it?
Don't require people to buy a data plan just because they have a phone the carrier considers "smart". Don't offer "unlimited" plans that have so many exclusions as to be useless for anything people actually want to do.
They should just do what they do here in Australia and offer a range of plans, each of which would come with a certain amount of calls and text and MMS and data. If people need lots of data, they can pay more and get a plan with lots of data. If they dont, they get a plan with less data. And if the carriers are doing it right (and have the right pricing structure) they shouldn't need to care how the users are using their data (whether that be for VPNs, tethering a laptop, full HD video, downloading Linux ISOs or running SETI @ Home.
And for people who run out of data, the carriers can offer data top-ups for x amount per GB (or part thereof).
Excuse the insult but are you an idiot? If its NOT video what does 'resolution' got to do with it, data is data and a 'video stream' is just data? So, if I simply download a video file (don't stream it as its usually thought of) that has HD resolution & watch it 'offline' that's ok, but if I "stream" it I have to pay extra? How does Sprint know what the nature of the data stream is to begin with? Consider if I encrypt the transfer (https, ftps etc.) how does Sprint know its a 'video stream' and not just a 'data stream'? If its based on the source its coming from e.g. 'Netflix/Youtube' than that's not applying the rules without discrimination to the source. If I have a video client that doesn't need to wait for the end of the file before I can start watching it than I can be watching a video file I'm downloading no different than 'streaming'. Streaming is simply a protocol/implementation that uses buffering & other tactics to smooth out the viewing
'Unlimited data' is 'unlimited data', its not 'unlimited data but for some data we'll degrade the accuracy of the data being sent'. If they want to say that then fine, but how many people are going to sign up for a service where the accuracy of the data I'm downloading may be degraded/lost.
If they treat the content differently because of what it is, then that's not neutral, is it?
In terms of "net neutrality", it is. Nothing says that certain kinds of content cannot be treated certain ways, only that it has to apply to all sources.
They have altered the deal. Pray they do not alter it further. There will come a tipping point, where eventually customers start to complain or bolt. We're not quite there yet.
I switched to Cicket's unlimited plan its $70 and $5 off for autopay so I pay $65 a month which includes taxes. I use almost 100GB a month streaming video. Its capped at 8Megabits a second however its fast enough to steam HD with Amazon Prime and Youtube.
It is too much of a work to do it on resolution. This means they have to read all the files being pulled by all video streaming user (and that won't work on SSL) and then shape them. That is a ton of equipment needed for little to no benefit. Just limit the bandwidth and let the client side select a steam that it can play without shuttering and pauses. A lot less equipment, and force the guys over.
Also, its not because these companies are profit greedy. They are as greedy as you can get, I don't doubt that. But they are doing it because streaming in HD just wastes too much bandwidth. For mobile phones, the BTS's are very rare, so you share it with many people. Its totally different for cable bound internet. Or even wifi that then goes over cables again for that matter. There is a technical argument in throttling videos.
So I completely agree with them doing this. Maybe they should throttle all traffic, and not just videos, because its probably hard to decide what is video and what is not from the ISP perspective (except its unencrypted).
A new meaning for "unlimited" that now means only a bit limited. Just like "universal" now means fits more than one variant of a thing; such as a particular model of car (automobile).
Services are increasingly moving towards HTTPS by default, which is awesome. Besides the obvious privacy implications, it prevents these ISP wankers from messing with your content, as it all becomes a sea of bytes (as it should be).
There have been hints of this sort of meddling in the past, when providers started injecting ad banners and other cruft into web responses.
So it wouldn't throttle, say, and OpenVPN ssession, right?
Shhhhhh!
Network neutrality is about transporting all data the same regardless of what content it is or where it came from, so yes it does say certain types of content can not be treated differently.
Even if we go down your rabbit hole, they are only throttling certain protocols/codecs that they can detect so lots of less popular protocols/codecs are not throttled and any hot new protocols/codecs wouldn't be either. How is it fair if your video is throttled for using a certain protocol/codec but mine isn't because I used something different? Hell, any site that wants to avoid the throttling could just encrypt it to bypass the content detection system.
Well put.
The problem is that nobody understands what net neutrality actually is and they get distracted by "free" stuff that takes away their FREEdom.
How do they tell the difference between a hd video streaming over https and a large file downloading over https?
I was told at the very beginning that I get X GB data at max speed and then unlimited data at a reduced speed after my cap had been exceeded.
Even assuming they can tell it's video my question would be how they reduce the resolution on the fly as it passes through their network. That would take a lot of extra processing power to decode say h.264, reduce the resolution, and re-encode to h.264. Not to mention they can't affect the data until it gets onto their network so it's only saving bandwidth after it enters their network which is usually a very small portion of the distance/time the data travels.
Yeah but nobody - by which I mean productive businesses - gives a fuck about the tiny proportion of dorks who deliberately encrypt or otherwise obfuscate Youtube / Netflix / whatever. So, even if they can save masses of bandwidth of 99% of users rather than 100%, this technology is doing the job.
Of course, manchildren like yourself will then probably try to make a point by continually downloading at maximum speed all day "cos it's unlimited and I don't understand what it means to be a social animal and all I can do is follow written rules". So this time they change the rules in a way that doesn't affect the 99% but will cause the 1% of dorks to lose their shit like they've just been surprise-buttfucked.
Most online video services will automatically change resoloution and/or compression level based on detected throughput. So simply throttling traffic to/from known video distribution servers should be sufficient.
The goal is almost certainly not to catch every single video. It's to drive down the average usage per user.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Network neutrality is about transporting all data the same regardless of what content it is or where it came from,
No, it is not. Net neutrality is about NOT differentiating transport based on source. As in, not prioritizing the ISP's own video service over another vendor's. As in not charging more for an outside vendor's video streams than the ISP's own service. It is about the ISP not getting an advantage in the commercial marketplace of ideas by hindering outsider competition for services.
It has NOTHING to do with prohibiting differences in transport for different kinds of data. The Internet was designed with the capability to transport different kinds of data differently.
Even if we go down your rabbit hole,
It's not a "rabbit hole", it's a fact.
they are only throttling certain protocols/codecs that they can detect so lots of less popular protocols/codecs are not throttled and any hot new protocols/codecs wouldn't be either.
All sources are being treated the same. That's the heart of net neutrality.
As for "hot new protocols", that falls under the wonderful concept that development of new protocols will be unhindered and new services are free to develop new things. That's also part of the reason for "net neutrality" -- to foster development of new things.
Hell, any site that wants to avoid the throttling could just encrypt it to bypass the content detection system.
Yes, they could. And since the source isn't determining how the traffic is handled, it meets all the requirements for net neutrality.
...for unlimited calls, SMS & data (4G) for month; and it's prepaid.
In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
That's done by the video server. It calculates the time between a data packet was sent out and when it was received. This is done continuously for large numbers of packets. The time delay gives an estimate of the overall bandwidth available. Then the server picks the optimum resolution.
Because "unlimited" means no limits placed. Say the limit is 2 megabits per second (because throttling), then that is a limit. Unlimited implies "the only limit is the maximum speed in the plan", not "the maximum speed in the plan except for certain types of content". Fraud is too strong a word, but there is a limit enforced beyond that mentioned in the name of the package. It's like saying "all you can eat" and then limiting it to one small serving of the most popular course - it's not fraud, it's disingenuous.
I'll wait for Unlimited Freedom Premium XL Gold HD Plus Plus plan, thankyouverymuch.
Unlimited Freedom Premium, now even more unlimit-er ...
That doesn't sound right. You are describing latency, not throughput.
It acts as a data cap since you can't use as much data as you could by streaming 1080p 24/7.
After a year or more of taking break from slashdot it's kinda funny, though also sad, to see in the very first thread that nothings changed in the way how large number of yanks always willing and eager to defend large corporations right to kick them in the face and surprise bearfuck them :P
I pay 29.90€ a month, and this is prepaid (=more expensive), for unlimited calls/sms/data (4G) - and that means unlimited. Although the speed rarely measures as said 50mbps, it's still mostly fairly good (generally over 30, usually almost 40 & always over 25mbps).
In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
This is a violation of net neutrality in that it is disadvantaging video content compared to other uses of mobile data. But it does appear to be provider-agnostic; it does not privilege one supplier of video over another, it limits streaming video from ALL sources.
For mobile phones, the BTS's are very rare, so you share it with many people. Its totally different for cable bound internet. Or even wifi that then goes over cables again for that matter. There is a technical argument in throttling videos.
So I completely agree with them doing this. Maybe they should throttle all traffic, and not just videos, because its probably hard to decide what is video and what is not from the ISP perspective (except its unencrypted).
I've noticed mobile phone apps (whether it's browser, app for specific video site or video generic video player) to pretty much limit the maximum resolution (where possible - boy this kind of throttling must be annoying when the site/service doesn't serve but one resolution, and that resolution is HD) to what the device is actually capable, but not all mobile devices or even just phones (and yes, a tablet with SIM - or any other means for calls/sms/data on mobile network - are phones by definition, although even if tables are not counted it's still true) are below HD, let alone limited to just 480p.
IMHO, a data plan, just like any other type of connection deal with ISP is priced by either amount of data or transfer rate; or both. Any limitations by protocol, data type, etc. aren't compatible with how I understand net neutrality - and no, I don't consider net neutrality to be just about those hosting data but also (and in fact first-most about consumer rights).
I'd be pretty pissed (although routing my data through ssh-pipe to proxy server would be trivial to me) even though my mobile devices are all 480p or less, but then I use my phone as wi-fi hotspot at home to provide connectivity for all my computers... but I'm guessing that in the US just having a data plan doesn't automatically mean you're even allowed to share the connection - It's so much simpler when what you're buying is simply connectivity, plain and simple, and what you do with the connectivity is up to you. Anything else, for me, is horseshit.
In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
Im so fucking sick of companies like AT&T, Verizon, Sprint and T-Mobile calling their plans unlimited and then presenting you with a list of limitations.
How is this advertising even fucking legal?
Well put.
The problem is that nobody understands what net neutrality actually is and they get distracted by "free" stuff that takes away their FREEdom.
Sorry, but could you explain what exactly is it you are referring to with 'distracted by "free" stuff that takes away their FREEdom'? :)
Please understand I'm only asking because I'm not sure I understand and I don't mean anything else by it. I'm not like many people who act and feel like they got it right even when they 1st had to come up with something that the other person "might have meant"
In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
I'm not expecting you're willing to explain what is it about this small group, which you're correct to say the ISP doesn't likely even care about, that makes them dorks?
And that, if you don't get it, was a rhetorical question, as you already associated circumventing an artificial limitation with illogical anti-social vandalism, without any logical connection whatsoever. Oh, and also doing it as AC.
In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
It has become common for mobile carriers to give "free" data for certain things which is called 0-rating and many other similar terms. It is usually because those things are popular and use low amounts of data/low steady streams of data that don't cause big delays for other users on the network, or because someone else is paying for it (like facebook and wikipedia paid carriers in India for their services to be "free" to the end users).
The problem with this is that it is giving an unfair advantage to everything that is 0-rated and can actually encourage people to use more bandwidth than what they really want to use. For instance, if streaming audio (pandora, spotify, etc.) uses your data cap but streaming video doesn't then you will be much more likely to stream music videos from youtube even though it uses ~5x the bandwidth or w/e.
If carriers want to encourage us to use low bandwidth then they should just sell data rates like wired ISP's do and use bursting. ie. if you haven't been using the network for a while then the first 10MB can burst at 100mbps but then it will be throttled to 2mbps or w/e and if you pay extra then it will be 3mbps, 4mbps, etc. Then when people first start using the connection it will load things very quickly but if they continue using it then it will be at a low rate that doesn't affect others much.
No, unlimited means that there are no data caps, but speeds may vary. So if you are downloading an entire movie, in a limited plan, the download will stop if your limit was reached within the period. In an unlimited plan, it would continue. But the speed could vary, and for any reason.
A cap can be on the amount of data or on the content of that data. If they treat the content differently because of what it is, then that's not neutral, is it?
Sure it is! What net neutrality means is that if you have an internet connection, you should be able to pull content from any source. Like if you are w/ Acme Broadcasting, you shouldn't be required by them to subscribe for a TV package in order to watch CBS programming online
Network speeds vary all the time, unfortunately. Similarly, they could vary for content. In fact, they would! If you are downloading Paris Hilton's last porn video, it will certainly take a lot more to download than APK's /etc/host files. So if the ISP decides to let APK's files out a lot sooner, and throttle the video by a factor of whatever, that's still within the confines of net neutrality
20€ is what i pay for really unlimited 24/1 ADSL plus unlimited* telephony. How come the prices are so high there?
Thank you, I understand. I don't think we have 0-rating stuff here in Finland, though I've heard of it, that's probably why I didn't even think of it.
What you suggest sounds reasonable, and it's pretty much what we have here, except for the bursting (as far as I know).
In capitalist USA corporations control the government.