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!!!
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?
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
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. . . .
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).
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.
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.
OpenVPN is allowed 5GB / month. https://support.sprint.com/sup...
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.
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.
I'll wait for Unlimited Freedom Premium XL Gold HD Plus Plus plan, thankyouverymuch.
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.
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
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.