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.
Why do we still allow these companies to openly commit fraud?
I wonder, could you use a VPN app to get full-rate video?
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?
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.
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).
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.