T-Mobile’s Binge on Violates Key Net Neutrality Principles [pdf]

Re:T-Mobile’s Binge on Violates Key Net Neutrality Principle... by mrwumpus on Friday January 29, 2016 @01:20PM (#10997197)

This is anti-consumer because it takes the decision of which streaming provider that I want to use as a consumer and puts it into the hands of my Internet provider.

This is anti-competetive because if I am the creator of a new streaming service, I do not have a level playing field with the competing "free" streaming services offered at zero rating. I may also be forced to play ball with this provider in order to comply with the demands to be zero-rated, again limiting my ability to be competitive.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:T-Mobile’s Binge on Violates Key Net Neutrality Principle... by toomuchtodo on Friday January 29, 2016 @01:20PM (#10997203)

You have other mobile providers to pick from, and can also opt out of BingeOn if you elect to stay on T-Mobile.

The people complaining are those who are pedantic about net neutrality. That's not how you're going to win over 300 million Americans. (As untog mentions elsewhere in this thread, "This is how net neutrality dies, if we're not careful.")

Disclaimer: T-Mobile customer, previous EFF contributor who stopped donating after their campaign against T-Mobile's BingeOn

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:T-Mobile’s Binge on Violates Key Net Neutrality Principle... by unethical_ban on Friday January 29, 2016 @01:26PM (#10997265)

In principle, I think Binge On is an example of poor net neutrality. It's a service provider engaging in a conflict of interest with content creators. I think those two roles should always be separate.

Similar to Comcast owning NBC and degrading performance of other streaming services: It's immoral. What T-Mo is doing is the same: They are charging you more to access your local music server, or your friend's startup, than they are for the 'big players' in the market. It's harmful in the long term.

Disclaimer: T-Mobile customer, current EFF contributor

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:T-Mobile’s Binge on Violates Key Net Neutrality Principle... by toomuchtodo on Friday January 29, 2016 @01:33PM (#10997331)

"They are charging you more to access your local music server, or your friend's startup, than they are for the 'big players' in the market."

That's the crux though, right? If they can make their network more efficient by offering services in specific ways that consumers can opt-out of, why shouldn't they be allowed to? Because we like the principal that all bits are equal, regardless of protocol, service, or network? Because that just ain't the case. It doesn't take a CCIE to tell you that.

EDIT: Yes, I agree that T-Mobile would be doing something "bad" if they were performing these activities for "real" anticompetitive purposes (promoting their own services, like AT&T and Comcast do). But if they're truly using it as a network management tool, which it appears they are based on the technical requirements, why should it not be allowed? Especially if you can opt-out?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:T-Mobile’s Binge on Violates Key Net Neutrality Principle... by unethical_ban on Friday January 29, 2016 @03:03PM (#10998059)

So if T-Mobile had an open, technically feasible process by which any service could participate in the program given technical criteria, it would be a step in the right direction.

example: If product X can provide this many CDN nodes and this much peering directly to T-Mo, then they are allowed to participate in Binge-On.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:T-Mobile’s Binge on Violates Key Net Neutrality Principle... by toomuchtodo on Friday January 29, 2016 @08:14PM (#10999955)

I agree with this. It's not about peering though, it's about limiting the bitrate of the video and music content.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:T-Mobile’s Binge on Violates Key Net Neutrality Principle... by nitrogen on Friday January 29, 2016 @01:51PM (#10997500)

Because on the other side, not everyone can opt in. Also, it's misleading marketing.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:T-Mobile’s Binge on Violates Key Net Neutrality Principle... by toomuchtodo on Friday January 29, 2016 @01:54PM (#10997525)

> Because on the other side, not everyone can opt in.

Can you provide evidence of this? That you're not permitted to opt in if you've met their technical guidelines?

> Also, it's misleading marketing.

Can you explain which part is misleading?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:T-Mobile’s Binge on Violates Key Net Neutrality Principle... by brtt on Friday January 29, 2016 @01:56PM (#10997544)

if it was opt-in (edit: for the consumer) instead does that change the argument in any way?

I remember that being a common recommended consideration when the program launched.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:T-Mobile’s Binge on Violates Key Net Neutrality Principle... by sliverstorm on Friday January 29, 2016 @02:01PM (#10997587)

There's absolutely nothing stopping you from continuing to use your preferred streaming provider. On an individual consumer level, the worst possible outcome is you continue to pay the same prices you always paid to access the same service you always used.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:T-Mobile’s Binge on Violates Key Net Neutrality Principle... by amazon_not on Friday January 29, 2016 @03:13PM (#10998131)

Current data plan prices aren't exactly cheap and you get a discount for using "approved" services. Nothing is stopping you from going on as before, but T-Mo's actions strongly influence consumer behavior and they get to pick the winners.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:T-Mobile’s Binge on Violates Key Net Neutrality Principle... by zekevermillion on Friday January 29, 2016 @01:27PM (#10997267)

I'm not sure BingeOn does in fact violate the rules. The Stanford article seems more like advocacy than scholarship, though the author makes reasonable arguments that are worth considering. TMO's strategy, if I can impute such a thing based on public info, is to introduce a service that doesn't technically violate the rules but does get customers used to the idea that mobile carriers can impose their own technically, if not legally discriminatory limits, on third-party services. TMO can be patient to wait for the customer mindset to change, or the rules to change, and then pow start figuring out how to monetize this strategy.

I'm sure your right that the average TMO customer is oblivious to the politics of this, and/or is happy to make the Faustian bargain if it means their Downton Abbey reruns buffer a bit faster.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:T-Mobile’s Binge on Violates Key Net Neutrality Principle... by devsquid on Friday January 29, 2016 @01:22PM (#10997220)

No it doesn't. It shows that supporters of net neutrality understand the issue is deeper than just "someone is slowing down access to specific content on the net and thats bad". This is anti-competitive, t-mobile is the gate keeper for what services can stream for 'free' on their service.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:T-Mobile’s Binge on Violates Key Net Neutrality Principle... by rhino369 on Friday January 29, 2016 @01:30PM (#10997299)

This is way less anti-competitive than a lot of other shit in the telecom space. Like Apple extorting 30% rent off of any software on the phone I paid for.

Or Google taking marketshare because it can offer free software due to its monopoly over websearching.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:T-Mobile’s Binge on Violates Key Net Neutrality Principle... by toomuchtodo on Friday January 29, 2016 @01:24PM (#10997239)

Does T-Mobile have a monopoly on mobile service in the US? Last time I checked, they were #3 out of 4 carriers. They don't have enough ground for it to be considered anticompetitive.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:T-Mobile’s Binge on Violates Key Net Neutrality Principle... by vkou on Friday January 29, 2016 @01:27PM (#10997269)

It's not anticompetitive with respect to other carriers, it's anticompetitive with respect to non-Binge web services.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:T-Mobile’s Binge on Violates Key Net Neutrality Principle... by toomuchtodo on Friday January 29, 2016 @01:29PM (#10997291)

As a T-Mobile customer, I don't care about other non-Binge web services. I'm paying T-Mobile, not them. Meet their BingeOn guidelines, or make the value prop compelling enough for me to burn my data quota up on you. Otherwise, you're asking me to subsidize your service through my monthly rates to allow your innovation or "freedom of expression".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:T-Mobile’s Binge on Violates Key Net Neutrality Principle... by nitrogen on Friday January 29, 2016 @01:56PM (#10997540)

...and that's exactly why discriminatory deals like BingeOn should not be allowed. If Tmo wants to offer unlimited 2mbit traffic, let them offer it for all sites equally.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:T-Mobile’s Binge on Violates Key Net Neutrality Principle... by toomuchtodo on Friday January 29, 2016 @02:00PM (#10997583)

I'd rather not subsidize an interpretation of idealism through my mobile bills.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:T-Mobile’s Binge on Violates Key Net Neutrality Principle... by nitrogen on Friday January 29, 2016 @02:37PM (#10997896)

You've got it backward; all the other sites are subsidizing your unlimited (but site-restricted) streaming.

Here's how to do something like BingeOn right: work with IETF to define a QoS flag that indicates streaming video, allow customers to opt in to throttling of that flag, then make sure everybody knows that they don't have to coordinate with Tmobile -- any provider can use the flag, and any carrier can honor it. Finally, the carrier could put an icon in the phone status bar (or an LED on a hotspot) indicating whether the current video streams are throttled and free.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:T-Mobile’s Binge on Violates Key Net Neutrality Principle... by devsquid on Friday January 29, 2016 @01:27PM (#10997274)

just because they don't have a majority doesn't mean its not anticompetitive.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:T-Mobile’s Binge on Violates Key Net Neutrality Principle... by toomuchtodo on Friday January 29, 2016 @01:30PM (#10997305)

Without a monopoly, anticompetitive behavior is going to be much more difficult to prosecute.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:T-Mobile’s Binge on Violates Key Net Neutrality Principle... by devsquid on Friday January 29, 2016 @01:32PM (#10997325)

Rofl... this is the US, to prosecute anyone for being anticompetitive is almost impossible.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:T-Mobile’s Binge on Violates Key Net Neutrality Principle... by untog on Friday January 29, 2016 @01:24PM (#10997242)

This is one case where net neutrality is not anti-consumer or anti-competitive and it is hurting the net neutrality case to make such a big deal about it.

I disagree. What if I want to use my phone connection to remote desktop into servers a lot? I don't get a BingeOn allowance for that. Why not?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:T-Mobile’s Binge on Violates Key Net Neutrality Principle... by will_pseudonym on Friday January 29, 2016 @02:02PM (#10997598)

Devil's Advocate argument attempting to answer your 2nd question:

Because the [total cost/user] value is much lower on streaming video. They can charge thousands-millions of customers a small amount to be able to stream the same sets of videos. A similar comparison would be a shared, public concert vs a private concert for your family alone. Those things have much different costs.

I'm not saying that that's good or bad, but does that help you understand the argument?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:T-Mobile’s Binge on Violates Key Net Neutrality Principle... by bobby_9x on Friday January 29, 2016 @01:25PM (#10997255)

T-mobile won't give you the BingOn allowance for this. If they lose in court, you will still need to pay for this and for videos.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:T-Mobile’s Binge on Violates Key Net Neutrality Principle... by untog on Friday January 29, 2016 @01:26PM (#10997261)

Yes, I know. But my point is why should I penalized as a "remote desktop user", when a "video user" is not?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:T-Mobile’s Binge on Violates Key Net Neutrality Principle... by toomuchtodo on Friday January 29, 2016 @01:28PM (#10997275)

You're not being penalized. You're simply not being granted an advantage of zero rated traffic because you're using network traffic (an encrypted remote desktop session) that can't be managed in the same way video traffic can be.

Not all bits are created equally.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:T-Mobile’s Binge on Violates Key Net Neutrality Principle... by untog on Friday January 29, 2016 @01:30PM (#10997303)

You're not being penalized. You're simply not being granted an advantage

But is there a meaningful difference there?

Not all bits are created equally.

That notion is literally the core of the Net Neutrality debate.

---

EDIT: I replied to another post which someone deleted before I could submit. So an elaboration on my point above:

At the end of the day, it's all marketing.

Remote desktop being the "standard rate" and Video being free isn't meaningfully different from Video being the "standard rate" and remote desktop being "standard rate * 1.5". It's just how it's being sold to you.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:T-Mobile’s Binge on Violates Key Net Neutrality Principle... by bobby_9x on Friday January 29, 2016 @02:10PM (#10997660)

This is like saying: I make lots of money, why am I penalized because I can't receive welfare?

I suppose we can fight the technicalities of net neutrality, but it will only mean you will pay more money, not less.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:T-Mobile’s Binge on Violates Key Net Neutrality Principle... by msie on Friday January 29, 2016 @01:21PM (#10997214)

This is one case where net neutrality is not anti-consumer or anti-competitive and it is hurting the net neutrality case to make such a big deal about it.

Early in the morning, this sentence seems off.

[ Parent | on HN ]