
T-Mobile’s Binge on Violates Key Net Neutrality Principles [pdf] - sinak
https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/downloads/vanSchewick-2016-Binge-On-Report.pdf
======
untog
This is how net neutrality dies, if we're not careful. As a T-Mobile customer
I browse /r/tmobile every now and then. It's an odd place, full of "fans" of
T-Mobile (a concept I can't wrap my head around - users literally have flairs
of "bleeding magenta"!), and the net neutrality debate there is fascinating.
In short, many think this is not a net neutrality violation because any
service can be accepted as part of "Binge On" if they apply to it. It is not
anti-competitive, thus, not a net neutrality violation.

Thing is, they're not wrong, per se. Because there isn't an actual accepted
definition for "net neutrality". For me, it's strict - the carrier is carrying
bits and bytes, and doesn't know/care what they are. For others, it is an
anti-competition stance.

Here's the problem: "Binge On" is great, in theory. Unlimited video! Even as a
die-hard net neutrality supporter, next time I'm staying in a hotel with
expensive wi-fi, I could load up Netflix on my phone and Chromecast it to the
TV. Awesome. What's the net neutrality counter argument that is equally as
enticing to customers? It's a tough sell.

~~~
shmerl
I'm T-Mobile user and on every their survey I let them know that I oppose
their violation of Net neutrality and they should stop Binge On. Also you can
tell them that since they are allowing caps exemptions, it means that caps
have nothing to do with network congestion and they should stop using them
altogether.

 _> Thing is, they're not wrong, per se. Because there isn't an actual
accepted definition for "net neutrality"._

It is wrong, and definition is pretty straightforward. Net neutrality means no
preferential treatment for any traffic. Here some services get exemption from
caps, while other don't. It is clearly a preferential treatment for some
traffic. From a different standpoint, Net neutrality means that network
provider can't serve as a gatekeeper and decide who gets better traffic and
who doesn't. Here they are the gatekeeper and services need to ask them for
permission to be exempt from caps. Gatekeeper = violation of Net neutrality.

~~~
oxide
>Net neutrality means no preferential treatment for any traffic.

I don't know how this can be open to interpretation, by anyone. self-described
"t-mobile fan" or not.

~~~
shmerl
It's not open to interpretation to any honest person. Those who try using
weasel logic around it are those who want to violate it. And they know
perfectly well they are being crooked.

------
pilom
The problem for Net Neutrality advocates is that T-Mobile's customers don't
care one bit. They love the fact that they don't have to pay for streaming
video and that they pay less for video on non-supported services. It is even
causing customers of other carriers to ask their carriers to not be net
neutral so that they can save money. 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.

~~~
untog
_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?

~~~
bobby_9x
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.

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

~~~
toomuchtodo
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.

~~~
untog
_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.

------
rootusrootus
The fundamental problem here is lack of real competition. If the transport
market was not dominated by just a few players, it would not be necessary to
use regulation to try and enforce someone's definition of net neutrality. What
I want to see is the gov't step in and break up the providers and maintain the
last mile network as a public utility. Wireless isn't exactly the same as a
wired network, obviously, but wireless bandwidth isn't unlimited either.

------
duaneb
Real question: does the fact that you can disable it ameliorate the situation
at all? They are not forcing their customers out of freedom. I always assumed
there would be customized services that sacrificed freedom for cost—so long as
it is not the only feasible option, I don't see a problem here.

~~~
pavanky
Net Neutrality was never about __just __the customers / consumers. The
argument has been made fairly frequently saying Net Neutrality is good for
consumers (and it is, in the long run), but it is much more than that.

It also allows small companies to compete freely instead of favoring large
incumbent companies. Imagine a world in which Hulu came out first and was zero
rated but Netflix was just trying to gain customers. Which service do you
think the consumers would be using ?

This is exactly what is happening now, except Netflix, spotify and other
services are the large incumbents. Anything new is being penalized because
they don't have the customers or voice.

~~~
duaneb
> Anything new is being penalized because they don't have the customers or
> voice.

This is only on the burst option, though. This is just as much in the
consumer's hands as it is the business's. This is precisely why I disabled
it—I don't want to have to consider a brand's political standing with T-Mobile
to figure out what kind of service I get.

------
csoete
t-mobile does the same with spotify in germany. really bad for competing
services.

~~~
toomuchtodo
Competing services can apply to be included in the program based on technical
specifications (limit your bitrate, clearly identify the traffic as video).

~~~
smileysteve
Sure, in theory, but in practice we're seeing big companies like Amazon Music,
Google Play Videos, Youtube not being able to move on just T-Mobile.

Complexity also increases as each ISP gets to choose their own rules.

Besides, I, as a consumer want to be able to use Amazon Prime Music / Video at
0, whether Amazon wants to take the time to set it up or not.

~~~
toomuchtodo
Unfortunately, as a consumer, you don't have the technical resources to
integrate your video provider with T-Mobile for them to support BingeOn. Your
options are to wait, or move to another cellular provider (which doesn't, of
course, have BingeOn).

That is why BingeOn is offered. T-Mobile receives a network efficiency
benefit, which they pass along to their users as unlimited video. Just because
the user complains they want something, doesn't mean they get it.

As always, the customer is not always right.

------
mwsherman
It’s free shipping. I know people don’t like to hear this. The market for
mobile “shippers” is more competitive than that in the physical world, in
fact.

The analogy is not perfect, but if one objects to this then one objects to
Amazon or vendors offering free shipping, which is a benefit that puts them
ahead of competitors, and (might) lead the consumer to include it in their
decision-making.

This also shows the tension between neutrality advocacy and consumer benefit.
In a PR sense, it’s very hard to win, when most consumers only see the
benefit. (I happen to side with consumers on this.)

~~~
amazon_not
Imagine if only Fedex got to decide who got free shipping?

~~~
maxerickson
Fedex probably does charge different prices to different shippers.

Which I think for the purposes of the comparison you are making is the same
thing (that is, Fedex _does_ make exclusive deals that are advantageous to
Fedex).

~~~
amazon_not
Different prices, sure. Free shipping, not so much.

~~~
maxerickson
Doesn't the exclusivity matter more than the free?

~~~
amazon_not
No. If Fedex won't deal with you then you can always go to UPS.

Free is the kingmaker. If Fedex is free, you will do whatever it takes to get
on their "good boy" list. You cannot afford to pay for shipping if your
competitors are getting it for free.

~~~
maxerickson
_will do whatever it takes to get on their "good boy" list_

That isn't true. If Fedex charges good boys $0 and everyone else $10, everyone
else will only bother with the good boy list if it will save them the $10 per
item.

~~~
amazon_not
You kind of made my point there. This pricing structure will deter anybody
from competing in the market that cannot absorb the cost of making it onto the
good boy list.

------
disposition2
I appreciate that the paper does discuss AT&T, Verizon and Comcast also
offering zero rating but only in the case that content is provided by AT&T,
Verizon or Comcast.

------
shakermakr
Down vote all you want, but let's be honest. We here are nerds. We know the
fundamentals of how the Internet works.

And cost occurs somewhere. This ain't all for free. There are electricity
bills to pay, bandwidth with 3rd parties to pay for, and blades to physically
source.

Video on demand is damn resource intensive. This isn't about delivering bytes
which UTF-16 decoded speak about about a government. This isn't about
delivering bytes which primarily educate. this is about Netflix n' Chill. It's
about watching Modern Family on the commute home, and consumers loving it.

A lot of the cost for this love, especially in mobile, is paid for by the
ISPs. They have to physically deliver this traffic to your device via nodes
for $19.99 a month. And damn them if a loading spinner appears. "My Internets
rubbish...I'm gonna switch to Acme Internet...they have free Netflix
streaming."

So let's not lose focus: all software we write is for the end consumer...we
need to create great, appreciated experiences for our users, otherwise they
just unsubscribe.

T-Mobile is doing just that. This isn't a philisophical debate. It's about
providing end users what they want. And they want Netflix on their mobile
without costing them more. And lambasting T-Mobile for doing such is missing
the entire constitution of the Internet.

Let them eat cake!

~~~
gregwtmtno
No, it's about me being able to get the content of my choice at the same rate
as the big boys. If I want to watch a programming live stream (I'm not much
for modern family.), I should be able to do it at the same cost as any other
bits over the air. Here, producers that that pay T-mobile will have an
advantage. In ten years, we'll be boxed back into the same tired old content
like we are with cable television. No thanks.

~~~
bmelton
And if you opt out of BingeOn, you have exactly that.

~~~
gregwtmtno
Except they'll make it cost prohibitive to stream anything but those that pay
the fee to T-Moble by artificially increasing the price for data.

~~~
bmelton
That seems to me like _that_ would be the time to be outraged.

As near as I can tell, this seems like the #3 or 4 mobile carrier looking for
a reason to make themselves appear better to a market segment than the #1 or
#2 carriers. Jacking up prices seems antithetical to that mission.

I understand what people want out of net neutrality and all that, but I
personally think that the outrage should be saved for things that are
outrageous. Giving things away for free, even if there are ulterior motives
attached, doesn't seem to rise to that level, in my opinion.

