T-Mobile's Binge On Violates Net Neutrality, Says Stanford Report (tmonews.com) 218
An anonymous reader writes: The debate over whether or not Binge On violates Net Neutrality has been raging ever since the service was announced in November. The latest party to weigh in is Barbara van Schewick, law professor at Stanford University.
In a new report published today — and filed to the FCC, as well — van Schewick says that Binge on "violates key net neutrality principles" and "is likely to violate the FCC's general conduct rule." She goes on to make several arguments against Binge On, saying that services in Binge On distorts competition because they're zero-rated and because video creators are more likely to use those providers for their content, as the zero-rated content is more attractive to consumers.
In a new report published today — and filed to the FCC, as well — van Schewick says that Binge on "violates key net neutrality principles" and "is likely to violate the FCC's general conduct rule." She goes on to make several arguments against Binge On, saying that services in Binge On distorts competition because they're zero-rated and because video creators are more likely to use those providers for their content, as the zero-rated content is more attractive to consumers.
Wha? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wha? (Score:4, Insightful)
Some streaming content. Not all (though it will throttle all. Yeah, slowed down and still counts against data). not really "neutral".
Re:Wha? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Wha? (Score:4, Insightful)
Better? No.
Neutral? Yes.
That's the point of net neutrality, show no favoritism. For good or ill.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't show favoritism though, as any provider can freely join the program.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It would be fine if they didn't slow down (throttle) the streams on non-participating content providers.
Re: (Score:3)
It would be better if they lowered the cost per gigabyte of metered data to something reasonable, so you can use your phone for something other than watching Netflix and checking your email.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"Can't handle the mail"? What does that even mean?
That means that the mail app I use (also K9) chokes when trying to access my mail email server. "Can't handle" seems like a good, non-technical description. It was intended to convey the idea that not only do I not use my phone for "checking mail", I cannot.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, you're wrong. It isn't a universal good. It is a way for T-mo to blackmail providers into "opting in" because they eff-up the packets from providers who don't.
This isn't theoretical.
Oh, and they require that you don't use HTTPS, which means that they're saying FU to your privacy, etc.
So, no, you're really wrong.
Re:Wha? (Score:4, Insightful)
It would be better if they were tampering with the video streaming market by favoring one group over another. That's the point of net neutrality, we don't want the phone and cable companies deciding the winners and losers in the video streaming market.
I doesn't matter if this is good for some consumers, it's bad for the market. Your support only means you are willing to sell out future use of the network for an immediate short term benefit.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
"This effort by T-Mobile is not a way for choosing winners and losers"
It explcitly is chosing, because *only some providers* get to be zero rated and it is T-mobile that decides.
Re: (Score:2)
Any provider is free to join the program, T-Mobile doesn't decide.
Re: (Score:2)
Technically correct (admittedly the best kind) but the spirit of net neutrality isn't violated in the way T-Mobile does this. T-Mobile lets any streaming service opt for this and gauges which services to add based on demand of its consumer base. So it would seem that whether or not Binge On violates net neutrality would depend on how well they honor this principle. I could see the argument that this *allows* T-Mobile to pick winners and losers but so long as they're transparent about how they pick services,
Re: (Score:2)
T-Mobile lets any streaming service opt for this and gauges which services to add based on demand of its consumer base.
Technically incorrect (admittedly the worst kind). T-Mobile lets any streaming service opt in for this and gauges which services to reach out to based on demand of its customer base.
You don't have to wait for T-Mobile to come to you, it's a form and a few phone calls and yes, you can register even your personal video collection as a streaming service (and your music collection for their zero-rated music streaming offering, as well).
Re: (Score:2)
What does zero rated mean.
Re:Wha? (Score:5, Interesting)
The customers don't benefit when the entire industry is harmed. Imagine Comcast and Time Warner metering Netflix to 1 GB/month while letting you use their own video services without metering. Netflix would basically cease to exist, and take their programming along with them.
This is why net neutrality as a concept exists - so that the delivery companies don't get to decide which content providers are allowed to exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, they give themselves an unfair advantage against their competitors, yes ... so if they're going to meter someone else's traffic, they need to meter their own ... or it becomes "nice connection, shame if something happened to it".
If you want net neutrality, not being able to tilt the playing field in your favor is part of that. If you don't want net neutrality, they can just decide to block your Netflix access.
It really is two sides of the same coin, because it prevents them making their service cheap
Re: (Score:2)
It would be more neutral. You can be against net neutrality if you want to. Just admit it.
Re: (Score:2)
I do think they failed to do enough to inform the users of their new service. I only learned of this when I logged into t-Mobile to pay my bill, and a note on the new opt-out data-saving feature popped up.
The free from some
Re: (Score:2)
I had not heard that the user had the ability to de-throttle non-binge sources. Thanks!
Re: (Score:2)
Some streaming content. Not all (though it will throttle all. Yeah, slowed down and still counts against data). not really "neutral".
They should offer Binge On content at lower resolution as they do now, all the rest without the resolution changed but metered with the option to run Binge On content on the same terms. Then there should be no issue about net neutrality.
Re: (Score:2)
Only some providers are not throttled, so it changes the relative value of different providers to the customer outside of any inherent property of the provider.
Re: (Score:2)
I have made this case from the beginning. It would seem that going above and beyond what the customer pays for is just as taboo as not delivering what was paid for. They don't want any more or less.
Re: (Score:2)
" It would seem that going above and beyond what the customer pays for is just as taboo as not delivering what was paid for."
Those are not actually different situations. The claimed baseline can be moved around arbitrarily, but the relative performance is identical and the price charged is unaffected..
Re: (Score:2)
But they can be completely different situations which is the point. Even the argument that if a customer subscribes to a 3 meg budget connection and Netflix gets delivered at 6 meg while nothing else is slowed below 3m, it would be evil. If i wanted to set up a cable like access company and only allow 1 meg http but all streaming video is as fast as it can be served, it is evil because you couldn't torrent at unlimited speeds even though the service is clearly marketed as something other than internet servi
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I'm convinced people have forgotten what it was like in the pre-iPhone days, when cell phone companies set themselves up as gatekeepers. You'd have a phone with a camera, but often you couldn't get the pictures off it without purchasing a monthly "picture mail" service. You could look up news and information, but only on the phone company's crappy and expensive WAP information service.
This represents the state to which the phone companies would like to return: where they can monetize the things you
Re: (Score:2)
This is a slippery slope argument. When and if a carrier offers a Binge On-like program but exclusively applying to their preferred partners than it will be a terrible violation of net neutrality and an unacceptable situation. As long as Bing On is freely offered to any video provider who would like to take advantage of it than we have nothing like the situation you are concerned about.
Re: (Score:2)
It's only a slippery slope if you don't show a reason for the particular consequences you anticipate. Otherwise you can't argue about consequences at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, it's a slippery slope because you are claiming your worst case situation is an inevitable result. If it's not inevitable, and in fact T-Mobile is happy with the plan as it is than it's nonsense to criticise the plan on the grounds of what you fear it could become.
Re: (Score:2)
it's nonsense to criticise the plan on the grounds of what you fear it could become.
Not if my fear is well-founded. I speak as someone who's worked for many years with telecom companies as a developer/business partner, and I can tell you they hate being in the commodity bandwidth business and they're always looking for a way to differentiate themselves from their competitors. The Binge On program is such an attempt, but it's not a sustainable differentiation because anyone can copy it. So what's the next logical step?
Is it inevitable that phone companies who do this will attempt to nego
Re: (Score:2)
The "Binge On" program is considered by many people to be a overall good one for everyone involved, unlike the future you describe. Obviously you think your fears are well-founded but that is still very much a matter of your opinion. Feel free to say "I told you so" when and if your fears come true.
Re: (Score:2)
Never said it wasn't my opinion, but practically any assertion about the future has to be regarded as an opinion. But I think it's a reasonable opinion, because it's based on only three assumptions (1) if the binge on program is successful, then other companies will offer same deal; (2) that those companies will subsequently try to differentiate their offerings in a way their competitors can't copy; (3) Once they have successfully differentiated their offerings they will structure those offerings in the
Re: (Score:2)
This is amusing.
Carrier: We're going to raise the rates for everyone (someone has to pay for the bandwidth, and this always ends up coming from the consumer), but then we're going to give you insecure, lower-quality video for "free". .... and, apparently, people cheer.
They shouldn't be happy with this. They're paying more for worse service, and letting the carrier dictate the terms of their user experience instead of the market.
Re: Wha? (Score:2)
Who was net neutrality supposed to benefit again?
The government - the FCC gets to regulate the Internet. Users are screwed, just as we knew would happen from when this was first proposed.
Re: (Score:2)
That's because T-Mobile doesn't have the market clout to extort those companies.
Re: (Score:2)
Correct. They throttle video streams even for those services that have not opted in.
Oh, and for a service to opt in, you need to disable serving over HTTPS, and you have to allow T-mo to modify the video, etc.
So, it is entirely not neutral.
Zero rate content inevitably comes back to cost consumers more. Work out the game theory: Someone always pays for this, and since the consumers are the money source in this every time, they inevitably pay one way or another. Zero-rating simply provides an easy way to dist
Re: (Score:2)
It has been repeatedly proven that BingeOn throttles all video streams all the time. It just doesn't charge you for the one on their white-list.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is incorrect.
They throttle any video site down, even if you're paying for the bandwidth unless you, the consumer, opt out of bing-on completely, which requires jumping through hoops.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Incorrect.
You must also disable any HTTPS, and allow t-mobile to modify your content.
Who knows what else they are able to do with the content now that they can snoop on it and modify it.
Yeay!?
Just in case the summary wasn't clear (Score:2)
From TFA:
van Schewick second argument is that Binge On limits user choice because it allows customers to watch an unlimited amount of some services but a limited amount of others. She uses Amazon Prime as an example of a provider that would be limited with Binge On, but that service was added to the free streaming portion of Binge On yesterday.
[emphasis added]
That is utterly stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
The user always had a limited about of data they could use - all binge on does is EXPAND USER CHOICE by letting some things not count against the data cap.
If you eliminate Binge On and all you have left is the same exact status for watching Amazon Prime that you had with the Binge On service, then Binge On did NOT IMPACT user choice.
In fact Binge On ALSO expands user choice from the sense that now you are not consuming data through Netflix any longer so you have more to use with Binge On....
I absolutely des
Re:That is utterly stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not about users, it's about the massive transfer of control to the carriers with net neutrality violating programs like this. All content providers now have to conform to Tmobile's throttling rules in order to qualify for special status, and these rules are subject to change at Tmobile's whim.
In addition, video services NOT INCLUDED IN BINGE-ON are also being throttled while other types of traffic are not throttled. This is a textbook violation of net neutrality.
It's about control. Users and content creators should have control of the internet, and carriers should be blind carriers of data. That's the entire point of net neutrality.
That is still stupid (Score:2)
In addition, video services NOT INCLUDED IN BINGE-ON are also being throttled
This is at the users request (the user enables binge on and the throttling setting).
Are you really saying that I as a network user have no right to request a service throttle data for me to a lower amount? Really?
So network neutrality then was never about helping users, but placating control nazis like yourself because someone somewhere might be getting a deal you are not getting. Everyone else must suffer because you cannot be o
Re: (Score:3)
In addition, video services NOT INCLUDED IN BINGE-ON are also being throttled
This is at the users request (the user enables binge on and the throttling setting).
To quote an EFF article [eff.org]:
T-Mobile's Binge On service could have been great. Giving customers a choice about how to use their data so that they can stream more video without hitting their data cap is a wonderful idea. Unfortunately, T-Mobile botched the roll out. Without asking, they made it the default for all of their customers.
I also found a The Verge article [theverge.com] that confirms that throttling goes away once Binge On is disabled:
T-Mobile was throttling all video traffic over its network, including video downloads, for all customers who had not disabled the Binge On feature that the company automatically enabled for everyone in November.
All in all, I think this is a mountain out of a molehill. The biggest problem was how T-Mobile rolled it out. If they would have made it opt-in at roll out instead of opt-out, the issue would be much more clear, and I don't think it would have become a net neutrality matter.
I'm not sure if it's a bugbear that non-Binge On videos get throttled when Binge On is active. I could go eithe
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, what I really want to know is why T-Mobile doesn't just apologize and disable it for everybody. Problem solved imho.
They already pissed off the people who don't want Bing On enabled, now you want them to piss off the people who do want it, too?
Honestly though, I feel the people who did get pissed off about this really need to get a life. Yes, T-Mobile should have made this opt-in, but what's done is done and anyone who is aware of the program and doesn't like it for whatever reason can disable it in less time than it takes to post an angry comment online.
Re: (Score:2)
disable it in less time than it takes to post an angry comment online
Yes, very quickly, in fact. Dial #264# (#BNG#) to check your Binge-On status, #263# (#BOF#) to turn it off, and #266# (#BON#) to turn it on. Yes, really, it's that simple.
Re: (Score:2)
The biggest problem was how T-Mobile rolled it out.
I've been with T-Mobile since they rolled out their Simple Choice plans and I've been a bleeding-edge adopter of every add-on and benefit service they've offered since (with the exception of JUMP! since I had just upgraded my phone and wasn't eligible until I was due for another upgrade; I'm using that too, now, as it costs less than the insurance I previously had and includes a few subscriptions I was previously paying for) and I have to say how T-Mobile rolls things out is always their biggest problem. Wi
Re: (Score:2)
someone somewhere might be getting a deal you are not getting.
That's exactly why there is net neutrality.
Everyone else must suffer because you cannot be on top
Hmm... I don't get this... If you can be on top, why would everyone be happy when everyone can't be on top like you are???
Re: (Score:2)
"This is at the users request (the user enables binge on and the throttling setting)."
T-mobile's intention is that only video providers on a list that they decide would be included. The fact that provider not on that list are not being throttles is actually a bug from their perspective.
Not only are they violating net neutrality, they can't even correctly violate net neutrality.
Re: (Score:2)
They *are* throttling providers not on the list, though!
You get to pay for the bytes *and* have them throttled.
Re: (Score:2)
"Are you really saying that I as a network user have no right to request a service throttle data for me to a lower amount?"
Irrelevant to the discussion, because that is not one of the available options.
The choices are a) throttle all video providers, or b) remove throttling for video providers on a list that T-mobile decides.
Re: (Score:2)
The reality is that video data is not the same as other data. Throttling all data increases load times for web pages and slows down apps and downloads. Throttling video streams reduces the bitrate of the stream that is sent (assuming a typical modern streaming service) so that I get a lower resolution video but probably doesn't result in any noticeable change to the user who is watching on a 5" screen. So it's perfectly reasonable for a user to wish to have only their video data throttled.
Re: (Score:2)
In which case they should opt-in. But paying for the bandwidth and not getting it is clearly not what I paid for.
Re: (Score:2)
Users and content creators should have control of the internet, and carriers should be blind carriers of data. That's the entire point of net neutrality.
That's fine, but the result is metering and higher costs.
Re: (Score:3)
Binge on allows T-Mobile to have a say in who wins the video streaming market. In time that ability to influence will be worth money and they will start charging for it.
The reality is the Binge on is T-Mobile using it's status as network provider to decide who will win the most video streaming business. That's bad for everyone, even if helps some of their customers.
Re: (Score:3)
Binge on allows T-Mobile to have a say in who wins the video streaming market
How so? There are simple rules for inclusion in the program which are applied equally to all and not inherently unfair as far as I can tell.
Please let me know when there are any services that have been excluded after requesting access and I'll listen. Until that happens, the perception of possible abuse is insufficient to prove this is anything other than an effort by T-Mobile to better serve their customers.
Re: (Score:2)
"There are simple rules for inclusion in the program"
T-mobile decides on the criteria, therefore they implicitly get to decide who gets included by changing the rules.
Re: (Score:2)
"Until that happens, the perception of possible abuse is insufficient to prove this is anything other than an effort by T-Mobile to better serve their customers."
Re: (Score:2)
The user always had a limited about of data they could use - all binge on does is EXPAND USER CHOICE by letting some things not count against the data cap.
So if Comcast let's their own video feeds through for free but never Netflix, that's clearly not a conflict of interest, right?
Re: (Score:3)
Except that's not the same situation at all. This is more like if Comcast let their own video feeds though for free, as well as Netflix's and any other services who chose to participate.
Re: (Score:2)
There isn't anything compelling T-Mobile to accept an application. Comcast, in that same scenario, would be free to reject their competition for any frivilous reason. There's no reason to even have an application process if everybody is accepted.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
" EXPAND USER CHOICE"
It's not expanding user choice if it is T-mobile that get to decide who are the favored video providers that get to avoid the throttling.
Re: (Score:2)
I should point out that all market failures arise from user choice. It's the choice of everyone to use IE that killed Netscape. Now, that choice was made cause MS made it very, very easy to use IE if you had a Windows computer. And then all the web site developers made a choice to anticipate IE's non-standards parsing because 99% of browsers were IE. And then other people made a choice to drop Netscape, cause sites didn't look good.
Then a bunch of corporations made a choice to use ActiveX components bec
Re: (Score:2)
Oh boy.
Lets pare this down to the mechanics of what is happening:
Users pay money to carrier, which builds infrastructure which supports X bandwidth.
Instead of giving everyone (n people) X/n bandwidth, they say that they'll offer some fixed bandwidth.. unless you're watching video.
If you're watching video, they'll screw with the packets (even if you're paying for them) unless you've opted out entirely of the binge-on program.
A provider must provide 720p video (even if they could have provided 1080p or better
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously not because it literally blocks access.
By omitting a service as counting against data you have expanded available data for every other service on the internet. If you are not in any way blocking access then it's not violating anything (the user can always disable Binge On so there is never a blockage or even throttling of any other service that the user did not request)
That is the very definition of a win-win and anyone who complains about that should probably not be allowed to breed (now THAT is
Re: (Score:2)
How about stop with the FUD and get back to us when that situation happens, ok? As the plan is now all video services can freely join and no one is getting any kickbacks and T-Mobile is not decreasing data plans either.
I said same in apr-2015 (Score:2)
See http://slashdot.org/users2.pl?... [slashdot.org] (Search TMobile).
Re: (Score:2)
You know you can link to individual comments? [slashdot.org]
You're not a new fish.
Then AT&T Uverse is also illegal (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Uverse Internet/Video is on same pileline. But U-verse video doesn't count against data cap while all other streaming services do.
What data cap are you talking about here? I have Uverse TV and Internet, and there isn't any data cap on Internet usage (or if there is, it's so large that watching several hours of Netflix HD every evening doesn't hit it). But if I use my Verizon mobile account to watch content recorded on my Uverse DVR when I'm out of WiFi coverage, then yes it would count against my Verizon data cap. Personally, I prefer to watch television content on my television and not on my phone, so the Verizon cap is not an issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Not a problem, nothing to see here (Score:2)
Any company in the world is allowed to offer free services to people. That is not a problem.
The problem was when you charged customers for X, but then refused to give them X because company Y refused to pay you.
By making Binge On free, they have neatly avoided Net Neutrality problems.
No one has the right to charge me for X and then refuse to give me X because company Y doesn't pay you. But
Re: (Score:2)
Binge on allows T-Mobile a say in who wins the video streaming business by deciding who's free and who's not. That's bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That by itself is NOT bad.
It is simply a business.
If T Mobile was someone to prevent a competitor from offering a similar free internet service, that would be bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Extorting the video providers to get on the special list is not what anyone would call "free".
Re: (Score:2)
Extortion requires a threat. Offering a service is not a threat. It becomes a threat when you REMOVE or take away something. Binge On is not removing or taking away anything.
Re: (Score:2)
"Binge On is not removing or taking away anything."
It is throttling some video providers and not others, and T-mobile gets to decide who gets a good connection and who gets a bad one. That is very much taking away something.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By making Binge On free, they have neatly avoided Net Neutrality problems.
Bzzzt. Wrong. Even free, the classification of certain data as unmetered, in my opinion, violates net neutrality. To play fair, they'd have to make all data unmetered, or metered. The whole point of net neutrality is you cannot give any favoritism to anything, all data needs to be treated the same, regardless of what that data is.
I know what T-Mobile is doing is supposed to be a benefit but it's still going against what net neutrality means.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even when it's the user who decides whether lower bitrate streams are selected, as is the case here? I wouldn't think that would be a violation.
That's a can of worms... (Score:2, Interesting)
Online users choose content providers with web sites over content providers without web sites. Ergo, the WWW distorts competition and should be shut down.
Re: (Score:2)
They need different standards for cellular, IMO. (Score:2)
Net Neutrality is a complicated, sticky bunch of legislation that has some benefits, but also a lot of rough edges, IMO.
This "Binge On" fiasco with T-Mobile is a great example. Here you have a service which is beneficial to the consumer, really. (I have T-Mobile and it's a win for me. I'm not a huge user of video on mobile devices in the first place, but I may as well get the bonus of un-metered viewing of content from any providers on-board with their program, just like they did with unlimited music stre
I agree it's a benefit to me (Score:2)
What I'd really like to see is a 32 hour work week and mandatory voting in the States. Force people to take part in democracy and give them the time and resources to do so. If I felt the public at large had the wherewithal to keep constant vigil over all the s
Am I the only one confused by Binge On? (Score:2)
I find the whole concept of Binge On very confusing, and it makes me feel like there's something fundamental I don't understand.
With typical wired service through your cable company, the most limited resource is on the other side of your ISP, and that's why the ISPs want to get websites like youtube and netflix to cache content locally to reduce that expense. With wireless service, of course that same resource limitation and expense still exists, but by far the much bigger resource limitation is between you
Re: (Score:2)
Favoring your own website is not a violation of net neutrality law. If TMobile provides its own radio and does not count toward data plan, it is perfectly fine. Net neutrality will never ban this kind of practice unless the provider is a monopoly.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, no. T-Mobile customers signing a contract won't make Binge-On consistent with Net Neutrality.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter as long as they can. Again, if the process is purely technical (meaning then it is net-neutral) then no application is necessary.
Re: (Score:2)
The Register's article seems logical if you assume network neutrality meant something else. One of the biggest problems NN had is that some very powerful corporations tried to redefine NN to mean "no throttling" or some other such thing.
The quote that best sums it up the confusion is this:
The usual reasons for detecting witchcraft neutrality violations are absent. It isn’t compulsory. It isn’t a rent-seeking scheme. It isn’t constraining choice. It isn’t disadvantaging anyone;
Those things they listed aren't what a network neutrality violation is. (I have no idea what a "rent-seeking" scheme is. Can someone explain what they meant?)
Network neutrality is the principle that all information on t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Please stop crapping your pants about this.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As for your comments, if you are too stupid to read the communication the carrier sent to you notifying you of it, that's your problem.
And I'm sure if you were having an unwarranted crap-fit about your resolution because you ignored the communication, and called their support number, they would have immediately told you what was going on and given you the same information that was in the c
Re:Tough Shit (Score:4, Insightful)