Net Neutrality Advocates To FCC: Put the Kibosh On Internet Freebies (cnet.com) 173
An anonymous reader cites a CNET report:Net neutrality advocates demand action. Representatives from Fight the Future, the Center for Media Justice and Free Press on Friday hand-delivered a 6-foot tall package containing 100,000 letters of complaint to the Federal Communications Commission. They ask the agency to take action against AT&T, Comcast, T-Mobile and Verizon for violating the agency's Open Internet order by offering so-called zero-rating service plans. While the practice offers some benefits to customers, critics say it violates the agency's Net neutrality principles, which requires all services on the internet be treated the same. They claim it puts smaller competitors at a disadvantage and highlights the fact that data caps are unnecessary. Carriers say they are simply experimenting with new business models that will make their service more affordable for consumers.
"Freebies" are neither free nor zero cost (Score:4, Insightful)
They're paid for by increasing the price on everything else, and they reduce your freedom by increasing the cost of making alternative choices.
Re:"Freebies" are neither free nor zero cost (Score:4, Interesting)
They're paid for by increasing the price on everything else, and they reduce your freedom by increasing the cost of making alternative choices.
In the case of T-Mobile developers are opting in to having their data stream recompressed by T-mobile. It's not increasing the cost of anything else. T-Mobile saves money on this because they're not blasting out a 10Mbps stream to a 4 inch cellphone that can't possibly display that resolution. Sure if you're plugging your cell phone into your TV to stream video at home, it may affect you. However, they are not charging anyone for this, the service is open to everyone, and is completely voluntary. The data stream does not get routed any differently from a QoS standpoint but it makes a huge difference to the Network's ability to relieve congestion. If anything, the app developers should allow T-mobile users to opt in/out of using that endpoint on T-mobile but I see no reason for T-mobile to be forbidden to provide the service as it is.
T-Mobile's Binge On (Score:4, Interesting)
Binge On is an interesting pseudo-exception.
First of all, what I wrote still applies: it may not be increasing cost, but it's reducing the quality for the same cost, which is more-or-less equivalent. That's not to say it's a bad thing -- I, for one, love paying minimal costs as long as the quality is barely sufficient! I value-engineer my entire lifestyle, and plan to be able to retire 20 years early because of it. But I digress...
The problem -- and the reason I have Binge On disabled on my account as a matter of principle, even though I would be perfectly happy with compressed video -- is that it's implemented on a site-by-site basis. If I could ask T-Mobile to compress and zero-rate all video streaming, both from big providers like Youtube and Netflix and from any random small server (or when streaming video from the phone to elsewhere, for that matter), then I would have no objection to it whatsoever. On the contrary, it would be great! It would also then be categorized as "perfectly-acceptable QoS" rather than "a violation of net neutrality."
Lower cost, not the same cost (Score:2)
> it may not be increasing cost, but it's reducing the quality for the same cost, which is more-or-less equivalent.
It's NOT the same cost. On a phone (these are phone companies), it's providing approximately the same quality at much lower cost.
> If I could ask T-Mobile to compress and zero-rate all video streaming, both from big providers like Youtube and Netflix and from any random small server (or when streaming video from the phone to elsewhere, for that matter), then I would have no objection to
Re:Lower cost, not the same cost (Score:4, Informative)
Have you investigated the process of getting content enabled for Binge On? I actually have. It has nothing to do with protocols, bit rates, standards etc. (i.e., something that any random admin could enable by tweaking some server settings) and everything to do with having your corporation sign a contractual agreement with T-Mobile.
If the process for enabling it were only technical and accessible to any server operator instead of instead of bureaucratic, I would have no problem with it.
Re: (Score:2)
That contract and agreement allows T-Mobile to pick the winners and losers in Video. Do you really want T-Mobile being the arbiter of which video services survive?
Because I sure as hell don't, just like I don't want Verizon, ATT or Sprint doing it either. This is what net-neutrality is about. If you allow these companies to make these contracts it won't be very long before they are the ones deciding which companies succeed and which fail and shortly after that they will put a toll on that selection. This is
Re: (Score:2)
Did you reply to the wrong post? I ask because your complaint is the same one I've been making, but you phrased it as if you thought you were disagreeing with me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're missing the point, which is that it's unreasonable for an "application" to be necessary in the first place. There needs to be a way to set it up without the need for human manual intervention between the content provider and T-Mobile, because manual intervention cannot possibly scale to every content provider on the Internet (or every ISP on the planet, after they all follow T-Mobile's lead). Having Youtub
Re: (Score:2)
You're missing the point, which is that it's unreasonable for an "application" to be necessary in the first place.
When not every service can stream at 1.5Mbps or less and one of the ways Binge-On works is to re-compress the video stream in those instances, they absolutely do need explicit permission to modify the copyrighted content traversing their network. That is just one purpose served by the application process. This is something T-Mobile can, for legal reasons, not automatically do.
Further, if served over HTTPS, which they can't read, or a stateless protocol like UDP, they can't detect the video stream in the
Re: (Score:2)
The problem -- and the reason I have Binge On disabled on my account as a matter of principle, even though I would be perfectly happy with compressed video -- is that it's implemented on a site-by-site basis. If I could ask T-Mobile to compress and zero-rate all video streaming, both from big providers like Youtube and Netflix and from any random small server (or when streaming video from the phone to elsewhere, for that matter), then I would have no objection to it whatsoever. On the contrary, it would be great! It would also then be categorized as "perfectly-acceptable QoS" rather than "a violation of net neutrality."
You have to use T-Mobile's API so that they can ensure the stream parameters are appropriate. If you use HTTPS or an encrypted video/audio feed then T-Mobile could not do anything to reduce the demand on the network. That's the problem. If you're going to disable it on moral grounds then I would say that it should be disabled due to the fact that T-Mobile can basically see exactly what you're streaming using the Binge On. Realistically, though, they may have already known what you were streaming anyway
Re: (Score:2)
It appears from option 3 here [t-mobile.com] that the content provider still could provide a https or otherwise encrypted feed and still qualify for the zero rating. T-mobile has to be able to detect the video feed, so perhaps such content needs to be served from a particular host, ip, port, etc. But it doesn't appear that they have to have visibility into the actual content.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, fine: what API? I looked for the RFC [ietf.org], but can't find it.
Link to the publicly-accessible documentation for it, explaining how any random server operator can implement it without "partnering" with T-Mobile, and I will be perfectly satisfied.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If I could ask T-Mobile to compress and zero-rate all video streaming, both from big providers like Youtube and Netflix and from any random small server (or when streaming video from the phone to elsewhere, for that matter), then I would have no objection to it whatsoever.
And if T-Mobile wouldn't run afoul of copyright laws by automatically doing that without explicit permission from the providers, I'm sure they'd offer it. However, unless a provider opts in and, in doing so, agrees to allow T-Mobile to alter their content, T-Mobile legally can not do so, as that would be a violation of net neutrality and copyright.
What you're principled against, then, is the application of copyright to the field of network management, as it prevents such a consumer-friendly system from ev
Re: (Score:2)
Does the caching proxy discriminate between domains? Does the ISP require websites (note: not the ISP's "users"; I'm talking about the party at the other end of the connection) to "partner" with it to opt-in to being cached?
If the answers are "no," then there's no problem.
If the answers are "yes," but all you have to do to "opt in" is something like setting your HTTP cache-control header [w3.org] to "public" then that's fine too.
If the answers are "yes," and you have to manually call up the ISP and ask them to manua
Lower cost, because 75%-85% less bandwidth (Score:3)
Using the most well-known example, Binge On delivers 480p video using adaptive bit rate around 1 Mbps. Regular ( non-Binge) Youtube is about 4 Mbps normally, 8 Mbps at highest quality.
By using Binge On, you agree to lower quality video (which still looks fine on a 4" screen), and in exchange they exempt it from caps. They actual cost of transferring 1 Mbps is much lower than the cost of 4 Mbps or 8 Mbps. There's not an increased price to pay for, it's a cost-saving system.
Re: (Score:2)
Is Binge On really the most well-known example? When I think of Net Neutrality violations, I think of Comcast and its extortion of Netflix.
I will say though that Binge on is the least offensive [slashdot.org] example, which is why I object to you citing it here. T-Mobile is doing the wrong thing for the right reasons, but that is extremely atypical: every other ISP that's violating Net Neutrality that I know of is (e.g. Comcast, Verizon, etc.) doing so as a naked grab for mone
Re: (Score:2)
I will say though that Binge on is the least offensive example, which is why I object to you citing it here. T-Mobile is doing the wrong thing for the right reasons...every other ISP that's violating Net Neutrality that I know of is (e.g. Comcast, Verizon, etc.) doing so as a naked grab for money and control
Cherry picking certain services is a naked grab for money and control. They're offering specific services for free to differentiate themselves from other cellular carriers. The only reason it's seemingly tolerable with T-Mobile is they don't provide services that would be a conflict of interest. Wait till AT&T tries it.
It's wrong either way. Sorry. If they really were being altruistic they'd just offer a 1mb unlimited plan and just ask the service providers to fit within that pipe, none of this "Fil
Re: (Score:2)
They're offering specific services for free to differentiate themselves from other cellular carriers.
Oh My God, how DARE they offer specific services for free to differentiate themselves from other cellular carriers. I guess you're too wrapped up in your net neutrality hysteria to recognize that one cellular company offering different services than another has NOTHING to do with net neutrality.
If they really were being altruistic they'd just offer a 1mb unlimited plan and just ask the service providers to fit within that pipe,
You're trying to screw the people who want more than 1Mbps for some things but also want to watch video on their phones without it counting against their data plan. I know when I'm downloading a 50Mb PDF of some man
Re: (Score:2)
I guess you're too wrapped up in your net neutrality hysteria to recognize that one cellular company offering different services than another has NOTHING to do with net neutrality.
Close. I'm wrapped up in net neutrality... which is why I see why this service violates it. They. Control. Who. Gets. Zero. Rated. You can go through the entire range of human emotion about how you feel about the service, even sexual gratification, it doesn't change that underlying fact.
I know when I'm downloading a 50Mb PDF of some manual, I don't want to wait more than five minutes to get it, but I would be perfectly happy if the 5 minute video I'm watching takes 4:59 to transport across the net.
Gee., if only computers were advanced enough to provide a simple solution to that problem.
Since you've never done it, and you've never been told "we'll get back to you in 6-8 weeks", you're talking out your ass.
"This is inconvenient so I will make a fart noise and pretend that's a rebuttal." If it's only a matter of meeting technical requ
Re: (Score:2)
Close. I'm wrapped up in net neutrality...
And you're complaining that T-Mobile offers different services than other carriers as proof their violation.
They. Control. Who. Gets. Zero. Rated.
Meet. The. Technical. Standards. And. Register. That. Fact. With. Them. And. You. Can. Play., Too. That's the underlying fact.
Gee., if only computers were advanced enough to provide a simple solution to that problem.
Are you really so dense that you cannot see that forcing people who want to watch videos without overstepping their data limits into a 1Mbps plan (just so you can feel good about screwing them, I guess) means that anything not video related will take forever to download? No, t
Re: (Score:2)
You're setting up a long-term relationship and it's benefiting YOUR CUSTOMERS to do it. Why are you so outraged that you can do something simple to save YOUR CUSTOMERS money?
It's what I don't get... the customers benefit (the most important thing); no content providers get screwed (unlike comcast charging content providers); any content provider can sign up.... the customers benefit, the streaming companies benefit (happier customers and lower bandwidth for THEM, too), and T-Mobile benefits. I don't understand why people are complaining.... yes, they say it hurts streaming services that don't sign up, but is there a single case of T-Mobile rejecting a legitimate service?
Re: (Score:2)
They are under some impression that only selected few can actually stream on this low bandwidth so those who build a business model out of large bandwidth streaming will be prejudiced.
They think this is the same as Time Warner offering an internet phone service and purposely screwing with streams from competitors (except with video and no one being rejected or screwed as long as they follow the same rules and if they don't, they follow the normal rules).
So in short, it is a bad thing because it is not an "e
Re: (Score:2)
They are under some impression that only selected few can actually stream on this low bandwidth so those who build a business model out of large bandwidth streaming will be prejudiced.
And my answer to that argument, whenever I see it, is that 63% of US households are still on 1.5Mbps or slower wireline connections. Those companies have no right to complain about opportunity cost if they're already unable to serve over half of their potential market due to their inability to stream at Binge-On eligible bitrates of 1.5Mbps or lower. I usually post references as well, but, as I'm not arguing here, I'm not going to waste the time.
That usually sets them right the hell off, they throw a f
Re: (Score:2)
Cherry picking certain services is a naked grab for money and control.
And that's not what T-Mobile is doing. They don't pick, they process applications for participation. Thus far they've denied nobody who was technically capable of participating (e.g. they could identify the video content and it was available at an acceptable bitrate) and those who were denied on technical grounds were offered assistance from T-Mobile, at no charge, to help fix the technical issues.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference between the Comcast/Netflix issue and Binge On is that they are pretty much completely opposite. Comcast's customers are already paying for the bandwidth they use to watch Netflix - not only would Comcast be double dipping on that data, but because they offer a competing service it amounts to an anti-competitive practice. T-Mobile is not only not charging the content providers a damn thing, they're also benefiting their customers - so it's not anti-competitive nor anti-consumer, especially
Re: (Score:3)
Hi, Comcast Shill! How's life at the call center these days? Still shitty?
FYI, Netflix called it exactly that [variety.com]:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Binge On is 1.5Mbps. You can cram 720p in that at high quality.
Re: "Freebies" are neither free nor zero cost (Score:2)
That would be a nice argument if it weren't for the pesky fact that T- mobile has the cheapest data rates and free international roaming.
Re: (Score:2)
In some cases, they avoid a $1,000 cost by accepting a $10 cost.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really think your digestive system should give up the majority of the calcium it collects to the skeletal system?
Here we go! (Score:5, Interesting)
Now the "net neutrality" supporters are going to screw everyone with their demands that anything that isn't crappy, lowest-common-denominator service is a rule violation.
Re: (Score:2)
You would need the ability to actually compete for that to happen. As it is now with cell phones, only a handful of companies have the rights to regulated frequencies and use their previous infrastructure to cut capital costs on roll-out and expansion. Everyone else has to lease from them.
The reality is, the lowest cost anyone can go is the lowest one of the more expensive players will allow across their network when a third party company leases access from them. And that is actually limited because they pe
Binge on (Score:4, Interesting)
T-Mobile's Binge on does offer free streaming (both radio and tv) for qualified rate plans. But I was under the impression that any provider could opt in or out of the program once they met the technical criteria [t-mobile.com] for the reduced bitrate streams. It saves the provider bandwidth to get the stream to T-mobile, and it saves t-mobile bandwidth to get it to the customer. There's no denying any service access to T-Mobile's customers, requiring bribe money to T-Mobile in order to be included in the service, nor prioritizing any service over another as far as I can tell (but could be wrong).
Is this any different really than Netflix's Open Connect for instance? It seems to be an advantage for everyone without being a detriment to anyone. [netflix.com]
Re: (Score:3)
T-Mobile's Binge on does offer free streaming (both radio and tv) for qualified rate plans.
No, it offers streaming that does not count against your 4G data limits. You pay for the streaming, just not on a per-byte basis.
But I was under the impression that any provider could opt in or out of the program once they met the technical criteria for the reduced bitrate streams.
That's right.
It saves the provider bandwidth to get the stream to T-mobile, and it saves t-mobile bandwidth to get it to the customer.
Yes, and that's why it's a good deal for everyone involved. EVERYONE. And that's also why it doesn't prove that bandwidth caps are unnecessary, because this is, in effect, a bandwidth cap too. If you voluntarily limit your bandwidth so that other people can share the same resources, then your bandwidth doesn't get counted.
Let me say that again: Binge On is a bandwi
Re: (Score:2)
That's what I meant. It's semantics. Since I qualified it with with "for qualified rate plans" obviously it's not free as in no cost. It's free as in no additional cost for it not to count against your caps.
Re:Binge on (Score:5, Insightful)
The issue is they get to pick and choose which services they allow a zero rating on. If that doesn't worry you a lot, then consider that the other major players offer television and phone service as well. It is so easy to imagine Comcast saying "oh, gee, Netflix isn't meeting our criteria. Sorry. But, hey, our streaming service is better anyway..."
Re: Binge on (Score:2)
T-mobile is very open about their criteria and there hasn't been a single report of a video or audio service that wanted to be a part of Binge On and couldn't. They don't advertise it, but I believe there is a porn site that is part of Binge On - so there isn't discrimination bAded on content type either.
Re: (Score:2)
If you go to the Binge On [t-mobile.com] page and click on the link "See list of all streaming services", scroll to the bottom of the pop up box and say you're over 18, they say that MiKandi and
Streamate. So they aren't advertising it, but they do mention it.
Re: (Score:2)
T-mobile is very open about their criteria and there hasn't been a single report of a video or audio service that wanted to be a part of Binge On and couldn't.
It doesn't matter. You still have to apply and they have to accept.
Re: Binge on (Score:2)
So you would rather T-mobile not offer their customers unlimited video and audio streaming to its customers just because a company has to meet certain technical requirements and apply and accept?
Who benefits if T-mobile discontinues Binge-On?
Re: (Score:2)
As a T-Mobile customer, YES!
"Meet[ing] certain technical requirements" is perfectly fine, but having to be a company or apply for permission are entirely unacceptable!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd rather T-Mobile just say "here's a 1 megabit unlimited plan, enjoy!"
Who benefits if T-mobile discontinues Binge-On?
The rest of the internet that's not on that list.
Re: Binge on (Score:2)
You can already get an unlimited high speed internet plan from T-mobile.
And how does the rest of the Internet benefit from taking away the option from T-mobile customers to not have to pay for unlimited data and still get unlimited video?
Re: (Score:2)
How long do you think it'll take for T-Mobile to approve a thousand sites?
Re: Binge on (Score:2)
Are there 1000 sites on the Internet that deliver legal streaming video to a wide audience? We can speak hypothetically all day but can you post one video hosting site that has applied to be on Binge-On that was not allowed to be on it?
How many sites that host live streaming video that are not on Binge On could even handle 100-500 video streams at once?
Re: (Score:2)
Do a porn search some time, you'll find a thousand. Oh and as for the list of denied sites, there's no transparency there, we'll never know until it makes headlines on Slashdot. One beautiful perk of requiring an application is the endless supply of excuses for why they don't have it today.
Re: Binge on (Score:2)
You'll never know? The internet goes into an outrage every time there is a rejection from the Apple App Store. I'm sure someone would have reported it.
Re: (Score:2)
If I were T-Mobile I would accept every application I got while all the eyes are on me. I would even accept unlikely to be popular sites like PornHub to prove how nice I am.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh and as for the list of denied sites, there's no transparency there, we'll never know until it makes headlines on Slashdot.
Maybe you'll never know unless it makes headlines on Slashdot, but most of us refer to other sources and/or actually work in the industry. With all the controversy surrounding Binge-On, do you really not think the first provider to be denied for a non-technical reason, or to not receive T-Mobile's promised assistance in resolving such technical issues, won't run to the news outlets with their story? Really?
Being the first Binge-On decline would be a massive PR opportunity for a streaming provider and it w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I want my home server to be part of Binge On, but I doubt T-Mobile's business partnerships department has the time to talk to me (or the millions upon millions of other non-commercial operators).
Re: (Score:2)
but I doubt T-Mobile's business partnerships department has the time to talk to me (or the millions upon millions of other non-commercial operators).
That you think there are millions upon millions of content providers who would want to qualify for Binge On shows how far out in left field you really are. And the fact that you are basing your rant against T-Mobile on "I doubt that" instead of "they won't let me" shows a lot, too.
If you go look at the requirements [t-mobile.com], you'll see:
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't you try to register it and find out. Report back your findings and if your home server actually meets the same qualifications as the others or not (if you are talking streaming verses hosting apps and documents)
I use to doubt I could find a job after punching out a supervisor and getting fired but eventually I ran out of savings and I had to look for one. To my surprise, I was wrong and it didn't take long to get hired. That was 35 years ago but I cannot fathom any acceptable reason why it would b
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The issue is they get to pick and choose which services they allow a zero rating on. If that doesn't worry you a lot,
No, they don't pick and choose, so no, that doesn't worry me a lot. In fact, even if they DID pick and choose it wouldn't worry me at all. If someone will voluntarily slow their traffic down so that everyone else can get a bigger piece of the limited pie, then I'm fine with that, and if their data doesn't get counted because of that, I don't really care.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they don't pick and choose...
Then why even have an application process?
Re: (Score:2)
Then why even have an application process?
You've got to be kidding, or a troll. So they can know which sources are participating and which aren't, of course. They can't just throttle all video and audio streams that pass through their systems, because maybe their customer isn't streaming them, maybe they're downloading them and want to pay for that service and use their data that way.
The fact remains. Meet the criteria, you're good. Don't care to meet them, go on about your life as if nothing was different and let other people benefit from somethi
Re: (Score:2)
You've got to be kidding, or a troll.
Settle down. This isn't a credibility debate.
The fact remains. Meet the criteria, you're good.
Then why not automate the process? Or, better yet, just offer a one megabit pipe and just publish the specs so those sites can provide good service to their customers?
Re: (Score:2)
Settle down.
Troll talk.
Then why not automate the process?
Because they don't want to. Because they can't. I don't know. You don't know.
Or, better yet, just offer a one megabit pipe and just publish the specs so those sites can provide good service to their customers?
I've already covered this, but this screws people who actually use their mobile device for more than just watching videos. A 400 second wait to download a 50Mb PDF is unacceptable; a 400 second video that takes 390 seconds to stream is just fine.
Why not just meet the technical standards and talk to T-Mobile so YOUR CUSTOMERS can benefit from this program? What do you have against your own customers? You want them to pa
Re: (Score:2)
Troll talk.
... Okie dokie. Well, give me a little credit, at least I didn't make up something about you and act as if it's true.
Because they don't want to. Because they can't. I don't know. You don't know.
So they don't pick and choose, but they decide to use an approach where they must pick and choose... but, no you don't know, I don't know, what's happening, the room is spinning!!
Why not just meet the technical standards and talk to T-Mobile so YOUR CUSTOMERS can benefit from this program? What do you have against your own customers? You want them to pay full rate for your streaming video instead of getting a break, so you must really dislike them.
Do you have me mixed up with someone else or did you just hallucinate a fictional backstory for me?
Re: (Score:2)
... Okie dokie. Well, give me a little credit, at least I didn't make up something about you and act as if it's true.
More troll talk.
So they don't pick and choose, but they decide to use an approach where they must pick and choose...
So who is making things up and pretending they are true? There's no "pick and choose". YOU choose to meet the technical requirements or you choose not to. They don't choose anything.
Do you have me mixed up with someone else or did you just hallucinate a fictional backstory for me?
I have no idea what you're complaining about here. We're talking about a video streaming service provided by certain content providers to their customers. Why would ANYONE, you included, want to screw over their customers by refusing to some technical limits to the streaming rate of their content so those custo
Re: (Score:2)
YOU choose to meet the technical requirements or you choose not to. They don't choose anything.
... until after your application is sent in.
I have no idea what you're complaining about here.
Really? Heh. I told you several times.
Re: (Score:2)
That should be easy to figure out, show me a list of all who have applied.
Re: (Score:2)
... until after your application is sent in.
Which you have never done, so you have no idea what happens after that. According to T-Mobile, there is no "choosing", it's "meet the technical standards." Whether you do that or not is YOUR choice, not theirs.
Really? Heh. I told you several times.
No, you haven't. You claimed I was making up some "fictional backstory" for you, and I have idea what the hell you are talking about. Nor do you, it seems.
Re: (Score:2)
Whether you do that or not is YOUR choice, not theirs.
Then why not automate it? Why make this a require a human being when there are thousands of sites out there?
You claimed I was making up some "fictional backstory" for you, and I have idea what the hell you are talking about.
So you're saying that I haven't made the same repetitive point over and over again in this thread. Okie dokie.
Re: (Score:2)
The burden is yours to provide evidence for the existence of this problem.
I did. They put a human being in between the process for ascertaining the technical validity of the service of a website. It doesn't make sense to do that. That, in and of itself, is a violation of Net Neutrality.
Show us that this problem exists, and THEN we'll get upset about it. .
Heh. History shall repeat itself.
Re: (Score:2)
A) Can't identify video streamed over stateless protocols like UDP; they need a process (like oh, say, an application) for providers to let them know about these streams
B) Can't identify video streamed over encrypted protocols like HTTPS; they need a process (like oh, say, an application) for providers to let them know about these streams
C) Can't legally re-compress (modify) copyrighted content without the consent of the copyright holder or their agent; they need a process (like oh, say,
Re: (Score:2)
Please link to a single instance of them saying "no" to a service that met their technical requirements.
Is it your assertion that they cannot for some reason say no? If that's what you're saying, then why have a human-required application process at all?
Re: (Score:2)
It is my assertion that they have never said "no", and moreover, they have made it clear they are willing to partner with anyone regardless of content.
What if Microsoft or Comcast made that promise?
It helps customers.
It does not. If you don't believe me, picture Verizon offering this service in light of how they treated Netflix.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you willing to talk about the actual subject, rather than straw-men?
Straw man... right. Anyway. If T-Mobile is successful with this plan there is nothing to stop AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, etc from creating a similar service. AT&T and Verizon actually offer their own services that most of the applicants for Binge-On compete with. We've already seen how Verizon will behave when given the chance. So, yes, the answer to my question is important because basically what you're saying is: "It's not against Net Neutrality because I trust this particular corporation!"
Uhh... I don't even know how to reply to that. it's very hard to take anything you say seriously.
Of c
Re: (Score:2)
If T-Mobile is successful with this plan there is nothing to stop AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, etc from creating a similar service. AT&T and Verizon actually offer their own services
That's right. Were AT&T or Verizon to offer the same program as T-Mobile there would be nothing to stop them, because THEY TOO would not be violating net neutrality. It doesn't matter if they have their own services (I don't know what streaming video services AT&T or Verizon wireless provide, don't care, don't need to.) What matters is if they unfairly exclude content providers from their version of Binge On. If they provide a level playing field, there is equal opportunity for content providers to
Re: (Score:2)
What matters is if they unfairly exclude content providers from their version of Binge On.
Yeah, like taking an endless amount of time to approve applications because there's a meatbag in the way. Show me an automated approval section, or alternatively a user-submitted list of services they would like on the unlimited channel, and you'll see me happily recede into the shadows.
Which isn't much of a restriction.
Serious? How long do you think they can go quiet after a submission?
BECAUSE THEY CANNOT SIMPLY ASSUME THAT A VIDEO SERVER WANTS TO PARTICIPATE IN BINGE ON, THEY HAVE TO HAVE A REQUEST TO BE PART OF THE PROGRAM.
Right. Somebody in charge at a web-service goes to the T-Mobile website, types in some stuff, clicks "Submit", and the T-Mobile server runs a few tests a
Re: (Score:2)
Is there a compelling reason to make a human give a thumbs up on a site that need only meet technical requirements that his computer would judge for him anyway?
Re: (Score:2)
Show me an automated approval section, or alternatively a user-submitted list of services they would like on the unlimited channel, and you'll see me happily recede into the shadows.
You can find out how to request that a service be added to Binge-On here [t-mobile.com] by clicking the link titled "Request a video streaming service to Binge On " and following the instructions in the resultant lightbox. I'll even save you the trouble of clicking; here's what it says:
Want to see your favorite video streaming service added to Binge On?
We want all of your favorite video streaming services to be included as a part of Binge On. If your go-to video streaming service isn’t part of the program yet, tweet us your favorite service @TMobile [twitter.com], along with the hashtag #BingeOn. If they meet our requirements, we’ll investigate the feasibility of adding them. No one pays to join and no money is exchanged. If you are a streaming service provider Click here [mailto], send us an email and we’ll get back to you to begin the process. For more information about technical criteria, Click here [t-mobile.com]. T-Mobile will review all submissions to ensure identification of video stream and technical requirements, including optimization for mobile viewing. Only T-Mobile is committed to maximizing YOUR choice and providing access to as many great providers as possible.
It would appear that the list you are requesting is available by searching Twitter for the hashtag #BingeOn [twitter.com]. Alternately, you can probably click the mailto: link provided and email them to request that list.
Just a quick browse through tho
Re: (Score:2)
If they did this to everyone's content without permission, you'd probably be here bitching that they were not giving people a choice.
If they did this to everyone's content without permission, they'd run afoul of copyright law and get sued to hell and back.
Re: (Score:2)
This debate I'm having with this guy has been going on in two separate threads, because of that there is some missing context. He is of the opinion that T-Mobile's way of doing it is the *ONLY* way to do it, which frankly I find kind of sickening. That quote of mine is me teasing him for his inability to see past what's in front of him. On a day-to-day basis he sees all sorts of examples that could be applied as alternatives, but that part of his brain was turned off for this discussion.
But I can see how
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
basically what you're saying is: "It's not against Net Neutrality because I trust this particular corporation!"
I think what's being said is actually "It's not against Net Neutrality because T-Mobile is operating from a neutral position, accepting any and every application that meets the technical requirements, not charging for participation, and not directly competing with program participants."
It's a problem when Comcast throttles Netflix while demanding payment from them because Comcast offers a competing service. It's a problem when AT&T or Verizon zero-rate their own services while not allowing other servi
Re: (Score:2)
So the biggest complaint you have is "people have to say they want it"?
And the hypocrisy, here, is that he'd likewise complain if you were giving out free punches to the face or kicks to the groin and didn't confirm that he wanted one before delivering it.
Re:Binge on (Score:5, Interesting)
First of all, that "technical criteria" is way too vague to be useful in actually implementing a Binge-On-compliant service. Second, it still requires that the content provider in question "partner" (i.e., create a business agreement) with T-Mobile. What they need is a specific set of technical requirements such that anyone running a web server can configure it in a certain way and the content will automatically qualify for the program, with no business agreement required.
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, that "technical criteria" is way too vague to be useful in actually implementing a Binge-On-compliant service.
From the requirements pdf I've already provided a link to:
Oh My God, a PDF overview of a complicated technical system doesn't provide you immediately with enough information to be able to implement it. How could they DARE be so obtuse?
Second, it still requires that the content provider in question "partner" (i.e., create a business agreement) with T-Mobile.
Wow, what
Re: (Score:2)
Okay then, link to the specific documentation! Show me where it's posted on the Internet! 'Cause I've looked for it, and found nothing.
The fact that that particular PDF overview doesn't explain in detail is not the problem; the problem is that there is nothing else provided.
Re: (Score:2)
More to the point, though, do you really expect everyone on the Internet who serves video or audio to contact T-Mobile and ask? That's fucking stupid! T-mobile has neither the manpower nor the time to handle it manually for everyone like that
Let's see... if it takes 15 minutes (and that's being pessimistic) to review and approve an application for a site that already meets the requirements, an employee working an 8 hour shift can approve 32 per day, on average. Let's say there are 10,000 providers wishing to participate and 8,000 of them meet the technical requirements and get the 15min approval, it would take one lone employee 250 days to process all of those applications. A team of 10? Under a month. Of the remaining 2,000 sites, assume half
Re: (Score:2)
Oh really? Prove it! Link or it didn't happen!
If there really is "no restriction" as you say, the "fully described technical standards" will be posted online at some easily accessible URL. I couldn't find it, but clearly you can -- or you're an asshat who needs to fuck off.
Re: (Score:2)
But curling tho
Re: (Score:2)
If only there were some type of a book or service that you could use to look up a definition of the kibosh [merriam-webster.com]...
Re: (Score:2)
Sure he did. He just took the longer, more annoying route.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hope that helps, moron.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought I had a pretty decent grip of the english language, but what's a kibosh?
Kibosh is/was British English vernacular. It seems to be spreading though.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. It's English. First known use was 1836 by Charles Dickens. But it still is common in the US. No need to look up the definition.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't know that. I'm British, but I've lived in the States for 16 years. I haven't noticed it being used over here. It is standard parlance in the UK. I imagine it will be used in reference to the economy and personal freedoms given what's been going on in the past couple of days.
Re: (Score:2)
You can easily research what an actual Free Market is, if you can get around the B.S. and marketing trash from people that either don't know what it is or don't care.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry but why can't software make optimum resource allocations? Or actors with access to dataand systems never before possible?
You are projecting. I think technology may indeed make the traditional free market obsolete. But I remain skeptical until there is at least one example.
Almost all economies on earth have more regulation, better buildings, and lower total cost of ownership than US.
You don't seem to be arguing against a free market - you seem to be arguing for a free market with a different set of regulations. This is not an example of a computer-controlled command economy.
Also the free market is a fantasy
I am not an idealist - I'm quite pragmatic. I don't think I ever said there was an ideal free market, so you are building up a straw man.
Of course economic efficiency is not the goal of a capitialist
By definition, someone who d
Re: (Score:2)
Last time I checked the price of cable and data services has never gone down, ever.
I used to pay $100/mo for a 1Mbps connection. I now pay $150/mo for a 75Mbps connection. Yes, $150 is more than $100, but it's less than the $7500 you'd expect if the $100-per-1Mbps pricing hadn't gone down.