Hacker News Reader

Comment by mrwumpus | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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

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

"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?

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

> 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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com