Hacker News Reader

Comment by techsupporter | Hacker News Reader

If T-Mobile wants to pay for something on my behalf, I don't think that's a violation of network neutrality principles for two reasons: First, T-Mobile isn't saying "we pay for your Netflix subscription and we block access to Hulu." Second, the service is opt-in at the customer's discretion. Giving the customer* a choice is the biggest point of the neutrality argument. If the customer, from an open marketplace, makes the decision, fine. If the service provider, particularly in a natural monopoly position, imposes service-specific limitations on the customer, not fine.

To my mind, T-Mobile's BingeOn (and rate limiting for subscribers who don't have the ONE Plus add-on) is closer to a violation than simply paying for Netflix subscriptions.

* Not that you used this word, but I'm on a mission: I intentionally write "customer" instead of "consumer." We are not consumers; we are customers paying money for a service.

View on HN

T-Mobile isn't paying for something on your behalf. You're paying for cell service. They've just decided to charge you a different rate (in this case, nothing) for YouTube traffic and the like than for everything else. It gives favor and preference to the large established services which are included (by making them free/cheaper for consumers to use), which hurts small startups trying to disrupt the market.

Binge On is the exact definition of a net neutrality violation, but since it's not available "a la carte" as an "add-on", nobody's really talking about it. Free things pass under the radar.

Zero rating by T-Mobile hasn't been blocked by the FCC's existing rules which is one of the reason's I'm in support of the repeal: The orders being repealed aren't even protecting our net neutrality successfully.

Perfect is the enemy of good. Because one thing is a bit iffy, let's throw the whole regulation out?

BingeOn initially had opposition, until T-Mobile gave customers option to disable it, and also opened it up so anyone who satisfied requirements (in particular had streaming that quality adapted to the bandwidth) could join for free.

Honestly I would support FCC stepping in and said that this can't be done even though I'm T-Mobile customer.

I don't find net neutrality regulations to be "good". The saving grace for me would be if they did block companies like T-Mobile from zero rating, but they don't. And not only that, but Title II actually currently exempts ISPs from FTC regulation, which is horrendous.

This isn't a "perfect is the enemy of good", this is "I can't really find an upside to what everyone is advocating for".

And Binge On being disablable doesn't solve the primary issue with zero rating: It provides consumers and incentive to stick with the big companies over the new guys, who probably can't necessarily cut a deal with T-Mo. It creates a strange gate for newcomers to get through, even if they do allegedly "allow anyone to join". (Because it isn't just a checkbox, T-Mo throttles Binge On content, effectively.)

I can’t name a single market where T-Mobile has a natural monopoly, but I can certainly name several where cable companies do.

"It's not perfect, so burn it down" has very rarely been a wise decision in the light of history.

I mean, not to be a wise-ass, but have you seen who's been appointed to the FCC, EPA, HHS, and other three letter orgs? FCC is saying net neutrality is bad, EPA is saying that climate change is natural and can't be affected by humans and isn't actually happening, and HHS is basically saying that being poor is a poor persons fault for being poor in the first place.

I am well aware! They are burning things down. "Well, things are imperfect as-is, so let's give them some extra gasoline" makes me raise both eyebrows.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com