Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwaway_yy2Di | Hacker News Reader

This is a major breach of net neutrality. T-Mobile wants to give customers free bandwidth to one type of service, while charging for bandwidth going eleswhere. The network costs are identical: it's not the place of a neutral ISP to discriminate on the contents of the bytes!

(edit to correct error -- it's not restricted to T-Mobile's own music service. Mea culpa)

(full disclosure: I'm a T-Mobile customer)

View on HN

T-Mobile is claiming that they are not sponsorships and that Spotify, Rhapsody, Pandora, and the other launch partners are not paying for data-exempt status[1]. That said, this still raises serious net-neutrality red flags.

1. http://www.theverge.com/2014/6/18/5822996/t-mobile-music-fre...

Yes. The article makes the point, the issue is not charging for access, the issue is creating a corporate barrier to entry in the market.

What if I'm a musician hacker, and I want to release a album app like Bjork or Jay-Z did?

Do I get free data too?

This issue is also T-Mobile violating customer privacy.

Great point.

The article mentions T-Mob's "unRadio" app. I would assume that using the app would require opting in to the data inspection requirements.

How? I imagine it's implemented as "don't meter packets going to these IPs", for Pandora/whatever's streaming IP addresses. Adding some extra firewall/software rules doesn't violate privacy IMHO.

Why is that a concern to me though (I'm representing the public)? Net neutrality proponents regularly couch their rhetoric in being an issue for the public's interest. To me it seems like one industry (tech/web companies) jockeying over another industry (telcos/cable) to accrue the benefits/cost savings to themselves. Start ups and other businesses that exist on the web don't like the idea of sponsored data because it could possibly raise their costs of doing business, but again why is that something the public should care about and that government should step in to prevent? No one is providing Jolla with protections or subsidies to better compete with Apple or Samsung, but yet the web companies in pushing for net neutrality (and waging a great PR campaign that enlists the greater public to their side) are essentially asking for one. Maybe your music start up will have to pay carriers to better compete with Spotify or Apple, that's really your problem and perhaps you'll have to suck up the additional operating expense.

The free flow of information, opinion, and art is in the public's interest.

If that vague standard was the objective, we'd be better off subsidizing all the newspapers.

I'm not necessarily saying that the carriers should regulate. I'm just saying that T-Mobile just lost every bit of goodwill that they had earned by becoming a "european" style carrier.

I don't own a smart phone, I don't stream music. I listen to free or libre music mostly.

I think the entire Net Neutrality is based on a stupid and foolish assumption that we have to stream (or more accurately, download and delete) entertainment.

Because without Net neutrality we are going back to the AOL closed Network Model of the 90s where everyone has to use the services the ISP thinks are right for you and with prices they decided are fair. Nobody in their right mind wants that! Unless you are an ISP or bribed politician of course.

> Do I get free data too?

Based on the FAQ: Yes. Any lawful and licensed streaming music service can work with us for inclusion in this offer

This is something what was very common when 3G first became available in Australia - you'd have a very low data limit (~200MB) but could pay extra for unlimited access to other services (like $4/m for unlimited Facebook or whatever) - basically that 'nightmare scenario' net nutrality image which has been going around for years[1]. I don't think it was very sucessful (this was before the the iPhone and the changes it brought so browsing the internet on your dubmphone sucked anyway) and was gradually phased out.

Another comparison, many Australian providers already have a 'freezone'[2] which does not count towards your download limit. This is sometimes paid sponsorship (Australian Football streaming is free on Telstra) and sometimes due to peering agreements or house run servers (many ISPs run their own Steam content servers) which make data through certain channels considerably cheaper for the ISP.

That said, from a consumer perspective, I would be stoked if my telco said that I could have free music streaming at no extra cost, though. It might just be a positive customer benefit, or it may be something more sinister - who knows.

[1] http://i.imgur.com/UguEpIm.jpg [2] http://freezone.iinet.net.au/

My first reaction was: "Hooray!"

Then my immediate next reaction was "NOOOOOOO"

I anticipate great amusement watching people try to reconcile their hatred of data caps for their love of net neutrality.

My own reaction was pretty much the same. "Awesome! Wait, awful!"

I'm soooo torn about my $30 prepaid T-mobile plan now :(

Exactly. I'm not sure if this was a simple "let people have free music. That'll up our subscriber count" play or some masterful psyop mindtrick.

It doesn't have to be masterful.

T-Mobile can't issue a press release about free data, if everybody has unlimited data.

Step 1) Announce free music-colored bits

Step 2) Report monthly bandwidth usage by bit color

Step 3) Bill monthly by colored segments

Step 4) Ratchet up the price of bandwidth by increasing the charges related to one colored bit bucket while periodically offering discounts on other colored bit buckets to maintain market share and drive marketing messages.

Not the typical 3 steps to profit, but close -- and without a hand-wavy step 2. If this works, expect the rest of the industry to follow shortly.

It's also fantastic for tmobile customers who like music. If it reduces my monthly bill, I'm all for it.

Yeah it is a breach of net neutrality... but mobile hasn't ever really had net neutrality anyway, not like we've had with fixed line internet. Mobile and fixed line connect to the same internet, but through very different means and with very different obstacles in implementation (mobile having far more), so I'm not 100% sure that this is a bad thing... but it could become one.

There has never been net neutrality on mobile. For the longest time it was against Verizon TOS to use any VoIP apps on a tethered connection.

Until t-mobile says that other services will cost more, I see no problem with letting music be free.

Try building a small indie label web streaming music startup.

And asking your customers to pay more because you don't have a T-Mobile partnership.

"Letting music be free", as long as it participates in a corporate subsidy, no thanks.

I honestly don't understand your position. This was data that was being charged for before, now as a service to their customers they aren't charging for it. This is an attempt to gain more customers, it's not charging extra for other services, you have everything you had before, now if you choose to use these services you don't get the data billed to your account. It's not charging more for a fast lane, it's giving something away for advertising purposes. I am a web developer, net neutrality is very important to me, I just don't see how this is a major offense to that. Can you explain your position some more?

First off, I take issue with your argument that this data costs money, and therefore making it free isn't an issue. The data costs money because the telecom industry has spent the last decade prying unlimited data plans out of the cold dead hands of your grandfathers. Do you remember AOL and the whole 600 minutes free spectacle? Do you remember how stupid that was? How many people do you know who either still have a grandfathered cell phone plan? How many people do you know who are angry that their grarndfathered plans are gone?

Secondly, I take issue here because I have a strong libre-culture philosophy, and I really strongly believe you should be able to stream, download, remix, or publish everything. This policy by T-Mobile means that any hope of libre content on mobile is getting dimmer. This, combined with the artificial scarcity I mentioned before, make the game feel rigged.

> I take issue with your argument that this data costs money

I don't get what you are trying to say here. It certainly costs T-Mobile something to provide additional data, and pretending otherwise isn't an effective argument.

T-Mobile customers will be much more likely to stay with the established brand (e.g. Spotify) because they get free data for it, whereas an indie-Spotify, because it is smaller and doesn't have the awareness, doesn't have a deal with T-Mobile, and thus customers will be less inclined to choose such an alternative.

That's a marketing problem for indie-Spotify, not a net neutrality problem.

When Google's Chromecast offered 3 free months of Netflix with a purchase was that an attack on net neutrality issue too since it didn't drive equal sign up opportunities to Hulu?

I'm confused, what does net neutrality mean if not being neutral to bits on the internet?

Text messages are bits. They used to cost per text and now they don't. Nobody got up in arms about that. Why is this different?

Text messages aren't on the internet.

They get to my phone the same way the music does... from a cell tower. I don't really care how the carrier got them to the tower. Bits are bits, right?

You may not care but net neutrality is about the internet.

Text messages don't / didn't cost different rates depending upon what you discussed in them.

'Honey, we need milk from the store': 10 cents

'Bon Jovi are playing Glastonbury this year!': free

People would have been up in arms about that.

Your analogy would only work if T-Mobile was only offering free streaming of Bon Jovi music. But it seems like that is not the case.

Chromecast is not an ISP.

This position seeks to establish the concept that bits have a color, and that different colors have different costs. The tactic is to create market segmentation out of whole cloth. The next step is to report data usage as different buckets -- "Web Site-colored bits", "Popular Web Site-colored bits", "Music-colored bits", and "Video-colored bits". Eventually, they will charge different rates for different colors of bits.

Now, today, yeah, sure, it looks like a Too Good To Be True giveaway. My advice? Look twice.

They already color bits; tethering bits cost more than non-tethering bits.

If nothing else, it's normalizing the idea that ISPs treat different kinds of data differently instead of being the dumb pipes they want them to be.

It's also not available on all of their plans. So now we're basically seeing, "pay more for better access to Spotify etc." Which is not all that far from something like, "Verizon FiOS brought to you by Bing! ($5/month additional charge for access to Google.)"

This seems like a loss leader [1] for T-Mobile. Despite your theoretical indie label service it doesn't have anything to do with net neutrality. T-Mobile deciding to forego revenue as marketing gimmick is different than T-Mobile double dipping by charging streaming service providers to utilize capacity the customer has already paid for.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_leader

If they're treating data differently by what type it is, I don't see how this isn't about net neutrality.

I don't see how they are "treating" data from Rhapsody different than how they are treating data from XBox Music or Beats differently when examined at the network level. This promotion is at the accounting level only. When the two become intertwined like Netflix/Verizon/Level 3 peering drama then I agree with you. But unless somebody can demonstrate T-Mobile degrading the quality of the network traffic for non-Rhapsody streamers I don't think this has anything to do with net neutrality.

There is a line between marketing/cross promotions business relationships and encroachment on net neutrality, consumers need to be vigilant, but the line does exist.

They are treating Rhapsody data different from Hacker News data. Or data from my personal blog. That they are consistent among their partners is irrelevant.

> Despite your theoretical indie label service it doesn't have anything to do with net neutrality.

I respectfully disagree. Net Neutrality is not simply about carriers charging for" double dipping. It is, at its heart, a free speech issue. It is about certain forms of speech being treated with economic preference. It is about maintaining the low barrier of entry that makes the internet so valuable.

The money comes from somewhere. If it does not come from usage of other services (it does - it probably means their profit margin is fat enough to allow this), it'll come from the funds used for long term investments in their core network structure.

Make no mistake, Rhapsody is the real winner here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com