Law Professor: T-Mobile’s ‘Binge On’ Violates Net Neutrality

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
There are more people weighing in on the whole "Binge On violates net neutrality rules" brouhaha. This time around it is a law professor from Stanford giving her opinion on the matter.

“[T]he technical requirements published on T-Mobile’s website are substantial,” she writes. “They categorically exclude providers that use the User Datagram Protocol (UDP), making it impossible for innovative providers such as YouTube to join. They discriminate against providers that use encryption, a practice that is becoming the industry standard.”
 
Isn't "Binge On" totally an optional? If you use their app (which forces 480p) you get unlimited usage. They are not blocking you from using YouTube normally at higher bitrates, you just have to pay for the data.
 
If they try and make Net Neutrality mean identical things for both land and mobile carriers they will definitely have problems ... if T Mobile made this change mandatory so that it favored the companies compatible with it and penalized the companies incompatible with it then I would agree it violates the rules (note they are not a law since only Congress can pass laws) ... however, since the user can choose whether to use this feature or not then I would say this a good example of how companies should operate (you can ignore the new feature by turning it off or use it whenever you wish at the consumer's discretion ... sounds reasonable to me)
 
A team of lawyers figured out how to make this legally work.

One lawyer givers her "opinion" on the matter, a lawyer who is a little biased because she specializes in net neutrality, and something like this that uses a loophole to be legal, gets under her skin.

The legal system is just that, a way to use loopholes to win.
 
scojer said:
A team of lawyers figured out how to make this legally work.

One lawyer givers her "opinion" on the matter, a lawyer who is a little biased because she specializes in net neutrality, and something like this that uses a loophole to be legal, gets under her skin.

The legal system is just that, a way to use loopholes to win.
Click to expand...

It also highlights why some thought that Net Neutrality was a mistake to begin with ... mobile and land lines do not generally compete with each other (land lines have monopolies or compete against other land lines and mobile competes with mobile as there are virtually no monopolies left in mobile)

T-Mobile has come up with an innovative way to offer their customers unlimited streaming ... if you choose not to use it then you can operate under similar data caps to their much larger competitors (AT&T and Verizon) ... I am sure this lawyer would also consider the AT&T offering unlimited to its satellite or landline customers a violation as well (and she'd be equally wrong)
 
kbrickley said:
If they try and make Net Neutrality mean identical things for both land and mobile carriers they will definitely have problems ... if T Mobile made this change mandatory so that it favored the companies compatible with it and penalized the companies incompatible with it then I would agree it violates the rules (note they are not a law since only Congress can pass laws) ... however, since the user can choose whether to use this feature or not then I would say this a good example of how companies should operate (you can ignore the new feature by turning it off or use it whenever you wish at the consumer's discretion ... sounds reasonable to me)
Click to expand...

Problem is, when you tell someone you can watch content free of bandwidth restrictions then you are also telling providers they have a perfect user base to target for subscription content service. But when you restrict how that content is delivered then you essential ban specific providers from a user base who will pay for the content elsewhere.



Then again, is there anything that really stops other providers from offering content in usable format? I actually doubt it and therefor I see a big fucking whole in this Lawyer's logic. I don't think this will get passed a judge.
 
kbrickley said:
It also highlights why some thought that Net Neutrality was a mistake to begin with ... mobile and land lines do not generally compete with each other (land lines have monopolies or compete against other land lines and mobile competes with mobile as there are virtually no monopolies left in mobile)

T-Mobile has come up with an innovative way to offer their customers unlimited streaming ... if you choose not to use it then you can operate under similar data caps to their much larger competitors (AT&T and Verizon) ... I am sure this lawyer would also consider the AT&T offering unlimited to its satellite or landline customers a violation as well (and she'd be equally wrong)
Click to expand...

Well, it's a mistake when I as a Cox customer get my Netflix bandwidth restricted while Cox's own content service is wide open. It's anti-competative and frankly I think it's against the law at it's most basic level.
 
Those who can't do, teach.
Here's what is going to happen in front of a possible FTC/FCC panel-
"Is it non-neutral?"
Maybe.
"Is it harming the consumer or competition?"
No.
"Let it ride."
 
lcpiper said:
Well, it's a mistake when I as a Cox customer get my Netflix bandwidth restricted while Cox's own content service is wide open. It's anti-competative and frankly I think it's against the law at it's most basic level.
Click to expand...

And on this I agree ... if we had a functional Congress they would pass a law requiring these multi-service providers to offer neutral choices between their own internal services and external services offered by competitors ... since Congress is not functional however we had a small regulatory body try to step in and mandate this and because they don't have the same authority as Congress the regulations aren't totally perfect in intent or execution
 
heatlesssun said:
First grade maybe, but not Stanford Law School. She also holds a PhD in CS. So, not stupid.
Click to expand...

FAR FAR FAR from stupid. But while law professors are smart, but they aren't very street wise. And particularly when it comes to administrative agencies, what you read in the law is not always what you get out of them. They have a LOT of leeway and love to use it. Given the current heads of the FTC and FCC and their strong pro-customer agendas, there's no way they strike Tmo down over BingeOn or Music Freedom.
 
I wish all these jealous bastards would all just fuck off.
 
bigdogchris said:
Isn't "Binge On" totally an optional? If you use their app (which forces 480p) you get unlimited usage. They are not blocking you from using YouTube normally at higher bitrates, you just have to pay for the data.
Click to expand...

You are forced into the program which lowers quality on cellular and wifi. Unless you opt out after the fact
 
lcpiper said:
Well, it's a mistake when I as a Cox customer get my Netflix bandwidth restricted while Cox's own content service is wide open. It's anti-competative and frankly I think it's against the law at it's most basic level.
Click to expand...

In your example, does Cox offer you the ability to disable the restriction, or charge you more if you want to disable it?
 
bigdogchris said:
Isn't "Binge On" totally an optional? If you use their app (which forces 480p) you get unlimited usage. They are not blocking you from using YouTube normally at higher bitrates, you just have to pay for the data.
Click to expand...

Yeah and this was where the original backlash started from, Tmobile is encouraging people to abandon net neutrality in favor for unlimited data. They're basically planting the seeds of greed for it's own self-destruction. And the thing is it's not a terrible idea since I dont think anybody gives a damn about hidef mobile video.
 
Modred189 said:
FAR FAR FAR from stupid. But while law professors are smart, but they aren't very street wise. And particularly when it comes to administrative agencies, what you read in the law is not always what you get out of them. They have a LOT of leeway and love to use it. Given the current heads of the FTC and FCC and their strong pro-customer agendas, there's no way they strike Tmo down over BingeOn or Music Freedom.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with what you're saying here. I simply don't think the old "Those who can't teach" cliché applies to Stanford Law School professors.
 
The only thing here is that T-Mobile isn't offering an "all services" package under their binge-on promo, just a selection of highly used apps. It's anti competitive in nature, but T-Mobile only has to have procedures in place to add any service they want.
 
It's an optional program that benefits the consumer. You wanna watch video FREE? leave it on. You want 1080p? Turn it off. You can turn it on or off as much as you want. I have no idea how people are complaining about this.
 
lcpiper said:
Well, it's a mistake when I as a Cox customer get my Netflix bandwidth restricted while Cox's own content service is wide open. It's anti-competative and frankly I think it's against the law at it's most basic level.
Click to expand...

I have cox and I have never had any netflix issues. My wife can stream something downstairs and I'll watch something upstairs, no issues.

Are you sure you don't have something going on with your router?
 
Steve said:
There are more people weighing in on the whole "Binge On violates net neutrality rules" brouhaha. This time around it is a law professor from Stanford giving her opinion on the matter.

“[T]he technical requirements published on T-Mobile’s website are substantial,” she writes. “They categorically exclude providers that use the User Datagram Protocol (UDP), making it impossible for innovative providers such as YouTube to join. They discriminate against providers that use encryption, a practice that is becoming the industry standard.”
Click to expand...

Has nothing to do with discrimination, has everything to do with the servers being unable to discern what kind of packet is being sent.
 
kbrickley said:
If they try and make Net Neutrality mean identical things for both land and mobile carriers they will definitely have problems ... if T Mobile made this change mandatory so that it favored the companies compatible with it and penalized the companies incompatible with it then I would agree it violates the rules (note they are not a law since only Congress can pass laws) ... however, since the user can choose whether to use this feature or not then I would say this a good example of how companies should operate (you can ignore the new feature by turning it off or use it whenever you wish at the consumer's discretion ... sounds reasonable to me)
Click to expand...

Exactly.

It doesnt leave anyone out. Binge On monitors the inbound packets and then throttle the speed when it sees a video. This works great for streaming services that automatically tailor the quality based on the network speed. The issue arises when you try to download an .mp4 and it throttles that. But its an expected result of the way the system is implemented. Tmobile is not hosting the videos you are receiving, they are just packet shaping all video across the board. Sadly it negatively affects downloading mp4s because it has no way to tell if you are streaming or downloading.
 
The Lurker said:
Exactly.

It doesnt leave anyone out. Binge On monitors the inbound packets and then throttle the speed when it sees a video. This works great for streaming services that automatically tailor the quality based on the network speed. The issue arises when you try to download an .mp4 and it throttles that. But its an expected result of the way the system is implemented. Tmobile is not hosting the videos you are receiving, they are just packet shaping all video across the board. Sadly it negatively affects downloading mp4s because it has no way to tell if you are streaming or downloading.
Click to expand...

It doesn't negatively impact mp4 downloads. They still download full speed. The download just counts against your data cap.
 
Modred189 said:
It doesn't negatively impact mp4 downloads. They still download full speed. The download just counts against your data cap.
Click to expand...

Are you absolutely sure? I read different.

The fact that it counts against the cap is a given.
 
The Lurker said:
Are you absolutely sure? I read different.

The fact that it counts against the cap is a given.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. The ONLY thing that BingeOn does is, when it's on-
1- Downgrade supported streaming services to 480p
2- Stops the meter from counting those streams against your data cap.

When it's off-
1- No downgrading
2- Everything is counted against your cap. (well, except for supported music streams via Music Freedom)

There is no impact in ANY speeds EVER as a part of these services, either up or down, faster or slower.
 
Yeah, sure, let's ban UDP. Yeah, let's automatically reset all SSL handshakes. Yeah. And we should totally get rid of that pesky TCP. Not to offend anyone, I cry to this day watching the footages.
But.
- oh and we're gonna ban UDP
- why?
- NINE ELEVEN
 
A lot of people defending T-Mobile giving preferential treatment to certain services here.

That bandwidth being consumed for "free" by their chosen services is not really free as someone has to pay for it, and results in there being less available and more expensive bandwidth for everything else.

This is a pretty nice exhibition of marketing tricking people into wanting what is not actually in their best interest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top