T-Mobile, Sprint Tap Dance Over, Under, And Around Net Neutrality
from the bad-precedent dept
For some time now T-Mobile has been accused of violating net neutrality by exempting the nation's biggest video services from its usage caps, and throttling all video on the network by default to 1.5 Mbps or 480p. Net neutrality advocates have repeatedly warned that giving some content or companies a leg up and fiddling with service quality sets a horrible precedent, and research has shown T-Mobile's system to be unreliable and exploitable. Still, T-Mobile has so far received applause from many regulators, media outlets and customers operating under the belief consumers are getting something for free.As such, however bad the precedent being set here, there's no real political pressure on the FCC to act since consumers are effectively applauding what many believe to be a net neutrality violation. The FCC's net neutrality rules don't specifically prohibit zero rating, something we've long argued opens the door to creative abuses of net neutrality to thunderous applause, which is effectively what's happening here. The rules do require the FCC to explore whether zero rating is anti-competitive on a "case by case" basis, but so far, outside of a few letters, the FCC doesn't seem particularly pressed to take action.
Last week, T-Mobile introduced a new wrinkle to the entire saga by unveiling a new plan named T-Mobile One. Under T-Mobile One, users get "unlimited" data (technicaly 26 GB, after which you're throttled to 128 kbps), text and voice for $70 per month. But under this new plan, users find all video services throttled by default to 1.5 Mbps or 480p. If you want to stream video at any higher rate, you'll need to pony up an additional $25 per month. Groups like the EFF were quick to argue that the new plans still violate net neutrality:
"From what we’ve read thus far, it seems like T-Mobile’s new plan to charge its customers extra to not throttle video runs directly afoul of the principle of net neutrality," said EFF senior staff technologist Jeremy Gillula.Right, but violating net neutrality principles and net neutrality rules is not the same thing. It's generally believed the FCC didn't crack down on T-Mobile's original plans because the FCC's Open Internet Order (pdf) not only didn't ban zero rating, but it stated that some throttling is ok if it's "a choice made by the end user." Because users could opt out of T-Mobile programs Binge On and Music Freedom, T-Mobile had creatively managed to inhabit an area not really outlawed by the agency's net neutrality rules.
But the EFF argues elsewhere that T-Mobile's decision to specifically discriminate against a particular type of traffic (in this case video) could ultimately violate the FCC's net neutrality rules:
...Gillula argues that the throttling of all video might violate the rule, despite the option to pay for high-speed video. He pointed to a sentence later in the same paragraph that says, "if a broadband provider degraded the delivery of a particular application (e.g., a disfavored VoIP service) or class of application (e.g., all VoIP applications), it would violate the bright-line no-throttling rule."Given past statements one gets the sense that the FCC isn't all too worried about the obvious, problematic impact usage caps and zero rating may have on the open Internet. But we're quickly getting to the point where the FCC needs to at least help detail where the line is drawn, one way or another. T-Mobile's experiments last week resulted in Sprint unveiling similar "unlimited" data plans of their own, which also throttle all video to 480p by default unless you pay a premium for higher resolution. But you'll note Sprint goes even further:
"If you just substitute 'video' in for 'VoIP,' it's pretty clear that the FCC's intent was to prevent discriminatory throttling, even if the user could pay to avoid it," Gillula told Ars. "In other words, the FCC (and EFF) are just fine with ISPs offering different tiers of service, as long as the tiers don't discriminate against different types of content. But that's precisely what T-Mobile is doing here—discriminating against data based on its content."
Unlimited Freedom utilizes optimization for streaming video, gaming and music, delivering a high-quality viewing experience for mobile devices with video streams of up to 480p resolution, gaming up to 2mbps and music streams at extreme quality of up to 500kbps.If you'll pause with me at the very top of this long and slippery slope and look down, folks with even the faintest tea leaf reading ability should be able to envision one possible future where all broadband access is fragmented and fractured in just this fashion, users paying more or less for varying qualities of different content and services. This was, if you'll recall, the sort of thing net neutrality rules were designed to help us avoid. T-Mobile opposed Title II and real net neutrality rules for obvious reasons, and groups like the EFF (quite correctly) worry T-Mobile is now happily chipping away at the very foundation of an open internet...to thunderous public applause.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: fcc, net neutrality, streaming video, throttling, unlimited, zero rating
Companies: sprint, t-mobile
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I kind of hate the idea of switching to them and appearing like I support their abuse of net neutrality. At the same time though, it is making me sick that I give money to Verizon.
Really very frustrating that with both phone and internet I seem to be faced with the options of give money to companies I despise or live without phone and internet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
From what I have seen it also looks like the throttling is only done if your on a busy tower. So even after that 26 gigs you likely will still have good speeds a lot of the time. This certainly beats the I think 6 gigs I currently share with 3 other people.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
* lube for the take it up the ass plan available for an extra fee, use of non T-Mobile lube will result in an even larger additional fee.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Two things: 1. many of the major video sites partnered with T-Mo on this. 2. T-mo claims that even with HTTPS they can figure out what's *likely* to be video traffic based on site (which they can see) and amount of data flow (which makes sense).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Depends, really...
Net Neutrality is especially bizarre, in that it's socialism for the rich. Basically, the 2% who stream terrabytes of torrents or watch gigabytes of bandwidth-hogging HD video want to socialize the real costs of their usage.
There are three different possibilities here:
1) Aggressive "network neutrality," with an inflexible "one size fits all" mandate, which will make the Internet roughly the equivalent of Sprint's 3G network circa 2010 -- congested to hell with no profits (and thus no investment);
2) Today's competitive approach, where people can choose the wireless carrier and plan their want -- and opt for someone other than T-Mobile or Sprint if they don't like those options. (Of course, AT&T and Verizon will charge a LOT of data to the bandwidth hogs who want a socialized internet, which is why the Net Neutrality comrades hate this option);
3) Some magical approach in which scarce and expensive commodities like bandwidth, wireless spectrum and network capacity disappear, and nobody has to pay for access because it's free. (This is the world that the remainder of the "Network Neutrality" people imagine -- the 21st century equivalent of the communist utopia of old).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
You're just angry that you can't socialize the costs of your consumption on other people who don't consume as much as you do.
You want five grandmas to pay $100 a month, when they each consume $5 a month of service, so that you can consume $500 worth of service for $100.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
People are selfish
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: People are selfish
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: People are selfish
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
I agree that typically music and video will be easily identifiable, but I have huge (YUGE) questions about the "gaming" cap.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Assuming they even offer service in his/her area, and assuming those companies haven't yet realized that with the likes of Comcast, T-Mobile and Sprint gouging their customers without repercussions they can too, leading to them implementing similar 'customer friendly plans'.
You want five grandmas to pay $100 a month, when they each consume $5 a month of service, so that you can consume $500 worth of service for $100.
So said grandmas are currently only paying $5 a month now, right? No? No price drops, everyone is just paying more?
Yeah, the 'They use more* so they should have to pay more' argument falls rather flat once you realize that the prices only ever go up, never down. If the justification being employed is that 'more use = higher cost', similar to pricing for electricity and water, then the reverse should hold true as well, but it doesn't, exposing this as a blatant and unnecessary cash-grab.
Also I'd love to hear about how someone case consume '$500 worth of service for $100'. If a company is selling a connection with a speed of 'up to X', then whether you use it to the absolute maximum or barely use it at all you're still getting what you paid for, no more, no less.
If companies want to advertise their service by monthly data allotment rather than speed they can do that, in which case you might have a point if someone was able to game the system in such a way as to get more than they paid for, but so long as they advertise their service by speed then it doesn't matter how much someone uses it, they're still not abusing or overusing their connection. If the networks can't handle the company's users actually using them at the speed advertised then that's on the company for false advertising by claiming that they could actually offer those speeds, not the customers for believing them.
*'More' in this case being 'for the connection that they paid for'.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Depends, really...
What violates Net Neutrality principles is the practice of "zero-rating" certain classes of data. This skews the marketplace and gives gatekeepers undue influence. As far as Net Neutrality goes, limiting data is fine, even throttling the connection is fine, but only doing that for certain classes of data is not. Zero-rating video, for example, incentivizes users to consume video instead of other data, which goes against the principles of the Internet as an open and unbiased communication medium.
It's got fuck all to do with "bandwidth hogs".
*There's nearly zero utilization cost associated with an amount of data transferred over a network, merely a tiny amount of electricity, on the order of a few cents per gigabyte, if that. Network costs are all about capacity. RoI increases with average utilization. Customer satisfaction is decreased by network degradation (whether arbitrary or a result of network conditions). As such, it makes the most sense to allow customers unrestricted utilization of the network so long as capacity remains. Data Caps result in under-utilized networks, which, without preverse incentives such as overage charges, results in a net loss for the ISP.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Depends, really...
This is not what net neutrality is.
or do we want a competitive internet that allows people to buy the best-fit solution for them, with a price tag that reflects usage?
That's not what the alternative is.
Aggressive "network neutrality," with an inflexible "one size fits all" mandate, which will make the Internet roughly the equivalent of Sprint's 3G network circa 2010 -- congested to hell with no profits (and thus no investment);
This is not one of the options here and certainly not what's happening with the current net neutrality rules.
Today's competitive approach, where people can choose the wireless carrier and plan their want -- and opt for someone other than T-Mobile or Sprint if they don't like those options. (Of course, AT&T and Verizon will charge a LOT of data to the bandwidth hogs who want a socialized internet, which is why the Net Neutrality comrades hate this option);
Except that the carriers all have their plans basically in lock step with each other (notice how Sprint and T-Mobile announced their new, very similar, plans within an hour of one another?). This is not real competition.
And, no, the issues that we're discussing here are not about data caps and bandwidth hogs. But about favoring certain kinds of traffic (and being able to charge for that).
Some magical approach in which scarce and expensive commodities like bandwidth, wireless spectrum and network capacity disappear, and nobody has to pay for access because it's free. (This is the world that the remainder of the "Network Neutrality" people imagine -- the 21st century equivalent of the communist utopia of old).
Yeah, no one is saying that.
You don't look very smart when you make up what you think the other side says. It just makes you look totally clueless.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Kinda conflicted on that. On the one hand zero-rating is an idea that needs to die as quickly as possible, as it hands the ISP's far more power than they should have in choosing winners and losers, which makes multiple sites agreeing to it a seriously bad idea as it just lends more credibility to it.
On the other hand I suddenly have a wicked desire for T-Mobile to show them exactly why handing over that power to another company is a really bad idea, say by T-Mobile sending over a letter informing them that if they want to keep their zero-rating status there's going to be a few changes to the contract they signed.
Maybe if they get burned badly enough they'll realize just what a bad decision they made, and if not, well at least I get that schadenfreude itch scratched. Small consolation, but it would be something at least.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: People are selfish
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: People are selfish
Leaving aside your complete misunderstanding of net neutrality, which has been addressed above, how can I possibly use more than I pay for?
[ link to this | view in thread ]