Strangely, even a HUGE supporter of net neutrality, this doesn't bother me very much. Maybe it's because to me, Netflix is SO big, that this looks very similar to a peering agreement.
T-Mobile is just peering with netflix, and because of their agreement, will route data between their networks for free.
Although that is probably the sheep's clothing that the destruction of the open web will come dressed in.
FWIW, I think this has always been the "sticking point". ISPs don't actually want to do quite the horrible things that people are concerned they will one day do (though maybe in some cases they want to come close), but they do want to figure out how to manage the situation of "50% of traffic is coming from Netflix, and Netflix would like to give me some cheaper way of letting all of my customers have access to their product, whether in the form of a cache appliance or a direct network connection to their headquarters; I thereby want to be able to charge people differently for Netflix traffic than for other traffic". It then becomes a philosophical question as to whether you consider this to be a bad thing or not, but this is absolutely the core question: are peering agreements made with content providers who own networks morally in the right? I think the shit actually hits the fan not with companies like Comcast and T-Mobile but with companies like Facebook and Wikimedia: content providers who heavily invest in networks rather than networks who are bound to old content providers.
I think we're muddying the waters here if we equate mobile ISPs with cable ISPs like Comcast.
Comcast would like nothing more than charge people more for using Netflix, because it's causing large load on their last mile connections that they have hopelessly oversubscribed while promising ever higher bandwidth. Netflix will peer and install cache appliances, but they aren't going to dig up the trenches in Kentucky to beef up the cable connections and backbones. As such, everything that will make Netflix perform better on Comcasts network will just lead to more Netflix use and more load on their last mile.
Meanwhile, they can't sell people a Binge-On because who the hell wants to watch Netflix at sub-DVD bitrates at home?
Charging someone more for using Netflix happens automatically if you charge per byte, which is effectively the only viable end game in a world with network neutrality. Networks are only able to provide even sort of "infinite" bandwidth for finite cost due to largely ignoring the principal of network neutrality. (BTW, I watch Netflix over Verizon and AT&T mobile networks quite often and the quality is fine: we must live in very different quality network areas.)
There's a time factor involved as well though. A byte is cheaper to transmit at 7am than at 7pm (less congestion). Business ISP's often charge based on the 95th-percentile bandwidth rate during the billing cycle: http://www.semaphore.com/blog/94-95th-percentile-bandwidth-m...
In return for zero rating the video data for the video providers in the BingeOn program, they agree to serve video with a fixed highest bitrate, which saves on tower spectrum (which is far more important than whatever bandwidth consumption T-Mobile is experiencing at its peering points).
This makes sense. If you're a consumer who doesn't care about the bitrate being limited (assuming the highest bitrate is based on mobile device screen resolution), its not a problem. You get decent video quality on your device, T-Mobile doesn't have to work as hard at network management. If you want to opt out for whatever reason, there is a toggle switch to do so.
Its a clever solution to limited last-mile mobile connectivity.
Why do you keep providing in-accurate descriptions of Binge On and deliberately exclude the throttling that is central to both the current debate and T-mobile's claims of "UP TO 3X MORE VIDEO from your data plan"?
The opted-in throttling is especially dangerous for innovation on the internet because in one swoop it increases the difficulty of starting any service that depends on displaying high definition video on mobile. Not all high definition video is entertainment, so T-mobile has no way of knowing if 'incredibly high resolution rates that are barely detectable by the human eye' are needed or not.
> Its a clever solution to limited last-mile mobile connectivity.
No, it's a slipshod and disingenuous solution to the limited last-mile mobile connectivity that violates Net Neutrality in two different ways: Zero Rating and content specific Throttling.
The value of Net Neutrality is open for debate, but T-Mobile is now flat out lying about their support of it:
> T-Mobile is a company that absolutely supports Net Neutrality and we believe in an open and free Internet.
If T-mobile wanted to solve this problem while respecting Net Neutrality, they could have worked with content networks and other carriers to develop an open standard for marking video stream network data as amendable to throttling.
I just think it would've been refreshing for him to acknowledge that this is also about saving bandwidth and infrastructure build out cost. Rather than this double-talk about pro-consumer mumbo jumbo.
At least that's what I would've expected for straight-talking CEO that portrayed himself out to be.
Strangely, even a HUGE supporter of net neutrality, this doesn't bother me very much. Maybe it's because to me, Netflix is SO big, that this looks very similar to a peering agreement.
T-Mobile is just peering with netflix, and because of their agreement, will route data between their networks for free.
Although that is probably the sheep's clothing that the destruction of the open web will come dressed in.