Sprint supporting net neutrality with condition

[dnwk]

http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/sprint-splits-industry-ok-title-ii-net-neutrality-long-wireless-has-flexibi/2015-01-16

 

Sprint splits from industry, is OK with Title II for net neutrality as long as wireless has flexibility

 

[lou99/maximus1987]

For example, there will be no rate regulation, no tariffs, no last-mile unbundling.

 

http://www.wired.com/2015/02/fcc-chairman-wheeler-net-neutrality

[kamiller42]

I thought I was re-raise this topic in the hopes the S4GRU community could discuss what is and isn't violations of net neutrality.

I've been told T-Mo's offer of providing unmetered data to certain music sites is a violation. Note, T-Mo is not giving prioritized traffic to said sites. They are simply not charging for data to and from the sites.

I was told this is bad. But, what does that mean when Sprint does the same?
 

The plans include two months of free music streaming, which will not count against the data allotment of the user.

http://www.bidnessetc.com/32811-sprint-corp-brings-shared-data-to-the-prepaid-market-with-virgin-mobile/

Sprint is a net neutrality violator? No, and neither is T-Mo.

Remember the primary issue which raised accusations of net neutrality being violated involved ISP's charging a premium for special handling of Netflix traffic. Handicapping traffic and requiring a fee to remove the handicap is a violation of net neutrality. Would Sprint do such a thing?
 

Additionally, for $5 per month customers can access apps such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Pandora on an unlimited basis without that usage counting against the customer's data allotment.
http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/sprint-dumps-virgin-mobile-custom-brand-keeps-itson-technology-and-walmart/2015-01-16

Well Sprint. This is awkward.

Note: I have no problem with Sprint or T-Mo's offers because it simply controls what is metered and what isn't. It does not control what is preferred or prioritized traffic. Users are free to use any other service uninhibited.

[Flompholph]

If you treat data different it doesn't matter how or who does it then net neutrality is broken. Just because the customer benifits does not change that.

 

When you start to bend the rules they can go in the other direction fast.

 

The isp job is to shuttle 1 and 0 back and forth. Net neutrality is an all or nothing game. Your neutral with the data for better or worse.

[Arysyn]

I read some of the net neutrality discussion on the other thread and found the content quite helpful.

 

So basically if I'm understanding this correctly, it is perfectly fine under net neutrality to give internet services away for free, such as music streaming, but it is not acceptable under net neutrality to charge for certain content, or to charge that content extra to access the internet at full speeds, or to give any other special access for a fee. Is this correct?

 

If so, while I now understand how T-Mobile's free music streaming would be aceeptable under these conditions, I still don't understand how AT&T's "Sponsored Data" is against net neutrality, since the benefits of free data are a free service to the consumer, paid for by the content provider, yet the content provider is not being hindered in any way regarding their access to the internet.

[Arysyn]

I see that AT&It's "Sponsored Data" program is active, despite it having criticism regarding net neutrality back when it was being decided.

 

However, as I was reading more about it just before posting this, I saw some points about how the program is "double dipping" and how networks can't handle the extra traffic from Sponsored Data if video content providers bought in.

 

Made me think if only it were allowed for carriers to offer non-streaming internet plans at reduced rates, perhaps even unlimited non-streaming plans, if successful at getting people over to it on wireless, that would reduce network consumption allowing it to be feasible for those willing to pay extra for streaming, rather than having so many people unnecessarily streaming because as they say "we are paying for that service already, might as well use it".

[kamiller42]

If you treat data different it doesn't matter how or who does it then net neutrality is broken. Just because the customer benifits does not change that.

 

When you start to bend the rules they can go in the other direction fast.

 

The isp job is to shuttle 1 and 0 back and forth. Net neutrality is an all or nothing game. Your neutral with the data for better or worse.

What if the data isn't treated differently but whether the customer is charged or not is? Keep in mind the customer under normal circumstances would pay for metered data. The carrier and content providers worked out a deal to deliver content for free. (If Google did that for their sites and services, that would be fantastic.)

 

Does such an arrangement break net neutrality?

[kamiller42]

I read some of the net neutrality discussion on the other thread and found the content quite helpful.

 

So basically if I'm understanding this correctly, it is perfectly fine under net neutrality to give internet services away for free, such as music streaming, ...

 

Many here would say it is not acceptable. They believe giving certain content providers' data a free ride on a normally metered service breaks net neutrality. You should pay for access to all sites equally and let no one pay your toll.

 

I don't understand the thinking, but maybe one of net neutrality proponents can explain.

[Arysyn]

Many here would say it is not acceptable. They believe giving certain content providers' data a free ride on a normally metered service breaks net neutrality. You should pay for access to all sites equally and let no one pay your toll.

 

I don't understand the thinking, but maybe one of net neutrality proponents can explain.

I've been very confused by the net neutrality issue, which the media hasn't been very clear on at all. Avoiding the media and looking elsewhere, such as blogs, forums, etc., there is the same complicated, confusing mess as there is in the media.

 

At one point, I figured by reading here on S4GRU, that it was against net neutrality for T-Mobile to have streaming music not count against data. However, if no one here pro- net neutrality is going to state the same about Virgin Mobile, which I read on the other thread, then it definitely is a double standard.

 

Also, I'm pretty much on the side of thinking that anything that gives a free service to the customer is allowed under net neutrality, and that carriers must give open access with same speeds to all content providers, but are allowed to charge for special benefits to customers, such as with Sponsored Data. That at least seems fair to me.

 

What doesn't seem fair though, is for net neutrality to not allow carriers and service providers to have content specific plans, reduced rates for customers choosing not to have streaming, or access to certain other bandwidth-intensive content. If consumers could have that choice, and many choose those plans, it would spare bandwidth to companies that could more easily offer it to those who want access to those more bandwidth heavy content.

 

Then again, I don't understand how net neutrality defendants aren't more proactive in going after service providers using data caps, based on what I've heard from their arguments over what is or isn't allowed under net neutrality. The whole thing is a mess, just like so many other things in this social system, which there badly needs a complete reform of.

[Fraydog]

From what I have gathered, T-Mobile is adding music sources from all over the place. The problem would pop up if they just rejected a music source for the hell of it, or for some other non-technical reason.

[Arysyn]

From what I have gathered, T-Mobile is adding music sources from all over the place. The problem would pop up if they just rejected a music source for the hell of it, or for some other non-technical reason.

Sounds reasonable.

 

They've had this free service going on for quite some time now that if it were against net neutrality, it really ought to have been legally disputed by now. However, I still see people bringing the issue up every so often and wonder if maybe it is being investigated as the reason nothing has been done yet.

 

I personally think it is fine as something nice for the customers, though I certainly don't like the idea of customers getting any criticism for using these service as it is. If it effects the network, then it is T-Mobile's responsibility to deal with it. Yet, that is where I'd think a problem with net neutrality might arise if people using free data on music streaming negatively effects the network experience for users paying for data usage on other forms of content not offered for free.

[Fraydog]

I suspect that if Music Freedom were non-compliant, that the FCC would have done something by now. We can sit here and debate the spirit of the law but it's probably one of those deals where the FCC thought it was compliant with the letter of the law and stopped there.

[Arysyn]

I suspect that if Music Freedom were non-compliant, that the FCC would have done something by now. We can sit here and debate the spirit of the law but it's probably one of those deals where the FCC thought it was compliant with the letter of the law and stopped there.

Alot of people use to tell me that I'd be a great lawyer, since I debate issues so often, well at least I use to. Although, I knew I wouldn't be a good lawyer at all, despite that, because I generally dislike the law and the social system as it is. I'd much rather be a politician and change things, than to be a lawyer defending what already is.

 

So while I question these net neutrality issues, I certainly won't debate them nor defend them. Already I think it's a big mess needing to be redone with more clarity and less confusion.

[kamiller42]

At one point, I figured by reading here on S4GRU, that it was against net neutrality for T-Mobile to have streaming music not count against data. However, if no one here pro- net neutrality is going to state the same about Virgin Mobile, which I read on the other thread, then it definitely is a double standard.

 

And there's the problem. T-Mo had an idea; Sprint didn't. Therefore, it was bad... until it was discovered Sprint has very similar plans. Then, all went silent at S4GRU. (There were many voices against T-Mo's music service in another thread. None of them have spoken here.)

[WiWavelength]

And there's the problem. T-Mo had an idea; Sprint didn't. Therefore, it was bad... until it was discovered Sprint has very similar plans. Then, all went silent at S4GRU. (There were many voices against T-Mo's music service in another thread. None of them have spoken here.)

 

You are starting to grate on me -- because now you are questioning our integrity, suggesting hypocrisy.  Silence or acquiescence does not imply approval.

 

Whitelisted and/or sponsored data is a transgression against the principles of Net Neutrality.  No bones about it.  That the FCC pussed out and failed to make it a violation -- maybe because John Legere would have thrown a hissy fit and played himself up as a victim -- does not make Music Freedom any more acceptable, any less wrong.

 

Anyway, I will leave this here.  It is from The Verge's deputy editor Chris Ziegler, who is far more influential and important than little old anonymous you, small web site tech editor me, or anybody else at S4GRU.

 

Chris Ziegler ‏@zpower  Nov 24

let me be super clear about this: do you support t-mobile music freedom? you're anti-net neutrality, full stop. can't have it both ways

 

AJ

[Arysyn]

You are starting to grate on me -- because now you are questioning our integrity, suggesting hypocrisy. Silence or acquiescence does not imply approval.

 

Whitelisted and/or sponsored data is a transgression against the principles of Net Neutrality. No bones about it. That the FCC pussed out and failed to make it a violation -- maybe because John Legere would have thrown a hissy fit and played himself up as a victim -- does not make Music Freedom any more acceptable, any less wrong.

 

Anyway, I will leave this here. It is from The Verge's deputy editor Chris Ziegler, who is far more influential and important than little old anonymous you, small web site tech editor me, or anybody else at S4GRU.

 

 

AJ

Interesting points on Net Neutrality, AJ. That is what I was thinking about both Sponsored Data and Music Freedom, until reading all the different takes on it, to where it gets confusing exactly what is what. However, a more firm stand on content "openness" surely would be for the FCC to say about it, as "No charging of content providers giving advantage and no free data offered to customers from one content provider yet not another".

 

I understand such a clear point as that, but the FCC isn't making this clear enough, especially by not taking this as it ought to be meant by. Also, while I see how free data for customers may not seem the same as charging content providers, I can't ignore the thought that it still is favoritism over other forms of data, by encouraging free use of one, while others still get charged, which may also affect the data performance, such as a bunch of people free streaming music on T-Mobile slowing down the pipe for paid data content.

 

Again, all the debate over what is meant by Net Neutrality would be much less if the FCC made this more clear. Then it could be made a stronger case to either stop both T-Mobile and Virgin Mobile from offering free music streaming or not. The same goes with AT&T's Sponsored Data. Then again, I don't think anyone really can depend on the FCC doing the right think anyways.

[kamiller42]

You are starting to grate on me -- because now you are questioning our integrity, suggesting hypocrisy.  Silence or acquiescence does not imply approval.

 

I have to agree assumption is erroneous path. So why do you assume I meant silence means approval? Perhaps those in the other thread have no interest in a thread dedicated to the topic. Perhaps they are not not aware I moved the conversation to this thread. There are many logical reasons for silence, but you assume the worst.

 

Whitelisted and/or sponsored data is a transgression against the principles of Net Neutrality.  No bones about it.  That the FCC pussed out and failed to make it a violation -- maybe because John Legere would have thrown a hissy fit and played himself up as a victim -- does not make Music Freedom any more acceptable, any less wrong.

 

Saying repeatedly and maybe emphatically does not make a statement true. All your text and the quote from Chris did not provide one argument as to why or how unmetered traffic violates net neutrality.

 

Anyway, I will leave this here.  It is from The Verge's deputy editor Chris Ziegler, who is far more influential and important than little old anonymous you, small web site tech editor me, or anybody else at S4GRU.

 

If I wanted Chris' take, I would write him. I am interested in the opinions of the readers at S4GRU. No need to belittle their opinions.

[WiWavelength]

I have to agree assumption is erroneous path. So why do you assume I meant silence means approval? Perhaps those in the other thread have no interest in a thread dedicated to the topic. Perhaps they are not not aware I moved the conversation to this thread. There are many logical reasons for silence, but you assume the worst.

 

No, you went there.  You questioned our integrity and suggested hypocrisy, as I asserted previously.  Read your own quote:

 

Therefore, it was bad... until it was discovered Sprint has very similar plans.

 

That is your own assumption.

 

AJ

[cletus]

I don't think the net neutrality supporters (such as myself) have been silent here at all. Really I just have never seen this thread before until I went to "New Content" on a whim.

 

I'll be just as consistent as others here: Picking and choosing favorites is just as much of a violation as outright penalizing certain data or asking for certain data to be priced differently. The complaints are, of course, loudest about T-Mobile because it started this whole bullshit of what I like to call "benevolent violation" They claim to mean the best by whitelisting data from certain music services and speedtests but in reality they further marginalize the sideline players in those industries and provide disincentives to new entrants. The real issue here is that while outright charging more for a certain service has a quantifiable and noticeable effect...whitelisting damages (such as what I just outlined above) are much harder to quantify. How do you measure negative pressure to enter a market due to this? It'd be just as easy to lump it into the melting pot of established competition/low margins/etc when doing any type of analysis.

 

It doesn't matter if Sprint or it's subsidiaries are simply reacting to the perceived success of this strategy of net neutrality violation by matching the T-Mobile offers or providing similar offers. It is still against net neutrality. Mostly I just did not know Sprint was doing this on one of it's subbrands. In this case ignorance is a reasonable excuse to any claims of 'silence' on the part of people who are net neutrality supporters and Sprint customers.

[WiWavelength]

Saying repeatedly and maybe emphatically does not make a statement true. All your text and the quote from Chris did not provide one argument as to why or how unmetered traffic violates net neutrality.

 

And you can stop moving the goalposts.  Did I say it "violates" Net Neutrality?  Read my quote:

 

Whitelisted and/or sponsored data is a transgression against the principles of Net Neutrality.

 

It is not a violation per the FCC.  While the FCC bared some teeth in reclassifying broadband under Title II, it went weak on prohibiting whitelisted, sponsored, or zero rated data under Net Neutrality.

 

You can read an entire industry chorus -- including Chris Ziegler -- on how Music Freedom contravenes the spirit of Net Neutrality and takes a step down the slippery slope.

 

http://www.theverge.com/2014/6/18/5822996/t-mobile-music-freedom-net-neutrality

https://www.techdirt.com/blog/netneutrality/articles/20141124/07505529235/t-mobile-still-doesnt-understand-simply-doesnt-care-that-their-music-freedom-plan-tramples-net-neutrality.shtml

http://time.com/2901142/t-mobile-unlimited-music-net-neutrality/

http://venturebeat.com/2014/08/30/why-t-mobiles-music-freedom-is-hurting-net-neutrality/

http://www.eweek.com/networking/t-mobile-music-freedom-violates-net-neutrality-but-theres-a-fix.html

http://www.dailydot.com/politics/t-mobile-net-neutrality-music-freedom/

https://gigaom.com/2014/04/26/forget-fast-lanes-the-real-threat-for-net-neutrality-is-zero-rated-mobile-traffic/

http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2015/02/25/388948293/what-net-neutrality-rules-could-mean-for-your-wireless-carrier

 

You have some reading to do...

 

AJ

[WiWavelength]

The complaints are, of course, loudest about T-Mobile because it started this whole bullshit of what I like to call "benevolent violation"

 

That is a good term.  Another that has been used to describe this situation is "positive discrimination," which is still discrimination.  No debate.

 

AJ

[Arysyn]

I usually refrain from posting on old threads, even if new information applies to it, as I'd rather make a new thread to reflect the new information rather than the old. However, I know S4GRU prefers it the opposite way, in order to minimize threads of the same, even if they are old.

So, here it goes...

 

Sometime in the past when I mentioned issues I've heard various information about on other sites, I was asked by some people here to link to examples of that. One being when I mentioned confusion over the net neutrality issue, because people on other sites were still debating it now and then. I found a recent example of this going on now over at Reddit, and figured to share it here : https://m.reddit.com/r/Sprint/comments/3qrh7e/the_verge_calls_sprints_new_plans_garbage/?sort=new

 

As obvious by the thread title, it doesn't seem like a net neutrality debate would occur there, but it does. There is alot of contention over T-Mobile's Music Freedom, in anticipation of a possible Movie/Video Freedom program, along with rehashing the issue over the net neutrality legalities of both and even regarding AT&T's slowly, yet actively growing "Sponsored Data" program.

 

Notably, with all the debate over what is legal or not under net neutrality, the FCC made a mess of this. I further believe the same when it comes to how the FCC handles other issues, such as spectrum management, etc. I mention this because I hope people reading this will understand why I often bring up my own ideas of these issues, even though not entirely "realistic", because that is part of the point.

 

The real nature of the situation is quite a mess. Recently, I started giving ideas about spectrum swapping based on what actually is happening to some degree between T-Mobile and AT&T, in order to streamline their spectrum holdings for wider channels. I simply was giving a broader view of that in terms of my own opinions of what I'd like to see from that in a greater extent to it, which unfairly got labled a "fantasy".

 

Yet since then, some other people here on S4GRU have written their opinions of spectrum swapping ideas, which are great too, just like mine are to the very nature of sharing ideas that go towards shaping something better for these carriers which the FCC has made a mess of. Otherwise, there wouldn't be a need for spectrum swapping, and there wouldn't be so much debate over the technicalities of net neutrality as it has been made by the FCC.

 

If the FCC had done this right to the greater understanding of the general public, the only debate would be the opinions over the content, rather than the shape and form which the FCC set into policy. There wouldn't be a debate whether or not such and such carrier program violated net neutrality. It would be a clear it does or it doesn't.