T-Mobile 'Binge On' Adds YouTube, Google Play Movies, and More

If this isn't a violation of net neutrality, I guess nothing is.

And a reminder to all the haters, Binge-On can be turned off in T-Mobile settings, so this is simply an OPTION to utilize if it makes sense for you.

If this isn't a violation of net neutrality, I guess nothing is.

Well you can turn binge on off...

If this isn't a violation of net neutrality, I guess nothing is.

Huh? How is this a violation of Net Neutrality?

Net Neutrality states that you cannot throttle certain websites or internet traffic in order to reduce the quality of the service. It also states that you cannot charge a particular type of traffic or site extra to use your network. So if T-Mobile went to YouTube and said pay us $10,000 a month and we won't count your traffic towards our users data caps, that would violate net neutrality. Instead they have gone to Youtube and said we would like to give our users a CHOICE of viewing your content at full quality and have it count against their data caps or watch at a reduced quality and have it not count against their data caps.

Binge On doesn't actually throttle anything, instead it offers consumers the choice: Do you want to reduce video quality and in exchange we will not count it towards your data cap? Or do you want to watch in full quality, but it will count against your data cap?

The whole point of net neutrality is to put the choice into the end user's hands and not the network providers hands, T-Mobile is simply offering the end users and additional choice, which fits quite nicely in with the spirit of the law for net neutrality.

Incidentally, when watching on a phone, the video quality is just as good as watching full quality. I could see if you were streaming to your TV or something that it might not be, but for most it is perfectly acceptable. But again, it is your choice as to what you want to use.
[doublepost=1458240549][/doublepost]

They just decided to go ahead and apply. This is borderline violating net neutrality, but I think since they allow any streaming site to join it is barely on the right side. That said regulators should watch them closely to ensure that they don't slip over to the other side.

It is actually nowhere near violating net neutrality, if for no other reason than the consumer can choose if they take advantage of a special offer or not.

T Mobile gets better and better every single day

That's not the point of net neutrality! If you are a service not on the list of "partners", you can't turn 'Binge on' ON…

T-Mobile doesn't need to select you nor does a business need to pay any fee to be part of Binge ON. You simply need to identify your video traffic for T-Mobile.

Binge ON is 1) User defeatable 2) zero cost 3) open to everyone

Which is entirely different from Comcast which will only zero-rate their own content and AT&T / VZW who requires businesses to pay for the customers data use. Comcast is using their network to squeeze out and disfavor competition and AT&T / VZW who are disadvantaging small businesses who can't pay to play. That is inequality.

Binge ON gives everyone the same opportunity and favors no one.

Yes it does. Just to a lesser degree ('https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_States#FCC_Open_Internet_Order_.282010.29'). Which can and should be considered a problem in and of itself. More and more traffic will go to mobile, not (fully) applying net neutrality there, makes it kind of pointless.
Of course, all this only applies to the US.

"Optional service", sure. But we know how things like that usually go. First, it's an optional service on one provider. It catches on, becomes an optional service on all providers. Then the first provider thinks, hey this is a great, I'll offer a contract with "Binge-on" only etc. Ok, this is a worst case scenario, but you never know.

But here is the point: All of this would be fine, as long as the provider treats all content equal. Which they don't.
Essentially, without net neutrality, you will have to pay your service provider more for access to more obscure data than to mainstream (i.e. YouTube, Netflix) data, although it is the same "dumb data" to the provider.

They technically were treating all video data equally which was why Youtube had the problem because they didn't opt in to have their video quality lowered (until now). Now that there is an opt-in on both ends consumer and provider end there really isn't an issue. Your hypothetical scenario can be applied to EVERYTHING though, that includes Communism/Socialism/Democracy governments to offering free burritos from Chipotle. The point is everything can be abused if you're going to talk hypothetically.

Your "problem" is easily solved by the lower tiered services merely opting in. Which is free and we have to believe will remain free until otherwise proven. Unless you believe in "guilty before proven innocent".

This has been debated Ad Nauseam at this point so I won't be debating it any further.

Video providers can now request to not be throttled either, so Binge On is optional for both providers and users
http://www.theverge.com/2016/3/17/11253582/t-mobile

That's not the point of net neutrality! If you are a service not on the list of "partners", you can't turn 'Binge on' ON…

Technically (AFAIK), with Binge On enabled, non-whitelisted sources are subject to some sort of optimization -- the data used just isn't ignored.

I just don't see the issue with Binge On and net neutrality. If a service that someone uses isn't whitelisted, then they can continue using said service like normal, as nothing changes for them.

Man, this is one perk I really wish AT&T would copy, but know they never, ever will.