Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Not a problem, nothing to see here (Score 1) 217

They throttle providers who've not opted in even when you're paying for the bytes, however.
So, they're exactly doing what you're saying should be unacceptabe:
There charging you for X bytes, but not providing them at the same level of service because those providers didn't reduce the quality to an arbitrary resolution (instead of bitrate, which MAY have made some sense), and didn't make the content modifiable and snoopable (HTTP is *required* if video is to be unthrottled).

Comment Re:Nope (Score 1) 217

Their "technical requirements" don't actually make technical sense, however, and distort the market by putting an arbitrary cap on resolutions (instead of bitrate) and requiring the video to be snoopable and modifiable.

If they said: Hey, the user can opt in (instead of opting out) to "Free" service, and all they need to do is opt-in, and have the content provider react to whatever throttling that t-mobile is doing, then it'd be fine. That isn't what they're doing.

Incidentally, *someone* has to pay for the bandwidth capacity. The end-user always ends up paying either directly, or indirectly for this.
All zero-rating does in this case is allow the provider leverage to pick winners and losers (and so extort money from the content provider and/or users).

Comment Re:That is utterly stupid (Score 1) 217

You pay higher costs either way because someone needs to pay for the bandwidth.
With zero-rating, however, the carrier gets to extract concessions out of either the user or the content provider, increasing overall costs at higher rates because they can do things that actively harm the user when they want to extract more "value" from the content provider.

Comment Re:That is utterly stupid (Score 1) 217

Oh boy.

Lets pare this down to the mechanics of what is happening:
Users pay money to carrier, which builds infrastructure which supports X bandwidth.
Instead of giving everyone (n people) X/n bandwidth, they say that they'll offer some fixed bandwidth.. unless you're watching video.
If you're watching video, they'll screw with the packets (even if you're paying for them) unless you've opted out entirely of the binge-on program.
A provider must provide 720p video (even if they could have provided 1080p or better with the same bandwidth), unsecured (you must use HTTP only), and allow t-mobile to modify the content.

It reduces user choice: They CANNOT receive the video they are quite literally paying for unless that video provider has opted in by reducing security and providing shittier quality.

Comment Re:Wha? (Score 1) 217

This is amusing.

Carrier: We're going to raise the rates for everyone (someone has to pay for the bandwidth, and this always ends up coming from the consumer), but then we're going to give you insecure, lower-quality video for "free". .... and, apparently, people cheer.

They shouldn't be happy with this. They're paying more for worse service, and letting the carrier dictate the terms of their user experience instead of the market.

Comment Re:Wha? (Score 1) 217

Correct. They throttle video streams even for those services that have not opted in.
Oh, and for a service to opt in, you need to disable serving over HTTPS, and you have to allow T-mo to modify the video, etc.

So, it is entirely not neutral.

Zero rate content inevitably comes back to cost consumers more. Work out the game theory: Someone always pays for this, and since the consumers are the money source in this every time, they inevitably pay one way or another. Zero-rating simply provides an easy way to distort the market, which benefits only the carrier.

A more reasonable plan would be to throttle everyone after they use some amount of bytes, and ignore content type, etc. and not require the providers to use insecure protocols, modification, etc.

Comment Re:Wha? (Score 1) 217

Nope, you're wrong. It isn't a universal good. It is a way for T-mo to blackmail providers into "opting in" because they eff-up the packets from providers who don't.

This isn't theoretical.

Oh, and they require that you don't use HTTPS, which means that they're saying FU to your privacy, etc.

So, no, you're really wrong.

Comment Re:Not Sure What the HTTPS Hooplah is all about (Score 1) 216

Not to mention that it is basically impossible to deploy any new feature or new protocol over port 80 (i.e. unencrypted) thanks to the 'help' of these proxies.

This is why you'll see that HTTP2 is deployed basically only over encrypted :443.

Amusingly, because of the 'helpful' proxies, HTTPS can be faster than HTTP. With the advent of QUIC (i.e. HTTP2 plus improvements), HTTP will almost always be slower unless the carrier is doing something (intentionally?) to screw things up.

Slashdot Top Deals

Arithmetic is being able to count up to twenty without taking off your shoes. -- Mickey Mouse

Working...