T-Mobile Fires Back at YouTube Over Throttling Allegations
Given that what's written here is true
Not according to the definition of Net Neutrality "the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites." They're not favoring any service over the other, they're just lowering the video resolution for members who opted for Binge On service. I believe that T-Mobile's first mistake was enabling the service by default on all subscribers (which I got several texts on all my numbers and turned it off) and the second would be lowering the video quality on YouTube's videos when YouTube is not even part of Binge On. Also, they are not charging anything extra to have some video providers favored over other, so to ...
(continues)
(continues)
...
You have to remember, the point is to lower usage and allow you more video streaming so although YouTube is not a part of BingeOn, watching it optimized will allow your data to last 3 times as long. At the end of the day, there is no argument because IT CAN BE DISABLED ANY TIME.
...
>>so although YouTube is not a part of BingeOn, watching it optimized will allow your data to last 3 times as long.
So what. When did T-mobile, or yourself for that matter, become the judge of how best to consume the data that the CUSTOMER paid for. What you "PERCEIVE" as a bonus for the customer might actually be a point of irritation. What if the customer was streaming the sub-par video to his 1080p TV? If he's being charged for the data, shouldn't he have the CHOICE of what resolution he gets?
>>At the end of the day, there is no argument because IT CAN BE DISABLED ANY TIME.
WRONG. There is an argument because T-mobile made a change without asking the customer first. I might agree to watch Netflix at 480p because you're not char...
(continues)
So what. When did T-mobile, or yourself for that matter, become the judge of how best to consume the data that the CUSTOMER paid for. What you "PERCEIVE" as a bonus for the customer might actually be a point of irritation. What if the customer was streaming the sub-par video to his 1080p TV? If he's being charged for the data, shouldn't he have the CHOICE of what resolution he gets?
>>At the end of the day, there is no argument because IT CAN BE DISABLED ANY TIME.
WRONG. There is an argument because T-mobile made a change without asking the customer first. I might agree to watch Netflix at 480p because you're not char...
(continues)
...
>> They're not favoring any service over the other, they're just lowering the video resolution for members who opted for Binge On service.
You gave the definition and then failed to understand it. YouTube is NOT part of binge on. If they lower the resolution without asking the customer, they ARE by definition "favoring or blocking particular products or websites".
>>and the second would be lowering the video quality on YouTube's videos when YouTube is not even part of Binge On.
Exactly. And that is a mistake that violates net neutrality, exactly as is alleged by Google.
>>Also, they are not charging anything extra to have some video providers favored over other, so to my understanding of that definition they're not violating Net ...
(continues)
You gave the definition and then failed to understand it. YouTube is NOT part of binge on. If they lower the resolution without asking the customer, they ARE by definition "favoring or blocking particular products or websites".
>>and the second would be lowering the video quality on YouTube's videos when YouTube is not even part of Binge On.
Exactly. And that is a mistake that violates net neutrality, exactly as is alleged by Google.
>>Also, they are not charging anything extra to have some video providers favored over other, so to my understanding of that definition they're not violating Net ...
(continues)
...
This forum is closed.
