This is just the start. Providers will push the limits slowly and will eventually get to where they want to be. t-mob is doing this in such a way that consumer's will not object. When the general public doesn't object (because they are getting "free" data) that makes it a lot easier for the FCC to look past the fact that this is a violation of basic net neutrality. Reminds me of the boiling frog analogy ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog).
Clay On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Blake Hudson <bl...@ispn.net> wrote: > It's not. And that's the point. > > This proposal, and ones similar, stifle growth of applications. If there > are additional (artificial) burdens for operating in a field it becomes > harder to get into. Because it's harder to get into, fewer operators > compete. [Note, we just reduced open competition, one tenet of Net > Neutrality] Because there are fewer operators there will be less > competition. Less competition increases prices and fewer customers take the > service. Because few people use the application, the network operator has > no incentive to support the application well. [Note, we just reduced the > freedom to run applications] Because the network doesn't support the > application well, few people use the application. It's circular and it > slows growth. > > Just because there may be inherent challenges to offering an application > (bandwidth, for example), doesn't mean that adding another one (per > application bandwidth caps) is desirable. > > Josh Reynolds wrote on 11/20/2015 11:29 AM: > >> How much medical imaging and video conference and online backup is >> done over cell networks? Those are very high bandwidth tasks that >> would quickly suck up a data cap. Until LTE came along, doing that was >> often hit/miss as far as the reliability of the connection and the >> speed. >> >> In an area with LTE, there are often better connectivity options. In >> an area without LTE, well, how much medical imaging and data backup is >> done over those 3G and satellite connections? >> >> >> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Blake Hudson <bl...@ispn.net> wrote: >> >>> Considering T-Mobile's proposal is intended to favor streaming music and >>> video services, I think it clearly violates net neutrality which is >>> intended >>> to not only promote competition in existing applications, but also in new >>> (possibly undeveloped) applications. This proposal simply entrenches >>> streaming video/music by artificially reducing the cost to operators in >>> these fields while leaving costs the same for operators in other fields - >>> medical imaging, video conferencing, online backup, etc. I believe the >>> sum >>> affect is a reduction in competition and growth of the internet as a >>> whole, >>> the antithesis to the spirit of net neutrality. >>> >> >