T-Mobile Just Keeps Digging Deeper With 'Binge On'

T-Mobile has really dug itself into a hole here. Its new "Binge On" plan, which was questionable from a net neutrality perspective in the first place, has come under serious fire from Internet freedom advocates for heavy-handed throttling of video content.

But now T-Mobile's outspoken CEO, John Legere, is swerving all over the road, backing away from insulting the Electronic Frontier Foundation and insisting that the net-freedom advocates have it all wrong about what his carrier is doing to alter online video streams.

(The EFF, in case you don't know, is the oldest, most established Internet freedom and digital rights group. They're the conscience of the Internet. They're also a nonprofit. They don't have a self-serving grudge against anyone. They should be treated with respect.)

T-Mobile originally said Binge On "optimizes video for mobile screens." In its Binge On FAQ, it says "the video streaming is optimized for viewing on your mobile device." That doesn't just happen for the 38 Binge On partners, either; it happens to all traffic T-Mobile can detect as video.

That's already a squirrelly net neutrality problem, as one of the primary issues of net neutrality is that ISPs shouldn't be altering content without the content provider's permission. With the 38 partners, that's all well and good: they've essentially decided to offer special versions of their content to T-Mobile so it can deliver them for free. It's a negotiation where both sides get something they want. But for that non-partner content, the video providers don't get a choice.

Let's establish that "net neutrality" means that yes, ISPs and mobile carriers get less power over content than content providers and consumers. That's always infuriated the ISPs, but it's been inherent to the free growth of the Internet.

In general, net neutrality has allowed ISPs to use traffic-management schemes when they have limited bandwidth, although even that's been debated. T-Mobile, however, insists on not describing Binge On as a traffic-management scheme.

Throttling Or Not? It May Not Matter
Things fell even more into relief when the EFF put things another way: it claims T-Mobile is throttling all video to 1.5Mbps unless you opt out. That's an easy, but super heavy-handed way to accomplish all the things T-Mobile wants: it forces video providers to drop down to lower-res streams and stretches users' data buckets. But video providers that aren't good at adapting to low bandwidths will just stall or crash.

(This is what really ticked Legere off, by the way, because "throttling" is a magic regulatory word that gets the FCC's attention.)

T-Mobile says the EFF's claims are "bullshit" and that it's requesting lower-quality streams rather than throttling. (that's what it originally told me, too.) But after mulling over this for a few weeks, I don't think that actually matters anymore for video sites beyond T-Mobile's 38 partners.

Recommended by Our Editors

With Binge On, T-Mobile Is Compressing Its Competitors

T-Mobile argues that it's putting consumers first, but it doesn't seem to get that net neutrality goes two ways: it exists to help content providers as well as content consumers. New video providers that may not have their acts together to negotiate with T-Mobile are getting degraded in ways that their servers may not be adapted for, and that privileges larger, more established providers.

"Customers are in control. Not T-Mobile. Not content providers," Legere says. But T-Mobile controls the default settings, which have an inevitable power, because most people don't notice or change defaults. Yes, you can turn Binge On off, but most less-technical people live with default settings; that's why search engines work so hard to become the default home pages of browser makers, for instance. The only group with no power here are the non-partner content providers. That's far from what Legere calls a "pro net neutrality capability." It's a system that shifts power over content quality from the video providers to T-Mobile.

If T-Mobile really wants to be Internet-friendly, it should at least make Binge On opt-in for non-partner content, but opt-out for its voluntary partners. If T-Mobile is really trying to offer consumers options, that would be the most flexible arrangement. On the other hand, if Binge On is really just a traffic-management scheme dressed up with feathers on top, the carrier should come clean about its motives.

Legere says he's going to have an open conversation with the EFF about this mess. That's a really good idea.