T-Mobile's Binge On Violates Net Neutrality Principles, van Schewick Says
T-Mobile’s Binge On service was the subject of renewed debate last week as Stanford Law School professor Barbara van Schewick, a frequent participant in FCC and other net neutrality fora, charged in an FCC filing Friday in docket 14-28 that the service violates key net neutrality principles and creates harms to Internet openness that the general conduct rule is meant to prevent. Binge On distorts competition, limits user choice, stifles free expression and harms innovation, van Schewick said. It limits users’ choices and creates a technical hurdle for providers, she said. However, Binge On is “perfectly consistent” with an open Internet, said one of several defenders we interviewed.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
The claim that Binge On’s technical requirements are discriminatory is naive, charged network architect Richard Bennett in an email. With 42 video services already signed up, the requirements are “clearly within the reach” of any firm capable of building the complex infrastructure needed for video streaming, he said. “Van Schewick also fails to appreciate the fact that inter-company cooperation is the tissue that holds the Internet together,” he said. “Binge On is perfectly consistent with the best traditions of the Internet and a boon to consumers who desire an alternative to traditional cable and satellite TV services.”
Binge On “undermines the core vision of net neutrality,” van Schewick said. ISPs shouldn’t act as gatekeepers that pick winners and losers online by favoring some applications over others, but Binge On is allowing T-Mobile to do just that, she said. Many video streaming providers will have to work with T-Mobile to determine whether their services can be a part of the service and some will have to invest time and resources to adapt their service to T-Mobile’s systems, she said. “Binge On allows some providers to join easily and creates lasting barriers for others, especially small players, non-commercial providers and start-ups.” T-Mobile didn't comment.
Verizon recently unveiled its FreeBee Data service, under which content providers can pay to provide consumers with data that doesn’t count against the data allowance in a subscriber’s monthly plan, mirroring a similar program from AT&T (see 1601190070). Comcast also has zero-rated offerings that, like the AT&T plan, have drawn scrutiny from the FCC (see 1512170030).
AT&T’s, Comcast’s and Verizon’s zero-rating programs raise clear net neutrality concerns, van Schewick said. Comcast’s zero-rating favors its own online video service over all competing online video services -- a “textbook example” of an ISP using its position as a gatekeeper to pick winners and losers online, her filing said. AT&T’s and Verizon’s plans allow some to buy a competitive advantage, causing the same harms to Internet openness as charging companies to be in a “fast lane,” van Schewick said. “The net neutrality implications of T-Mobile’s Binge On program are less obvious but nonetheless significant,” she acknowledged. “Unlike Comcast, T-Mobile welcomes all video streaming providers to join its program. And unlike AT&T and Verizon, T-Mobile allows providers to join its program without paying a fee. As a result, Binge On seems on its face less harmful than these other zero-rated offerings.”