Apple Music's Video Content Now Streams Free on T-Mobile

[2457282]

All of that's only in regard to your non-Binge On usage if you're on the unlimited high-speed data plan. You originally said "if tmob does not cap the binge on feature, this could actually give me a good alternative." So you're right: T-Mo does not cap Binge On usage.

I think you missed one of the lines I quoted from the fine print.

Data features that may not count against the high-speed data allotment for some plans, such as certain data associated with Music Freedom, or Binge On, still counts towards all customers’ usage for this calculation.

So the 26gig cap does apply for throttling you down to 2G levels. And that 26gig cap calculation include Binge On. No matter how you look at it there is a cap (direct or indirect).
[doublepost=1469551707][/doublepost]

The list of free video streaming partners are now so vast that it has become harder to name one that isn't free. I think that in itself speaks volumes about net neutrality.

Well, if I really try, there are some glaring omissions (source: App Store's top video streaming categories):

1. AMC
2. BET
3. Cartoon Network
4. CBS
5. CMT
6. CNN
7. CW
8. E!
9. Food Network
10. Golf
11. HGTV
12. IFC
13. MLS
14. MTV
15. PGA
16. Rugby
17. Smithsonian
18. Syfy
19. TBS
20. TNT
21. UFC
22. VH1
23. Viceland
24. Vimeo

I stream from none of these. If CBS allowed for live stream maybe, but you need to pay a whole separate subscription for that.

 

[oneMadRssn]

YES, there IS a difference in data. I even illustrated it. If you don't classify data, voice traffic sounds like crap. This is called a fact, and is demonstrable. Your argument from ignorance does nothing to change the fact. A car and a sledge hammer are made of metal, that doesn't make them the same thing. Your encrypted data analogy further demonstrates you have literally no idea what you are talking about. Just because you can't tell what encrypted data is... SO THE FARK WHAT? Who cares, and WHAT is that supposed to prove. That because I can't distinguish what two different objects are made of that I should treat them the same? Where do you come up with this nonsense?

Calm down dude. If VoIP sounds like crap its because your network is crap. I encrypt all my traffic at the main router, fed through a VPN. To my ISP, all the data looks exactly the same. My ISP doesn't know whether it's VoIP, Xbox gaming, streaming videos from youtube, or checking Mac Rumors. You say differentiating matters, but I am telling you it doesn't. Want facts? Data is just packets comprised of binary information. No matter what you are using it for. You're talking about optimizing connections based on what the data is used for. This is useful sometimes internally on low-throughput connections. It has no place at the ISP level, which is what T-Mobile is.

Wrong on SO many levels. Recited like some one that has NO experience with what they are talking about. The reality is, first, your 1% is a myth. We've had to move circuits to OC-768's because the OC-192's are saturated. DWDM helps, but doesn't fix it all. Security devices are running at 90% in MANY CORE NETWORKS. Where do you get this nonsense, cite your source. I work in the core every day and know first hand the realities that major telecoms face.

This was related to the roads example you gave. If there is 100 yards between neighborhoods at the narrowest point along a road, you can't build a highway wider than 100 yards. That's it. The narrowest point will be the bottleneck. The lanes are a given width, the barriers are a given width, etc. It can't be wider than the space there is. You can make it multi-level, but with diminishing returns. This is physics. With roads, we are pretty close to hitting our total possible capacity. Internet connections are also constrained by physics. However, with internet, the network we have built up today is not anywhere even close to the total possible capacity.

You're talking about current existing built-up capacity, and I am talking about the total possible capacity. That's like talking about our road network in the 1700's, it wasn't even close to what it could be back then.

Economics 101. People are flocking to T-Mobile because of the "un-carrier" concept. I'm not basing this on John's good intentions. I'm telling you that if people flock to a resource provider for a reason, and the resource provider no longer provides the reason, people go elsewhere. If fewer people by the product, stock drops.

Flocking? Certainly T-Mobile subscriber base is growing, strongly, but its not nearly as drastic as you make it out to be. Look at their earnings reports. They are growing about 10% faster than they were last year. Unfortunately their network is not expanding at the same rate. Investors see this, which is why their stock price has not grown in proportion to the earnings per share.

I don't care what you think, the facts don't support what you think. And no, there's no "collusion." Unless you have evidence? Didn't think so...

And your evidence is what? My original statement is that what T-Mobile is doing, with the zero-rating, is anti-net neutrality. You've said absolutely nothing to rebut this.

 

[1applerules1]

Dislike. This goes against the principles of net neutrality. Sure it's awesome now that we're on MacRumors and this is positively affecting Apple Music, but next time it'll give another company you like disadvantages with the telco entering deals to make it cheaper to use a competitor.

In the worst case, it can completely kill off smaller actors in the market that may even be better choices if they were competing on fair grounds. No thanks.

I'm sorry what? I can't hear you I'm watching a movie full blast on Netflix without using any of my data at the park.

 

[kd5jos]

Calm down dude. If VoIP sounds like crap its because your network is crap.

Where's your evidence. You have none because you are making a claim that is demonstrably false.

I encrypt all my traffic at the main router, fed through a VPN. To my ISP, all the data looks exactly the same. My ISP doesn't know whether it's VoIP, Xbox gaming, streaming videos from youtube, or checking Mac Rumors.

So you're under the delusion that what you do at home is exactly the same as what a Telecom provider does, just bigger? You're not even playing in reality with your comments at the moment.

You say differentiating matters, but I am telling you it doesn't. Want facts? Data is just packets comprised of binary information.

Really? How have I NEVER run into that fact in the twenty years I've spent building and protecting the Internet? We never discussed it in my Bachelors program, Masters program, any of the dozen certifications I have, any of the publications I've been in... WOW, you REALLY blew my mind... If you are going to talk down to people demonstrating how little you know on the subject, make you have supporting evidence.

No matter what you are using it for. You're talking about optimizing connections based on what the data is used for.

Ya think?

This is useful sometimes internally on low-throughput connections. It has no place at the ISP level, which is what T-Mobile.

Then why do ISPs/Telecom providers spend millions (tens of millions) of dollars doing that? Why do they buy $100,000 routers that have that capability? Why do I spend my time working with architects solving problems related to using QoS, CoS, VoIP traffic. You are out of your depth and have NO idea what you are talking about. You STILL haven't provided evidence to support your claims. Stop, you don't know what you are talking about.

This was related to the roads example you gave. If there is 100 yards between neighborhoods at the narrowest point along a road, you can't build a highway wider than 100 yards. That's it. The narrowest point will be the bottleneck. The lanes are a given width, the barriers are a given width, etc. It can't be wider than the space there is. You can make it multi-level, but with diminishing returns. This is physics. With roads, we are pretty close to hitting our total possible capacity. Internet connections are also constrained by physics. However, with internet, the network we have built up today is not anywhere even close to the total possible capacity.

Let's continue your example. Assume two vehicles approach the bottleneck at the same time. One is a Sunday driver just tooling around neighborhoods. The other is the Ambulance you are in having a heart attack. Who do you want to go through the bottle neck first? The Sunday driver on his way to nowhere in particular, or you?

THAT IS QUALITY OF SERVICE. The higher priority gets through. WHY is it higher priority? Because it has a schedule to keep. It's more important because if the packet containing audio doesn't get through in time, it's worthless (or dead). GET IT NOW. Just because two different passengers travels by car, that does NOT mean that the passengers have the same value.

And I'd like to point out your argument has contradicted your argument. Earlier you said we were only using 1% of capacity, now you say we are nearing capacity. You just lost this argument.

You're talking about current existing built-up capacity, and I am talking about the total possible capacity. That's like talking about our road network in the 1700's, it wasn't even close to what it could be back then.

And now you change your argument back. No, I'm sorry, you don't get to flip flop (you're spouting nonsense with no evidence, so I guess it doesn't really matter).

You obviously don't understand that it costs LOTS of money to increase the amount of hardware that the network uses. So providers use MPLS, VoIP, VPLS, Metro Ethernet.... Tech you obviously have no understanding of. Yes, there's fiber too... So what. Why shouldn't an ISP use all technology at their disposal to maximize the value of their network? Shareholders don't like it when you spend money on hardware unnecessarily.

Flocking? Certainly T-Mobile subscriber base is growing, strongly, but its not nearly as drastic as you make it out to be. Look at their earnings reports. They are growing about 10% faster than they were last year. Unfortunately their network is not expanding at the same rate. Investors see this, which is why their stock price has not grown in proportion to the earnings per share.

http://bgr.com/2013/10/25/t-mobile-market-share-projection/
https://gigaom.com/2014/01/30/4g-vs-4g-comparing-lte-networks-in-the-us/
In 2015 T-Mobile doubled the geographic footprint of their LTE network
http://www.clintonfitch.com/2016/02/t-mobile-has-doubled-lte-footprint-over-2015/

And your evidence is what? My original statement is that what T-Mobile is doing, with the zero-rating, is anti-net neutrality. You've said absolutely nothing to rebut this.

You are the one making absurd claims. YOU are the one required to provide evidence, something you have failed to do. No, you don't get to shift the burden of proof. At this point I have no doubt you are WAY out of your depth. This has been fun. Come back with something to support your claims.

"The nonsense is STRONG with this one..."

 

[oneMadRssn]

Where's your evidence. You have none because you are making a claim that is demonstrably false.



So you're under the delusion that what you do at home is exactly the same as what a Telecom provider does, just bigger? You're not even playing in reality with your comments at the moment.



Really? How have I NEVER run into that fact in the twenty years I've spent building and protecting the Internet? We never discussed it in my Bachelors program, Masters program, any of the dozen certifications I have, any of the publications I've been in... WOW, you REALLY blew my mind... If you are going to talk down to people demonstrating how little you know on the subject, make you have supporting evidence.



Ya think?



Then why do ISPs/Telecom providers spend millions (tens of millions) of dollars doing that? Why do they buy $100,000 routers that have that capability? Why do I spend my time working with architects solving problems related to using QoS, CoS, VoIP traffic. You are out of your depth and have NO idea what you are talking about. You STILL haven't provided evidence to support your claims. Stop, you don't know what you are talking about.



Let's continue your example. Assume two vehicles approach the bottleneck at the same time. One is a Sunday driver just tooling around neighborhoods. The other is the Ambulance you are in having a heart attack. Who do you want to go through the bottle neck first? The Sunday driver on his way to nowhere in particular, or you?

THAT IS QUALITY OF SERVICE. The higher priority gets through. WHY is it higher priority? Because it has a schedule to keep. It's more important because if the packet containing audio doesn't get through in time, it's worthless (or dead). GET IT NOW. Just because two different passengers travels by car, that does NOT mean that the passengers have the same value.

And I'd like to point out your argument has contradicted your argument. Earlier you said we were only using 1% of capacity, now you say we are nearing capacity. You just lost this argument.



And now you change your argument back. No, I'm sorry, you don't get to flip flop (you're spouting nonsense with no evidence, so I guess it doesn't really matter).

You obviously don't understand that it costs LOTS of money to increase the amount of hardware that the network uses. So providers use MPLS, VoIP, VPLS, Metro Ethernet.... Tech you obviously have no understanding of. Yes, there's fiber too... So what. Why shouldn't an ISP use all technology at their disposal to maximize the value of their network? Shareholders don't like it when you spend money on hardware unnecessarily.



http://bgr.com/2013/10/25/t-mobile-market-share-projection/
https://gigaom.com/2014/01/30/4g-vs-4g-comparing-lte-networks-in-the-us/
In 2015 T-Mobile doubled the geographic footprint of their LTE network
http://www.clintonfitch.com/2016/02/t-mobile-has-doubled-lte-footprint-over-2015/


You are the one making absurd claims. YOU are the one required to provide evidence, something you have failed to do. No, you don't get to shift the burden of proof. At this point I have no doubt you are WAY out of your depth. This has been fun. Come back with something to support your claims.

"The nonsense is STRONG with this one..."

Get a life dude and handle your ego complex. I talk down to you because you talk down to me. Thanks for keeping the internet running, I appreciate it. If you want to correct my errors and educate me, I'll only listen if you aren't being so condescending.

T-Mobile's zero-rating system is anti-competitive. While it is not expressly against the FCC's net neutrality rules, it is certainly against the spirit of the rules. Everything you said is totally irrelevant to this main point.

As for your data QOS argument, which I still don't understand the relevance of, tell me, how does my ISP know what my data is to prioritize it (which as I mentioned, is encrypted)? Who decides what is high priority and low priority? If they don't know the contents of the data, how do they prioritize it? What is the process of getting certain data prioritized higher?

 

[jlc1978]

I actually think you have less choice in that scenario. One competitor is muscled out due to collusion between a utility and another competitor.

How so? I can either choose to start with the deal I have or invest money in a new appliance to get a different deal. As long as the cost of staying with my current setup is less than buying a new one I'll stay, otherwise I'll switch. The end result is a lower price to the consumer either way, which is a good thing.

While the electricity argument is a bit different than TM's plan; a better analogy would be free electricity but we'll brown you out all the time and can cut power if demand is too high and you're always using the free power.
[doublepost=1469622616][/doublepost]

T-Mobile's zero-rating system is anti-competitive. While it is not expressly against the FCC's net neutrality rules, it is certainly against the spirit of the rules. Everything you said is totally irrelevant to this main point.

In the ned, it's a contractual agreement between TM and its subscribers. If you want it you can get it from TM or choose not to use it and expend data. If you don't like what TM does you are free to go with another provider. It's not like TM is your only choice.

 

[BeSweeet]

So the 26gig cap does apply for throttling you down to 2G levels. And that 26gig cap calculation include Binge On. No matter how you look at it there is a cap (direct or indirect).

No, you're still off.

What they meant by that is content through video or music services that aren't directly related to the video or audio streams, so things like cover art, ads, etc. That will count towards your high-speed cap. The actual streams of video and music won't.

 

[2457282]

No, you're still off.

What they meant by that is content through video or music services that aren't directly related to the video or audio streams, so things like cover art, ads, etc. That will count towards your high-speed cap. The actual streams of video and music won't.

What is your source? I would love to believe you on this, but the language is not clear. I can see your interpretation, but I see mine as well.

 

[BeSweeet]

What is your source? I would love to believe you on this, but the language is not clear. I can see your interpretation, but I see mine as well.

My source is from actual users. Check /r/tmobile if you need more. Why would T-Mobile promote unlimited video streaming if it's still limited to your high-speed cap? That's not how Binge On and Music Freedom work.

 

[kd5jos]

Get a life dude and handle your ego complex. I talk down to you because you talk down to me. Thanks for keeping the internet running, I appreciate it. If you want to correct my errors and educate me, I'll only listen if you aren't being so condescending.

Sarcasm off:
Here's one way it works. You set up a router. A host creates a packet with encrypted data. The header is not encrypted. So the header can be marked with QoS. Your router receives that packet, and honors the QoS marking. Your router passes the packet to the provider. They may not have routers that can read QoS. In that case, they ignore it, and you receive no benefit. It costs money to upgrade their devices. They do so. Now your packet arrives at the router, the router can read it, but ignores it. Why? Because it isn't set up to do anything with a QoS packet. The provider hasn't spent the money to configure the router to use QoS. And even if they set up that one router, QoS has to be set up in EVERY ROUTER in the telecom providers system, in order for QoS to make a difference. And then when they pass that packet off to the next provider, the next provider has to be configured as well. Do you see how much money goes in to this yet?

QoS is not a magic bullet. You take existing bandwidth and provide some of it to QoS. QoS is heavily monitored by providers. They manage the amount of QoS service a customer uses. THEY DON'T CARE what you use it for, but you have the amount that you signed up for in a contract, and THAT IS IT. So if you choose to use it for your XBox, or encrypted traffic, or Voice traffic, or video traffic, that's up to you at your end. All you are paying for is an amount of QoS traffic.

"Well what if I use it for my X-Box?" Then you're not using it for VoIP. You have a limit established as to how much you can use at one time. As long as you only use what you pay for (and that is measured by the ISP), then you can use it for whatever you want. Do you see now why I responded so derogatorily to your claims? You were literally claiming things didn't work, the way they work, right now, as they have been designed to work. You obviously had no clue how this system worked, and you claimed that you knew things, that were factually incorrect. Had you started by being humble enough to learn, I would have been happy to inform you. Next time, accept you may be wrong, as you are in this case.

T-Mobile's zero-rating system is anti-competitive. While it is not expressly against the FCC's net neutrality rules, it is certainly against the spirit of the rules. Everything you said is totally irrelevant to this main point.

T-Mobile isn't the only provider to choose from, it can drive down prices (as other commenters have pointed out), no, you're wrong.

As for your data QOS argument, which I still don't understand the relevance of, tell me, how does my ISP know what my data is to prioritize it (which as I mentioned, is encrypted)? Who decides what is high priority and low priority? If they don't know the contents of the data, how do they prioritize it? What is the process of getting certain data prioritized higher?

I've explained one way it works, here's a white paper from Cisco. Learn how the system works before you declare it a bad thing.

http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/suppor...-qos/qos-packet-marking/18667-crypto-qos.html