if you were a Tmobile customer that isn't on binge, you are still paying the exact same bill that you had agreed to pay before this whole binge thing came into scene. so not sure why you would complain.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
T-Mobile CEO Responds to 'Binge On’ Controversy, Announces 14 New Partners
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
As I said all I do on my phone when I am out and about besides of course calls is stream music. I never watch videos only at home on Wifi.
so you're disagreeing based on political principle, not based on the actual value a consumer and customer of t-mobile actually gets by this program
exactly what Legere is saying.
Well this is setting a precedent for your cable/dsl ISP to start throttling, err "optimizing", all videos at your home soon too, to help you get in under your newly place bandwidth cap. And they will choose which videos are "optimized". This is all for the good of the customer of course.
I'm shocked at the backlash from this, I really am, especially considering it can be turned off and the consumer is in total control. Also shocked at the people who don't know what net neutrality and zero rating actually is and are emphatic in their ignorance and/or complete bias against T-Mobile.
Thought people were tired of the status quo and duopoly of the wireless industry. Evidently I was wrong. Some people like being bent over and taking it while going to their happy place. Competition? Who needs it? More power to you.
Thought people were tired of the status quo and duopoly of the wireless industry. Evidently I was wrong. Some people like being bent over and taking it while going to their happy place. Competition? Who needs it? More power to you.
Are you honestly accepting this as an answer to the EFF's findings?
https://twitter.com/EFF/status/685199019161726976
true, but that is competition in general.
your case can also be used to illustrate how sometimes small startup firms can't compete with big firms because big firms can afford to pay more to have advertising in NFL games, and the poor little startups cant.
should we ban superbowl advertising?
You could always just turn the feature off and use your mobile data viewing video. I'm on the Unlimited plan so I keep Binge On off at all times.
There's a huge difference between a 480P DVD (~10mbps) and 480P video streams (~1mbps for YouTube) and this might have a good bit to do with what you're describing.
Wow..absolutely nothing of worth was added by your reply. As nothing of worth was added by mine. See how that works?
Since the Binge-On was introduced I started having problem when streaming an HD video. The video stutters or buffers. When I do a speedtest I'm getting 20+ mbps while my home internet that registers <10mbps has no issue streaming, even when just less than 5 mins. HD video. The more John defends about this, I think they do throttle the speed if not supported content provider. Or maybe the network tries to do a realtime down conversion of the quality of the video a little bit. Just like when Opera or Silk browser experience to have a faster browsing experience. In this case a video which is the reason why I used the word stutter instead of buffer. Because the video loads pass the playback timeline indicator. Well I hope it's not my phone or the updated OS. I currently using iPhone 6S Plus on iOS 9.2. Anybody else has the same problem?
As discussed in the below article, YouTube claims they're downgrading the quality of video even with the feature turned off.
https://www.macrumors.com/2015/12/23/youtube-tmobile-binge-on-compressing-all-video/
That is 100% what they do. You are automatically opted into Binge On, and they throttle all videos. And still count them against your data cap if they are not a supported partner or whatever.
http://www.androidcentral.com/it-tu...tling-all-video-through-bingeon-according-eff
Take out political and you're right. This isn't political. This is treating all data equally being the right thing to do.
Legere was spot on with his letter. This is a non-issue, and the only reason it's kicked up the "controversy" is because of click baiters.
Frankly, Google should be ashamed of the manner in which they brought it up. It was clearly stated in the terms of use for Binge On. Given that it was disingenuous for Google to raise such a stink about it.
And the "independent testing" was just an attempt to create more controversy where none existed. TMO had already stated that it was true. Why did we need an "independent test" to confirm that, except for more attention for the "testers."
It really is a positive thing for users of the service. They get free video streaming on a ton of services, and less of their data being used on others. If they want full HD streaming for a particular site they can just turn off the service.
People really should just move along and drop this non-issue. There are more important things to deal with in the world.
Frankly, Google should be ashamed of the manner in which they brought it up. It was clearly stated in the terms of use for Binge On. Given that it was disingenuous for Google to raise such a stink about it.
And the "independent testing" was just an attempt to create more controversy where none existed. TMO had already stated that it was true. Why did we need an "independent test" to confirm that, except for more attention for the "testers."
It really is a positive thing for users of the service. They get free video streaming on a ton of services, and less of their data being used on others. If they want full HD streaming for a particular site they can just turn off the service.
People really should just move along and drop this non-issue. There are more important things to deal with in the world.
Stop backing the corporations here. Did you read the terms of Binge on before you were automatically opted in? Did Tmo send them to you via a text message?
And this is an extremely important issue to deal with. This is preferred treatment of data because another corporation won't invest money to deal with the data needs of its customers properly. This is a precedent that should be fought.
Wow. So much ignorance exposed with so much conviction. It is you that needs to learn terms, not John Legere.
Let me explain it in two words: time versus space
T-Mobile is not slowing the bandwidth of content, as bandwidth applies solely to the time-domain (symbols-per-second). What T-Mobile is doing, instead, is down-converting original content from 1080p30 to 480p30 (or 60). That is a spatial reduction of content, that happens to be a geometric payload reduction over the wire by a factor of 4^2=16X.
There is no a flow-control or throttling of bandwidth -- only spatial reduction: time remains unchanged, space gets reduced 0(16X).
No, in fact they don't have a justifiable reason to complain. Because the terms of service clearly state what is happening, and they knew (or should have known) before they toggled their switch. If TMO said they were optimizing all video, and the user chose to participate they have no gripe whatsoever. And Google or others have no gripe, because the user decided that they wanted Google's data to be compressed.
You're 100% wrong. Video content providers that don't support downscaling have demonstrated that the video speeds are slowed to a bit rate of 1.5 Mb per second, often resulting in frequent buffering for end users (even though their internet connection is much faster). They are throttling. No matter how badly you say that they aren't
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/...-bingeon-optimization-just-throttling-applies
No, it's not doing magical compression.
I am not a TMO customer. But "the corporations" here is actually doing their customers a favor. Period. There is a difference between a practice that is bad for consumers and one that is not, and being able to tell the difference is a sign of intelligence...