They do but there are technical reqs the streams have to be capable of (like downgrading to lower res). If those are met they are added. There is a signup form for providers that explains it
Quite clever and fair if true
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.
Free Data Programs From T-Mobile, AT&T and Comcast Scrutinized by FCC
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They do but there are technical reqs the streams have to be capable of (like downgrading to lower res). If those are met they are added. There is a signup form for providers that explains it
Quite clever and fair if true
It can be, depending, but at the same time it allows for ISPs to compete on more than just the quality of their service. The important thing is you still have the choice to choose what you want to use without the ISP getting in the way.
To me, a package deal like what I demonstrated above is far less of an abuse of position than allowing one service free reign over a specific network at the exclusion of the others.
Of course, that is a blatant violation of the net neutrality and should not be allowed. I actually don't want any provider treating bits differently, regardless whether it is good or bad (which is almost always a matter of perspective anyway).
However, I personally do not like these package deals either, at all. The problem with bundling is that you are entangling multiple markets and make it harder for competitors in any of these markets as well as for consumers to put sufficient constraints upon strong companies. It works for each side: Consumers might be swayed by this Spotify offer, even though the Internet service itself may not be as good as a competitor's. That's bringing more complexity to consumers and makes it easier for companies to get away with uncompetitive services. Competitors, especially new entrants, might find it harder to get a foothold in the market, because a strong company like T-Mobile has money to spend to sugarcoat the deal, even if the entrant might have a better Internet service. There is a danger that large companies like T-Mobile can always rig the game in their favour. This is why European competition laws are typically much stricter about this sort of behaviour.
I wonder if allowing "free unlimited data" through these programs is a form of favoritism? When all the other stuff is limited by bandwidth available, then it looks like video data is given preference. Or at least that is one possible reading of it.
Going to be interesting to see where this goes.
Going to be interesting to see where this goes.
Are you meaning promote as in advertise? That is not an issue at all. If you are meaning promote by giving Spotify normal or faster speeds and throttling other services like Apple Music so they are difficult to use then that is a problem that the FCC can step in to address because T-Mobile would be violating Net Neutrality. I think the current setup that they are doing is on the edge, but on the legal side. But it is good that the FCC is doing their job and looking into it.
I think most of those people are for regulation when it helps big business, and only against it when the regulations work to level the playing field and allow smaller companies to successfully compete.
Then I hope you are white and born into a wealthy, prominent, and respected family. Otherwise have fun with the life of a peasant.
Because T-Mobile gives you access.
Let's look at an analogy. Imagine if Samsung pays your electric company so that its TVs and only its TVs get free electricity. Would you approve of that?
Not to mention that that's a few years before T-Mobile offered any streaming services at all.
You couldn't have it more backward. This is why net neutrality is good. The FCC is ensuring that these companies aren't giving preferential treatment to some content over others, and they are praising these companies for doing things the right way. For example, if T-Mobile said WatchESPN streaming didn't count but Fox Sports Go did, that wouldn't be fair and they'd need to step in. They're simply doing their job and doing it well.
No, it doesn't. I'm concerned with new entrants being unfairly blocked from the benefit of the zero-rating, to the benefit of larger established content providers. Whether or not they choose to be available on this platform but not that platform is irrelevant - that is their business choice to make. That doesn't play into whether its fair to give big players a competetive edge that is out of reach of new entrants.
I don't think people here realize exactly how this data becomes "free". This isn't T-Mobile doing you some solid. This is content providers PAYING to make their data transfer free on a particular network. This hurts the consumer and it creates a HUGE barrier to entry for startups. I worked in the CDN entry during the height of the Netflix / Comcast battle. Comcast screwed over our traffic to try to squeeze money out of Netflix. All that money that Netflix ended up paying to Comcast comes from somewhere. Free is never free.
"We're from the government and we're here to help."
9 words that inspire terror
9 words that inspire terror
What do you know? Using logic on the forums, not a good practice to get into. People against net neutrality absolutely blow me away. They're the same individuals that will then turn around and call BS on any monopoly in sight.
As long as I can choose any one of four cell-phone providers in my area, competition generally solves most problems. Especially if T-Mobile is one of the providers, since it competes directly on price.
Unfortunately, most homes in the U.S. have one major high-speed wired provider-- Comcast, OR, ... I'm fortunate to have another provider available, which I prefer to the local cable monopoly. The market has failed when it comes to last-mile high-speed providers to the home-- most people are stuck with monopolies. That is why Net Neutrality (somewhat of a misnomer, really -- the real issue is last-mile provider neutrality) is important. A bunch of Free Market Fundamentalists have posted here-- ignoring the existing monopoly in last mile providers.
Last edited:
God forbid a government agency should actually try to understand something before they try to regulate it.
Yes, I'm sure you would have had a hot time with the auto-de-fé.
But if you really want to simulate that 15th century experience, you might start by unplugging from the Internet-- a 20th century innovation, courtesy of the US government.
Last edited:
So what? Most BOGO sales are co-marketing efforts. What makes wireless Internet so special that the government imposes price controls?
Build out to proper capacity instead of restricted data. Unlimited data for all and this never becomes an issue.
Competition is what lowers prices in America, which is a plus for the American consumer. Government is like, "well, we can't have any of that going on here, can we? Let's launch an investigation."
I see T-mobile got bandwidth to spare, why not let people use it? As long as it's streamable with lag, I don't see any reason to ask questions. If you want unlimited, there's still unlimited data plan for people who want to stream other services not supported like youtube. Since you don't get charged for overages and drop to 4G, it should still be streamable with less quality.
The numbskull internet was all for the so-called "net neutrality" rules, not realizing that hating Comcast isn't the basis of policy. The net neutrality rules are really an FCC power grab...and here we are. It's not an investigation yet...but it could become one, unless the telco's play ball.
In this instance, the wisdom of the crowds is stupidity.
In this instance, the wisdom of the crowds is stupidity.