Marcelo Claure, Town Hall Meetings, New Family Share Pack Plan, Unlimited Individual Plan, Discussion Thread

[utiz4321]

I stopped using Amazon Prime music streaming on T-Mobile because it is not free to stream, like others. And I even know that I shouldn't. But it's human nature not to pay for something that you get for free. We are being reconditioned.

 

Using Tapatalk on Note 8.0

You pay T-Mobile for a data allotment, not for Amazon prime access. When all the services counted against your data allotment you used prime and other services? If so it should allow you to use more prime not less, as your will use less data over all because some of your services don't count then you'll have more to burn on prime. Besides I am sure that you simply shifted your usage of prime to one of your other services.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[utiz4321]

Also, I don't think you've dropped prime because of it.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Paynefanbro]

You pay T-Mobile for a data allotment, not for Amazon prime access. When all the services counted against your data allotment you used prime and other services? If so it should allow you to use more prime not less, as your will use less data over all because some of your services don't count then you'll have more to burn on prime. Besides I am sure that you simply shifted your usage of prime to one of your other services.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

His point is that because Prime Access counts towards his data but another service that does a similar thing doesn't, he isn't using Prime Access anymore. Because Prime Access counts toward people's data usage, they no longer have much of an incentive to continue using it over another product that does not count toward their data usage.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[utiz4321]

His point is that because Prime Access counts towards his data but another service that does a similar thing doesn't, he isn't using Prime Access anymore. Because Prime Access counts toward people's data usage, they no longer have much of an incentive to continue using it over another product that does not count toward their data usage.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

I get that but acknowledge my point, which is if I am using 5 gigs of usage on Netflix and 5 gigs on prime and Netflix strikes a deal making the usage I spend on them not count against my data bucket then that frees up 5 gigs which I can use on prime or any other content I wish to consume. If a movie or show is on both I might use Netflix to watch it but Their catalogs are not identical and I still get shipping through prime so I and I am willing to bet Robert isn't canceling our prime subscription.

 

It may put pressure on Amazon to strike unique content relationships or invest more in original material or strike a deal to make their content not count against my data bucket, any of which are good things from the consumer's point of view.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[S4GRU]

You pay T-Mobile for a data allotment, not for Amazon prime access. When all the services counted against your data allotment you used prime and other services? If so it should allow you to use more prime not less, as your will use less data over all because some of your services don't count then you'll have more to burn on prime. Besides I am sure that you simply shifted your usage of prime to one of your other services.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nice try. But I'm limited to 6GB of all other data. It used to be 10GB of all types of data. It was neutral. Now with 4GB less, I definitely need to use the free streaming service. Personally, I'd rather have 10GB and be completely neutral. But Tmo is choosing winners, and I need to stay in reduced allotments. So, here we are.

 

And most of us are going to use the free streaming services that don't count against us. And over time, that's going to have a bad effect. Especially when AT&T and VZW do it.

 

I predicted it. I was laughed at by people like you. Now it's starting to happen. But you'll laugh at me some more. And Then after it happens, you still won't give me credit. How do you measure what never was invented and brought to market? You can't. We'll just be fat and happy with what we have.

 

Sent from OnePlus 2 using Tapatalk

[S4GRU]

Also, I don't think you've dropped prime because of it.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just an example. Prime music is free to me, as a benefit of becoming a Prime member. But if I had to pay separate for it, I would have dropped it now for one of the free allowed products. Not that it matters, because I don't use it now at all anymore. Legere wins another one.

 

Sent from OnePlus 2 using Tapatalk

[utiz4321]

Nice try. But I'm limited to 6GB of all other data. It used to be 10GB of all types of data. It was neutral. Now with 4GB less, I definitely need to use the free streaming service. Personally, I'd rather have 10GB and be completely neutral. But Tmo is choosing winners, and I need to stay in reduced allotments. So, here we are.

 

And most of us are going to use the free streaming services that don't count against us. And over time, that's going to have a bad effect. Especially when AT&T and VZW do it.

 

I predicted it. I was laughed at by people like you. Now it's starting to happen. But you'll laugh at me some more. And Then after it happens, you still won't give me credit. How do you measure what never was invented and brought to market? You can't. We'll just be fat and happy with what we have.

 

Sent from OnePlus 2 using Tapatalk

Not sure what you mean people like me. I personally have thought the industry would move to this formate sooner and have be consistently fine with it. I am anti-net neutral, as from my point of view all it does is uses force to shift profits from pipe to content creators and will either leave us with shitty networks or fewer networks to chooses from. Remember, growth in the consumption of online content is the reason capex for wireless companies are as high as they are, shouldn't some of the larger content providers shoulder some of that burden?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[utiz4321]

Just an example. Prime music is free to me, as a benefit of becoming a Prime member. But if I had to pay separate for it, I would have dropped it now for one of the free allowed products. Not that it matters, because I don't use it now at all anymore. Legere wins another one.

 

Sent from OnePlus 2 using Tapatalk

Do you use it on your att service? If you like something that is on prime, that is only on prime you'll use the data to watch it or at least most people would.

 

Also, did you use Netflix when it was 10 gigs and neutral? If so that data has been freed up. Now how the math works out (dropping to 6 gigs) depends on your usage pattern but for a lot of people it means more data to consume on other content.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[nexgencpu]

Not sure what you mean people like me. I personally have thought the industry would move to this formate sooner and have be consistently fine with it. I am anti-net neutral, as from my point of view all it does is uses force to shift profits from pipe to content creators and will either leave us with shitty networks or fewer networks to chooses from. Remember, growth in the consumption of online content is the reason capex for wireless companies are as high as they are, shouldn't some of the larger content providers shoulder some of that burden?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Zero-rating seems harmless today, but the end game of this crap is the following...

 

The asterisk* is what most are afraid of, and its pretty much where zero-rating leads..

 

[utiz4321]

Zero-rating seems harmless today, but the end game of this crap is the following...

 

The asterisk* is what most are afraid of, and its pretty much where its going..

 

What is funny about this example is that it never happened. Not because of regulations but because it is a bad business model as long as there is competition on the pipe side. If it was the good old days of ma' bell than net neutrality would be a must. But I don't think we want to go back to the days of no choices in providers. In affect, net neutrality makes fewer players viable on the pipe side. There is always a cost to regulation.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[nexgencpu]

What is funny about this example is that it never happened. Not because of regulations but because it is a bad business model as long as there is competition on the pipe side. If it was the good old days of ma' bell than net neutrality would be a must. But I don't think we want to go back to the days of no choices in providers. In affect, net neutrality makes fewer players viable on the pipe side. There is always a cost to regulation.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actually it did not happen specifically because of regulations. You obviously missed the memo...

 

 

 

Also...

 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/fcc-approves-net-neutrality-rules-setting-stage-for-legal-battle-1424974319

[caspar347]

What is funny about this example is that it never happened. Not because of regulations but because it is a bad business model as long as there is competition on the pipe side. If it was the good old days of ma' bell than net neutrality would be a must. But I don't think we want to go back to the days of no choices in providers. In affect, net neutrality makes fewer players viable on the pipe side. There is always a cost to regulation.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But large parts of America are stuck with just one provider! That's the whole problem! Unless you're a giant like Google you really can't just start a wireline ISP (or wireless really for the same reasons) on a whim. The startup costs are impossibly high and even if you can get past that you've got the PR nightmare of convincing people it's worth it for them to let you dig up their yards to install cables. And then there's permits. And zoning. And slow subcontractors. And corruption in favor of incumbents. And NIMBYs.

 

It's in our best interests to fight for as even of a playing field on the web side as possible since the infrastructure contest is so one-sided.

 

For example: I have two choices for wired internet. Only one of them counts as broadband as per the new definition. I'm stuck with slow Windstream or monopolistic TWC.

[utiz4321]

Actually it did not happen specifically because of regulations. You obviously missed the memo...

 

 

Umm.... No it didn't. High speed internet has been around since the late 1990s. Tom wheeler didn't become FCC chair until 2013. The market and the nature of the Internet makes this a bad model.

 

Besides, pipes ability to package content isn't what wheeler prohibited. It was charging content providers for fast lanes to customers.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[utiz4321]

But large parts of America are stuck with just one provider! That's the whole problem! Unless you're a giant like Google you really can't just start a wireline ISP (or wireless really for the same reasons) on a whim. The startup costs are impossibly high and even if you can get past that you've got the PR nightmare of convincing people it's worth it for them to let you dig up their yards to install cables. And then there's permits. And zoning. And slow subcontractors. And corruption in favor of incumbents. And NIMBYs.

 

It's in our best interests to fight for as even of a playing field on the web side as possible since the infrastructure contest is so one-sided.

Google is the perfect point to what I am saying. Google fiber is a giant threat to pipe. Basically it is Google saying keep the Internet relatively open or else we will destroy your bottom line. I can't think of a market with only one isp choice, except extremely rural areas on satellite.

 

Also, good point on local regulations gumming things up. I support the FCC dropping the hammer on the NIMBY crowd.

 

Look, the higher the capex for ISPs, the higher the return to scales, thus the fewer players and higher end user cost.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[nexgencpu]

Umm.... No it didn't. High speed internet has been around since the late 1990s. Tom wheeler didn't become FCC chair until 2013. The market and the nature of the Internet makes this a bad model.

 

Besides, pipes ability to package content isn't what wheeler prohibited. It was charging content providers for fast lanes to customers.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ISP's have been fighting net neutrality for quite some time, having zero competition in most locations (because they operate like drug dealers with zones that avoid any possible competition) would have easily allowed them to implement these practices with very little loss in customer retention since customers just don't have a choice of options. 

[caspar347]

Google is the perfect point to what I am saying. Google fiber is a giant threat to pipe. Basically it is Google saying keep the Internet relatively open or else we will destroy your bottom line. I can't think of a market with only one isp choice, except extremely rural areas on satellite.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I edited my post above with this, but I'll say it again: I only have one choice for broadband. And I live in the middle of a high-density suburb. And I know that everyone around me is in the same boat.

[utiz4321]

I edited my post above with this, but I'll say it again: I only have one choice for broadband. And I live in the middle of a high-density suburb. And I know that everyone around me is in the same boat.

You have wireless, probably four or so to choose from if you are in a high-density suburb. I get what you are saying though. There is only two in Phoenix and this is the sixth largest MSA in the US. I don't know this for certain but I bet there is some regulatory reason for it. In any case google sees the opportunity here and this will be changing.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[utiz4321]

ISP's have been fighting net neutrality for quite some time, having zero competition in most locations (because they operate like drug dealers with zones that avoid any possible competition) would have easily allowed them to implement these practices with very little loss in customer retention since customers just don't have a choice of options.

You have hit the nail on the head. Zones to avoid competition. This is the real problem and one which you can affect.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sbolen]

I edited my post above with this, but I'll say it again: I only have one choice for broadband. And I live in the middle of a high-density suburb. And I know that everyone around me is in the same boat.

I have two choices - one, the cable company (Charter) with 100mbps speeds, and the telco (AT&T UVerse) at up to 18mbps, if I'm close to a hub.

 

There is virtually no competition here.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[caspar347]

You have wireless, probably four or so to choose from if you are in a high-density suburb. I get what you are saying though. There is only two in Phoenix and this is the sixth largest MSA in the US. I don't know this for certain but I bet there is some regulatory reason for it. In any case google sees the opportunity here and this will be changing.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Alright. Fair enough. But I really don't think it's accurate to equate wireless competition with wireline. At all. They are two totally different kinds of networks built for two totally different use patterns and to attempt to use one for the other's purpose is not a good idea. Because wireless is a hell of a lot less stable than wireline. And data prices are orders of magnitude apart. But that's a different discussion.

[nexgencpu]

You have hit the nail on the head. Zones to avoid competition. This is the real problem and one which you can affect.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

While I do understand where you are coming from, at the end of the day Zero-rating is a backdoor to the same end game.

 

Narrow your customers view to selected apps, then close the door to the rest who are not agreeing to your terms, by the time the customers notice, its too late.

[utiz4321]

Alright. Fair enough. But I really don't think it's accurate to equate wireless competition with wireline. At all. They are two totally different kinds of networks built for two totally different use patterns and to attempt to use one for the other's purpose is not a good idea. Because wireless is a hell of a lot less stable than wireline. And data prices are orders of magnitude apart. But that's a different discussion.

I agree. My point is you have choices, maybe only one that fits your needs but then we should look at why that is. And when you do you won't find that it is because of the anti-net neutrality position of your only viable ISP but because of regulation and the high capex cost.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[caspar347]

I have two choices - one, the cable company (Charter) with 100mbps speeds, and the telco (AT&T UVerse) at up to 18mbps, if I'm close to a hub.

There is virtually no competition here.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yep. 300mbps TWC or anywhere from 3 to 24mbps with Windstream depending on where you live.

[nexgencpu]

Also would like to point out, all these companies are for-profit, so if one of them finds a way to succeed in implementing this, the rest will eventually follow.

[S4GRU]

I'm so glad to live in South Dakota. At my home I have three viable hardwired ISP's to my house. Two cable companies, Midcontinent (300Mbps) and Vast (200Mbps) and DSL from CenturyLink up to 40Mbps. Midco and Vast have 60Mbps plans under $30 per month. Midco and CenturyLink are installing FTTH with 1Gbps service in all new home developments now in our area. I was surprised how well connected Western South Dakota was when I moved here. Choices and good prices. Although the two always seem to go hand in hand.

 

Sent from OnePlus 2 using Tapatalk