T-Mobile LTE & Network Discussion V2

[luvixuha]

Bad For Consumers

• 4 Lines for $120 @ 10GB each is now reduced to 6GB each.

 

4 for $120 is a limited time promo. Promos ending are always bad, but not unexpected in the least. The base non-promo rates were doubled from 3GB to 6GB.

[Terrell352]

This hole binge on thing completely limits the video quality but it helps them curtail over usage at the same time for people that use the services so this helps them maintain quality control of their network. but the way that they spin it forces people to say yes to it which is magical as it is asinine. It's not what you do but also simply just how you deliver the message and they're pretty damn good at doing that. This move should buy them more time in regards to network quality and speeds. Is simply going to be 480p video at its worst.

This move makes since to me. No carrier wants you streaming 1080p on there network anyway keeps congestion down. It makes since to me. All for it.

[WiWavelength]

I wonder how this DVD quality will appear on displays that are higher res than 1080P.

 

On a 5-6 in screen, video resolution is not the issue -- 1080P, 2K, and 4K are a waste.  People confuse resolution with quality.  But  for video at those screen sizes, compression and bit rate are the quality issues, not resolution.

 

AJ

[Terrell352]

Invite to use T-Mobile as a home ISP. Let's see how hard data gets hit. This is crazy I don't know if its good or bad. It will teach T-Mobile a lesson on allowing people to much freedom though.

 

 

What if I have an Unlimited 4G LTE plan?

 

You still benefit with Binge On™! When Binge On is enabled, you’ll get all the benefits of unlimited video streaming on your smartphone and when you use your phone as a mobile hotspot you can stream Netflix, Hulu, HBO, Sling, ESPN, Showtime, Starz and more for free, without counting against your smartphone mobile hotspot. AND, you’ll receive 1 free movie rental a month from Vudu– as long as you have Binge On™ enabled – starts in January

[cortney]

On a 5-6 in screen, video resolution is not the issue -- 1080P, 2K, and 4K are a waste.  People confuse resolution with quality.  But  for video at those screen sizes, compression and bit rate are the quality issues, not resolution.

 

AJ

 

And of course, many magentans will complain about free 480p videos... on their 5-6" screens.

 

What's that?! Big pink can't deliver free 4k video for me!  But I just speed tested 110/40!!!    

[cortney]

Invite to use T-Mobile as a home ISP. Let's see how hard data gets hit. This is crazy I don't know if its good or bad. It will teach T-Mobile a lesson on allowing people to much freedom though.

 

These actions alone will invite more abuse. Maybe they want to finish off the rest of the good looking speeds on unloaded sectors and take down the rest. Even encouraging too much 480p video steaming is no help, etc.

Edited November 10, 2015 by cortney

[jreuschl]

It is interesting..  some think TM is so great because of how open, er, uncarrier they are, yet they may view the 480P video limit as being sneaky and cheap.

[Arysyn]

I just finished watching the stream, and I'm a bit surprised T-Mobile went this route with the unlimited video being the way they announced it as.

 

Putting aside all of the debate over what type of data usage and how much of it, etc. is within reason or data "abuse" and so on, this idea of unlimited video watching is what it is on T-Mobile. Again, T-Mobile is offering it and if the network goes to crap, as I'd imagine many of us, including myself, likely are thinking very well might happen.

 

Anyways, back to the issue of my surprise. I really didn't think T-Mobile would go the route of limiting the video stream to 480p and then announcing this as "optimization". True optimization does not typically involve limiting resolution, but rather how to make delivering the best quality video resolution in the most efficient way possible. Not by limiting the resolution and calling everything else as wasteful data.

 

I tried being fair to T-Mobile in this case before today's announcement, figuring they'd institute a speed cap on video. At the most generous, but of course least realistically likely, I thought possibly it could be around 15mbps maximum, just enough for 4k, which still not the most network friendly option, would have made a huge impact in the media, and truly putting pressure on the "duopoly". It would have been true video freedom that could be monitored over time, in case more network optimization was needed, but at least in the meantime, it still would be a revolutionary idea that would truly be tough competition.

 

The other more realistically likely idea I had, which I actually expected them to do, is to have a 3mbps speed cap on video streaming, just enough for 1080p. Having enough speed for 1080p video is important in the way of how things are with mobile devices. Having free 480p viewing on devices which mostly are 2k nowadays, is like the WalMart way of doing things, just more cheap crap for less. Also, I highly doubt Neville, who is a technology officer mostly involved in the network management side of T-Mobile's business, is an expert at video quality optimizing in the sense I mentioned here earlier in this post. Otherwise, they wouldn't be limiting video to 480p, and they'd be talking more about the technical aspects of this, such as various speed details, etc.

 

They didn't do that at the event. Most of Neville's responses from people wanting to know more from him about the technical aspects of this, ended up with him muttering about with less details given than what a political candidate typically gives during a debate, much less than that actually. Also noticeable, was the general sense of disappointment of the announcement after it was revealed to be limited to 4k. I could immediately sense the excitement of it all just vanish in an instant.

 

Another thing I'll briefly mention about the event, is just how more unsimplified the Simple Choice plans are getting. The average customer isn't likely to understand these plans, making them easy prey to T-Mobile representatives ever eager to oversell these plans. That is, if they even can understand them too.

 

If I were Marcelo, I'd host an event at the Sprint Center, announce a truly simple $45 individual line monthly plan with unlimited everything, except data, with the option for $1.50 per 1gb. Then have a $15 monthly additional option for unlimited audio/video capped at 3mbps. That would be a much better deal both in pricing and in service offering than T-Mobile.

[NYC126]

You gotta give them credit, they know a thing or two about marketing. They know how to offer a crap product and frame it as the greatest new cool thing in mobile.

 

Sprint can't overreact to every move they make, they need to focus on its network densification, and become the faster LTE network in America . the spectrum is there to get it done.

[Arysyn]

I agree Sprint needs to focus on network densification, but they also have a bunch of different plans, which if they'd actually simplify, is important in that aspect of the sale, customers understanding what they are paying for what they are getting.

 

T-Mobile has now made their already overly complicated plans even more so, while still calling them "simple". However, I think this video offering of theirs might draw more criticism than praise, which if Sprint can make a better offering they certainly could do, then they've got that covered.

[nexgencpu]

WOW, at least the verge got this right..

 

 

http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/10/9706296/t-mobile-binge-on-streaming-net-neutrality-problem-john-legere

[derrph]

My extra line that I have with T-Mobile won't be using this service. Kinda pointless since I have the truly unlimited plan. I don't see YouTube being apart of this list no time soon.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[nick]

My extra line that I have with T-Mobile won't be using this service. Kinda pointless since I have the truly unlimited plan. I don't see YouTube being apart of this list no time soon.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

it is actually not pointless for the unlimited plan, tethering went from 7gig to 14 gig and binge on streaming partners do not count against your hot spot udage... also free movie rental each month starting in 2016.

http://mms.businesswire.com/media/20151110006774/en/495839/5/TMUS-UCX.jpg?download=1

[Maverick]

FYI.....just saying

 

 

Definitely heart and soul of net neutrality.

 

.http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/10/9706296/t-mobile-binge-on-streaming-net-neutrality-problem-john-legere

[Paynefanbro]

FYI.....just saying

 

 

Definitely heart and soul of net neutrality.

 

.http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/10/9706296/t-mobile-binge-on-streaming-net-neutrality-problem-john-legere

 

This has been posted already.

[Maverick]

This has been posted already.

Ah, I did a quick scan and must have overlooked it.

[cortney]

WOW, at least the verge got this right..

 

 

http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/10/9706296/t-mobile-binge-on-streaming-net-neutrality-problem-john-legere

 

Fantastic! The Verge has been on fire this month.

 

First about the stupid donate your internet for the cause cellspot thing (that basically only has a use in the dead middle of office buildings), and now they're not buying any more of their "it doesn't violate net neutrality because it's free" bs. 

[richy]

Wow glad to see nobody let it upset them

 

Bingeon is optional.  If you want unlimited streaming it's 480p (or higher), probably depending on network congestion.  720 p is more than enough for any mobile screen,  480p isn't bad,  the codec and encoder are more important. I'm shocked anyone can do a better job than netflix, they spent a fortune developing their encoder (buying companies to help) so honestly I think this probably just makes lower resolutions more tolerable or is just throttling. 

 

This does mean the kids can watch stuff on tablets in the car via tethering which is useful at times. The way they sell it is pathetic,  but it is extra choice. It will be very interesting to see if network congestion improves (due to lower streaming rates) or worsens (due to more people streaming). 

 

If nothing else it will be interesting to see if either of the big two respond in any way. Plus my tethering allowance just doubled. Let's see if the bill changes lol

[richy]

FYI.....just saying

 

 

Definitely heart and soul of net neutrality.

 

.http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/10/9706296/t-mobile-binge-on-streaming-net-neutrality-problem-john-legere

Absolutely the opposite. Zero rating is only an issue if it's pay to play or discriminatory against a specific company. There is zero harm if a provider offers free interconnects to any company offering a type of service that submits their details (in this case ip ranges and ports). If tmobile allowed their own service or a partners service for free then charged a prohibitive sum for transit to a competitors then that would be a violation but the free music and video streaming is neutral. To be fair sprint had its own tv service which it zero rated as well.

 

 

The verge is as usual portraying it's sub soccer mom level grasp of technology. Their comments about artificial scarcity, so you agree that sprint have been slow at expanding their network capacity? No, they have gone as quickly as their pretty impressive Capex spend can allow (tmo and sprint seem to spend about 4-5bn a year on networks, verizon 12bn and att in between the two figures). I wouldn't call that dragging their heels. The big two have used pricing to constrain demand somewhat but sprint and tmo have not. Buying a nationwide 5x5 and deploying it is billions, easily over 10bn, not something you can just do whenever, especially as auctions are not an everyday occurance. The data crunch had been very real,  even verizon here is only just starting to get away from being congested. I'm sure their click baiting got them some ad revenue but their waffling doesn't stand up to any scrutiny.

[WiWavelength]

Absolutely the opposite. Zero rating is only an issue if it's pay to play or discriminatory against a specific company. There is zero harm...

 

Nope.  What you propose just is not feasible, not for startups yet to make it big or that now may never make it big, nor for individuals who have their own servers.

 

richy, you and I usually agree on issues.  But I am disappointed with you on this one.  You are dead wrong.  This is data discrimination -- bar none.  And it is not done with any justification of network management or federal regulation.

 

Zero rating is playing favorites -- positive discrimination -- which is still discrimination, still anti Net Neutrality.  Just because you or some people "like" it does not make it less prejudicial and discriminatory.

 

Let "Seinfeld" ironically tell the tale...

 

 

AJ

[Arysyn]

I really don't think it is fair for T-Mobile to decide which video content provider is "technically compatible" with their "binge-on" or not.

 

Yesterday, I wrote here how I think T-Mobile should have gone about doing this in a more practical and simple way of throttling video speeds to 3mbps maximum, as a way of preserving bandwidth while offering this feature. Now, I'm starting to see how if T-Mobile did it that way, it would have been much more fair towards what part of Net Neutrality I do know about, which is to treat all data equally.

 

Furthermore, this "binge-on" is what really has finally shown me a better image of Net Neutrality as an internet protection mechanism. Yet while the realities of the legalities of it are still unclear to me, I do have a good understanding at least what they should be, according to what I've heard of them from Net Neutrality supporters, which in a way mimic my viewpoints of it.

 

So, if all data content is to be treated equally, "binge-on" clearly is a mechanism of content discrimination, which should be illegal. Also, I now have a better understanding of why Music Freedom is against Net Neutrality in these ways, by allowing T-Mobile the power to decide which content provider is allowed to provide their content through T-Mobile data-free, or not, just like with "binge-on".

 

If all audio/video content providers were allowed in, free data of theirs on the T-Mobile network, I can see a stronger case for it, even though there still is the issue of other types of content not being free of data charges. Although, this action of not allowing those content providers over the issue of "technical compliance" or whatever, clearly is very wrong.

[richy]

Nope.  What you propose just is not feasible, not for startups yet to make it big or that now may never make it big, nor for individuals who have their own servers.

 

richy, you and I usually agree on issues.  But I am disappointed with you on this one.  You are dead wrong.  This is data discrimination -- bar none.  And it is not done with any justification of network management or federal regulation.

 

Zero rating is playing favorites -- positive discrimination -- which is still discrimination, still anti Net Neutrality.  Just because you or some people "like" it does not make it less prejudicial and discriminatory.

 

Let "Seinfeld" ironically tell the tale...

 

 

AJ

 

Don't worry, you'll get used to me disappointing you, everyone does eventually

 

I'm struggling to see how this could be construed as discriminatory if it includes any video service that signs up, signup being free and there being no bar to entry. A startup offering vod from a vps could sign up, how quickly they got accepted remains to be seen but both ends probably need to consent to having their content downgraded in quality. 

 

Net Neutrality mostly stemmed from paying for a fast lane, although admittedly it did include zero rating where specific companies could pay to have their data zero rated. That isn't the case here, there is no fee, nor is any fast lane being used, I guess technically it is the opposite as the quality is downgraded but again, both parties are consenting. 

 

NN was also largely about interconnect fees vs peering and how last mile providers (frequently TV providers) with a conflict of interest could use interconnect or transit fees to push up the cost of VOD services while effectively giving it free to themselves and equalizing the cost against their linear services. While I would imagine Netflix et al probably do cache on tmos network (and probably sprints if they have sense) this isn't about fast lanes, transit, peering or anything like that. No small or large provider pays anything, they fill out a form.

 

Now why video is free but say ftp transfers aren't when a GB is a GB is a valid discussion, but again this is for free and allowing a user to stream any vod service that applies for free doesn't harm a cat lover website or facebook or whoever else is on the interweb. The whole thing might not look right but I really dont see a huge amount of harm in this. Remember Sprint DID zero rate their own tv streaming service while charging for others. I don't recall them being pilloried for it I really do struggle to see the harm here. Is it really because one type of data is getting preference over another? Because any sane network management plan has done that for years, your email can wait half a second if it means your skype call doesn't skip.

 

Recently sprint got a bashing for the leasing deal, unjustly especially as it was only an option, I think tmo are getting the same here, its more for free, the cost isn't passed to the other end, the trade off is clear and its optional. Just because its come from justin biebers dirty uncle doesn't always mean its bad Then again I am hardly immune from being wrong lol. 

 

The biggest worry here is how their network will stand up to the abuse.

[dnicekid]

I just finished watching the stream, and I'm a bit surprised T-Mobile went this route with the unlimited video being the way they announced it as.

 

Putting aside all of the debate over what type of data usage and how much of it, etc. is within reason or data "abuse" and so on, this idea of unlimited video watching is what it is on T-Mobile. Again, T-Mobile is offering it and if the network goes to crap, as I'd imagine many of us, including myself, likely are thinking very well might happen.

 

Anyways, back to the issue of my surprise. I really didn't think T-Mobile would go the route of limiting the video stream to 480p and then announcing this as "optimization". True optimization does not typically involve limiting resolution, but rather how to make delivering the best quality video resolution in the most efficient way possible. Not by limiting the resolution and calling everything else as wasteful data.

 

I tried being fair to T-Mobile in this case before today's announcement, figuring they'd institute a speed cap on video. At the most generous, but of course least realistically likely, I thought possibly it could be around 15mbps maximum, just enough for 4k, which still not the most network friendly option, would have made a huge impact in the media, and truly putting pressure on the "duopoly". It would have been true video freedom that could be monitored over time, in case more network optimization was needed, but at least in the meantime, it still would be a revolutionary idea that would truly be tough competition.

 

The other more realistically likely idea I had, which I actually expected them to do, is to have a 3mbps speed cap on video streaming, just enough for 1080p. Having enough speed for 1080p video is important in the way of how things are with mobile devices. Having free 480p viewing on devices which mostly are 2k nowadays, is like the WalMart way of doing things, just more cheap crap for less. Also, I highly doubt Neville, who is a technology officer mostly involved in the network management side of T-Mobile's business, is an expert at video quality optimizing in the sense I mentioned here earlier in this post. Otherwise, they wouldn't be limiting video to 480p, and they'd be talking more about the technical aspects of this, such as various speed details, etc.

 

They didn't do that at the event. Most of Neville's responses from people wanting to know more from him about the technical aspects of this, ended up with him muttering about with less details given than what a political candidate typically gives during a debate, much less than that actually. Also noticeable, was the general sense of disappointment of the announcement after it was revealed to be limited to 4k. I could immediately sense the excitement of it all just vanish in an instant.

 

Another thing I'll briefly mention about the event, is just how more unsimplified the Simple Choice plans are getting. The average customer isn't likely to understand these plans, making them easy prey to T-Mobile representatives ever eager to oversell these plans. That is, if they even can understand them too.

 

If I were Marcelo, I'd host an event at the Sprint Center, announce a truly simple $45 individual line monthly plan with unlimited everything, except data, with the option for $1.50 per 1gb. Then have a $15 monthly additional option for unlimited audio/video capped at 3mbps. That would be a much better deal both in pricing and in service offering than T-Mobile.

 

 

For a "simply" plan what you suggested is way to complicated.

The idea is good but there is too much after the simply part for most avg consumers to understand.

[maxsilver]

I'm struggling to see how this could be construed as discriminatory if it includes any video service that signs up, signup being free and there being no bar to entry. A startup offering vod from a vps could sign up, how quickly they got accepted remains to be seen but both ends probably need to consent to having their content downgraded in quality.

 

You should read Susan Crawford's work on this topic https://medium.com/backchannel/less-than-zero-199bcb05a868

 

Condensed, your arguing for a benevolent dictatorship. "It's ok that T-Mobile gets to pick winners and losers, because they do so justly." T-Mobile's move is still a major breach of Net Neutrality, because it's still discrimination against certain sources of data. That discrimination is inherently wrong, even if you personally happen to benefit from it in a reduced phone bill.

 

Being "ok" with how T-Mobile chooses to discriminate, doesn't make the discrimination any better

 

 

Net Neutrality mostly stemmed from paying for a fast lane, although admittedly it did include zero rating where specific companies could pay to have their data zero rated. That isn't the case here, there is no fee, nor is any fast lane being used

 

Net Neutrality has always been about preventing discrimination of data in various ways. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality  It did not "stem" from a fast lane, a fast lane is just a symptom of non neutral ISP. Zero rating is another symptom of a non neutral ISP.  Plans that only allow access to certain parts of the internet (like a "social media" Twitter/Facebook/Instagram only plan) are also a symptom of a non neutral ISP.

 

Remember Sprint DID zero rate their own tv streaming service while charging for others. I don't recall them being pilloried for it

 

They should have. Zero rating is a breach of Net Neutrality, regardless of who perpetrates it. Sprint fans who choose to ignore Sprint's Net Neutrality breaches (historical, recent, and current) doesn't change that in any way.

 

The biggest worry here is how their network will stand up to the abuse.

 

This is would be the least of my concerns.

 

T-Mobile already gives out unlimited data for anyone who pays for it, for any application. I don't believe letting people stream heavily throttled video streams will cause any more congestion than an unlimited user already could, doing other activities. 

 

You'll probably see congestion in the future. But not due to this.

 

 

(EDIT: highlighted a line that was already present originally, just to make sure people don't miss it)

Edited November 11, 2015 by maxsilver

[S4GRU]

I really don't understand all the fervor supporting T-Mobile in this decision. Even by people who should know better. They must just think that because it seems to benefit them, it's OK. It's a bad move. But a few more people are seeing the anti-Net Neutrality black lining to these Legere giveaways. I applaud the Verge for standing up with their great article on the subject. And even BGR is starting to get worried. But I fear it won't be fast enough. The Grinch is already smiling from ear to ear. Let me explain.

 

The bottom line is, even if Legere is a wonderful man who has our best interest at heart, he is creating a system that will likely be emulated by the Duopoly and every ISP. And as wonderful and trustworthy as Legere is at being the gatekeeper (which I don't buy for a minute, but let's presume he is), Verizon and AT&T will not be.

 

Legere is the one championing that wireless companies and ISP's become gatekeepers to the internet, who will ultimate pick winners and losers. This is so far against what the internet is all about. It's about to become completely controlled by big business. We are all soon going to be told what we will see and what we will do.

 

We all should insist on a free and open internet. We are giving away our rights for free candy. Don't be so blind! But I suppose it may even be too late. Verizon and AT&T are already working up their own plans. And Comcast. And Time Warner. And their customers will love the free tainted candy they'll be given, too. And they will even credit Legere for making all the free candy possible. #FreeCandy

 

And when anyone starts to feel like maybe this is a bad idea, they will read the reassuring Neville Chamberlain words of the proponents, and the Duopoly will give them a new flavor of candy they haven't had before, and it will all go away. Just pat the masses on the back and send them to bed with a big hug from big business.

 

This is about to go everywhere, far beyond T-Mobile. Mark my words.

 

#SayNo2FreeCandy

 

Using Tapatalk on Note 8.0