T-Mobile Gives Customers Free Pokemon Go Data (theverge.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report from The Verge: T-Mobile has been a pioneer in giving special treatment to various apps and types of content used on its mobile network, and the carrier announced today that Pokemon Go will be joining its enclave of free data. Starting on July 19th, T-Mobile customers will have Pokemon Go data exempted from their high-speed data caps for a year. The company is also throwing in some other perks, like $15 in Lyft rides ("to get to a new pokestop or gym"), and a free Wendy's Frosty, making the slow death of net neutrality literally sweet.

Comments

net neutrality

[locopuyo]

doesn't this violate net neutrality?

Re: net neutrality

[tysonedwards]

You're implying that they are offering preferential treatment at others expense... how could giving away your pet service for free to whomever will listen, or other incentives like free travel and ice cream to motivate people to play possibly be deemed preferential?

Re:net neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it just $how$ data cap$ are pointle$$.

Re:net neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

doesn't this violate net neutrality?

Yes, clearly it is an act of war. Therefore the invasion begins as soon as our download is complete.

Re:net neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not how Net Neutrality works.

They are giving preferential treatment to Pokemon GO over other apps. Pokemon GO's data is privileged over other data.

If customers actually care about which games use their data and which ones don't, this means Pokemon GO has a clear advantage in the market.

Re:net neutrality

[EmeraldBot]

doesn't this violate net neutrality?

how would it violate net neutrality?

First T-mobile doesn't stop data, it just slows it at a certain data level (depending on your plan). So no matter what website/app you're not getting blocked and if you haven't reached your data level you'll be at the same speed.

Second T-mobile is doing this as a benefit to its customers. Its a perk. Its not charging us differently, its not charging Pokemon Go to do this. etc.

Third because it doesn't count against your data cap, you can use the data you would have used playing pokemon-go on the other apps.

I see no reason why this would be a bad thing for anyone except ATT, Sprint and Verizon...

It's not bad with Pokemon Go, but what if they offered free data for Netflix but not for Amazon Prime Video, for example? While I don't think T-mobile has done anything wrong here, and I like that they're giving out little benefits, we need to be very careful of the precedent we risk setting. It's fine to give out free data for an app which has no direct competition, but once we start moving into custom stores or services, then I think that, faced with one being free data and the other not, I think the choice is pretty clear what most people are going to make, and it becomes easy for somebody like ATT and Verzion to partner with Netflix and drive out all competition, in exchange for a cut of Netflix's profits. It literally becomes unprofitable to make a competition video service in such a case.

Re: net neutrality

[SmaryJerry]

As long as they aren't accepting a payment from Nintendo or anyone else for offering Pokemon go data free, they are not violating net neutrality.

Re:net neutrality

[DrXym]

It violates net neutrality by incentivizing customers to prefer the app which doesn't hit their bandwidth allocation over the one that does. It is quite obvious how that could be detrimental.

Re:net neutrality

[DrXym]

It's fine to give out free data for an app which has no direct competition,

Even Pokemon Go has direct competition. It may masquerade as a game but its basically collecting monetizable data about your movements and habits. It also has in-app purchasing. Is it beyond the bounds of possibility that T-Mobile has cut itself a deal for a share of the profits in return for free bandwidth?

Re:net neutrality

[mrchaotica]

I see no reason why this would be a bad thing for anyone except ATT, Sprint and Verizon...

You don't see why it would be a bad thing for other mobile games that compete against Pokemon Go, but don't get free data?

Re:net neutrality

[gfxguy]

Yes, it's blatantly anti-consumer. Somehow. It must be, because net neutrality.

Re:net neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

Says the guy who either plays Pokemon Go or loves paying more to play other games.

Re:net neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

How? There's no agreement between them and Nintendo, nor are they forcing you towards their self-hosted Pokemon "T-Go" content.

Re:net neutrality

[gfxguy]

ha ha.... that's good. I don't play PGo, but I'm not paying more (than I was) for other games, either.... so.... no difference to me.

Re: net neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

How do they know I'm using it for Pokemon? Are they spying on me?

Re:net neutrality

[sumdumass]

With T-Mobile service (great in some areas and shit in others ) it is most likely the deal is little more than getting and keeping customers. It probably makes up for when you end up in a shit area while traveling around looking for pokemon to capture.

Re: net neutrality

[BronsCon]

Yeah, they're totally spying on you and they definitely didn't get a list of Niantic's Pokemon GO servers.

Re:net neutrality

[advocate_one]

basically collecting monetizable data about your movements and habits

but it's NOT your normal movement and habits though...

Re:net neutrality

[DrXym]

That really depends if Pokemon start mysteriously appearing in Starbucks, or if you get ads for places in your vicinity. The game monetizes your activities as well as in-app purchases (which could also be tied to real-world promotions based on location). Therefore it is east to see a profit motive for Nintendo and for any network provider who cuts themselves a deal in return for some revenue.

Re:net neutrality

[sh00z]

That really depends if Pokemon start mysteriously appearing in Starbucks, or if you get ads for places in your vicinity. The game monetizes your activities as well as in-app purchases (which could also be tied to real-world promotions based on location). Therefore it is east to see a profit motive for Nintendo and for any network provider who cuts themselves a deal in return for some revenue.

They've already announced that in ~30 days, every McDonald's in the US will be a Pokemon gym.

Re:net neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

Even Pokemon Go has direct competition. It may masquerade as a game but its basically collecting monetizable data about your movements and habits. It also has in-app purchasing. Is it beyond the bounds of possibility that T-Mobile has cut itself a deal for a share of the profits in return for free bandwidth?

Induction and conjecture aren't fact, and it's that intent that makes all the difference. Offering to exempt popular sites and apps from data caps in order for your service to attract customers is different from allowing a site/service/app pay you to prefer their traffic.

Re:net neutrality

[gfxguy]

No. Well, yes and no. If you look at it from the point of view of competitors, then yes, but if you look at it from the point of view of customers, then no - even if my favorite game doesn't get free bandwidth, because all that means is nothing has changed for me.

The problem with the net neutrality rules is they go too far. I agree with the concept in so far as service providers need to recognize who their customers are and not extort content providers - who are NOT the service provider's customers. The problem with the poster child (Comcast/Netflix) is that Netflix was never pushing content onto Comcast's networks - Comcast's customers, who were already paying for the bandwidth, were pulling it - that's how Comcast's customers were deciding to use the bandwidth they paid for. In addition, it was anti-competitive because Comcast offers it's own content streaming service.

What you've got here is a nice freebie T-Mobile throws in for it's customers, and it can't even do that without people complaining it violates net neutrality. Unless Nintendo is paying T-Mobile, I see no violation of the "ideal" of net neutrality, I see potential violation of the law because the law goes too far. Like the streaming services T-Mobile gives customers "for free" (it's not really, because they potentially suffer from reduced bandwidth for that content, but it's the customers choice - so be it), T-Mobile is NOT getting paid by the content providers for giving them necessary bandwidth - it is as it should be, the customers are using the bandwidth how they see fit - nobody is losing or missing out on anything.

Re: net neutrality

[gfxguy]

That's how it should work - and that's why I don't think they are violating NN with either this or binge-on, but I also think the law goes to far - otherwise this wouldn't even be a question. I support the intent of NN, which, to me, means service providers can't charge content providers for use of their networks (because the customers of the service providers are already paying for the bandwidth), and they can't throttle bandwidth or extort money from content providers to use that bandwidth. But a company offering a freebie to it's actual customers doesn't violate the ideal of NN. If Nintendo is paying for it, then maybe - but otherwise there is nothing wrong here.

Except it probably saves on data usage

[chispito]

If you're playing PG you're not watching videos and probably not streaming music. From a Data:BatteryLife standpoint, you're coming out way ahead.

Re:Except it probably saves on data usage

[sexconker]

From a Data:BatteryLife standpoint, you're coming out way ahead.

I found him! I found the one guy not playing Pokemon GO!!!

Pokemon GO chews through batteries like a Sega Game Gear.

Re:Except it probably saves on data usage

[Anonymous Coward]

My Android phone's processor is Intel based, you insensitive clod!

Re:Except it probably saves on data usage

[Anonymous Coward]

Pokemon Go is just part of the master plan to wipe out the idiots on this planet. They will wander into bad neighborhoods and get robbed, onto crazy peoples property and get shot, and into roads, off bridges, and into construction sites.

I do not know who our overloads will be after the culling of the idiots, but they have my support. Where can I donate to get this game into the hands of more idiots?

Re:Except it probably saves on data usage

[BronsCon]

Why anonymous? This is the rare combination of Troll, Insighful, Funny, Interesting, and Informative I come here for.

Re:Except it probably saves on data usage

[Calydor]

How much data does Pokemon Go use in an average day, anyway? Is it enough that this will matter, or is T-Mobile just promoting themselves with a feel-good measure?

Re:Except it probably saves on data usage

[Khyber]

So it chews through batteries like a Game Gear with the TV attachment?

Re:Except it probably saves on data usage

[chispito]

I found him! I found the one guy not playing Pokemon GO!!!

Pokemon GO chews through batteries like a Sega Game Gear.

I was actually trying to make such an observation: That for the same battery life, Pokemon will use much less data than the usual time-wasting suspects.

Evidently, I failed.

Re:Except it probably saves on data usage

[RailRide]

If you're running a phone's GPS then *that* in particular will chew through batteries like nobody's business. I had a Galaxy Note 4 completely drain a 10,000MaH battery-based phone charger running GPS for about 7 hours (was watching my progress in a navigation app during a bus trip) At my destination, the phone was at almost full charge, the charger it was hooked to was almost completely flatlined.

---PCJ

Re:Except it probably saves on data usage

[Anonymous Coward]

I stopped logging in a few years back. Anon is more fun. I do thank you for your kind comments though. Its nice to be appreciated by a 6 digit uid.

Re:Except it probably saves on data usage

[sexconker]

Why would anyone care about data per battery when the battery usage dictates the amount of time you can play (or use your phone for anything else)?

I thought the : was just some shitty typo, especially since you said "you're coming out way ahead".

How many Pokemon stories just went to adults here

[Anonymous Coward]

in the past 3 days? Stop listening to mother fucking liars.

Marketing

[mentil]

This story is basically free advertising for T-Mobile. Pokemon GO is super popular at the moment, but it doesn't use much data. It uses up 2-8MB/hour, and the average player only plays it 43 minutes a day, meaning 1.5-6MB per day usage for an average player. That's ~120MB/month for the average player, not exactly pushing the limits of most people's data caps.

Adding in that it's probably the most popular mobile game at the moment anyhow, there shouldn't be a net neutrality problem; people who don't enjoy the game won't feel pressured to play it over other games merely due to the zero-rated data. If, say, one VPN were zero-rated while its competitors were not, there could be a serious problem; I could even see zero-rating being a problem with MMOs or livestreaming services where different services are essentially commodities. However, in this case the data usage of a game with effectively no competition in its genre isn't a significant contributor to people's choice to play it over other games.

Re:Marketing

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, you got to teach me how to use VPN to fake out T-mobiles Binge on service!

Re:Marketing

[Fire_Wraith]

The problem, if anything, lies in the general precedent of establishing the carrier having control of how much data you can use, and how/where you can use it. T-Mobile hasn't been bad about it from what I've seen, but that doesn't mean they'll stay that way (right now they're the last place upstart among the major carriers). Furthermore, Verizon and AT&T are likely going to be more than happy to put the screws to their customers using this sort of thing to wring out whatever extra money they can.

Re:Marketing

[BronsCon]

right now they're the last place upstart among the major carriers

Actually, they passed up Sprint a couple weeks ago.

Oh, wait, Sprint's not a major carrier anymore. Carry on.

Nothing to do with Net Neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

Much like when people scream the 2nd Amendment when a private company declines to allow you to say your piece whenever you want, people will scream Net Neutrality at this.

This was not an agreement between Tmobile and Nintendo (or peering systems) to prioritize data.
This was not Tmobile accelerating or throttling data.
This was not Tmobile affecting the transfer of data at all.

This was Tmobile making a business decision to exempt this data from charges to you. They are totally allowed to do this, and its actually a great promotional move.

Put down the pitchforks and pick up the pokeballs, you gotta catch 'em all...

Re: Nothing to do with Net Neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a moron.

Re:Nothing to do with Net Neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

When Tmobile exempts a company from data, deal or not, it hurts all competitors of that company. It's also a slippery slope to ending net neutrality.

Just like the other guy said...you're a moron.

Re:Nothing to do with Net Neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

It should all be exempt, asshole.

Re:Nothing to do with Net Neutrality

[Hans Lehmann]

Freedom of speech is the 1st amendment, not the 2nd.

Re:Nothing to do with Net Neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

He said say your piece, not peace. Obviously he's protesting private property owners declining to allow conceal carry.

Re:Nothing to do with Net Neutrality

[Gravis Zero]

Much like when people scream the 2nd Amendment when a private company declines to allow you to say your piece whenever you want

No, "THE SECOND AMENDMENT!" is what I scream before I start shooting. ;)

Re:Nothing to do with Net Neutrality

[Gravis Zero]

This was not an agreement between Tmobile and Nintendo (or peering systems) to prioritize data.
This was not Tmobile accelerating or throttling data.
This was not Tmobile affecting the transfer of data at all.

They will give you access to certain destinations that they decided but if you want to go anywhere else, they restrict your connection to 0 bps... unless you give them more money. That is unfair competition for my app which uses huge amounts of data too and therefore a violation of network neutrality.

Re:Nothing to do with Net Neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

Put down the pitchforks and pick up the pokeballs, you gotta catch 'em all...

I've tried that, it's a little boring to be honest, there's not much depth to the game. I'm back to playing Ingress now.

Re: Nothing to do with Net Neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a moron.

Ladies and gentlemen, our 2016 debate champion.

Re:Nothing to do with Net Neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

It should all be exempt, asshole.

The parent made the observation, not the decision. It's not like he can change that.

By the way, this is what we call the "irrelevant conclusion" fallacy. The question was whether this is a violation of the principles of net neutrality, not whether or not data caps should exist. It's like listening to libertarians cop out about marriage equality by saying that government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage. You aren't answering the same question, you're starting an entirely separate argument.

T-Mobile Tuesdays

[Zargg]

Someone has a bone to pick with T-Mobile...the free Lyft ride and Wendy's frosty have absolutely nothing to do with Net Neutrality or adding Pokemon Go data to binge on. They are weekly gifts through their T-Mobile Tuesday giveaways which they've had for I don't even know how long, but long before now.

Re:T-Mobile Tuesdays

[sh00z]

Someone has a bone to pick with T-Mobile...the free Lyft ride and Wendy's frosty have absolutely nothing to do with Net Neutrality or adding Pokemon Go data to binge on. They are weekly gifts through their T-Mobile Tuesday giveaways which they've had for I don't even know how long, but long before now.

For about a month. There's also a free Vudu rental every week. They already terminated the free medium pizza at Domino's (after two weeks), because too many customers were actually redeeming the offer.

JADE HELM

[Anonymous Coward]

two simple words.

JADE HELM

[Anonymous Coward]

nt

Darwin Approved!

[Khyber]

So, checking out the sidebar news on FB. Darwin must be laughing his ass off. A game in which evolution is a core mechanic is causing semi-natural selection among humans. Walking off cliffs, falling in lakes, getting hit by cars, stabbed in parks...

And that's just Southern California!

Re:Darwin Approved!

[Anonymous Coward]

Darwin would probably be quite disappointed in so people not sufficiently understanding evolution well enough to know what Pokemon do most definitely isn't evolve. Individuals don't undergo evolution, what the Pokemon actually do is undergo metamorphosis, like what happens when a caterpillar turns into a butterfly.

Re:Darwin Approved!

[Khyber]

'what Pokemon do most definitely isn't evolve"

One of the typical side effects of evolution is the inability to breed with prior generations.

Guess what Pokemon does?

Re:Darwin Approved!

[Anonymous Coward]

Khyber, you ignorant piece of shit. You like to argue even when you are clearly wrong. The OP was right. If you had half a brain in that sissy ass body of yours, you would just admit you were wrong instead of arguing a stupid ass position. Evolution is the result of genetic miscopies from generation to generation not changes that happen during the lifetime of that creature.

You are so hard headed that you probably don't need tools to do your mining. Instead you just slam your head against the rock.