Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

T-Mobile Exempts AT&T's DirecTV Now Service From Data Caps (arstechnica.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the two-can-play-that-game dept.

An anonymous reader writes: One of the biggest selling points of ATT's DirecTV Now service is that it streams video without counting against data caps on the ATT mobile network. But T-Mobile USA customers will also be able to watch DirecTV Now without using up data, the carrier announced yesterday. DirecTV Now is one of the latest services added to Binge On, which exempts dozens of video services from data caps as long as customers are willing to limit mobile viewing quality to about 480p. T-Mobile also promised to reimburse customers for DirecTV Now for 12 months if they port a phone number from the ATT network to T-Mobile and purchase at least two lines. This offer consists of a $35 monthly bill credit, enough to cover the DirecTV Now promotional price. This is a limited-time offer and cannot be combined with other offers like "Carrier Freedom," which reimburses customers for early termination fees when they switch to T-Mobile. "ATT wants you to think DirecTV is theirs exclusively, but that's a load of crap," Legere said in T-Mobile's press release yesterday. "Both DirecTV Now and the DirecTV apps stream free on T-Mobile with a faster, more advanced network that covers nearly every American. ATT is so distracted by their new businesses and DirecTV that they continue to ignore their 110 million wireless customers. Luckily, the Un-carrier's here to show them how to actually take care of customers!"

22 comments

  1. It's a damn pity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    That net neutrality was something glommed onto by the insane left.

    Oh well more than worth it to see the rest of the insanity burnt by the fire of God Emperor Trump

    1. Re:It's a damn pity by Pauldow · · Score: 1

      What does Trump have to do with anything? He's not even a government employee yet.

      The problem is the regulation that Congress made without any consideration for their unintended consequences.

    2. Re:It's a damn pity by I4ko · · Score: 1

      Except, you know, Binge on is an optional service. If you don't want it, you can get net neutrality.

    3. Re:It's a damn pity by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      Well, there's this story...

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    4. Re:It's a damn pity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Binge on is just as optional to T-Mobile as Internet Explorer is optional in Windows. Nothing is free, and you pay for it whether you use it or not.

      If you do not us it, you are just sponsoring the 'free' part for other people that actually do use it. This construct is nothing but a "Net Neutrality Circumvention Device" and if circumvention devices can be illegal in the DMCA, I do not see why they shouldn't be illegal in net neutrality regulations.

    5. Re:It's a damn pity by squiggleslash · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, you don't. Binge On is a pretty reasonable compromise - T-Mobile knows that multiple people streaming video using normal "greedy" dynamic video streaming protocols is likely to clog a network if not throttled. Rather than force throttling, they came up with a pretty decent compromise - if you accept throttling, and if the video provider takes steps to reduce the maximum burst rate of the video when streaming to T-Mobile users, then you get video for "free".

      You're not "sponsoring the free part" by refusing to use it. How would that work anyway? T-Mobile doesn't have overage charges. You just get cut to EDGE speeds if you use up your monthly data quota.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    6. Re:It's a damn pity by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 1

      Except, you know, Binge on is an optional service.

      And not available to everybody - you have to have a plan with at least 6GB of data at 4G per month to qualify for it. This is something that T-Mobile hides away in the (very) little print.

    7. Re:It's a damn pity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hear liberals are fans of breathing and eating too, maybe you should stop doing both to show the left.

    8. Re:It's a damn pity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So? I mean, really. It's like $40 a month per line, unlimited data with about 6gb of included tethering. At that point, the binge on portion is moot. You can turn it off. It's a FAAAAAAAAAARRRR better deal that you get than any other carrier. Once they get something similar for tablets, they will be the perfect carrier.

  2. Competition is Dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    We have anti-trust laws so we don't end up with competition crushing monopolies. We don't enforce them, see The Sherman Act.

    We need net-neutrality laws to encourage competition. The next Netflix can't happen if the net is rigged.

    Based on the cabinet picks of our next President, I don't think anti-trust enforcement and net neutrality is high on his To Do list.

    Someday, we'll have ATT, Amazon, and.... hmmm, that may be about it.

    1. Re:Competition is Dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess T-Mobile got mad over losing customers to AT&T for the DirecTV streaming.

      AT&T is trying to be Comcast. Out of nowhere AT&T (woke up) and is suddenly trying to do everything Comcast has quietly been working away at for the last 5 to 10 years. I bet AT&T farted sparks when they learned Netflix is on X1 :-)

    2. Re:Competition is Dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Netflix on X1 is Comcast's way of pushing people over the caps so they can make more money. It's a win win for them. Netflix pays Comcast for the interconnect to Comcast's network, and Comcast gets to make even more money off the smucks that use Netflix thru X1. That's why I'm cutting the cord. Greedy fucks.
       

    3. Re:Competition is Dead by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Binge-On is pretty neutral. The deal is:

      - Customer has to accept to throttling
      - Video provider needs to take specific steps to stream video and control bandwidth in a way that minimizes the risk of a tower being overloaded.

      If both are true, the video is free for the end user. It's not technically "Network neutrality" but it's discriminating on the basis of technology, to protect a network, rather than pitting different companies against one another commercially. I have no problem with that.

      Netflix, incidentally, fulfilled the provider side of the equation above, and so has been on Binge-On from the start.

      I don't believe any legislation should outlaw systems to protect a network.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    4. Re:Competition is Dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excellent, more bandwidth for me.

      Seriously, if you're blowing 1TB in a month you can and should be paying extra for it.

      We stream, game, Skype plenty and the most I've done in a month was 500GB.

    5. Re:Competition is Dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't believe any legislation should outlaw systems to protect a network.

      Effectively it is just rate shaping. Nothing new there. If you accept it, then they can support the stream. If you don't, then your presumably using up from your fixed bucket. The key is that it is open to all data sources and not too complicated to use. Ideally web sites would send smaller images/videos/etc to mobile devices already, but that gets complex fast. In fact, some proxy severs recompress images and such for this purpose. Similarly web sites could send html gziped or similar to save bandwidth.

      Either way, the real problem is things like a cell phone carrier only providing unlimited video from one source that they make money from. That needs to be stopped.

  3. Hillary's net "neutrality" would force... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    them to charge customers.

    1. Re:Hillary's net "neutrality" would force... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Why are you goin on about Hillary, she's politically dead forever now.

    2. Re:Hillary's net "neutrality" would force... by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      He misses her. I bet he masturbates to recordings of her campaign speeches.

  4. Data Caps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh yeah, for people who don't have Sprint.

    1. Re:Data Caps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yeah, for people who don't have Sprint.

      Don't worry, data caps are coming.
      If Sprint gets more than the epsilon number of customers they have today, they'll have to put on data caps to keep their network functional.
      If Sprint fails to get more than the epsilon number of customers they have today, your data will be capped at 0GB/month.

      But please enjoy your unlimited (aka 23GB/month-before-they-can-throttle-you) data plan that you have today...

  5. Event more reasons to love T-Mobile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I also love that this is right below "T&T, Verizon Tell FCC To Back Off On Net Neutrality Complaints". T-Mobile are making a good point here. :)

  6. Only an issue if AT&T paid T-Mobile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I only see this as an issue if AT&T paid T-Mobile for favorability on the network, otherwise it's just a free feature of the network. With true net neutrality you would have to be charged the same amount calling calling your service provider's customer service or trying to pay your bill online as you would for using Netflix or some other random service.