Like Netflix? T-Mobile Is Giving it Away For Free (cnet.com)

Roger Cheng, writing for CNET: T-Mobile and Netflix are new BFFs. The primary beneficiaries of this new friendship will be subscribers to T-Mobile's "One" unlimited data plans, many of whom will get access to Netflix for free, T-Mobile CEO John Legere said on an "Un-carrier Next" webcast video on Wednesday. But the freebie only works if you have at least two T-Mobile One unlimited data plans (single line customers are out of luck). The free Netflix access arrives on Sept. 12. The alliance is just the latest proof that the worlds of video and mobile are colliding. AT&T is in the process of buying Time Warner -- home of "Game of Thrones" and Batman -- so it can own more of the content you watch, and has bundled HBO for free to some of its higher end wireless customers. Verizon has invested in creating short-form video geared towards younger audiences and a mobile video service called Go90.The offer is for the T-Mobile ONE plan with 2+ lines. You can compare T-Mobile plans here.

Comments

Network neutrality worst-case scenario

[MobyDisk]

The worst-case scenario of not having network neutrality is ISPs altering or blocking content. The second worst-case scenario is ISPs partnering with web sites and offering their content for free. Amazon and Hulu should compete on product, not on having special deals with local monopolies. Can you imagine the outcry if your local power company gave free power to Kitchenaid appliances but not Whirlpool appliances, or to the PlayStation 4 but not the XBox? That would be such a clear abuse of monopoly power that we would never stand for it. We need to stop this from happening on the internet.

Re: Network neutrality worst-case scenario

[SuperKendall]

And yet again, another example of how absolutely no-one understands what Net Neutrality is, nor what existing Net Neutrality laws even do.

REAL Net Neutrality in no way would block deals such as these, nor should it. What you want is some kind of horrid dystopia.

Re:Network neutrality worst-case scenario

[Anubis IV]

I agree that it is NOT a good thing for consumers if we allow local monopolies to work out exclusivity agreements with other services or products, but T-Mobile is hardly a monopoly by any stretch of the imagination, local or otherwise. In about 99% of the places they are, so too are Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint.

I'd be right there with you if this was Comcast or Cox or Suddenlink doing similarly, simply because of the way that they've all managed to carve out regional monopolies in which they're largely uncontested, but the wireless market is a fairly competitive one without either local or regional monopolies. As such, I don't see a problem with one of the wireless carriers finding new ways to add value to their services, so long as they don't do so by prioritizing Netflix's traffic over that of its competitors.

Re: Network neutrality worst-case scenario

[Mr D from 63]

You're right about that - T-Mobile and Netflix would always (and should always) be free to bundle their services. This isn't strictly the issue, though. I believe the implication is that without net neutrality, an additional "feature" of a deal such as the one announced today would be increased bandwidth or data limits for Netflix over T-Mobile's network. To me, this deal today is a lure, something that in the long-term will be recognizable as a step in a greater bait-and-switch, which is ultimately what net neutrality opponents argue. Connectivity providers today argue that consumers should trust them to only use the monopoly power (resultant from infrastructural realities like spectrum and cabling) to benefit the consumer, to provide a wider range of better options - "Look what we want to do for you: free Netflix! Why won't you let us do this for you??" The countervailing point would be that in the end, what we'll see are more scenarios with particular companies teaming up to force consumers into particular courses of action - you know, like every scenario where personal motive comes into play. Free Netflix will of course turn into connectivity-provider exclusive content, or even network-exclusive access. Ohh, the internet... you seemed so good and empowering, how come the big content providers are trying to take you all for their selves? Oh wait... I can see why.

Valid points. Is allowing NF content for free and not counting against data caps considered different treatment? It is essentially a subsidization of NF video by the ISP in terms of access. Theoretically wireless ISPs could all do similar NF deals, then raise their rates so you are essentially paying more for all other streaming services.

Re:Network neutrality worst-case scenario

[naughtynaughty]

I'd be delighted at any discount my local utility offered. Free power for Kitchenaid appliances? FANTASTIC

Who is being abused when someone offers a discount or benefit? You aren't abused because you have Whirlpool and not Kitchenaid, you just didn't get a freebie someone else got.

T-Mobile offers free Netflix, FANTASTIC. Abuse me some more and offer me free Hulu next. Or go all out and offer me a free Tesla Model S. That would be some seriously outrageous abuse of T-Mobile customers.

Re: Network neutrality worst-case scenario

[Bengie]

Net neutrality is about the delivery mechanism being fair for all sources for a class of data. And "fair" being defined as something like "not interfering" or "not preferring". Peering with someone is not "preferring" because it does not manipulate the transmission in any way, it only brings the source "closer".

Re:Network neutrality worst-case scenario

[known_coward_69]

the carrier is not bundling a service. This is more like Netflix selling a service wholesale to reach millions of customers without paying money to apple or google for the billing or cc fees or spending money on advertising to retain customers

some of you people should think about these things from the business perspective of netflix

Re: Network neutrality worst-case scenario

[Jeremi]

REAL Net Neutrality in no way would block deals such as these, nor should it.

We've seen what happens when a product's viability is determined not by the quality of the product, but rather by what partnerships the company can strike with the gatekeepers. It's not pretty. How would the next streaming-video company compete if it has to require customers to pay for bandwidth while entrenched players like Netflix can give them for "free"?

What you want is some kind of horrid dystopia.

Hyperbole, eh? Is our current electric grid a horrid dystopia because the electric company is not allowed to give free unlimited power to people as long as it is used on co-branded appliances? I don't think so.

Re: Network neutrality worst-case scenario

[suutar]

I'm unaware of the definition of "preferring" that requires "manipulate the transmission". Indeed, manipulating pricing would be something I would tend to describe as "preferential treatment", which pretty much has "preferring" in the name...

Re:Network neutrality worst-case scenario

[suutar]

Whirlpool is now facing a non-level playing field. This does not seem to meet the usual definitions of a free or fair market.

Re: Network neutrality worst-case scenario

[Obfuscant]

How would the next streaming-video company compete if it has to require customers to pay for bandwidth while entrenched players like Netflix can give them for "free"?

What you are effectively arguing is that no company may ever give away its product for free, because that would give it a competitive advantage over any new competition. Do you really wish to have that kind of legislative control over private contracts?

Is our current electric grid a horrid dystopia because the electric company is not allowed to give free unlimited power to people as long as it is used on co-branded appliances? I don't think so.

The difference is, T-Mobile is not a monopoly. Even the "electric company" can no longer be considered a monopoly, at least in places where you can buy your electricity from more than one company. I have a choice of four, if I recall correctly, electricity suppliers using the same electric infrastructure.

Why should it be any of your business as an XYZ power customer if Frigidaire Electric company wants to give free electricity to Frigidaire refrigerator owners? As long as they are putting as much power into the delivery system as their customers are extracting, why should you care?

This is the failure in almost all of the arguments against all those awful monopolistic ISPs. They simply aren't monopolies.

Re:Network neutrality worst-case scenario

[Obfuscant]

Whirlpool is now facing a non-level playing field.

By that definition, there is never a "level playing field". Each provider of a service makes choices about price/quality/features, all of which attempt to tip the "playing field" in their own favor. The fact that Hershy chocolate is waxy and unappealing but costs a lot less than Lindt or Ghiardelli tips the playing field in favor ofHershy in some markets, the others in others.

You are perhaps confusing equality of opportunity with equality of outcome -- a common mistake in today's politically correct, hypersensitive society.

Re:Network neutrality worst-case scenario

[fustakrakich]

Real net neutrality is a dumb pipe. It doesn't block or prohibit anything.

Re: Network neutrality worst-case scenario

[Anonymous Coward]

Preferential treatment is "fine" in terms of promotional pricing or joint advertising.

"Real" net neutrality would prohibit giving preferential treatment to (or against) Netflix data traversing t-mobile's network compared to any other data traversing t-mobiles network. So they can definitely cut a deal to sell both products together under a single price, but they can't prefer data from Netflix over other data while transmitting it through t-mobile's network. The most they can do to improve Netflix bandwidth is to improve the network links that are most under load from Netflix traffic. They can't slow down other traffic that would normally use those same links to make room for Netflix.

Other issues like zero-rating data from only certain sources or partnering with specific services might be related to the same concerns as net neutrality, but should be discussed separately (the aren't, but they should be).

TL;DR - "True" Net Neutrality only cares about the fair transmission of data. An ISP should focus on getting data to it's destination as if it had no knowledge of what the data is.

Re:Network neutrality worst-case scenario

[naughtynaughty]

Holy Batman!

Whirlpool has an uneven playing field because Kitchenaid struck a promotional deal with a local utility?

You do realize companies do promotional deals with other companies ever single day? Ever wonder why McDonald's doesn't sell Coke and Pepsi?

I don't know what kind of playing field you imagine the business world to be but I can assure you to isn't anything like you imagine.

Re: Network neutrality worst-case scenario

[MobyDisk]

Okay, I suppose you are right in a way that this isn't necessarily a network neutrality issue. It's just a general anticompetitive issue. I would not want my local power company offering "promos" for certain companies products. Or municipal water supplies to offer bundled discounts on Aquafina water. Monopolies shouldn't be skewing the markets like that. But I can see how you and SuperKendall say that this isn't network neutrality per se since they aren't altering the traffic, except for changing the price.

Re:Network neutrality worst-case scenario

[MobyDisk]

I get your point, but T-Mobile is a monopoly. They have exclusive rights to certain frequencies, granted to them by the US government. But even if that were not the case, having 4 companies control wireless telephone system over the entire United States, and absurdly high barriers of entry, is enough to make them a monopoly IMHO.

Re:Network neutrality worst-case scenario

[MobyDisk]

Well, one would HOPE t-mobile wouldn't traffic-shape non-Netflix video services

We shall see, eh? They already price-shaped them. So someone explain to me: why is not okay for T-Mobile to charge *more* for some service (that wouldn't be neutral), but it is okay for T-Mobile to charge *less* for another service? Isn't that the same thing? That's like those laws that forbid a surcharge for using credit cards, but permit cash discounts.

Re:Network neutrality worst-case scenario

[MobyDisk]

So, does net neutrality say anything about price? Is it okay to say that a certain site costs more? Or that a site costs less?

Re:Network neutrality worst-case scenario

[fustakrakich]

The price is to be set by the sites, not the service provider.

Re:Network neutrality worst-case scenario

[Anubis IV]

having 4 companies control wireless telephone system over the entire United States, and absurdly high barriers of entry, is enough to make them a monopoly IMHO.

I'll disagree with your take on this, and I mean this in the kindest of ways, but your use of "monopoly" makes me question whether you know what it means. Yes, they're huge, yes, they're dug in, and yes, I wish there was more competition, but, monopolies are defined by their exclusive (or near-exclusive) control over a market, so none of those factors means these companies are monopolies. It just means that the market has high barriers to entry and that the current players are entrenched. If anything, the fact that there are four of them competing with one another points towards a lack of a monopoly.

T-Mobile is a monopoly. They have exclusive rights to certain frequencies, granted to them by the US government.

Now that's a far more interesting point to make, and one I hadn't heard before. Even so, it still doesn't make them a monopoly (at least in any meaningful sense of the word) for one simple reason: individual frequencies are not a market. Individual frequencies are part of a much larger market, of which T-Mobile only controls a small portion.

Think of it this way: any given apple farmer has the exclusive right to use their farmland (which, like a frequency, is a limited resource) to grow their apples, but that doesn't mean they have a monopoly over either the market for farmland or the market for apples. Yes, their patch of dirt is different than everyone else's, and yes, they have exclusive control over their unique location, but that doesn't mean they have a monopoly (again: exclusive control of a market), since there's plenty of other farmland that's just as useful and plenty of other farmers producing apples.

Likewise, there are plenty of other frequencies that are just as useful for cell phone use, and plenty of other carriers providing cell service over those other frequencies. As such, T-Mobile neither has a monopoly over the market for frequencies nor over the market for cell services. That may change in the future, but for the moment, that's where things stand.

As for whether Netflix being bundled is a good or bad thing, so long as consumers have alternatives to T-Mobile and T-Mobile doesn't prioritize Netflix's traffic, things should shake out acceptably, though I'll admit that the market may go in directions we may not like along the way, in much the same way that most of us loathe cable TV bundles.

Re:Network neutrality worst-case scenario

[MobyDisk]

I enjoyed this discussion. Thank you.

Re:Network neutrality worst-case scenario

[MobyDisk]

Not in this case. T-Mobile is setting the price at 0.

Re:Network neutrality worst-case scenario

[fustakrakich]

No problem if that is their price for all sites, not just a select few.

Try to cancel WSJ and get Amazon Prime for free...

[cdreimer]

I called to cancel my subscription to the Wall Street Journal because I was rearranging my budget. Not only did I get an $8 per month discount for six months, I also got Amazon Prime for free.

Re:it isn't "free"..

[Anonymous Coward]

It is free if you were already paying for those things.

Re:Millennial Math

[dslauson]

Fuck common sense budgeting and financial planning...who needs that shit when you have millennial math and YOLO.

YEAH!!!! And another thing: these millennials are ALWAYS on my lawn! I tell them to quit it, and then, next thing you know, they're right back on there, with their hashtags and their YOLOs.

Re:You ever notice carriers treat their single-lin

[Wycliffe]

Hey, some people can't find spouses and don't have kids. Why should they pay more for phones and phones service?

It's because as the number of lines goes up, the amount used per line tends to drop. Families tend to have one or two heavy users. That's the reason that many carriers tend to make the 3rd and 4th line almost free. They know that those lines are likely going to be used considerably less. Also plans are tailored to the heaviest user. The heaviest user needs unlimited so everyone is on unlimited. If all lines were the same price then only the heavy user would choose the unlimited plan and the rest would go find cheaper plans.

NFL ST (NFL verizon local games) CSN Philly (past)

[Joe_Dragon]

NFL ST (NFL verizon local games) CSN Philly (past) are the more locked in site of things.

Att has FREE HBO* with some planes

[Joe_Dragon]

But it's not HBO NOW it's HBO GO/ HBO Main feed and you need to buy an basic tv package to get it.

Re:You ever notice carriers treat their single-lin

[no1nose]

Joke's on them. My youngest daughter uses more data than my other three lines combined...and hers is the fourth line! Take that Verizon!

Re:You ever notice carriers treat their single-lin

[unrtst]

It's because as the number of lines goes up, the amount used per line tends to drop.

I think that's the rhetoric, but I don't believe that's the reason... it doesn't make sense as a reason. Those other lines are not just extra lines the same person is (not) using, they're other people. They'll average the same amount of usage as single customers would average.

Regardless of how much they use, IMO it's more about customer retention. I'm fairly certain that customer turn over is the more expensive part, and the more folks you can get them to add in on the same plan, the less chance anyone in that group will be able to convince everyone else to go to a new carrier (which usually means new device as well, which means moving all contacts/apps/etc, and the cost to move, and the headache, and coordinating a date when everyone can make that move... it's just not going to happen).

Of course it is "free"

[Gabest]

It is built into the price. Just sue them if they don't offer the same plan without it at a cheaper price.

Re:Of course it is "free"

[wonkey_monkey]

Just sue them if they don't offer the same plan without it at a cheaper price.

Sue them for what? Are they beholden to offer you every possible combination of their services?

Re:Of course it is "free"

[Gabest]

I don't live in the US, but here it is against the law to offer two products, that should be sold separately, only in a single package.

Re:Of course it is "free"

[Gabest]

I mean this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Why not pay less in bulk?

[BronsCon]

It's 2017, and reward that goes to someone other than me is a punishment. Or something like that, I don't know, that's just what I hear whenever a millennial is speaking.

Re:Millennial Math

[Nidi62]

Talk to me when livable houses are available for under $300k and a decent new car is under $30k.

My 2000sq ft house was under 200k 2 years ago (although now worth well over 200k), and my 2014 Focus only cost $15k. You must be doing it wrong.

Re: You ever notice carriers treat their single-li

[UrbanMonk]

I feel the same way, feels like we are being punished for being single. But there are studies that say buying in bulk can be wasteful if the unused goods could have been better used for something else. Besides you're better off spending valuable time on PlentyOfFish or OKCupid than watching reruns.

Re:Millennial Math

[slinches]

FreedomPop's plans are only cheap if you essentially don't use data. Using 10GB on their best phone plan in a month would cost $125 ($35 4GB plan + 6x $15/GB).

horrendously ignorant

[goombah99]

Really for someone who claims to possess the one-true-net-neutral theory you shure sound like a shill for t-mobile. You are utterly wrong in your analogy even though your first sentence is correct. No preference for transmission within a class of data. Delivering netflix for free means that people are paying more for all other classes.

Re:"free"

[Chameleon Man]

So sick of hearing this, especially in a context where it makes no sense. Did you even read the article, much less the editorial? Or are you just responding to the title? T-Mobile is offering it so long as you and another person are on a joint account and both have the unlimited data plan. It's a packaged perk.

Re:Try to cancel WSJ and get Amazon Prime for free

[cdreimer]

Re-arranging your budget? You mean going broke?

When I added a $10 item to my budget, I had to reduce $10 elsewhere to balance my budget.

Re:Try to cancel WSJ and get Amazon Prime for free

[cdreimer]

Good to see you back on your meds, Chris, hopefully this time it will work for you!

You're confusing me with someone else.

Re:Millennial Math

[geekmux]

Wait. $60 a month is too expensive for a cell phone plan?

Since it takes a minimum of two unlimited lines to get "free" Netflix, the actual cost is $120 a month.

Ironically, this is also a perfect example of Millennial Math...

Re:You ever notice carriers treat their single-lin

[Wycliffe]

and the more folks you can get them to add in on the same plan, the less chance anyone in that group will be able to convince everyone else to go to a new carrier (which usually means new device as well, which means moving all contacts/apps/etc, and the cost to move, and the headache, and coordinating a date when everyone can make that move... it's just not going to happen).

Most multiline plans are designed around a family and many have restrictions like shared data, shared billing, being able to see the location of everyone, etc.. in order to discourage roommates, etc.. from using a multiline plan. This means that in general, there is very little "convincing" or coordination dates needed. Mom, Dad, etc.. just changes everyone. I think the main advantage they get with multiline accounts is that they know that parents are likely not going to shell out $50+ a month for a line for their kid but an extra $20/month gives them $240 they wouldn't otherwise have. I do think this part does help with the lockin though as once you have 4 lines, the odds of all 4 being out of contract at the same time is lower.