T-Mobile to Give Users Free Data Toward Pokemon Go for a Full Year. Part of T-mobile Tuesdays
80 replies, posted
[QUOTE=J!NX;50725429]you... do know what... net neutrality is...
right?
Let's at least double check
[t]http://i.imgur.com/QVNbCIU.png[/t]
Ok so, yeah, cool, technically it goes under the definition of it, but is it really breaking any actual rules or harming anyone at all? Sure, they're favoring a single app but it's clearly not out of malicious intent or to do anything wrong
I'd say they're being harmful if they were to favor one company over the other, and lets say, if you used google for search instead of bing you would get less data usage, or if you used amazon over netflix for videos and they did it to try and undermine netflix, but this isn't the case
so what really is the problem?[/QUOTE]
Someone earlier made a point I actually could see happening, where they do a lot of really awesome shit for their customers that technically 'violates' net neutrality and then when a bill comes thru that would strictly enforce net neutrality they could be like "Guys vote against this. It won't let us do awesome things like give you free data in Pokemon Go or give you unlimited data for youtube etc etc" and once the people stupidly vote against it because "well tmobile is being cool" then they won't be?
[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;50725439]Someone earlier made a point I actually could see happening, where they do a lot of really awesome shit for their customers that technically 'violates' net neutrality and then when a bill comes thru that would strictly enforce net neutrality they could be like "Guys vote against this. It won't let us do awesome things like give you free data in Pokemon Go or give you unlimited data for youtube etc etc" and once the people stupidly vote against it because "well tmobile is being cool" then they won't be?[/QUOTE]
I suppose this technically is a case where the slippery slope argument could actually apply fairly, and objectively, but I doubt it'll come to that, that badly
hopefully they aren't THAT kind of slimey
[editline]17th July 2016[/editline]
I guess the real question is; if it technically doesn't harm anyone is it against the rules?
[QUOTE=J!NX;50725429]you... do know what... net neutrality is...
right?
Let's at least double check
[t]http://i.imgur.com/QVNbCIU.png[/t]
Ok so, yeah, cool, technically it goes under the definition of it, but is it really breaking any actual rules or harming anyone at all? Sure, they're favoring a single app but it's clearly not out of malicious intent or to do anything wrong
I'd say they're being harmful if they were to favor one company over the other, and lets say, if you used google for search instead of bing you would get less data usage, or if you used amazon over netflix for videos and they did it to try and undermine netflix, but this isn't the case
so what really is the problem? They aren't doing it to undermine another company stealthfuly, or trying to create bias towards another. It seems like a PR stunt if anything, and it's working apparently.[/QUOTE]
It doesn't have to be malicious intent at all. Their binge on service is a perfect example of how they're violating it. Is free data for pokemon go a big deal? No. Is it yet another time tmobile has violated it? Yes. The issue isn't this single time, it's that they seem to be creating a pattern.
[QUOTE=Robman8908;50725382]Just got signed up on a family plan with my roommates today, told them about this yesterday and they immediately wanted to do it, lol.[/QUOTE]
Ugh, don't get on a phone plan with roommates. I did the same and its a terrible idea.
[QUOTE=Levelog;50725457]It doesn't have to be malicious intent at all. Their binge on service is a perfect example of how they're violating it. Is free data for pokemon go a big deal? No. Is it yet another time tmobile has violated it? Yes. The issue isn't this single time, it's that they seem to be creating a pattern.[/QUOTE]
Their binge on isn't even bad because you can opt out of it and there's a ton of services that are under it with more likely easily possible
but I agree they should totally just have a data cap and no opportunity for people to get around it if they want to.
[QUOTE=Del91;50725491]Ugh, don't get on a phone plan with roommates. I did the same and its a terrible idea.[/QUOTE]
If it was any of the other people I've lived with, I'd agree.
Plus, this isn't like a locked contract or some shit. If I want out, it's easy as fuck.
[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;50725424]If it's not financially viable, why did AT&T and Verizon do it?
I'll tell you why, it IS financially viable.
If you live in Montana and you need a cell phone, what company are you going to choose? T-Mobile, who only covers your state through non-LTE partner towers, or AT&T/Verizon who have strong company owned network coverage in both voice and 4g/LTE data?[/QUOTE]
AT&T and Verizon rolled out their networks on their lovely low-mhz blocks early on. Because of that, during LTE roll out they already had the market share out there, and so upgrading their network to LTE was profitable, they already had clientele, and good 1-3g coverage.
T-mobile had to try and compete with their market momentum, with what is worse radio bands for the job. It's a positive feedback loop, it's hard for T-mobile to make it profitable, so they don't upgrade their infrastructure as quick, so people don't use it.
I live in north Utah, I recently moved from Verizon to T-mobile, and I admit there are coverage issues, T-mobile doesn't have any low-bandwidth blocks out here yet, meaning going inside buildings kill my signal, as does going out into the west desert. But it isn't always exclusive to Tmo, Verizon is pretty much the [I]only[/I] carrier out here who has service out in the west desert, and that's super old 1g infrastructure.
Once T-mobile (Finally) buys the blocks for b12 here, it's going to get significantly better, since we're going to get 700 + overlap with their already existing infrastructure. Something Verizon has been trying to roll out.
[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;50725424]If it's not financially viable, why did AT&T and Verizon do it?
I'll tell you why, it IS financially viable.
If you live in Montana and you need a cell phone, what company are you going to choose? T-Mobile, who only covers your state through non-LTE partner towers, or AT&T/Verizon who have strong company owned network coverage in both voice and 4g/LTE data?
Same goes for Same goes for the vast majority of Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Nevada, Wyoming, Nebraska, North & South Dakota, Wisconsin, West Virginia, and huge portions of Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, California, and Iowa.
That's a LOT of states to have shitty coverage everywhere except the biggest cities. That's a LOT of customers who now only have two choices for carrier instead of three.
[editline]17th July 2016[/editline]
Do you know how much roaming data I get on AT&T? However the hell much I want.[/QUOTE]
As I stated in the post you quoted, T-Mobile has only ever had mid-band spectrum, which is great for speed but isn't great for coverage and especially not indoors. T-Mobile isn't even an option for you there because if you're excessively roaming you're costing them a hell of a lot of money and not actually getting any T-Mobile perks anyway.
Here's why it isn't financially viable: Carriers operate on different frequencies, otherwise they would interfere and no one would have service. They buy these frequencies, or spectrum, from the FCC. For our purposes, there's three types of spectrum: low band, which travels a little bit further outdoors and tons further indoors but has lower capacity, mid band which travels kinda far outdoors and is not great at indoors but has a pretty good amount of capacity, and then there's high band which doesn't travel too far and is awful indoors but has lots of capacity. AT&T and Verizon hoarded low-band spectrum (and received handouts of it from the government). That's why they have networks there, and that's why no one else bothers. T-Mobile would need something like 2 or 3 towers to Verizon and AT&T's one. This is especially problematic when you consider that in these states the companies (if not Verizon and AT&T) that own these towers didn't build a dense network because low-band was all that was going to be deployed on them. Even if T-Mobile wanted to waste money and expand there, they're now looking at costs to build towers (most networks rent) and run fiber (or microwave sites) to each one. T-Mobile is just now able to overlay their recently acquired and rather slow 5+5 low band 700Mhz with their mid band 1700/2100 and 1900 spectrum so they can see extra coverage gain [b]on the network they already built out[/b]. Of course they're building out more but you're talking about sector adds in existing areas and slowly expanding vs. building out an entire state on mid band spectrum (or easily overloaded 5+5 low band spectrum which is pointless anyway because you're in the same boat of throwing tons of towers up to handle the capacity).
And no, you don't get unlimited AT&T roaming data from T-Mobile - unless you're making a joke because AT&T is your carrier now and I read it wrong. AT&T is one of the few domestic partners where T-Mobile customers have roaming limits, most other partners are unlimited.
[editline]17th July 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=glitchvid;50725580]Once T-mobile (Finally) buys the blocks for b12 here, it's going to get significantly better, since we're going to get 700 + overlap with their already existing infrastructure. Something Verizon has been trying to roll out.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, it's very interesting how the wireless scene is now. T-Mobile has long struggled with mid-band only spectrum and is now acquiring 5+5 low band, whereas Verizon has always had low band and cruised for years on that, only to now be facing capacity issues and need some mid-band spectrum.
[editline]17th July 2016[/editline]
Can't find the image that explains how good each band is at coverage, shoot
P.S. all of the above are hard constraints imposed by the physics of radio frequency communication, so there isn't any way to get around it. You can't magic up some technology that allows you to transmit more data using a lower frequency carrier wave, and you're not going to be able to get lower attenuation for higher frequency radio waves when travelling through building materials (unless you change the building materials themselves).
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50714303]Infringement on net neutrality...The biggest thieves come beating gifts.
If this becomes normalised then its very easy to get traffic penalised to certain sites later down the line.[/QUOTE]
T-mobile has done this before with allowing streaming of certain music.
Technically it doesn't violate existing net neutrality rules, because the rules basically only say "you can't have different speeds for different sites". They don't say anything about data limits.
But yeah I don't like it either.
[QUOTE=J!NX;50725447]I suppose this technically is a case where the slippery slope argument could actually apply fairly, and objectively, but I doubt it'll come to that, that badly
hopefully they aren't THAT kind of slimey
[editline]17th July 2016[/editline]
I guess the real question is; if it technically doesn't harm anyone is it against the rules?[/QUOTE]
Of course.
Imagine this scenario:
Classroom rules states: No food or drink in the classroom. The reason being it makes a mess.
The teacher's favorite student comes in with food and/or drink and doesn't make a mess. The teacher allows this because he likes that student. He still does not allow anyone else to bring food into the classroom.
It's not technically harming anyone, but it's still against the rules and it's still unfair behavior. Yes?
[editline]17th July 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Banana Lord.;50726372]As I stated in the post you quoted, T-Mobile has only ever had mid-band spectrum, which is great for speed but isn't great for coverage and especially not indoors. T-Mobile isn't even an option for you there because if you're excessively roaming you're costing them a hell of a lot of money and not actually getting any T-Mobile perks anyway.
Here's why it isn't financially viable: Carriers operate on different frequencies, otherwise they would interfere and no one would have service. They buy these frequencies, or spectrum, from the FCC. For our purposes, there's three types of spectrum: low band, which travels a little bit further outdoors and tons further indoors but has lower capacity, mid band which travels kinda far outdoors and is not great at indoors but has a pretty good amount of capacity, and then there's high band which doesn't travel too far and is awful indoors but has lots of capacity. AT&T and Verizon hoarded low-band spectrum (and received handouts of it from the government). That's why they have networks there, and that's why no one else bothers. T-Mobile would need something like 2 or 3 towers to Verizon and AT&T's one. This is especially problematic when you consider that in these states the companies (if not Verizon and AT&T) that own these towers didn't build a dense network because low-band was all that was going to be deployed on them. Even if T-Mobile wanted to waste money and expand there, they're now looking at costs to build towers (most networks rent) and run fiber (or microwave sites) to each one. T-Mobile is just now able to overlay their recently acquired and rather slow 5+5 low band 700Mhz with their mid band 1700/2100 and 1900 spectrum so they can see extra coverage gain [b]on the network they already built out[/b]. Of course they're building out more but you're talking about sector adds in existing areas and slowly expanding vs. building out an entire state on mid band spectrum (or easily overloaded 5+5 low band spectrum which is pointless anyway because you're in the same boat of throwing tons of towers up to handle the capacity).
And no, you don't get unlimited AT&T roaming data from T-Mobile - unless you're making a joke because AT&T is your carrier now and I read it wrong. AT&T is one of the few domestic partners where T-Mobile customers have roaming limits, most other partners are unlimited.
[editline]17th July 2016[/editline]
Yeah, it's very interesting how the wireless scene is now. T-Mobile has long struggled with mid-band only spectrum and is now acquiring 5+5 low band, whereas Verizon has always had low band and cruised for years on that, only to now be facing capacity issues and need some mid-band spectrum.
[editline]17th July 2016[/editline]
Can't find the image that explains how good each band is at coverage, shoot[/QUOTE]
BRUH. I know how carrier networks work. I've worked in the industry for years. I know all about the frequency & penetration issues. It doesn't invalidate my point. If T-Mobile had expanded their high frequency network in those areas as well they'd have a larger customer base and more funding/reason to expand the network.
Also I have AT&T now. I was making a joke/comparison because AT&T doesn't limit how much roaming you do. Hell they don't even charge you for it.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50713387]I live in Southern California about 1 hour out of LA and it drops all over the place.[/QUOTE]
Where outside of LA? It might be all the valleys and mountains and shit
[QUOTE=Kyle902;50728266]Where outside of LA? It might be all the valleys and mountains and shit[/QUOTE]
Whatever the reason, T-Mobile doesn't get coverage when other carriers do. It's like a running joke that anyone with T-Mobile is going to have problems among the people I know.
The only places I get shitty service with T-Mobile is when I'm in a big steel and concrete warehouses, and everyone else's service is shit too. Otherwise I get full or near full bars.
[editline]17th July 2016[/editline]
Wow different service providers have different levels of service in different areas?
[QUOTE=Del91;50728389]The only places I get shitty service with T-Mobile is when I'm in a big steel and concrete warehouses, and everyone else's service is shit too. Otherwise I get full or near full bars.
[editline]17th July 2016[/editline]
Wow different service providers have different levels of service in different areas?[/QUOTE]
It turns out for some bizarre reason T-Mobile has shitty service in rural Mississippi. They must be a horrible carrier everywhere.
[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;50727590]BRUH. I know how carrier networks work. I've worked in the industry for years. I know all about the frequency & penetration issues. It doesn't invalidate my point. If T-Mobile had expanded their high frequency network in those areas as well they'd have a larger customer base and more funding/reason to expand the network.[/QUOTE]
Are you sure because your arguments don't really make sense. It'd be incredibly expensive for T-Mobile to build out in those areas, regardless of the idea of maybe stealing [i]some[/i] market share away. Also keep in mind that people who live in those states would be left with the same perception everyone covered by T-Mobile now faces: "well, they were awful 4 years ago when I tried them, they've gotta still be awful now", except replace "awful" with "literally no native coverage". Look at it now, T-Mobile has come such a long way but they're still far far far behind second place. It's incredibly unlikely that they would break even/make a profit if they built out a super dense network in these rural states (some of which they don't even own spectrum currently).
It's much more financially viable to be pushing 3x carrier aggregation across band 2/4/12 and keep dominating cities - especially since there's fiber everywhere and they already have a ton of sites.
The primary reason they even still have EDGE-only areas still is because the more remote areas don't have fiber backhaul so they're waiting for that or just go ahead and use microwaves.
[QUOTE=darth-veger;50715411]Smaller, less dense countries have unlimited 4G as far as i know. We had unlimited 3G here in the Netherlands but as soon all phones had 3G/4G connections they started to cap it because if we all had unlimited 3G/4G the entire structure would probably cramp under the weight.
Edit: I checked and countries as Sweden and Finland have the same capped data packages as us[/QUOTE]
i dunno man i pay 20 a month for uncapped shit
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.