T-Mobile adds Apple Music to list of streaming services for cap-free Music Freedom
T-Mobile U.S. on Tuesday added Apple Music to the list of streaming services under Music Freedom, a perk for carrier subscribers that excludes those services from counting against monthly data caps.
Customers must be subscribed to one of the company's Simple Choice plans, which cost between $50 and $80 a month for individuals. Music Freedom first debuted in June 2014, and has gradually expanded to cover a range of services such as Beatport, Pandora, Rdio, Spotify, Google Play Music, SoundCloud, and SiriusXM.
T-Mobile separately announced a deal in which anyone buying an iPhone 6 for $15 a month through its Jump! On Demand program will be able to upgrade to Apple's next-generation device for free after trading in their older model.
Notably, the deal expires after Labor Day. Apple typically hosts an iPhone event in early September, launching new models later in the month. This year Apple is rumored to be launching an iPhone 6s and 6s Plus.
Apple Music debuted on June 30. While the first round of subscribers are in the middle of a three-month free trial, by October Apple will begin charging $10 per month for individuals, or $15 per month for a six-user Family plan.
Customers must be subscribed to one of the company's Simple Choice plans, which cost between $50 and $80 a month for individuals. Music Freedom first debuted in June 2014, and has gradually expanded to cover a range of services such as Beatport, Pandora, Rdio, Spotify, Google Play Music, SoundCloud, and SiriusXM.
T-Mobile separately announced a deal in which anyone buying an iPhone 6 for $15 a month through its Jump! On Demand program will be able to upgrade to Apple's next-generation device for free after trading in their older model.
Notably, the deal expires after Labor Day. Apple typically hosts an iPhone event in early September, launching new models later in the month. This year Apple is rumored to be launching an iPhone 6s and 6s Plus.
Apple Music debuted on June 30. While the first round of subscribers are in the middle of a three-month free trial, by October Apple will begin charging $10 per month for individuals, or $15 per month for a six-user Family plan.
Comments
But here's a question: does the free streaming cover when you make a song or album available online and it downloads to your phone over LTE?
Just pointing out that this is completely not net-neutral.
I would love for AT&T to do this. I have the 30gig plan with 3 lines but I have to stay on my family members not to go crazy. Of course I never told them that we have that amount either. Still...... I'd like to stream more Apple Music and tell them that they can too. I love the service and all my family wants to keep using it after the trial.
Time for an experiment. Lol.
My first thought as well. This seems like a great idea, and I do like the way TMo pushes the industry envelope, but how will this be viewed in terms of net neutrality?
Is it illegal?
This seems to be a win for customers to me.
There are several other streaming services also included. As far as I can tell, none of the services are paying T-Mobile to prioritize or increase the speed of their streaming. All the data used by streaming services is treated the same it appears.
But if I'm not seeing the whole picture please share the knowledge. Inquiring minds want to know.
Just pointing out that this is completely not net-neutral.
The only thing i can say (and i have only been a T-Mobile customer for a couple of weeks) is that they seem to be freely adding music streaming services, not trying to exclude the smaller (or larger) players.
In their minds, i believe they are trying to not have streaming music count against customers' data, but in reality it is an "opt in" type of thing, as T-Mobile needs to differentiate data streams to know which is music...blah blah blah.
Just pointing out that this is completely not net-neutral.
So file a complaint with the FCC and see if they bite. That’s what Spotify and the ‘consumer activists’ did. Or are you the kind that pontificates, alleges, bloviates, but does nothing.
Sir please enlighten us.
This seems to be a win for customers to me.
There are several other streaming services also included. As far as I can tell, none of the services are paying T-Mobile to prioritize or increase the speed of their streaming. All the data used by streaming services is treated the same it appears.
But if I'm not seeing the whole picture please share the knowledge. Inquiring minds want to know.
The definition of net neutrality is simply that all data, regardless of source or content, is treated the same. That's the definition put forward by those overly emotional internet warriors without understanding the economics or implications.
There is no "win for customers" in the definition. There is no "anti-competitive" behavior in the definition either (anti-competitive behavior is illegal under different laws anyway). The definition is simply all data is equal.
If you say that net neutrality doesn't apply if there is a "win for customers", then what if Comcast excludes NBC (which they own) from bandwidth caps? That's clearly a "win for customers".
A video provider can argue that this isn't fair because they're trying to promote less bandwidth intensive audio over video services.
What if I am an independent radio station? Iheartradio, which is owned by the company formerly known as Clear Channel, streams for free. So they're favoring giant Clear Channel stations over my own radio station's content.
You guys wanted it, deal with the consequences.
Just pointing out that this is completely not net-neutral.
Oh no you don't! Net Neutrality applies to manipulating data rates, not to free/paid-for content. The idea here is that T-Mobile is simply not going to charge for data usage for Apple Music streaming. That's NOT non-neutrality.
The definition of net neutrality is simply that all data, regardless of source or content, is treated the same. That's the definition put forward by those overly emotional internet warriors without understanding the economics or implications.
There is no "win for customers" in the definition. There is no "anti-competitive" behavior in the definition either (anti-competitive behavior is illegal under different laws anyway). The definition is simply all data is equal.
If you say that net neutrality doesn't apply if there is a "win for customers", then what if Comcast excludes NBC (which they own) from bandwidth caps? That's clearly a "win for customers".
A video provider can argue that this isn't fair because they're trying to promote less bandwidth intensive audio over video services.
You guys wanted it, deal with the consequences.
Well, in term of the US & FCC, you are wrong konqerror - the FCC, in their final ruling, said the exact opposite of what you state.
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/04/13/2015-07841/protecting-and-promoting-the-open-internet
"In this document, the Federal Communications Commission establishes rules to protect and promote the open Internet. Specifically, the Open Internet Order adopts bright-line rules that prohibit blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization; a rule preventing broadband providers from unreasonably interfering or disadvantaging consumers..."
and the FCC **specifically** states that "sponsored data" can be a benefit to consumers, and will be followed & ruled on in a case-by-case nature.
"...On the one hand, evidence in the record suggests that these business models may in some instances provide benefits to consumers, with particular reference to their use in the provision of mobile services...We are mindful of the concerns raised in the record that sponsored data plans have the potential to distort competition by allowing service providers to pick and choose among content and application providers to feature on different service plans. At the same time, new service offerings, depending on how they are structured, could benefit consumers and competition. Accordingly, we will look at and assess such practices under the no-unreasonable interference/disadvantage standard, based on the facts of each individual case, and take action as necessary."
Well, in term of the US & FCC, you are wrong konqerror - the FCC, in their final ruling, said the exact opposite of what you state.
You are wrong in that the FCC rules do NOT represent what people were campaigning for.
Examples:
http://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality-what-you-need-know-now
https://hbr.org/2014/05/understanding-the-new-battle-over-net-neutrality/
https://www.aclu.org/feature/what-net-neutrality
As I pointed out, T-Mobile is giving Clear Channel radio stations a free ride over other stations. Is that Net Neutral? Video packets are data just as music. Why should music be free? What about voice?
You are wrong in that the FCC rules do NOT represent...blah blah
the FCC represents the US parlance on net neutrality.
Much in the same way that US democracy does not fit the "true" definition, when ideals are enacted in a society, there is always give & take. "net Neutrality" and "Democracy" are pipe dreams, and the real-world adaptations of said ideals are what actually govern the people and corporations such as T-Mobile.
Back on verizon now. I just download the albums for offline use. Data is still expensive.
You're right it's not but at least it's every music streaming service and not just one or a select few.
Not sure why you think that. T-mobile isn't charging the music providers for priority access.
The problem is if T-Mobile decides to only offer this exemption from its data charges to select music providers. So if you were to start your own music streaming company, you'd be at a serious disadvantage over any of T-Mobile partners. Net Neutrality isn't just about consumers, it's also about ensuring a healthy competitive playing field. While at first it might seem like a win for consumers, it makes it harder for new competition to move in and possibly give consumers and/or artists a better deal. To be clear - the issue isn't with Apple Music, or Spotify, or iHeartRadio (ClearChannel) - it's when your service provider decides to make certain options "free" while others by default have a cost to you, the consumer (via bandwidth charges).
Canadians have been dealing with this for quite a while now. We have pretty much no competition when it comes to internet providers - in many cases you have either 1 provider via ADSL/VDSL, and another via cable. There's clear collusion between prices, offerings, etc. Third party providers get screwed by the two main providers who provide subpar service. One company, Bell, is almost completely vertically integrated, and offers their own content as well as content distribution for things like TV. So guess which TV services were free to use (don't count against ridiculous bandwidth caps) and which ones would use up your precious, precious gigabytes (and could be throttled to make Bell's offering even more appealing). It's been a while since I've live in Canada but I don't think it's improved all that much (our regulators are basically former heads of the companies that they regulate).
Is that the sort of thing you'd like? Ask pretty much any Canadian and they'll tell you no, no you don't.