Home - , - T-Mobile Makes It Easier for Users to Manage Binge On

T-Mobile Makes It Easier for Users to Manage Binge On

t-mobile-app
About a month ago, T-Mobile faced lots of criticism for their Binge On feature. The main concern its users had over the feature was that it was automatically activated on their device, whether they want it or not. And once they switch off the feature, there was no way for them to re-enable it on their own.

T-Mobile seems to have listened to the concerns of their users. Along with adding four more services to Binge On's free streaming portion, they have also rolled out faster ways Binge On can be enabled AND disabled by customers.

Earlier this month, T-Mobile released short codes to enable and disable Binge On for testing on devices. They seemed to be a success that T-Mobile has announced their official availability for all their users. Here are the short codes you need to remember:

  • Check Binge On status: Dial #BNG# (#264#)
  • Disable Binge On: Dial #BOF# (#263#)
  • Enable Binge On: Dial #BON# (#266#)
In addition to using these short codes, you can also access your Binge On settings through MyT-Mobile.com and the newly refreshed T-Mobile app. The T-Mobile app for Android may be downloaded from the Play Store. For iOS users, however, this won't be available until February.

With these options, T-Mobile makes it a lot easier to manage Binge On from a device. Users won't have to go through the step-by-step guide anymore.


Source: TMONews

Tags: ,

32 comments:

Comment Page :
  1. My T-Mobile app looks the same, is it an update?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Maybe the refreshed app only found It's way to "post" paid accounts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. According to TMONews the app the revised app is being tested with a small group of users and hasn't been released yet.

      Delete
  3. Sounds like they are making it easier to binge off since they "helpfully" opted you in by default, zero rated provider or not.

    I don't really understand Legere's business model: treat industry best practices, consumer preferences, and federal regulators / regulations with equally flippant disdain? Hopefully that won't cost them in the long run ...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Industry best practices" is a misnomer in wireless. Un-carrier moves solve consumer pain points, and T-Mobile's growth proves it. The FCC raised no issues after Legere and Wheeler's meeting, so this is all just your personal biases.

      Delete
  4. A good start. Next T-Mobile needs to apply its policies to all data equally.. no more throttling based on content, which is of course illegal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What law is T-Mobile breaking with Binge On?

      Delete
    2. "Net neutrality law" is a made-up term. Net neutrality is not even mentioned in any law. The FCC just declared that they have the power to regulate the Internet, citing their telecommunications regulatory authority contained in a 1934 law. Net neutrality is regulation. Regulations are not law, even though they may have the same practical affect on regulated businesses.

      Delete
    3. The law does not require the FCC to regulate the Internet as public utility, and in the view of net neutrality opponents, the law does not even permit the FCC to do so. To the extent Congress has expressly addressed the “Internet” in the Communications Act, the law states, “It is the policy of the United States . . . to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that [previously] exist[ed] for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation.”

      Delete
    4. Mobile operators use of the public airwaves is governed by the FCC whose rules have the force of law. Companies that violate FCC rules can be subject to fines or even be have their licenses to operate revoked although that rarely happens.

      Accirding to a Stanford law professorm, Binge On, as it's currently configured is in violation of FCC rules: T-Mobile's Binge On violates net neutrality, says Stanford report » TmoNews

      Delete
    5. There's some ignorant airchair attorneys here, defending T-Mobile's illegal and hostile-to-customers behavior.

      Sure, "net neutrality law" is made-up term, but so is "Iraq War". If you attempt to lie about something with semantic tricks, you are still lying. Time to go home. Maybe read the EFF, beloved of anyone who supports Constitutional liberties in the US (and hated by Legere... no coincident, that!)

      Delete
    6. "Accirding to a Stanford law professorm (sic), Binge On, as it's currently configured is in violation of FCC rules"
      True. Attorneys can make a case for 3 sides of any issue. They have their biases and agendas, and profs have pressure to publish and obtain grant money.
      One attorney's opinion is hardly decisive. The FCC vote was 3-2 on net neutrality regs, so it was hardly conclusive that they had the authority or that the regs were proper interpretation of a 1934 law.

      Delete
  5. ""Net neutrality law" is a made-up term. Net neutrality is not even mentioned in any law."

    It's interesting when people just make up stuff that sounds good without any regard whatsoever if it is true or not. Fortunately, reality is much different from troll-rants:

    http://techcrunch.com/2015/02/26/fcc-passes-strict-net-neutrality-regulations-on-3-2-vote/#.0txqyzm:P0S0

    "FCC Passes Strict Net Neutrality Regulations On 3-2 Vote"


    ReplyDelete
  6. "Regulations are not law, even though they may have the same practical affect on regulated businesses."

    Let's fact-check the "got my law degree ina Cracker-Jack box" troll":.

    From "findlaw.com"

    "Regulations, on the other hand, are standards and rules adopted by administrative agencies that govern how laws will be enforced. So an agency like the SEC can have its own regulations for enforcing major securities laws. For instance, while the Securities and Exchange Act prohibits using insider or nonpublic information to make trades, the SEC can have its own rules on how it will investigate charges of insider trading.

    Like laws, regulations are codified and published so that parties are on notice regarding what is and isn't legal. And regulations often have the same force as laws, since, without them, regulatory agencies wouldn't be able to enforce laws."

    Yes, of course, regulations are not different from law. They are merely laws being put into practice. To dismiss regulation is to dismiss all law.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We are talking about the Communications Act of 1934, and the net-neutrality regulations issues by the FCC recently. Al Gore and DARPA were not around when Congress passed the law in 1934, and it is the policy of Congress that the Internet be free of Federal and State regulation. There is much more to the Internet than 'public airwaves,' yet FCC took it upon itself to expand their regulatory to the whole system, not just the wireless links. We can argue about whether that is overreach or proper regulatory action, but it is clearly beyond the intent and express language of Congress in 1934, and the current policy of Congress. So popping off by claiming that Binge On violates "the law" and is "a crime" is just an uninformed rant by folks who don't understand what they are claiming.

      Delete
    2. "Yes, of course, regulations are not different from law. ... To dismiss regulation is to dismiss all law."
      Your opinions are not correct. Regulations are very different than law. Federal agencies make many mistakes interpreting the language in law when they issue implementing regulations, and regulations are often challenged and overturned by courts. Writing regulations involves human judgement, consensus and even politics, and regulators must grapple with statutory language that is often imprecise and vague. They cannot even rely on the "intent of Congress" in writing the law when the meaning of words is not clear. The statutory language governs, and intent is often hard to determine, even after reading all legislative background material and interviewing the sponsors and their staffers (who usually write the actual words).
      Besides decisions in the courts, Congress often changes laws when regulations fail to properly interpret what Congress meant to accomplish. In this case, it looks like the express policy of Congress is different than the interpretation of the law and issuance of net neutrality regulations by the FCC. Perhaps after then next election when the composition of the Commission members could change, we will see changes to the net neutrality regulations, or they may even by cancelled.

      Delete
  7. Not all regulation is good though, and "an unjust law is not law at all." (St. Thomas Aquinas)
    Net neutrality stinks as far as I'm concerned. This communistic overregulation can go back to hell whence it came as far as I'm concerned. The only thing the government should do is keep the Internet moral and free from immorality. If networks want to throttle, speed up, or whatnot their service to make it poor or better or on pair with other companies in the industry then they should be able to do that. If a service is deemed bad or of poor quality then the "market" should be able to take care of that by putting them out of business by going to others with a better quality of the same service or product.
    Also the FCC just like the EPA, the FDA, and the FED are not agencies of the U.S. government but private organizations who have no authority as far as the law of the land is concerned. There are three branches of the government given the authority by the constitution to make, veto or repeal laws, namely, the jurisdical, the legislative and the executive. In addition, even the Supreme Court cannot make law. In fact, it's judgment is only supposed to be for the single case presented before the judges. Now juries can decide the law, and any judge to tells a jury to disregard something should immediately be taken off the bench and be put on trial himself for jury tampering!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The only thing the government should do is keep the Internet moral and free from immorality"

      That's the last thing the government should do in regards to the Internet. Your view entirely contrary to the Constitution. Who died and elected you pope?

      Delete
    2. “It is the policy of the United States . . . to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that [previously] exist[ed] for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation.”
      -Congress, in an amendment to the Communications Act of 1934.

      Delete
  8. Yes, companies should be able to use or abuse their private property however they like. I could take about the ucc, implied warranties etc but i wont, because -- the public airwaves are not private property! Licensees have to comply with Congressional oversight and the FCC to be a temporary steward of a public resource which primarily benefits the public. If they don't like that, they should get out of the federal contracting business.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Remember how this started. One group of companies and their lobbyists persuaded FCC to act in a way that benefitted them. Another goup of companies and their lobbyists opposed. The FCC balance of power is controlled by the party that controls the administration. In the case of net neutrality, the party in power believes in a heavy hand for regulation and all that entails - as opposed to a light touch, or the minimal regulation to achieve public goals. Either approach can be successful and effective, but has its own costs and benefits and creates winners and losers in business and the public. As usual, the business costs are passed on to customers either way. Unfortunately the Federal government rarely performs an adequate cost/benefit analysis or rigorous analysis of alternatives before issuing new regulations, and regulatory compliance costs, which are passed on to customers, can be huge.

      Delete
    2. "As usual, the business costs are passed on to customers either way."

      The cost of not having net neutrality is a heavily-censored Internet with providers getting involved in something they have no business being involved in: the content that goes over the pipelines.

      Delete
    3. The FCC loves heavy censorship. Look at decades of ham handed censorship of broadcast TV to see how much the FCC hates freedom of speech.

      Delete
    4. "The cost of not having net neutrality is a heavily-censored Internet with providers getting involved in something they have no business being involved in: the content that goes over the pipelines."
      I don't think you understood your talking points.
      Nobody was "censoring" the Internet before the FCC rules.
      If the telcoms spend billions to build and maintain the pipes and pumps, they should be able to provide value-added service to their customers.
      The only people who complained were the ones who were not selected for those services (content providers). Their lobbyists prevailed, but that does not mean there was any "censorship." Their content always flowed through the pipes; it was not "censored" or "blocked."

      Delete
    5. It's not value added... it's value reduced. As long as we pay for the data, it is not the carrier's business to meddle in what type of data it is. That's the law.

      You really have to be a paid carrier stooge to call these illegal, stifling, content-based throttling plans "value-added".

      Delete
    6. I think you're wrong on all counts. 1. We are not buying "data." We are buying a package of cellular comm services from a carrier. They have every legal right to decide what is in the package. 2. The law does not restrict what services/content the carrier can include in their packages unless certain content is prohibited by (other) law; i.e., illegal content. The "law" YOU refer to is a FCC rule, a regulation. 3/5 FCC members' *interpretation* of how a 1934 law should apply to the mobile data service portion of a carrier package. A stretch, and clearly at odds with Congress' intent that they added to the 1934 law by amendment recently. 3. You and I do not get the final say on whether the services in a carrier's package add value. Customers do. And T-Mobile has been earning virtually all of the growth in *phone* subscribers over the last 1-2 years, taking almost all of that phone share from the other carriers. Why? Customers think the T-Mobile "moves" add value. Independent surveys confirm that T-Mobile offers the most value. And T-Mobile customers have watched more than 34 Petabytes of mobile data via Binge On so far without it counting against their fast data limits. That's real value to millions of people.

      Delete
    7. Semantic tricks to justify criminal behavior.

      1) We buy a service, yes, but a service package that includes "data". So you stand corrected on that, and fooled no one.

      2) The law does prevent the censorship you support.

      " 3. You and I do not get the final say on whether the services in a carrier's package add value. Customers do"

      T-Mobile's scam means customers do not choose.

      As for the last part, nice way to lie and put a spin on the fact that T-Mobile has illegally throttled countless bytes of data, engaging in criminal actions against it users.

      Again, hope that T-Mobile pays a stiff fine for its criminal actions. And that its users get a good refund for the "service" of having their data throttled on tis content.

      Delete
  9. Being able to easily toggle Binge is great, but it still doesn't solve the problem that everyone is paying the same price for a feature that only benefits a portion of customers.

    Ironically enough, the people getting the least out of "data rationing" are those who don't stream at all. Whatever they use the internet for, they'll still be stuck with far more restrictive usage limits than someone who binge watches Netflix 24/7 to the tune of 1TB/mo.

    The worst part is that there's no alternative for non-streamers to get their own unlimited data "slow lane," because apparently T-Mobile is focused solely on pandering to the very people causing network congestion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you don't use it you pay nothing.

      On the other hand, I have to pay the same for talk & text as someone who uses twice as many minutes and five times as many texts. THAT IS UNFAIR!

      Delete
  10. T-Mobile / Binge On will give customers $6/month or 30% off Sling TV for the first year - great for cord cutters. Save $72.
    http://explore.t-mobile.com/csmx84783?cmpid=CRM_EM_BNGONRSPNS_9DRFCXUN83G14508

    ReplyDelete
  11. Verizon go90 follows T-Mobile's lead in zero-rated video streaming:
    http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/verizon-follows-t-mobiles-binge-zero-rated-streaming-video-through-go90/2016-02-05

    ReplyDelete
Comment Page :