<i>Instead in a world where this is an accepted practice, in incentivises your ISP to provide awful, inadequate service to everyone that isn&#x27;t paying them for special treatment.</i><p>This is a valid concern when the carrier asks for money in exchange for &quot;enhanced&quot; fast lane service. However, in this case T-Mobile is undermining that argument completely by offering &quot;any website or mobile app that offers streaming video [to] opt into its program with <i></i>no charge<i></i>. And T-Mobile users can turn off Binge On at any time.&quot; (Emphasis mine.)<p><i>In a nation where most people are served by what is effectively a non-competeing cartel of companies, allowing strong anti-user incentives to exist is a very bad idea, because they wont just be out-competed by a less exploitative company.</i><p>I generally agree with you about non-competing cartels of any stripe, but this particular case seems like it was designed to be consumer-friendly to T-Mobile&#x27;s short-term financial detriment. Perhaps additional two data points will help:<p>1) Carriers (both fixed and wireless) that are not #1 in market share will sometimes engage in loss-promotions or tactics to gain subscriber share. The question often turns into &quot;how long can X sustain this strategy, and how many subscribers will they lose when they&#x27;re forced to downgrade offerings?&quot;<p>2) American carriers are at war with each other, to the benefit of end subscribers.