I'm not sure BingeOn does in fact violate the rules. The Stanford article seems more like advocacy than scholarship, though the author makes reasonable argument

I'm not sure BingeOn does in fact violate the rules. The Stanford article seems more like advocacy than scholarship, though the author makes reasonable arguments that are worth considering. TMO's strategy, if I can impute such a thing based on public info, is to introduce a service that doesn't technically violate the rules but does get customers used to the idea that mobile carriers can impose their own technically, if not legally discriminatory limits, on third-party services. TMO can be patient to wait for the customer mindset to change, or the rules to change, and then pow start figuring out how to monetize this strategy. I'm sure your right that the average TMO customer is oblivious to the politics of this, and/or is happy to make the Faustian bargain if it means their Downton Abbey reruns buffer a bit faster.