After a nearly two-year slog through the federal approval process and a brief scuffle with a handful of states' attorneys general, T-Mobile dragged its $26 billion merger with Sprint Corp., across the finish line Wednesday, creating what it hopes to be a much stronger No. 3 wireless carrier.

T-Mobile first announced its intention to merge with Sprint on April 29, 2018, confirming what had been at the time one of the worst kept secrets in the telecom business.  The merger faced some backlash from consumer groups objecting to the removal of a viable wireless competitor (Sprint), but the company managed to pass federal regulatory muster by agreeing to conditions to sell its prepaid wireless business and a chunk of spectrum to Dish Network.  Last year, a handful of states’ attorneys general -- including AGs in New York and California -- sued to block the deal, but a federal court ruled in favor of the telecom companies in February. 

With the closing of the merger, the New T-Mobile will be led by former T-Mobile chief operating officer Mike Sievert. Sievert had been expected to assume the CEO role from John Legere on May 1, but the company said it decided to accelerate the transition.

“I’ve been fortunate enough to lead this company for the past seven years, but now it’s time for me to hand the reins over to Mike Sievert,” Legere said in the press release. “The Board of Directors and I agree that it makes perfect sense for Mike to assume his leadership role on day one of the new company. He’s ready!”

The new T-Mobile has committed to spend about $40 billion over three years on 5G deployment and to expand its rural wireless service to reach 59.4 million homes. It has also promised to deploy a new in-home broadband option to more than 52% of U.S. ZIP codes, with a plan to obtain 9.5 million U.S. households by 2024, with 20% of those homes in underserved areas. The new T-Mobile also expects to build 600 additional retail outlets.

“WIth this powerful network, the New T-Mobile will deliver real choice and value to wireless and home broadband customers and double down on all the things customers have always loved about the Un-carrier,” Sievert said in a press release. “T-Mobile has been changing wireless for good — and now we are going to do it on a whole new level!”

T-Mobile stock was up about 2% ($1.9 each) to $85.81 per share in early trading April 1. 

Sixteen months after acquiring Layer3 TV and promising to reinvent television distribution with a snazzy new mobile-first service, T-Mobile has announced its first major programming acquisition.

“Viacom represents the best of the best, most-popular brands on cable, so they are an amazing partner for us!” said T-Mobile CEO John Legere, in a statement. “TV programming has never been better, but consumers are fed up with rising costs, hidden fees, lousy customer service, non-stop BS. And Macgyvering together a bunch of subscriptions, apps and dongles isn’t much better. That’s why T-Mobile is on a mission to give consumers a better way to watch what they want, when they want.”

Under CEO Bob Bakish, Viacom’s video strategy seems pretty straightforward these days—get its collection of entertainment-focused networks, with include MTV, BET, Comedy Central and Nickelodeon, on as many viewing platforms as possible.

"Today’s landmark announcement marks a major step forward in our strategy to accelerate the presence of our brands on mobile and other next-generation platforms,” Bakish said.

But we remain unclear on the "landmark" part for T-Mobile.

While talking a big game, T-Mobile’s video plans remain squishy. On a quest to secure regulatory approval for its merger with Sprint, T-Mobile is billing video as tentpole in a larger 5G technology strategy, one in which it plans not only to compete head-on with Verizon and AT&T, but Comcast and Charter, too.

Related: T-Mobile's Legere: We Are the Un-Cable, Too

T-Mobile execs have talked about a “disruptive” new video platform based on fixed 5G wireless service. They haven’t announced any launch dates or pricing—perhaps this is all coming when fixed 5G services arrive. And until the Viacom announcement, they hadn’t touted any programming deals for the service.

But in announcing Viacom—a ubiquitously available programming conglomerate with no live sports—as a “cornerstone launch partner,” T-Mobile’s hugely self-aggrandized video strategy continues to suffer from an inauspicious start, at least in terms of generating buzz.

In building an array of cost-effective video products that can entice consumers to use its 5G networks, how does having Viacom in the fold stack up to say, AT&T, which has in-house programming assets like HBO, TNT and Warner Bros. Television?

Ditto Comcast, which will be able to leverage the formidable resources of NBCUniversal as the cable company faces competition from 5G wireless services over the next decade.

Meanwhile, the announcement that T-Mobile has directly licensed content from Viacom adds no clarity to what its video strategy will be.

“We don't have plans to develop an undifferentiated skinny bundle out there,” said T-Mobile President and COO Mike Sievert, speaking during the company’s fourth-quarter earnings call in February. “There are plenty of those. We think there's a more nuanced role for us to play in helping you get access to the great media brands out there that you love, and to be able to put together your own media subscription in smaller pieces $5, $6 $7, $8 at a time.”

So T-Mobile is not developing a vMVPD. But it’s licensing individual networks? So it’s not following the service aggregation models of say, Amazon Channels, or the newly announced Apple TV Channels.

What is this thing?

We remain confused. And despite its long-awaited first major programming announcement underwhelmed. 

T-Mobile CEO John Legere told the House Judiciary Committee that his network does not now include technology from Chinese Telecom Huawei, that a new T-Mobile-Sprint 5G network would not contain such tech—something that concerns many on Capitol Hill—and that he would even help others try to clear their networks of the technology.

That came in a sometimes contentious oversight hearing on the proposed merger.

Carri Bennet, general counsel of the Rural Wireless Association, conceded that about a quarter of her members have Huawei tech in their networks primarily because they bought the equipment in 2010 and 2011—before the potential security threat of the company became clear—and because they were using government broadband subsidies and were looking for low-cost equipment. 

Related: Sens. Seek Report on China's Impact on 5G Standards

She said those members were willing to do whatever the government asked them to do in terms of removing that equipment, but would be looking for government subsidies to do that. 

Legere said T-Mobile would be willing to use its purchasing power to help them replace that equipment.

That was just one of many pledges he was making. Others included job gains rather than losses and lower prices rather than high.

Witness Gigi Sohn, a distinguished fellow at Georgetown University Law Center and former top counselor to then FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, said she kept hearing those promises but there was no mechanism to enforce them. She also said that while T-Mobile might lower per-unit pricing, which means less for more speed or bandwidth, it would still be raising actual prices. 

Legere received a lot of pushback from Democrats on the panel for having spent almost $200,000 at the Trump D.C. hotel in the days following filing the merger with regulators there, but Legere pointed out that was less than 10% of the company's D.C. hotel spend over that time.

It was the third oversight hearing on the deal in the past couple of months, proof of Democrats promise to exercise muscular oversight of mergers, something the Republicans did not do, pointing out that vetting such mergers was the primary province of the FCC and Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission and that Hill hearings could be read as an attempt to put a political thumb on that process.

Huawei President Ren Zhengfei has said his company is not a security risk and does not spy or provide technological back doors to its products.

T-Mobile CEO John Legere was speaking confidently Friday (Feb. 22) about prospects for the merger with Sprint, which is currently being vetted by the FCC, Justice Department and state regulators, saying he still expected it to secure approval by June.

"The great news is we are moving forward positively," he blogged, pointing to the approvals from 16 of the needed 19 state utility commissions.

It was not clear whether his enthusiasm was based on any new insider insight or an effort to counter the deal's critics. He did say: "Don’t let some of the headlines confuse you." For example, a headline Thursday (Feb. 21) in a release from deal critic Communications Workers of America read: "T-Mobile Feels Heat on Jobs-Related Concerns, Lashes Out with Unsubstantiated and Hypocritical Attacks."

Related: T-Mobile's Legere: We Are the Un-Cable, Too

Legere listed the deal's supporters, including the 13 members of Congress led by Reps. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) and Billy Long (R-Mo.), saying: "I always love it when so many important and smart people and organizations recognize how beneficial this transaction will be for consumers and for the country!"

But he was less sanguine about the deal's critics, saying many were "buzzing around with a lot of inaccurate claims and made up data," trying to "scare people" away from the creation of a "supercharged un-carrier," which has become his nickname for the new company, an effort to rebrand what others argue would be reducing the number three and four carriers competing against themselves as well as AT&T and Verizon into another telco giant.

Legere said many of the groups opposing the deal are newly formed coalitions with covert funding and hidden agendas.

He said the heart of the deal is rolling out 5G nationwide, versus a lesser rollout if the two companies were forced to tackle it individually.

Senators on the Judiciary Committee vetting the Sprint/T-Mobile deal Wednesday (June 27) pulled no punches as they probed whether reducing the number of major wireless carriers from four to three would create a stronger competitor to the top two incumbents, or bank their fire for innovation and disruption.

T-Mobile John Legere said it was definitely the former, consumer groups suggested the latter.

Testifying before the committee's Antitrust Subcommittee were T-Mobile CEO John Legere; Marcelo Claure, Sprint executive chairman; Asha Keddy, VP of technology for Intel; Gene Kimmelman, president and CEO of Public Knowledge; Roslyn Layton, visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute; and George Slover, senior policy counsel of Consumer's Union.

Related: FCC Names Sprint/T-Mobile Merger Review Lead

Legere said customers will continue to drive its business plan to fix a broken and arrogant industry. He said the deal will "supercharge" the uncarrier.

He said the deal will mean more competition and jobs. It also means the U.S. will win the race to 5G, which is a big Trump Administration talking point, and get broadband to rural areas.

Legere said when the combined company innovates or lower prices, AT&T and Verizon will have to do so. He also pointed to the new competition to the business services.

He also said he would take on cable operators in the in-home broadband market for Comcast and Cox and others, a market he says is notoriously uncompetitive.

Claure said Sprint has lost over $25 billion in recent years, though the company has been turning around due to cost cutting. As a standalone company, he said, Sprint lacks the resources to compete with AT&T and Verizon.

Sprint Needs $25B for 5G

Sprint will need to spend $25 billion to roll out 5G, and at that at limited coverage, and would likely have to raise prices to consumers.

Claure said the stars are aligned to allow the combined company to align its spectrum and networks to be a leader in 5G. "We need T-Mobile, and T-Mobile needs us."

He also said the companies will invest over $40 billion in the 5G net over the next three years, and create new jobs "from day one." He also said they will get customers by lowering prices to consumers, forcing the competition to lower their prices.

Intel's Keddy was there to provide perspective on the importance of leading in 5G in driving innovation in everything from e-health to automotive to agriculture, with Intel firmly ensconced inside that revolution. She talked about providing 4K wirelessly at the recent U.S. Open golf tournament. She also put in a plug for the need for Congress to free up more spectrum for 5G.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), ranking member of the subcommittee, pointed out that in another life she represented MCI trying to get into the long-distance market, where at a hearing she compared Alexander Graham Bell's Aha! moment, "Come here Watson, I need you," to MCI's "I'll be damned, it actually works."

But she pointed out that antitrust -- breaking up AT&T -- was crucial to MCI taking on the incumbents.

Four Railroads on a Monopoly Board

Klobuchar pointed out that even if it remained at four big wireless companies, that was the same number of monopoly railroads on a Monopoly board. She said her concerns included that four competitors are not very many, that maverick behavior from the companies had helped lower prices.

She said, the first questions is whether a combined company will work as hard to be an "uncarrier" and what its effect on innovation would be. She also said she understood the upside of creating a powerful driver of 5G, as the companies have claimed they are in a unique position to provide.

Kimmelman, speaking for Public Knowledge, said the CEOs present had presented an image of a highly competitive maverick approach, but pointed out that MCI was bought by Verizon.

He said the merger is about law enforcement and Justice enforcing antitrust law, not about promises. Mergers can often change companies incentives" notwithstanding what the CEOs said. He said combining the companies would increase concentration and create an incentive to raise prices, or at least leave them higher than the market would set.

Kimmelman said 5G is important, but the question is whether the combination yields the investment or benefits, or raises prices to consumers. He said he was confident that Justice is likely to find that there are options for the market that will preserve the current four players.

Layton said that what matters in a competitive market is rivalry. The four to three argument dates from a flannel suit world, she said, while the current CEO is a maverick in magenta (Legere was wearing a purple T-Mobile tee shirt). She said empircal evidence of effects, rather than bright line rules, is the current approach to mergers.

She disagrees that the competitive world of today is based on Justice's denial of the AT&T-T-Mobile merger a decade ago.

There is no penalty for antitrust authorities when they get it wrong, she said, and they have it wrong when they assume that the merger will raise prices. She said China is ready to "eat our lunch," and suggested that allowing free enterprise power like the proposed merger is a way to try to keep that lunch intact. 

5G Claims Need Testing

Slover from Consumers Union said the concentration levels of the merger are all in the "red zone." He said the faster, farther 5G network claim needs testing, but said they don't need to combine to build that network. He called the merger, at most, a short cut.

Slover said the whole premise of merger enforcement is it is better for consumers if companies "build it" rather than "buy it," with two companies racing to build competing networks and having to compete for customers. He said the focus should not be on the latest shiny object, but the enduring benefits of competition. He said they should not let go of the "bird in hand" competition, in hopes new competition will "fly in the window." He said that competition will, instead, evaporate.

Legere pointed out that combined company would still be much smaller than AT&T and Verizon, which have more than two thirds of wireless subs.

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), chair of the subcommittee, asked how their combined capabilities would make it more likely they would compete by lowering prices, rather than raising them. Layton said that the companies have a high incentive to grab market share from the incumbents via pricing.

New Math

Kimmelman said he did not agree that the two combined will have new capability that wasn't there before, calling it one plus one equals three addition.

Legere said that given the physics, one plus one actually equals six and that combining capacity does dramatically increase supply and will lower price.

Staying on math, Legere said the deal was not about reducing four to three, but increasing the market competitors from two -- the powerful incumbents -- to three, forcing them to respond in a way they have not had to to either T-Mobile or Sprint.

Legere said T-Mobile has promised to honor Sprint's lower pricing, and has a track record after its purchase of MetroPCS.

Klobuchar asked why the two companies couldn't just set prices just below the incumbents if they didn't have to compete with each other. Claure said they will have to lower prices -- and offer great services--to gain market share, which they will be able to do with the new, combined, capacity.

Kimmelman said moving to 5G has enormous costs and that some people won't want the "Concord" of wireless and may just want to fly. He said four companies might be better able to provide a mix and match of options for different segments of customers.

The pending merger of T-Mobile and Sprint, the third- and fourth-largest wireless carriers in the nation, answers many of the scale questions that have dogged the two companies over the past several years. But in creating a carrier with about 100 million customers and valued at a combined $146 billion, the deal bypasses what many had considered to be T-Mobile’s more perfect match: Dish Network.

With a large swath of wireless spectrum, 11 million satellite TV subscribers and 2.2 million customers for its over-the-top video service Sling TV, Dish was seen by many to be a logical target for T-Mobile. Combining the No. 3 wireless carrier, which has obvious video aspirations through its January purchase of Layer3 TV, with Dish would in many minds have created a strong competitor in the ongoing wireless-OTT-traditional video wars.

Investors apparently believed so too. Shares in Dish fell 3% ($1.19 each) to $33.55 per share on April 30, the first trading day after T-Mobile and Sprint announced their deal. The stock has continued to slip in subsequent trading, closing at $33.09 on May 3.

Video Plans ‘Ratchet Up’

On a conference call to discuss first-quarter results shortly after the Sprint deal was announced, T-Mobile chief financial officer Braxton Carter said the transaction “ratchets up” the wireless provider’s video plans by allowing the combined company to provide customers with an IPTV service via wireline and wireless broadband.

“So T-Mobile’s in the position as a new T-Mobile to be able to offer a quad play, if that’s what the market wants,” Carter said on the call.

The combined company will be controlled by T-Mobile management: CEO John Legere will continue that role in the new entity, as will T-Mobile chief operating officer Mike Sievert. T-Mobile parent Deutsche Telekom will own 42% of the combined company, with Sprint parent Softbank owning 27% and the remaining 31% held by the public. The deal is expected to close in the first half of next year.

This is the two companies’ third time on the merger dance floor together. They scrapped talks in 2014 over regulatory concerns and in 2017 over control issues. While the two have managed to work out their control issues, some analysts are skeptical that the current deal will sail easily through the regulatory process.

BTIG telecom analyst Walt Piecyk gave the merger a less than 40% chance of passing regulatory muster, primarily because he didn’t believe the deal, which will reduce the number of wireless competitors to three from four, will pass the antitrust smell test.

“It doesn’t look like a competitive market right now, and that’s what the regulator may focus on,” Piecyk told CNBC.

Columbia Law professor Tim Wu wrote an op-ed piece for The New York Times urging regulators to block the deal, adding that having four separate competitors has been most beneficial to wireless customers, leading to free unlimited data plans and lower prices. Transforming the wireless business into a “triopoly” like the airline business will only serve to raise prices and lower service.

“Competition has actually worked the way economists say it is supposed to, forcing firms to improve quality or face elimination,” Wu wrote in the Times. “But it takes competitors to compete, which is where blocking mergers comes in.”

Pivotal Research Group CEO and senior media & communications analyst Jeff Wlodarczak has said in research notes over the past year that pairing Dish and T-Mobile would “immediately vault the most disruptive U.S. wireless player into the leading U.S. spectrum position,” and at worst would force rival wireless company Verizon Communications to pay more for the satellite asset.

For now, though, it looks like Dish will remain on its own.

Other scenarios see the satellite company being acquired either by another wireless service provider, like Verizon, or even by the new T-Mobile. The latter scenario wouldn’t take place for at least another year.

Dish has struggled over the past several quarters as the satellite business has dwindled. In the fourth quarter the company lost more than 100,000 satellite-TV subscribers and added 160,000 Sling TV customers.

Dish Misses Out on Buildout Relief

For Dish, a purchase by a wireless carrier would mean relief from its obligation to build its own wireless network. As a result of its success in bidding on spectrum in several of the government’s wireless auctions, Dish faces a March 2020 deadline to build out wireless service in 70% of the market territories it won.

Dish chair Charlie Ergen has said the company will spend about $1 billion on that initial phase, which will be more geared toward IoT services.

For T-Mobile, a Dish purchase would give it an instant video base through the satellite-TV offering, programming contracts with cable networks and the largest OTT service in the country, Sling TV.

But not all analysts believe that a T-Mobile-Dish deal is more palpable. In a research note in November, after T-Mobile and Sprint ended merger talks, MoffettNathanson principal and senior analyst Craig Moffett wrote that he never saw any synergies in combining those companies, other than as a source of additional spectrum.

The argument that the dissolution of the merger was bad news for Dish is equally compelling in that, if Dish does build its wireless network, it would become the fifth player in an already-crowded market, he added.

“However bad one might have imagined the ROI on network building, it has to be worse if the industry is more fragmented than expected,” Moffett wrote in November.

Pictured: T-Mobile CEO John Legere (l.) and Sprint CEO Marcelo Claure on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange after the wireless carriers agreed to merge.

Perhaps the third time is the charm.

Sprint and T-Mobile agreed to an all-stock merger that will value the combined company at $146 billion (including debt) and create a more formidable No. 3 wireless carrier with more than 100 million customers.

Several reports said the two were close to a deal on Friday. 

This is the third time that the two companies have tried to join forces. In 2014 the deal was scrapped after federal regulators hinted that they would not approve the deal. In November, the companies again tried to reach a deal, only to pull the plug after they couldn’t agree on control issues. Earlier this month, the two came back to the negotiating table. 

The control issues appear to have been worked out, with T-Mobile executives dominating the top roles in the new company, which will assume the T-Mobile name. T-Mobile CEO John Legere will run the new company with the same title, with his No. 2, T-Mobile president and chief operating officer Mike Sievert keeping the same role in the new entity. Tim Höttges, current T-Mobile US Chairman of the Board, will serve as Chairman of the Board for the new company. Masayoshi Son, chairman and CEO of Sprint’s owner SoftBank Group and Marcelo Claure, current Sprint CEO, will serve on the board of the new company.

“This combination will create a fierce competitor with the network scale to deliver more for consumers and businesses in the form of lower prices, more innovation, and a second-to-none network experience – and do it all so much faster than either company could on its own,” Legere said in a statement. “As industry lines blur and we enter the 5G era, consumers and businesses need a company with the disruptive culture and capabilities to force positive change on their behalf.”

According to the deal, Sprint shareholders will receive exchange 9.75 Sprint shares for every share of new T-Mobile stock. At closing, T-Mobile parent Deutsche Telekom will control about 42% of the company, Softbank will hold 27% and the public will control 31% of shares.

Deutsche Telekom also will control about 69% of the vote of the new company and has the right to elect nine of the 14 members of the board of directors. The companies expect to close the deal in the first half of next year.

On a conference call with analysts, Claure said the catalyst for changing its mind about the control issues was simple.

“The big change of why we were able to do this so fast is a very simple rule of business: both companies need each other,” Claure said. “The reason why this is going to work is that T-Mobile can’t do the 5G strategy without Sprint and Sprint cannot do it without T-Mobile.”

The next biggest hurdle for the merger will be in obtaining regulatory approval. While the government usually frowns on mergers that eliminate a competitor in any industry – T-Mobile is the third largest wireless carrier and Sprint is the fourth largest behind Verizon Communications (No. 1) and AT&T (No. 2) – both companies have said the deal is necessary for their survival in the cutthroat wireless business. And they claim the deal is necessary to fund the creation of new 5G wireless services.

The combined company – headquartered in Bellevue, Wash., and in Overland Park, Kans. – will employ about 200,000 people. The new entity also pledged to invest up to $40 billion in its new network and business in the first three years after the deal is closed.

On a conference call with analysts, Legere said that there are at least seven or eight large wireless competitors in the industry. Aside form Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile, Comcast introduced wireless service Xfinity Mobile last year and Charter Communications is launching its own service later this year.

“This isn’t a case of going from four to three wireless companies,” he said.

And though the current presidential administration is thought to be more open to big deals, it isn’t a rubber stamp. The U.S. Department of Justice sued to block the AT&T-Time Warner merger, a move that is expected to be decided by the courts soon. 

According to reports, Dish Network also could play a role in the deal’s approval. Dish already has amassed a huge swath of wireless spectrum and has expressed plans to launch its own IoT wireless service. 

Depending on whether Dish’s wireless offering will compete directly with Sprint and T-Mobile, that offering too could be used as an example that competition won’t be affected.

But others see the deal differently.

“No one but T-Mobile and Sprint executives and Wall Street brokers wants to see this merger go through,” Free Press policy director Matt Wood said in a statement. “Greed, and a desire to reach deeper into people’s wallets by taking away their choices, are the only things motivating this deal.”

Wood added that mergers are supposed to enhance competition and serve the public.
“This deal would do just the opposite: It would destroy competition, eliminate jobs, and harm the public in numerous irreversible ways,” Wood said in the statement.

The complicated deal also had a slew of financial and legal advisors, including PJT Partners, which is serving as financial advisor to T-Mobile; and Goldman Sachs, serving as financial advisor to Deutsche Telekom. T-Mobile Deutsche Bank also acted as financial advisor to T-Mobile. Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz is providing legal counsel to T-Mobile and Deutsche Telekom, with Cleary Gottlieb and DLA Piper serving as regulatory counsel. Evercore is acting as financial advisor to a committee of independent directors of T-Mobile and Latham & Watkins is providing legal counsel to the committee of independent directors. Morgan Stanley served as financial advisor to Deutsche Telekom. Barclays, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and RBC are providing T-Mobile with committed debt financing to support the transaction, and PJT Partners is advising T-Mobile on the debt financing associated with the transaction.

The Raine Group LLC is acting as lead financial advisor to Sprint. J.P. Morgan is also acting as a financial advisor to Sprint. Centerview Partners LLC is acting as financial advisor to the Independent Transaction Committee of the Board of Directors of Sprint. Morrison & Foerster LLP is lead legal counsel to Sprint and for SoftBank Group. Goodwin Procter LLP is legal counsel to the Independent Transaction Committee of the Board of Directors of Sprint. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP is regulatory co-counsel and Potter Anderson Corroon LLP is Delaware Counsel. Mizuho Securities Co., Ltd. and SMBC Nikko Securities Inc. are acting as financial advisors to SoftBank Group. 

Netflix confirmed Thursday that it’s working on a “data saver feature” for mobile apps following a report in The Wall Street Journal about a policy in which Netflix reduced the quality of video delivered on AT&T and Verizon cellular networks, but not on those operated by T-Mobile or Sprint because the latter have historically implemented sed “more consumer-friendly policies.”

AT&T said it was “outraged” by it, claiming it was akin to “throttling” those streams without consumer  consent.

Netflix is a supporter of Binge On, T-Mobile’s optional video optimization service that limits streams to 480p and exempts partner traffic from its data-usage policies. T-Mobile recently adjusted its policy to provide more info on the option and an easier way for subs to toggle the service on and off, moves that Google and YouTube approved of after originally railing against the  Binge On program over claims that it was throttling its streams.

Sprint used to throttle the streams of heavy users, but stopped that practice last year after the policy came under fire.

In a blog post, Netflix official Anne Marie Squeo announced that Netflix would soon “give members more control over their Netflix experience,” as the OTT provider aimed to introduce a new data saver feature that is “on track” to become available to Netflix subs sometime in May that will let them adjust their data consumption settings.

“So in an effort to protect our members from overage charges when they exceed mobile data caps, our default bitrate for viewing over mobile networks has been capped globally at 600 kilobits per second,” she wrote. “It’s about striking a balance that ensures a good streaming experience while avoiding unplanned fines from mobile providers.”

She said Netflix’s research showed that “many members worry about exceeding their mobile data cap, and don’t need the same resolution on their mobile phone as on a large screen TV to enjoy shows and movies. However, we recognize some members may be less sensitive to data caps or subscribe to mobile data plans from carriers that don’t levy penalties for exceeding caps.”

More details about the feature will be shared closer to launch, she said.

The matter heated up last week when T-Mobile CEO John Legere called out AT&T and  Verizon for throttling video, and Verizon shot back with a statement that his assertion was “dopey” and “has no basis in fact at all.”

Amid the latest news, which found that it was Netflix, not AT&T and Verizon, that were limiting the video streams, Legere weighed in with a Periscope video in which stirred the pot again by wondering if AT&T and Verizon were being evasive on the subject. “No one has accused AT&T and Verizon of ‘throttling,’ but did they knowingly have this…and not tell customers?” he asked.

John Legere served up a slice of humble pie Monday in the form of an open letter in which the outspoken T-Mobile CEO apologized for some disrespectful remarks directed to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) while remaining steadfast in a position that T-Mobile’s new and optional zero-rated Binge On streaming offering “absolutely supports Net Neutrality.”

Legere stirred things up last week when using Periscope to conduct a Q&A about Binge On. EFF asked if Binge On alters streams or just limits its bandwidth.  Legere offered some details and then said:  “Who the f*** are you, anyway, EFF? Why are you stirring up so much trouble, and who pays you?"

That didn’t go over well with members of EFF, and caused Sidefuse, the company behind 4Stream.TV, to announce that it was dropping out of the Binge On program.

Legere’s letter lists out some details about Binge On before this apologetic passage:

“Look, by now you know that I am a vocal, animated and sometimes foul mouthed CEO.  I don’t filter myself and you know that no one at T-Mobile filters me either (no, they don’t even try).  That means I will sometimes incite a bit of a ‘social media riot’, but I’m not going to apologize for that.

“I will however apologize for offending EFF and its supporters. Just because we don’t completely agree on all aspects of Binge On doesn’t mean I don’t see how they fight for consumers.  We both agree that it is important to protect consumers' rights and to give consumers value.  We have that in common, so more power to them.  As I mentioned last week, we look forward to sitting down and talking with the EFF and that is a step we will definitely take.  Unfortunately, my color commentary from last week is now drowning out the real value of Binge On – so hopefully this letter will help make that clear again.”

Earlier in the letter, Legere said T-Mobile “absolutely supports Net Neutrality and we believe in an open and free Internet, noting that the company developed the proprietary Binge On system (it zero-rates streams at DVD-like 480p quality) to help customers “stretch their data bucket.”  

He also reiterated that customers can turn off Binge On to stream and HD and flip it back on after.  When Binge On is active, streaming from partners such as Crackle, Curiosity Stream, Sling TV, Hulu, Starz, HBO Now,  etflix and several others, don’t count against a T-Mobile customer’s monthly data usage, but streams from others, such as YouTube, which has criticized the program over “throttling” claims, are also delivered via the mobile provider’s proprietary system.

T-Mobile countered that Binge On doesn’t throttle video streams, but told DSL Reports that it thinks “[a]  better phrase is ‘mobile optimized’ or a less flattering ‘downgraded’ is also accurate."

Semantics aside, Binge On, Legere held in the open letter, is “a VERY ‘pro’ net neutrality capability -- you can turn it on and off in your MyTMobile account – whenever you want.  Turn it on and off at will.  Customers are in control.  Not T-Mobile.  Not content providers.  Customers. At all times.”

T-Mobile is taking its fight for more low-band spectrum in the upcoming broadcast incentive auction to social media in a new video that portrays Verizon and AT&T as a two-headed comic book villain (i.e., a duopoly) in need of smashing by the forces of T-Mobile and The FCC Five.

The wireless company had been pushing the FCC to reserve 40 MHz of low-band spectrum for competitive carriers, given how much of that spectrum dominant carriers AT&T and Verizon already have.

Federal Communications Commission chairman Tom Wheeler has proposed leaving the set-aside at 30 MHz, with a vote scheduled for July 16.

T-Mobile president John Legere tweeted about and appears in the video, which has the retro feel of a D.C. Batman comic book of the 1960s; it calls on consumers to encourage the FCC to fight the evil forces of lobbyists and "the dark force flying in the shadows" -- the two-headed duopoly monster.

"This is a battle over who will control the future of wireless," T-Mobile states, and if the dreaded duopoly wins, consumers will be stuck with them as gatekeepers for the mobile Internet.

Preventing that, says T-Mobile, is the job of The FCC Five; the commissioners are depicted as a sort of mobile wireless Justice League of hunky super heroes ready to take on the minions of the dark duopoly lords.

Legere appears at the end asking Web surfers to make some noise, saying the FCC is still deciding what to do.