It’s getting easier to cut the cord, thanks to the rise of Internet video services like Hulu, HBO Go, Netlix, and Sling TV. But there’s still some stuff you just can’t find online, and the Federal Communications Commission wants to know why.

There’s been lots of discussion about the ways that cable providers, which also usually double as Internet providers, could sabotage streaming video sites by slowing down video connections or charging video providers extra money to reach viewers. That’s a big part of why the FCC last year passed the Open Internet Order, which bans providers from discriminating against certain types of Internet traffic. But cable companies may have more subtle ways of keeping viewers from cutting the cord.

The FCC is now investigating the contracts between cable providers and cable networks and whether those contracts make it harder for networks to put their content online, Wall Street Journal reported.

At issue is whether cable companies like Comcast, Charter, and Time-Warner Cable either prohibit or discourage content providers such as 21st Century Fox, Disney, and Viacom from streaming their shows, or even their entire networks, online. The issue is particularly relevant now because Charter plans to buy Time-Warner Cable. If the merger is approved, it would create a cable company almost as big as Comcast, potentially hamstringing cable networks’ negotiating power. The FCC may bar Charter from entering into such contracts as a condition of approval of the merger, the Journal reports.

But bringing TV to the web isn’t as simple as getting the cable companies to loosen their contracts. Cable networks have also played a role in keeping their content off the web, says technology and telecommunications industry analyst Jan Dawson.

Networks like to offer their channels in bundles rather than à la carte. That’s made it harder for cable providers to offer cheaper “skinny bundles” that have fewer channels, and it’s made it more difficult for companies like Apple to launch online TV services. “It’s not just a one-way street,” Dawson says. “All the incumbent players have strong incentives to try to preserve the status quo, which generally serves them well.”

That’s not to say, however, that cable provider contracts aren’t holding back the advent of streaming TV. “It absolutely makes sense that the FCC would be looking into this,” Dawson says. “There’s quite a bit of evidence out there that major content providers would like to do more to put their content online, but they’re being held back from doing so.”

T-Mobile CEO John Legere, the Donald Trump of telco executives, set off a Twitter firestorm this afternoon when he tweeted a video of himself asking “Who the fuck are you EFF, why are you stirring up so much trouble, and who pays you?”

The EFF is the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a non-profit advocacy group focused on internet freedom issues such as network neutrality, encryption and intellectual property law. It’s funded by donations from both individuals and corporations.

.@EFF pic.twitter.com/pv6V4oOJwS

— John Legere (@JohnLegere) January 7, 2016

Legere’s outburst came in response to a question tweeted to him by the EFF itself asking whether T-Mobile’s Binge On unlimited video service altered or limited the bandwidth of video streams. The EFF recently published a report calling out T-Mobile for throttling connections to all video sites as part of the program. The organization is not without its critics, but it also has a legion of tech savvy supporters, many of whom took to Twitter to educate Legere about the organization.

Some were funny:

Seemed pretty personal, almost like @JohnLegere was going to reach out of the screen and (•_•) ( •_•)>⌐□-□ (⌐□_□) throttle us. #WeAreEFF

— Kit Walsh (@NeuroKit) January 7, 2016

#WeAreEFF pic.twitter.com/fwGb3AL5iZ

— mattl (@mattl) January 7, 2016

Others were more serious:

Hey @JohnLegere, @EFF does the work to ensure that the internet stays open, encryption stays legal, and users remain in control #WeAreEFF

— Micah Lee (@micahflee) January 7, 2016

Yo @JohnLegere! I’m a proud @EFF member and an ashamed @TMobile customer. Don’t make me pick one of you. #WeAreEFF pic.twitter.com/jxFIY4NB9b

— Aaron Muszalski (@sfslim) January 7, 2016

Hey @JohnLegere, I've been a T-Mobile customer for 15 years. This will be my last month on your service. #WeAreEFF

— James Vasile (@jamesvasile) January 7, 2016

Hi @JohnLegere, I'm an @EFF policy analyst AND paying member bc users and their rights need protection from companies like yours #WeAreEFF

— Maira Sutton (@maira) January 7, 2016

Hi @JohnLegere, it's people like me that pay @EFF. Hope that answers your question. #WeAreEFF pic.twitter.com/mbL4MkmU1i

— david carroll (@davidecarroll) January 7, 2016

Ultimately, Legere was forced to clarify that he did in fact know who the EFF is:

Let me be clear- I know who the @EFF is. I’m sure they do a lot of great things for a lot of consumers, but innovation can be controversial!

— John Legere (@JohnLegere) January 7, 2016

To anyone who thought the net neutrality debate was behind us, the FCC found itself defending its regulations before a panel of judges considering the ISP’s objections to the new rules.

If the US appeals court judges rule against the FCC, the agency’s new regulations could be toast, meaning Internet providers like Comcast could offer “paid prioritization,” often called Internet “fast lanes,” to those willing to write a check. The decision isn’t expected until next year.

In February, the FCC effectively reclassified broadband Internet providers as “common carriers,” meaning the government could regulate them much like telephone companies or other industries. It followed that by passing the Open Internet Order that outlined specific non-discrimination policies. The broadband industry of course cried foul, and the US Telecom Association filed suit in July, arguing that the FCC didn’t have the authority to pass such sweeping regulation without congressional approval.

On Friday, several broadband providers and industry advocates pleaded their case before the made their case before the US Court of Appeals in Washington, DC, while the FCC and net neutrality organizations like Public Knowledge defended the regs.

It’s hard to know just how the judges, Sri Srinivasan, Stephen F. Williams and David S. Tatel, are leaning. Srinivasan, appointed by President Obama in 2013, hasn’t said anything about net neutrality and technology. Williams, appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1986, is generally seen as skeptical of regulation, but perhaps not so rigid as to guarantee he’ll side with the telcoms. Some have argued the decision could come down to Tatel, who Bill Clinton appointed in 1994. Tatel ruled against the FCC in its case against Verizon in 2010, arguing the agency lacked the authority to stop Verizon from throttling BitTorrent traffic because broadband providers weren’t common carriers. Net neutrality opponents believe that ruling provided a map for regulators to follow to establish legally sound anti-discrimination protections. But critics argue Tatel’s general opposition to regulatory overreach suggests he will side with them.

The Hill suggests that their questions during the hearing suggest Tatel and Srinivasan may favor the FCC, with Williams leaning toward the carriers.

Even if the court rules in the FCC’s favor, net neutrality isn’t out of hot water. The telco industry can appeal to the Supreme Court, and House Republicans have included an anti-network neutrality rider in a spending bill. A GOP victory in the presidential election could complicate matters further. On the other hand, if the controversial TransPacific Partnership trade deal passes, some legal experts believe the FCC may get the authority to enforce network neutrality.

Regardless of how the court rules, Comcast, the country’s largest fixed-line broadband provider, is forbidden from discriminating against certain types of traffic by conditions of its merger with NBCUniversal.

T-Mobile will allow customers to stream unlimited amounts of video from select partners without having those streams count against their data limits starting this Sunday, CEO John Legere said today. At launch, the service will include 24 different partners, including Netflix, Hulu, HBO Now, and SlingTV. (YouTube was conspicuously absent.)

The company also said it will double the data limits for all of its plans and will offer its customers 30 percent off Sling TV service.

That’s great news for Netflix junkies on the go, or for low-income customers on a budget. But with new federal regulations in place to ensure a more open Internet, T-Mobile’s new offering could also face greater scrutiny.

The new service, dubbed Binge On, complements T-Mobile’s existing Music Freedom service, which exempts many major music streaming apps, including Spotify and Apple Music, from customers’ data limits. Both services are examples of what’s known as “zero rating,” that is, singling out specific apps and services from counting toward data limits.

Music Freedom program is one of the most well-known zero-rated offerings, but it’s not the only one. Facebook’s controversial Internet.org program subsidizes access to Facebook and other sites in developing countries. Last year Sprint launched a prepaid wireless service that included the option of getting unlimited data for certain sites, such as Facebook or Pinterest, but not others. And AT&T has flirted with the idea of sponsored apps that wouldn’t count towards your bandwidth limit.

The idea of zero-rating would seem to stand in stark contrast to the principle of net neutrality, where all services are treated equally, whether they’re music streaming services, file sharing applications, or any other type of service—and whether they’re operated by well-funded startups or by rag-tag community non-profits.

But legally, zero-rating falls into a gray area within the FCC’s open internet rules passed earlier this year. “The record in the Open Internet proceeding reflected both benefits from/concerns about zero-rating, so we didn’t ban such plans but will look at them case-by-case and act as necessary,” says FCC spokesperson Mark Wigfield.

Wigfield didn’t comment specifically on T-Mobile, but T-Mobile’s new video streaming offering would seem to be one of those cases.

Legere dismissed these concerns. “This is not a network neutrality problem,” he said. T-Mobile defends its zero rating services by saying that it doesn’t charge streaming companies to participate in Music Freedom or Binge On, and it will allow any legal streaming service to join the program—including porn sites—so long as they meet the technical standards. In other words, there’s no paid prioritization and no discrimination, in theory, between different music or video streaming services.

In practice, however, Music Freedom only included seven services at launch. It has now expanded to 33 different services, but one of the biggest worries is that T-Mobile’s services will keep small services from growing by making it even harder for them to attract new customers, and that new services will also be hobbled by the need to strike deals with T-Mobile and other carriers to get their services zero rated. For example, Internet radio company SomaFM has complained in the past about not being included in Music Freedom. Founder Rusy Hodge says the company is finally set to be included, but it’s taken months as well as a number of technical changes to make it happen. It looks like SomaFM’s struggle will have a happy ending, but the company may have missed opportunities to attract new listeners, and its experience shows how difficult the program can be for smaller operations without extensive technical teams or the name recognitition to accelerate the appication process.

The video streaming service also raises new questions about zero-rating. Offering unlimited video streaming seems to undermine the idea that data caps are necessary in the first place. If video and music streaming can be done for free, why not chat services like Skype? Why not online gaming? Why not photo sharing or file storage services like Dropbox? Why not just offer unlimited data? However open T-Mobile claims its plans are, clearly some favorites have already been picked.

The United States Telecom Association is suing the Federal Communications Commission over network neutrality, and this week, on behalf of the country’s telecom companies, the organization unveiled its case against the commission, arguing the FCC overstepped its authority in reclassifying mobile and fixed line internet service providers as traditional telecommunications providers—a move widely hailed as a victory for network neutrality.

The ISPs first filed the suit in April and tried to use the suit to block the FCC’s new rules from taking effect in June, but an appeals court denied its request for a stay of the rules pending the outcome of the lawsuit.

This week’s court brief is short on big surprises, but it does outline the industry’s case against the FCC’s order in more detail. “The order represents an unprecedented transfer of regulatory power to the FCC without a clear warrant from Congress,” the association claimed in a blog post yesterday. “By defining the public switched network to reach every device that uses an IP address—everything from mobile phones to cars to refrigerators—the FCC has asserted authority to regulate a massive portion of the entire U.S. economy.”

Meanwhile, the Senate Appropriations Committee has approved a spending bill that includes language that would stop the FCC from using its budget to enforce network neutrality rules.