New FCC Report Says AT&T and Verizon Zero-Rating Violates Net Neutrality (theverge.com) 74
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Just a week and a half before he is set to leave office, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler has issued a new report stating that the zero-rated video services offered by ATT and Verizon may violate the FCC's Open Internet Order. Assembled by the FCC's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, the report focuses on sponsored data programs, which allow companies to pay carriers to exempt exempt their data from customers' data caps. According to the report, many of those packages simply aren't playing fair. "While observing that ATT provided incomplete responses to staff inquires," Wheeler wrote to Senators, "the report states that the limited information available supports a conclusion that ATT offers Sponsored Data to third-party content providers at terms and conditions that are effectively less favorable than those it offers to its affiliate, DirecTV." In theory, sponsored data should be an even playing field, with providers bearing the costs and making the same charges regardless of who's footing the bill. But according to the report, ATT treats the DirectTV partnership very differently from an unaffiliated sponsored data system, giving the service a strong advantage over competitors. "ATT appears to view the network cost of Sponsored Data for DIRECTV Now as effectively de minimis," the report concludes. While ATT still bears some cost for all that free traffic, it's small enough that the carrier doesn't seem to care. The report raises similar concerns regarding Verizon's Go90 program, although it concludes Verizon's program may be less damaging. Notably, the letter does not raise the same concerns about T-Mobile's BingeOn video deal, since it "charges all edge providers the same zero rate for participating."
A little late (Score:5, Insightful)
coming to this conclusion isn't it ?
Considering the new administration may or may not wish to agree with your assessment.
Where was this brilliant insight back when they started behavior ?
It's lovely you all think it's a violation now, but there may be nothing you can do about it at this point.
Good Job :|
Bureaucracy (Score:2, Informative)
I'm surprised they acted as fast as they did. Government bureaucracy isn't known for speed or efficiency.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
It's because Obama's term is coming to an end. So that means, loads of bullshit and lots of monkey wrenches thrown into Trumps new selections because Clinton didn't win. People can whine over it all they want, but if Clinton had won we wouldn't even be having this discussion right now. And this entire thing would still be sitting in limbo.
If Clinton had won, you would be fighting in Trump's revolutionary army and decrying the continued Democratic tyranny. Which ok, would amount to you trolling on the Internet some more, so no, we would be having this discussion, and you'd be doing the same things as you are now.
Whining. Whining. Whining.
Couldn't Trump find a non-racist attorney general candidate? Couldn't Trump find a candidate for secretary of state who knew what a war crime was? Couldn't Trump find a way to not create more conflicts o
Re:Racism? (Score:4, Funny)
You're claiming Trump's attorney general nominee is racist, while completely blowing off Obama's repeat calls to genocide against Appalachian culture. Go fuck yourself.
lol. I bet you believe in Pizzagate too.
Re: (Score:2)
lol. I bet you believe in Pizzagate too.
Funny enough if we apply this standard of evidence(that buzzfeed used), Pizzagate goes from the realm of possibility into the realm of probability.
Re: (Score:2)
If Clinton had won, you would be fighting in Trump's revolutionary army and decrying the continued Democratic tyranny. Which ok, would amount to you trolling on the Internet some more, so no, we would be having this discussion, and you'd be doing the same things as you are now.
Funny. Because that sure didn't happen when Obama won, but the left were right there back when Bush Jr., was elected for a second term screaming that they should violently oppose him. And gee, look again...it's the left doing exactly the same thing. But oh boy, let's look at Obama's decisions shall we? A head of the DoJ that refuses to enforce immigration law, and is now in the running to defend criminal illegals. Very progressive, much law and order!
Couldn't Trump find a non-racist attorney general candidate? Couldn't Trump find a candidate for secretary of state who knew what a war crime was? Couldn't Trump find a way to not create more conflicts of interest?
You mean the joke? Did you actually read/watch what
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Nope 100% wrong
The cost of data over cable( copper or fiber) is effectively zero, the only costs are in supplying the cable in the first place ( and replacing it once every 100yrs or so, it doesn't exactly wear out). power costs are negligible
Nope 100% wrong.
Not only are you wrong, you are an idiot for posting this. Putting fiber in the ground is very expensive. Fixing fiber that has been broken is very expensive. Putting fiber in the ocean for transcontinental links is not just very expensive, it costs massive amounts of money.
And now you have only the cabling. You don't have any DWDM gear, routers, switches and the associated network engineers to operate them.
Data over cable is not zero. The only difference between wireless and wired int
Re: (Score:2)
Assume you're right (you're not, but humour me...) - data, once the cabling is laid, costs nothing to transmit.
You happily saturate every link you have, and every upstream link as well, because of course, it's free, right?
Now I come along and offer to pay whoever gave you the link some amount of money - let's say $1000/mo. So they give me the link instead of you.
Now, if you want to use that link again, you'll have to beat my $1000/mo. So I guess it's no longer free to you - it will cost you at least as much
Re:A little late (Score:4)
Lots of Trump fans on this site, presumably they're cool with having crappy connections to Netflix because Netflix haven't bribed their ISP sufficiently. You're headed for a brave new world where websites have to pay your ISP to access you, in addition to you paying your ISP.
Enjoy it.
Re: (Score:1)
But nobody has a crappy connection to netflix. https://ispspeedindex.netflix.com/country/us/
Re: (Score:1)
I see progressives are making is past denial, and into anger. Good, that's progress.
Re: (Score:2)
You're headed for a brave new world where websites have to pay your ISP to access you, in addition to you paying your ISP.
I'd rather have that world, than a world where big government gets to dictate what I can and cannot do on my own privately owned network.
Just get the memo already: (Score:4, Insightful)
Capitalism not working. Once the players are big enough to buy thugs, laws and presidents, capitalism will just devour the very substrate it thrives on.
Capitalism as *one of the driving forces* of society is OK, mind you. As the *only* driving force (as whe've practically had for the last ~30-40 years), it's akin to cancer: ater a wild and nearly exponential growth, it will, in the end, kill its host (and thus itself).
Re: (Score:2)
Sad but true.
Re:Just get the memo already: (Score:4, Insightful)
We need a separation of business and state.
But seeing how well that separation of church and state worked, I'd rather not hold my breath.
Re: (Score:2)
But seeing how entrenched the press is with the democrat party, I'd rather not hold my breath.
The thing is, you'd say that anyway. Wouldn't you.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you talking about the Establishment Clause [uscourts.gov] of the First Amendment or the Thomas Jefferson Letter to the Danbury Bishops [loc.gov]?
If it's the former, I'm not aware the Federal Government established a National Religion...
If it's the latter, Jefferson himself allowed that individual states could keep their state-sponsored religions, that the federal government would not create a national religion.
Jefferson's letter is the
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
...so you really are deaf, dumb, blind and stupid... the cult of christianity has been jamming it's mythology down everyone's throat since before this country existed. It's thanks to the foresight of folks like Jefferson that we aren't totally under the thumb of the christians and their version of sharia law (but only just barely).
The reason the christians are so pissed at the muslims is that they have what the christians so desperately want, total domination in their sphere of influence. The funny thing
Re: (Score:2)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
So, when did Congress pass laws establishing a national religion? What you are speaking of is that all religions, including Christianity, are allowed to freely practice their religion. Would you rather live in a country where religious are not free to practice their religion? Feel free to move to China than if that is what you want.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm talking about reality.
Show me one, ONE SINGLE politician in the US that doesn't somehow invoke his god in every other speech. Or in every speech when it's election time.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, you realize the irony of pointing this out on a story about the government stopping these "jackoffs", right?
Re: (Score:2)
A strongly worded letter is far away from stopping anything.
Re: ATT & DirecTV wouldn't be a violation. (Score:2)
AT&T (or their subsidiary) does charge customers for DirecTV streaming, though. Do you have to pay extra to call tech support in the first place?
Re: ATT & DirecTV wouldn't be a violation. (Score:2)
Are you saying that DirecTV doesn't require a paid subscription for that? I didn't limit my statement to DirecTV Now, just DirecTV streaming in general.
Re: (Score:2)
Except in this case they have the power to force competitors to pay more.
It's like them making their own tech support phoneline free while at the same time being able to charge money for using competitor's tech support phonelines.
Re:ATT & DirecTV wouldn't be a violation. (Score:4)
Because AT&T has been given a defacto monopoly status (or really, participating in an oligopoly) by them being granted gobs of wireless spectrum in an exclusive manner. They aren't being told what they need to set their prices at, they are simply being told that they can't price them differently between them and their competitors. In the case of AT&T, they are not charging the customer or their subsidiary DirecTV for bandwidth, but for anybody who is using any of their competitors, they are charging the customer. This means that the customer is incentivized to use AT&T's product rather than a competitor, because while using the (T) service might cost $35 a month for unlimited streaming, it could cost in the hundreds or thousands for their competitors.
No worries mate... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No worries mate... (Score:5, Funny)
Remember kids, getting fucked is fun!
Who let the priest in?
Slashdot's editorial review (Score:2)
...is exempt exempt from checking the content of this summary.
Re: (Score:2)
Good news to me, too, I don't live in the US and when they try it with us we can point and say "Look what it did to the country that pretty much invented the internet!"
Re: (Score:2)
Thank goodness.
I, for one, welcome our new corporate overlords.
Jobs will be lost (Score:2)
The more you tighten your grip, Wheeler... (Score:2)
The more ISPs will slip through your fingers.
Does it really violate net nuetrality? (Score:3)
I've always considered net neutrality to be more considered with how traffic is treated/shaped rather than how it is billed. I don't want service providers to change traffic priority that would benefit one content provider over another. But zero-rating, as far as I can tell, does not change traffic priority or speeds.
Re: (Score:3)
It makes the net not neutral - some parties are advantaged and some disadvantaged. This doesn't have to be via traffic shaping to be a neutrality issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Alright, if you don't care about billing and only how traffic is treated/shaped, how about you sign up for BiasNetISP. Where the BASIC plan is dirt cheap and affordable to all. But it restricts access to only a handful of websites: Facebook, Foxnews, Google, ESPN360, and the homepage of the church of the latter day saints. It also restricts any other Internet traffic other than web access. Shell out another $20/mo for Netflix traffic on their PREMIUM service. But hey! They pay lip-service to network neutrality and if you pay an extra $10K a year for ULTIMATE service, you get full unrestricted Internet access.
Long story short, traffic is restricted for some of their customers. That IS affecting how traffic is being treated in a very non-neutral "We get to decide where traffic goes" sort of way. Once the gatekeepers try and control what roads you use, they can abuse that power to squeeze money out of you.
You completed turned around my point. I don't want traffic shaped or blocked. But if someone is going to get unmetered access to a certain service, I don't really care.
For example, I'm a DirecTV customer on Verizon. I'm aware that if I was a AT&T customer that it would get me unlimited streaming of AT&T's services including DirecTV. That's fine. It makes me jealous as a Verizon customer, but it doesn't impede my ability or AT&T's customers the ability to choose whatever video streaming serv
Re: (Score:2)
Alright, if you don't care about billing and only how traffic is treated/shaped, how about you sign up for BiasNetISP. Where the BASIC plan is dirt cheap and affordable to all. But it restricts access to only a handful of websites: Facebook, Foxnews, Google, ESPN360, and the homepage of the church of the latter day saints. It also restricts any other Internet traffic other than web access. Shell out another $20/mo for Netflix traffic on their PREMIUM service. But hey! They pay lip-service to network neutrality and if you pay an extra $10K a year for ULTIMATE service, you get full unrestricted Internet access.
Long story short, traffic is restricted for some of their customers. That IS affecting how traffic is being treated in a very non-neutral "We get to decide where traffic goes" sort of way. Once the gatekeepers try and control what roads you use, they can abuse that power to squeeze money out of you.
You completed turned around my point. I don't want traffic shaped or blocked. But if someone is going to get unmetered access to a certain service, I don't really care.
You're falling for the "zero rating" marketing spin.
Imagine a health insurance plan where everybody pays $50, but fat people have to pay $10 extra.
Reaction: WTF?!!? That's not fair! You can't do that!!!
So they re-imagine the health insurance plan where everybody pays $60, but "health conscious" people can get a $10 discount. :eats more cheetos:
Reaction: That's cool, sure wish I went to the gym more
GP is saying these are the same damn thing, it's just that they have different marketing spins.
You are eating cheetos, saying that the second plan is just fine, because it doesn't affect you.
But their rates didn't change for AT&T and T-moble. So what's the problem?
Re: (Score:2)
But it changes behavior. If you have to choose between DirecTV and Netflix, which would you pick? Netflix would count against your bandwidth limit, so maybe you can watch 1 hour a day without g
Re: (Score:2)
That's fine, so consider this: ATT & Verizon have bandwidth caps. If some sites are not subject to the cap, but others are subject to the cap, aren't they changing how traffic is treated/shaped? Once I hit my cap, the ISP is blocking some traffic, but not blocking other traffic. If there was no bandwidth cap, then there would be no need for zero-rating.
So even if this sounds like I'm splitting a hair, in practice, it has the same effect as traffic shaping. Maybe I can't stream Netflix over my 4G con
I've seen this before (Score:1)
This sounds a lot like a bunch of talks I attended while in college. When in college I was taking a power class required of all electrical engineering students and some company sponsored a handful of students to go to some big energy conference. What was big news then was the then new federal regulation that utilities had to charge other utilities the sames fees they charge themselves to carry power. What the government wanted to see was utilities stopping to abuse their monopoly on wires to prop up unpr
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
...Yeah dude, you're talking about the DE-regulation of the power industry. It was a clusterfuck of a bad idea. Congress agreed to deregulate and let the free market compete on price. Enron entered the industry when California tried it out. [wikipedia.org] This lead to a crisis. [wikipedia.org] Enron engaged in some really slimy practices like buying all the time on critical lines, cancelling deals forcing others to scramble for power which, oh look, really kinda needed to go over those critical lines.
I generally oppose the government getting in the way of business
Then you would generally have been in