Slashdot Mirror


AT&T, Verizon Tell FCC To Back Off On Net Neutrality Complaints (theverge.com)

ATT and Verizon have responded to the FCC's letters that argued the way the two companies handle the practice of exempting their own video apps from data caps on customers' smartphones can hurt competition and consumers. The Verge reports: The companies defended the programs, which allow select data sources to not count toward customers' data plans through a process known as zero-rating. Although it did not explicitly ban them in new net neutrality rules laid out last year, the FCC has been critical of such programs, arguing that they can be used to hurt competition by unfairly favoring some data, creating an uneven playing field for businesses. In a noticeably pointed response, ATT takes a similar line to the position it's held all along: programs like Data Free TV, which allows customers to use data from ATT-owned DirecTV without it counting toward a plan, are not anticompetitive, but are simply a perk consumers enjoy. Verizon, in its response, makes similar arguments defending its FreeBee data program, which allows data from Verizon-owned Go90 to not count toward a data plan. "FreeBee data provides tangible benefits to consumers by increasing the amount of what they can do and watch online, at no cost to them," the company's response says.

16 of 102 comments (clear)

  1. Trump. lol. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Makes no difference anyway. Ajit Pai is gonna invalidate all these rules anyway.

    Good to know that Trump wasn't gonna be beholden to special interests, lobbyists and donors. LOL @ the retards who actually believed that.

  2. Trump effect by ilsaloving · · Score: 4, Informative

    They wouldn't be doing this if they didn't know that Trump was going to come down the pipe and back them up.

    The FCC may as well give up at this point. I mean, hell, ALL US regulatory commissions may as well give up at this point, since he's gonna gut and destroy anything that prevents profits from being made, regardless of the impact that will have on health, the environment, or the well-being of US citizens.

  3. devils advocate. by JustNiz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    OK I'm going to play Devil's advocate here.
    it seems to me that if they want to not count bandwidth for certain services against your allowance, that can only be a good thing. I mean you're actually still free to use the other services if you want.
    I'd have an issue if they tried blocking competition completely but as long as you ultimately have a free choice its no worse than Microsoft having their any of their browser/search engine/storefront/whatever open by default on Windows, until you explicitly choose an alternative.

    1. Re:devils advocate. by sims+2 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You must have missed the part where they were figuring out that you would get 8X as much data for the same price if some of it wasn't zero rated. http://alphabeatic.com/zero-ra...

      So you're paying for it but you're not paying for it.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    2. Re:devils advocate. by ninthbit · · Score: 2

      To play devil's advocate we need you to explain how the FCC's anticompetative concerns are invalid or the benefit out weigh the concern.

      It's not cost free to the consumer.... It's costs them choice. They have to chose between free data and paid, and is that really a choice? Unlimited zero rated video, or highly limited amount of YouTube and the like.

      As someone who watches more YouTube than anything on my cell, I can say it's clearly anticompetative to even a major player. How does the next platform get started if no one wants to sacrifice their data?

    3. Re:devils advocate. by hawguy · · Score: 2

      OK I'm going to play Devil's advocate here.
      it seems to me that if they want to not count bandwidth for certain services against your allowance, that can only be a good thing. I mean you're actually still free to use the other services if you want.
      I'd have an issue if they tried blocking competition completely but as long as you ultimately have a free choice its no worse than Microsoft having their any of their browser/search engine/storefront/whatever open by default on Windows, until you explicitly choose an alternative.

      If you believe the carriers, bandwidth is so expensive they have to ration it and keep people from using too much.

      So even if you're not watching these "free" services, you're still paying for it in bandwidth costs. Why should *you* have a 5GB cap and expensive overage charges to watch Netflix while someone watching AT&T's service every day can use up 50GB a month and pay nothing extra?

      So AT&T is using your money to subsidize users of its own video streaming service.

      Maybe you don't care about streaming video, but will you care when it expands to other things? When Bing queries at fast, but Google queries are slowed down since AT&T has a partnership with Bing. Or you can use AT&T's driving directions app for free (because it's full of ads for AT&T's clients), but when you use Google Maps, the maps take 2 minutes to load at 10kbit/second because AT&T "deprioritized" their traffic since it "interferes" with AT&T's preferred app.

  4. Re:Fine them to death by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The real problem is that we have companies handling both content and transport. This is a problem for the FTC. AT&T et. al. should be required to split their ISP and network operations from their content operations. Then network neutrality would be a matter of preventing content providers from bribing the ISP and network operators.

  5. Re:Fine them to death by msauve · · Score: 2

    Not if the competitors don't own the network, they can't. To have fair competition, ATT and VZW could offer unlimited one-service streaming for a set price, and let the consumer chose the service they want it applied to. Then, let their own streaming services compete equitably with Netflix, or Amazon, or Hulu, or whatever a customer chooses.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  6. Re:Fine them to death by Sable+Drakon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Which T-Mobile has already done. Not to mention they're pretty much zero-rating any service that asks for it, even going as far as zero-rating ATT's own Data Free TV program.

    --
    The Amarri pray for god, the Caldari pray for profit. the Gallente pray for peace, but the Minmatar pray their ships hol
  7. one or tuther by bigtreeman · · Score: 2

    Companies should provide content OR networking, NOT both.

    --
    Go well
    1. Re:one or tuther by I4ko · · Score: 2

      It's even worse. I live in an apartment building, that is services by Cox. For one reason or another I don't like them (constant price hikes) and I want to use a WISP. There is a WISP I have line of sight to one of their POPs, and I have all the CPE equipment on my own. I can see their signal at -60db, which is neat.

      They would not sell me service tough, because they have a non-complete signed with Cox to not sell in Cox service areas, which I happen to fall in.

      These types of agreements, should definitely be outlawed and companies fined by FCC.

      What is my option here? To ask for the service on the top of the street lamppost and lease a space on the top of the lamppost from the city, and then do a repeater, since Cox will not provide coax service on the top of the lamppost? Why do I have to do such insane things to be able to pay someone I like for a service I like?

  8. They know there's a new sheriff coming... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...and they're pretty damn sure he'll be much more "reasonable" than the current administration. And the cocky bastards are almost certainly right.

    Say good bye to the internet as it has been (more or less) for decades.

    Say hello to tiered access. On Comcast and want Netflix? Well, that would be our Multimedia package, which includes 30 hours of unlimited (non-high-def) Netflix per month, as well as 100 hours (480p or less) YouTube streaming per month! Only an additional 19.99 beyond basic!

    On TimeWarner and want BitTorrent access? Well that's unavailable for residential access, however Business Class internet permits BitTorrent use, and is only 99/month more than basic residential access!

    Frankly I can't imagine the shenanigans they're going to get up to when The Orange One tells the FCC to sit-down and shut up.

    Well, his devoted minions, really, das Trumpenstien probably won't give two shits what's going on at the FCC, as long as it doesn't cost his empire money and his friends are happy.

    I really hope I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure this is going to be bad, folks. And the Internet as we know it getting fucked over is probably gonna be the least of it.

    1. Re:They know there's a new sheriff coming... by OrangeTide · · Score: 2

      Get a dedicated T1 line to your house. It's just fast enough to run Netflix at highdef. Only $1000/month, which sounds steep except when you consider that you won't have to talk to Comcast's customer service ever again.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    2. Re:They know there's a new sheriff coming... by grep+-v+'.*'+* · · Score: 2

      Get Comcast Business. I've got it, and the infrequent calls to tech support (maybe once a quarter, usually because someone's had an instant desire to move a telephone pole) are a breeze.

      They answer the phone in a few rings, they're nice, succinct, and knowledgeable. They know pings, traceroute, and IP addresses and won't ask you to off/on your device, and within 5 or so minutes can tell if it's you or them and can indicate some type of fix window (although for upstream-to-me issues that once require a physical device replacement they give the standard "here's the window" line. OTOH it broke on a freezing early Saturday morning and was fixed mid-Sunday.)

      No consumer "between 8 and 5 sometime next month" issues here.

      I'd have to look, but I pay like $70 for a 20 MBit unlimited line where I *CAN* run a server. Not cheap, but it works and having reliable tech support IS worth something.

      Next month AT&T is activating 1 GBit fiber, consumer-level I think. I need to look into that, but uptime and support is still a non-significant factor. Doesn't matter how fast it goes if it's broken.

      --
      If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
    3. Re:They know there's a new sheriff coming... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      Do you guys not understand that the country you live in, the country that provides all these technologies and services that you take for granted, was built on the premise that the free market works?

      We do. We've also seen how well it "works" in practice back in the 19th century. Sherman Act was passed for a reason.

  9. Re:Fine them to death by currently_awake · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If the government owned and ran the internet (wires) then net neutrality would not be an issue. Having a for profit entity own critical infrastructure without serious regulation is a barrier to free market capitalism in the same way that the landline phone monopoly (prior to breakup) blocked companies from offering modems, fax machines, and other goods and services.