Slashdot Mirror
New FCC Report Says AT&T and Verizon Zero-Rating Violates Net Neutrality (theverge.com)
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."
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 :|
I'm surprised they acted as fast as they did. Government bureaucracy isn't known for speed or efficiency.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
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).
The ATT and DirecTV deal doesn't sound like a violation since it's a first party deal. It would be like you provider letting you visit the provider's site for free for support or calling tech support and not getting charged for it.
The Trumperor will fix it with removal of regulation. Then no one will care! We will be busy getting fucked - more than we currently are. Remember kids, getting fucked is fun!
Silence is a state of mime.
...is exempt exempt from checking the content of this summary.
This is good news to me. I own AT&T stock.
Data over cell phone towers is cheaper than data over cable, or wifi. So, if at&t and verizon want to give away free cell phone data, I say grab as much as you can. I want to see DSL companies extorting low data websites, not data hogs like Netflix, for money before I support 'net neutrality'. I will have to get my brother to switch to T-mobile for unlimited youtube.
It will be unfortunate it the incoming president disadvantages these third party content providers. There are jobs that will be lost if these companies go out of business or new companies are scared away, mostly middle class jobs in technology and media content creation. This will be a societal net loss, with no upside in either government income or consumer price cuts - the exact opposite of a free lunch in economics.
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.
The more ISPs will slip through your fingers.
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.
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
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 unprofitable electricity generation. Or, at least that is how it was explained to me.
This seemed to be viewed as generally favorable. No one at this conference seemed to consider this a bad thing. Effectively the government enforced a separation between energy generation and energy transmission. Where this equates to this AT&T deal, at least IMHO, is that this is enforcing a separation between content ownership and delivery. The "monopoly" isn't as obvious since most areas of the USA are serviced by more than one cell phone company but it's not like people can switch cell phone providers on a whim, or get the same great deal on data from more than one content owner at the same time.
I generally oppose the government getting in the way of business because it is so easy for rules intended to protect the average consumer to evolve into rules that protect a business. I'm not a DirectTV subscriber but I do get AT&T cell service. One thing I considered in choosing my cell service provider was that AT&T did not charge data usage for DirectTV and I thought that in the near future I may want that service. I could have stayed with Verizon as the price and data limit differences were small. I will say that it is nice that I get cell service while at work but that could be the new phone and not the new provider.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.