Sprint Is Throttling Microsoft's Skype Service, Study Finds (fortune.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Fortune: Sprint has been slowing traffic to Microsoft's internet-based video chat service Skype, according to new findings from an ongoing study by Northeastern University and the University of Massachusetts. Among leading U.S. carriers, Sprint was the only one to throttle Skype, the study found. The throttling was detected in 34 percent of 1,968 full tests -- defined as those in which a user ran two tests in a row -- conducted between Jan. 18 and Oct. 15. It happened regularly, and was spread geographically across the U.S. Android phone users were more affected than owners of Apple Inc.'s iPhones. The finding is particularly troubling because Skype relies on Sprint's wireless internet network, but the app also provides a communication tool that competes with Sprint's calling services, the researcher added. "If you are a telephony provider and you provide IP services over that network, then you shouldn't be able to limit the service offered by another telephony provider that runs over the internet," David Choffnes, one of the researchers who developed the app used to conduct the survey, said. "From a pure common sense competition view, it seems directly anti-competitive."

Comments

Well

[Anonymous Coward]

This is perfectly legal now. Thanks Pai.

Re: Well

[tysonedwards]

If only there were a law that forced telecommunications services to be regarded as a common carrier and as such treat said transit as neutrally, we wouldnâ(TM)t be having this discussion.

Re: Well

[Anonymous Coward]

You're going to try to blame a Trump appointee's actions on Obama? Pathetic. Republicans ran out of ideas a long time ago, but you could at least put forth a little effort.

Re: Well

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama appointed Pai because the rules forced him to appoint a Republican due to two Democrat appointees already serving. It was the Republicans that put him forward as a candidate (and as a Verizon shill), and it was Trump that appointed him chair.

Re: Well

[Darinbob]

We've never in the past needed legislation for every minutiae of regulation. It was assumed that the legislation was there to enable the regulatory bodies or to provide guidelines and that the regulatory bodies would then faithfully and honestly conduct the business that they had been set up to do. History did not prepare us for the possibility of a slash-and-burn administration intent upon the destruction of all regulations, since this had never been the stated goal of any political party.

Re:Well

[Darinbob]

And Obama appointed him because he was required to have a political mix on the committee and could not have only Democrats.

Of course, part of the problem comes from appointing industry insiders, and it's a problem that's been around for a long time and is hard to resolve. Part of the cause here is that if you want experts in a certain area then those experts are inevitably industry insiders. Ie, if you want knowledgeable banking regulators then your pool of candidates are going to be bankers, which leads to the inevitable state that bankers are policing themselves. This is why we have so much "regulatory capture" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture).

Neutrality of networks!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, it's almost like there should be some sort of regulation to prevent a carrier from discriminating against traffic or services. You know, to enforce then neutrality of networks or something like that. Maybe we should all contact the FCC to suggest this:)

Re:In other news...

[kiviQr]

Maybe it got throttled when bandwidth of the cell tower was limited.

Re:They get what they want

[youngone]

The free market probably would fix this.
Fortunately for you Americans, your government has been paid by the ISPs to never have to deal with a free market ever again.
Oh, and you also have to subsidise their network upgrades.
It's a way of keeping profits private while socialising the expenses.

Re:They get what they want

[dryeo]

That's how the market works. Businesses are free to buy what they can afford, including government rules to help their bottom line.
At that it is probably inevitable in a market as the market rewards the most efficient, and it is more efficient to buy laws then to actually produce a better product.
In theory democracy could counteract this, but you need a functioning democracy.