FCC Gives T-Mobile A Talking To For Exempting Speedtests From Caps, Preventing Users From Seeing They'd Been Throttled
from the just-deliver-our-bits-and-get-out-of-the-way dept
While T-Mobile has been doing a lot of consumer friendly things lately, we've noted repeatedly that many of these behaviors are somewhat superficial, despite oodles of press adoration for the company's admittedly highly entertaining CEO John Legere. Under the surface, some of what T-Mobile is up to isn't that different from the companies T-Mobile ridicules (AT&T, Verizon). Not only has the company not really been eager to compete on price, it has shown repeatedly that it doesn't think much of net neutrality or Title II reclassification, despite being a self-professed consumer BFF.In addition to not understanding (or not caring) how the company's Music Freedom plan sets a horrible precedent, T-Mobile found itself under fire earlier this year for its decision to exempt speedtests from the company's arbitrary usage caps. Why? Unlike the overage fees charged by AT&T and Verizon, T-Mobile throttles users to 64 or 128 kbps after users reach their monthly allotments. Groups like Public Knowledge complained back in July that by exempting speedtests from T-Mobile caps, throttled customers weren't able to tell that they were throttled:
"By exempting speed tests from the throttling, T-Mobile is effectively preventing consumers from learning exactly how slow their throttled connections are. Under the new policy, T-Mobile customers who exceed their data caps will not be able to gauge the actual speeds available to them for the vast majority of their daily usage."T-Mobile responded by claiming that the carrier was only trying to help consumers by making speedtests (which don't use much data to begin with) cap exempt. But that logic is a slippery slope and a cop out. If you're setting arbitrary caps and then exempting music services and speedtests, why not Techdirt podcasts? Why not TurboTax? Why not city municipal services? Government websites? Again, it sets a bad precedent for a wireless carrier to erect artificial, arbitrary barriers, then begin fiddling with what specific services can (or can't) more easily bypass these hurdles.
The FCC appears to have heard Public Knowledge's concerns, and this week announced (pdf) that the agency had worked with T-Mobile on an agreement requiring the carrier to clarify its throttling practices. According to the FCC, T-Mobile has sixty days to clarify throttling practices on its websites, provide access to speedtests that show a user's throttled state, and begin sending clear text messages to consumers alerting them when they've reached their monthly data allotments. Says the FCC:
"The FCC is committed to ensuring that broadband providers are transparent to consumers. I’m grateful T-Mobile has worked with the FCC to ensure that its customers are better informed about the speeds they are experiencing," said FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler. “Consumers need this information to fully understand what they are getting with their broadband service."Of course, ensuring companies are "transparent" is one thing, and protecting the integrity of a neutral network is something else entirely. The FCC has made it repeatedly clear they see efforts like T-Mobile's Music Freedom and AT&T's Sponsored Data as "pricing creativity" during the neutrality rulemaking process, which should concern anybody interested in a healthy Internet. Meanwhile, T-Mobile wants to be seen as the ultra-hip, fun cousin of the telecom scene, but it apparently hopes nobody will notice that many of its behaviors aren't all that different from its dodgy, drunk uncles, AT&T and Verizon. If T-Mobile really wants to be seen as truly consumer friendly? Just deliver our bits and get the hell out of the way.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: broadband caps, data caps, exemptions, fcc, net neutrality, open internet, speedtest
Companies: t-mobile
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Umm...if consumers need speed test data to fully understand what they are getting, how are they able to make an informed decision when they sign up for service?
Sure, these tools should work, but isn't the first step to make the carrier TELL THE CUSTOMERS WHAT THEIR SPEEDS WILL BE THROTTLED TO BEFORE THEY SIGN UP?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This entire farce by the FCC is a waste of time. Public Knowledge seems to be chasing windmills on this one, because speed has nothing to do with data caps.
What's next, Public Knowledge is going go chase after websites to demand them to display a message telling users how much data the page will consume?
Good grief.
Anyone who has used a phone that's been throttled will tell instantly they're being throttled and a speed test isn't going to help them in any regard, before or during the throttle.
If Public Knowledge was more proactive in their "case", they should have demanded all mobile carriers give users a widget/app where they can easily monitor the data consumption, where speed isn't a factor.
Thanks, PK, for absolutely nothing. Now, go find something better to do now that you've conquered this windmill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Please let me know, it could impact my selection of a new carrier.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If the vast majority of their usage is capped, maybe they need a new plan or need to use the phone less.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stanley Tools was only trying to help consumers by making their laser tape-measure completely ignore walls.
WTF!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It makes it harder and harder to remember that they used to claim they needed those data caps to limit the network traffic because they just couldn't handle that much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is an actual rationale here:
Because the one thing where you need to specify a reasonable approximation of your available bandwidth is high-throughput streaming. Of course, video streams are most important in that regard, but music streaming is at least more expensive than speech streams.
So yes: there is a rationale for letting speed tests give the numbers of the services that you are supposed to be using preferedly (presumably because they are proxied and thus reasonably cheap to provide in the vicinity of the "last city mile" or few hops away).
So at least a checkbox (defaulting to off) in your web settings for "Treat speedtests like rate-unlimited services" would definitely make some sense for figuring out what you can reasonably ask for. Of course, it would be even nicer to have 3 checkboxes for
Rate-limit
Unlimited services
Capped services
Known Speedtests
That way, you could check out the difference stuff makes even when not using a known speedtest and you could save your caps for just the big updates (or, say, three family movies) and pre-limit your rate until you need it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
awww a talking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
However, this violates the principle of Net Neutrality, for the simple reason of it being prioritised (through exepmtions).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In other words, T-Mobile is lying to you because they want to answer a question they wish you asked (What is my theoretical maximum speed?) instead of the question you actually asked (what is my current maximum speed?)
It's BS. If what you want to know is what your theoretical maximum speed is, you're not going to run an operational test to find that out. You're going to ask the provider, and the provider will tell you. The entire point of operational tests is to characterize the current state of your link, not to try to divine some kind of theoretically possible value.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I don't disagree that it's wrong for T-Mobile to shape traffic in such a way, atypical tot he rest of the 'Net. I'm just pointing out that there's a logical reason (for them, anyway) for that to be the case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, and that reason is to be deceptive. There is literally no other reason to intentionally set their system up to falsify speed test results in this way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your initial data rate after connection is held abnormally high for a period of time and then dropped to the typical rate thus making it appear as though you have a higher rate when you actually do.
As a test, d/l a large file and watch the speed over time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Familiar argument...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Real Reason
[ link to this | view in chronology ]