Charter Hires Leading Net Neutrality Advocate To Write Its Net Neutrality Commitments, Promises To Go Further Than FCC Rules
from the who-are-you-and-what-have-you-done-with-the-cable-company? dept
By and large, the mega-ISP version of net neutrality has unsurprisingly been a far cry from the consumer and small business definition of net neutrality. At the moment, most ISPs argue that net neutrality only means they won't throttle or outright block competing content. It's this vague, incomplete definition (in that it doesn't cover issues like usage caps, interconnection or zero rating) the incumbent carriers have used when they've told regulators they "promise to adhere to net neutrality" if the latest merger-du-jour is allowed to go through. That's why, when Comcast promised it would adhere to "net neutrality" if it was allowed to buy NBC (and more recently Time Warner Cable), it meant -- to use a highly-scientific term -- jack shit.So it's interesting to see Charter Communications -- which is trying to gobble up Time Warner Cable after Comcast's failed merger attempt -- suddenly promising to adhere to real net neutrality to get their deal done. The company is apparently dedicated enough to the idea that they've hired leading net neutrality and consumer advocate Marvin Ammori to help hash out a meaningful commitment that would appeal to a more consumer-focused FCC. Ammori, if you're unaware, was basically the key player in making sure the FCC passed good rules instead of the original terrible rules.
According to a piece by Ammori over at Wired, he actually wound up writing Charter's commitment:
"Charter hired me—which, to be honest, took some humility on its part since I have helped lead public campaigns against cable companies like Charter—to advise it in crafting its commitment to network neutrality. After our negotiation, I can say Charter is offering the strongest network neutrality commitments ever offered—in any merger or, to my knowledge, in any nation. In fact, in the end, I personally wrote the commitments."That in and of itself is pretty impressive; I've covered the broadband industry for the better part of a lifetime, and the vast, vast majority of ISP merger conditions are promises that are utterly, mind-bendingly meaningless. They're almost always fluff and nonsense, political show ponies written by ISP lawyers to sound good to the clueless, even if they accomplish less than nothing. So for a cable company to bring on board a fierce neutrality critic to pen their commitment to neutrality is unprecedented. What's more, while the FCC has so far turned a blind eye to more clever types of neutrality violations (like usage caps and zero rating, pretty much ground zero of the current neutrality debate), Marvin managed to get those included in Charter's commitment as well:
"Since zero rating favors some sites over others based on the broadband provider’s preferences (not the users’), my allies and I urged the FCC to ban zero rating in all forms, but the FCC didn’t go that far. Charter necessarily will. In fact, it will commit to no data cap at all–and no usage-based billing–therefore it will be unable to exempt any applications from those practices."That Charter -- a company that's flirted with usage caps on and off for years -- has agreed to avoid not only zero rating but usage caps entirely is a pretty big deal. Most cable operators are aggressively eyeing usage caps to jack up consumer broadband bills, well aware that inevitably users will chose to cut the TV and cable VoIP cord in exchange for over the top data services. Though only catch here, as Ammori notes, is that the restrictions only apply to Charter for a three year span, after which (especially if the FCC's neutrality rules are killed by the courts) all gloves are off and the fight begins anew. It's also important to remember that while Charter's busy making these promises, it's actively engaged in suing the FCC to destroy the net neutrality rules as a member in the NCTA.
Still, that Charter's willing to go this far is night and day from Comcast's merger approach, which was to dazzle everyone with an endless parade of utter bullshit and hope that nobody was smart enough to see truth, buried as it was under a junk yard of meaningless promises.
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: commitments, conditions, data caps, marvin ammori, merger, net neutrality, open internet, zero rating
Companies: charter communications, time warner cable
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What would be funny, of course, is if they tried to back off from being super net-neutral and what have you and suddenly found the spotlight of criticism focused on them even brighter than before...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Words are nice, but ultimately meaningless
They can say whatever they want and it doesn't cost them a thing. They can promise no caps, no throttling, and that every customer will get a free Ferrari, but that doesn't mean anything if they never follow through.
Cable companies are great at making promises, especially when it comes time to knock out some competition via merger, but when it comes to following up on those promises, more often than not they fail spectacularly, so while this 'commitment' may sound nice on paper, as the saying goes, "I'll believe it when I see it".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Call me paranoid, but this is a cable company after all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Same story coming up
Then, maybe in another ten years, the government will notice these new promises were broken worse than a Faberge egg under a pile driver, and threaten to fine Comcast for a dollar...and, boy, will that ever teach Comcast a lesson!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zero rating - can someone explain why it violates net neutrality?
I also understand the argument that in the long term the sites which can afford to sponsor their own data traffic might win out over smaller sites which can't afford to do so, which therefore reduces competition. But isn't that just business? Should we prevent those bigger sites from advertising as well, because they can get an unfair competitive advantage from having larger advertising budgets?
I genuinely want to know if there is a real argument against zero rating, rather than just a whole load of negative sentiment against big corporates whom we all love to hate...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]