AT&T Just Showed Us What The Death Of Net Neutrality Is Going To Look Like
from the not-with-a-bang-but-with-a-whimper dept
For some time now we've warned how the FCC's decision to not ban zero rating (exempting some content from usage caps) was going to come back and bite net neutrality on the posterior. Unlike India, Japan, The Netherlands, Norway, Chile, and other countries, the FCC crafted net neutrality rules that completely avoided tackling the issue of usage caps and zero rating. Then, despite ongoing promises that the agency was looking into the issue, the FCC did nothing as AT&T, Verizon and Comcast all began exempting their own content from usage caps while still penalizing competitors.Fast forward to this week, and AT&T has delivered what may very well be the killing blow to net neutrality thanks predominantly to the FCC's failure to see the writing on the wall.
AT&T this week is launching its new "DirecTV Now" streaming video service. According to the full AT&T announcement, the service offers various packages of streamed TV content ranging from $35 to $70 per month. Thanks to AT&T's looming $100 billion acquisition of Time Warner, AT&T's even throwing in HBO for an additional $5 per month, the lowest price point in the industry. Though a bit hamstrung to upsell you to traditional DirecTV (two stream limit, no 4K content, no NFL Sunday Ticket, no DVR functionality), all told it's a fairly compelling package for cord cutters.
But somewhat buried in AT&T's announcement is the long-expected confirmation that this new service won't count against usage caps if you're an AT&T wireless subscriber:
"And, if you’re an AT&T Mobility customer, DIRECTV will pick up the tab for data to help you achieve all your binge-worthy goals. Data Free TV means you won’t use your AT&T mobile data for watching DIRECTV NOW or FreeVIEW in the App. Fullscreen will also cover your data for streaming in the Fullscreen App on the AT&T mobile network."For consumers who have no idea what zero rating or net neutrality even is (read: most of them), this sounds like a great idea. Most don't know that usage caps are an entirely-arbitrary construct completely untethered from network or financial necessity. As such, they believe they're getting something for free. This collective illusion means fewer annoyed users, which means less political pressure on the FCC, which is why the FCC failed to act. The problem, as we've noted time and time again, is that AT&T is violently distorting the open market and giving its own content a distinct and decidedly unfair market advantage.
Because most consumers either aren't bright or informed enough to understand this doesn't mean it's not happening all the same.
In addition to existing offerings by Dish (Sling TV) and Sony (Playstation Vue), the "over the top" market is about to get flooded with an absolute torrent of live TV streaming competitors including Apple, YouTube, Hulu, and Amazon. Ideally, these services would all compete with DirecTV Now based on quality and pricing. But under AT&T's new zero rating umbrella, all of those services will count against AT&T's usage caps, while DirecTV Now won't. Owning the pipe and the content will protect AT&T from the full brunt of increased competition in the space.
This is precisely the sort of "new normal" AT&T has spent the last decade trying to build, and exactly the sort of future net neutrality rules were supposed to help us avoid. And while the current Wheeler-led FCC recently finally acknowledged that it now understands this sort of behavior is anti-competitive, it's too little, too late. There's every indication that Trump's new FCC intends to not only gut net neutrality, but the FCC entirely. Trump's telecom transition team is filled to the brim with telecom-sector cronies who can't even admit telecom monopolies are real. Large ISP executives and investors are thrilled.
With no (or unenforced) net neutrality rules and a toothless FCC, you can expect all of the incumbent broadband ISPs to follow AT&T's lead, while folks like Trump telecom advisor Jeffrey Eisenach regurgitate telecom sector think tank pieces trying to claim that zero rating is a huge boon to consumers. These are men and economists for hire who'll breathlessly inform you they adore "free markets" and open competition, while simultaneously working to thwart competition at every turn -- whether it's dismantling the level streaming playing field with zero rating, or letting telecom giants literally write abysmal telecom law.
Those who have actually paid attention to net neutrality realize this may very well be the beginning of the end for the idea -- or at best a very long, dark and unfortunate detour off of the path -- with the ultimate irony being that because zero rating is seen as little more than "free stuff" by many misinformed consumers, net neutrality's death knell will arrive to thunderous public applause.
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: discrimination, fcc, net neutrality, open internet, streaming tv, zero rating
Companies: at&t, directv
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They always are. This is a core and rudimentary evil power desired and granted by central and fractional banking systems. We have an endless supply of incorrectly educated economists.
Money is power... you will bleed before you pry it from the hands of the Federalists or Central Banker types.
http://foundersquotes.com/founding-fathers-quote/a-private-central-bank-issuing-the-public-cur rency-is-a-greater-menace-to-the-liberties-of-the-people-than-a-standing-army/
"A private central bank issuing the public currency is a greater menace to the liberties of the people than a standing army." ~Thomas Jefferson
Every step this nation takes is usually a step away from the Founders and with every step we lose a little more liberty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's true that the Obama administration hasn't been doing enough to stop this; I get the impression that that's largely because of the extent of the political opposition from those who object to anything the Democratic Party supports, but it's still the case.
However, the Obama administration's FCC - as represented by Tom Wheeler - also hasn't been outright opposed to the idea that there's anything that even might need stopping; from what little I'e been able to see, Wheeler even seems to have been leaning more and more in the direction of accepting that it's a problem and perhaps eventually taking action.
All indications thus far are that the Trump administration will be outright opposed to the idea that there's anything to fix, and will try to roll back the other good things that the Obama-administration FCC has done.
Saying that a new decision-maker X will be worse on a subject than the current decision-maker Y does not equate to blaming X for the current state of Y.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rules change
Eventually people will get pissed off having to pay overages to watch cat videos. They will vote in large numbers and the FCC will be forced to level the playing field.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rules change
I wish it would backfire in their face and get them classified as utilities to stop this kind of rampant abuse, but I highly doubt it.
Just look at how much partisan politics turns people against their own self interests (such as Republican politicians supporting monopoly laws for incumbent ISP's, which screws their own residents out of more affordable/faster internet connections).
All the splintering of the media and how the ISP's are the same people who own much of the media is making it much harder to fight against them to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rules change
They won't have to pay overages to watch cat videos, because AT&T will have a no-overage cat channel with videos from AT&T's exclusive content library.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rules change
Don't get me wrong, I want what you are saying and I'll try and be as optimistic about it happening, because it very well could. I just don't know anymore and with how fast false info is spreading, the masses could very well remain in the dark.
I hope you're right though, I really do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Maybe someone could invent an encryption algorithm like in Silicon Valley (if you've seen season 1 of that HBO TV show), but for now it's just fantasy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In short, heavy compression is the same as reducing resolution, because it throws away details.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That's lossy compression. There is lossless compression which results in (as the name suggests) no loss of detail. Now whether a particular video can be compressed enough for a particular use case with a lossless encoder is a different question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You'll recognize it by the array of acronyms you've seen used for video: MPEG2, H.263, WMV, MP4, H.264, HEVC, H.265, etc.
These each represent different compression and container technologies from various competitors or standards bodies. And, over time, they get better and better at compressing video.
They don't actually improve that much because of better math (compression algorithms) but rather get better because of Moore's law. The math is fairly well known and unchanging, but Moore offers more encode/decode power in silicon which enables real-time capture or rendering of these tightly-packed, mathed-out compressed files.
The trick, as usual, isn't just to get a better compression, but also to get that standard widely used across media companies and hardware makers.
For example, the smartphone video era was powered mostly by MP4, a file format from the MPEG and the ITU (Moving Pictures Expert Group, International Telecom Union). It is a.k.a H.264.
The reason a common standard works so well is that phones/players can have a dedicated hardware acceleration chip that renders the video. This makes for fast decoding, and lower power consumption than the alternative: running a software decoder on your general processor. Dedicated hardware means your phone battery doesn't die after 30 minutes of video.
H.264 is currently getting replaced with H.265, a.k.a HEVC, although it is not a sure thing until this achieves mass-market acceptance.
Anyways, this has been ridiculously simplified because the video encoding, compression, and transport world is so fucking complicated I cannot ever get my head around it.
Suffice to say that it is very difficult to take a MP4 file and compress it, because it has already been compressed like the earth's core by dedicated hardware.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Instead of trying to further compress MP4 files, which I indicated was nigh impossible, T-Mo instead does something that CAN be done: reduce the screen resolution.
So if a vid is being asked for in 1080p, and sent in 1080P, BingeOn transcodes it as a man-in-the-middle, and sends a reduced 480P file. THAT can be much smaller.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I thought they just throttled the bit rate and some video providers respond by reducing resolution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
T-mo doesn't actually do the transcode, they trigger it from the BingeOn content provider.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Barking up the wrong tree.
Unfortunately, in the real world, antitrust is primarily a function of the DoJ and the US AG, so, yeah.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Barking up the wrong tree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sure they could leave but it would be painful. I look forward to seeing what hidden clauses AT&T have included in their customers contracts. I would guess large price hikes, penalties for leaving etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I personally have ATT as my wireless carrier and Verizon Fios as my home provider with an expensive monthly internet/TV/phone bundle. Depending on the channel lineup of the ATT offering I may be able to cut the cord for a net savings of around 130$ a month. So there is the part that makes my happy about this. My worry is that I switch Verizon to straight internet and they degrade any traffic from ATT/Netflix/YouTube.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If that is happening then the ISP should be purchasing more bandwidth to the rest of the Internet. If they don't then they are selling you a lie.
Also, the 'competitor' is not crippling the bandwidth its the ISP's customer who is REQUESTING the content.
Zero rating/unneutral Internet is like a shady shipping company that extorts extra money from people:
I pay Verizon trucking company $34 to pickup a shipment of DVD movies from Netflix and bring them to my house.
The Verizon driver pulls into Netflix and says:
"Be a shame if your customers never got their merchandise and you go out of business. We will make sure the shipment is not , um, 'lost' if you pay us $5. But don't worry, if you won't pay we will just make your customer pay the extra $5 for you. Either way we are getting that extra money or this shipment will be lost"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Competition is coming
Bandwidth wants to be cheap.
For example, http://fortune.com/2016/11/17/spacex-satellite-network-fcc-global-internet/. There are big players who want to make this happen - not least, Google and Facebook.
Once there's real competition in the ISP business, none of this stuff will fly anymore.
Takes patience, tho.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wheeler's endgame?
Because of his history, we were sceptical of him when he first became chairman of the FCC. But then he won us over with his apparent support of net neutrality.
Now, it is clear that his approach to enforcing net neutrality is failing. But was that the original objective? To make it look like he supported net neutrality and was opposed to anti-net-neutrality from the big ISPs, but eventually fail and allow net neutrality to fall by the wayside?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wheeler's endgame?
You're asking whether Wheeler's plan was to spend eight years of creating an FCC that was marginally effective at fighting some small cable/ISP offences and that artificial, paid-for outcry from industry shills would make President Trump dismantle the FCC as a result?
Seems unlikely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Er - not AT&T
On the other hand, I plan to sit back and laugh. Now there is absolutely no legitimate excuse for the radical right wing to get every little thing they want, and have been blaming the "libtards" for not getting.
I'm betting they'll still blame the "libtards" for not getting what they want and getting screwed even harder at the cash register, pay window, and mail box (for bills).
Be careful what you wish for - you might get it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Er - not AT&T
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Er - not AT&T
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the FCC saw the writing on the wall
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the FCC saw the writing on the wall
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wheeler
Was he really trying to pass net neutrality rule out did he just push forward rules that he knew he would never enforce?
I mean, look at what happened since those rules were passed: from day one, it has been rule violation one after another, and all the FCC said each time was "wait and see".
We've seen enough already, and now that the FCC is on the verge of its own extinction, ask he can say is "oops"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]