stories filed under: "fcc"

AT&T's Already Happily Tap Dancing Around Its DirecTV Merger Obligations

from the ye-olde-merger-condition-two-step dept

Thu, Sep 8th 2016 9:35am — Karl Bode

If you've followed the telecom sector for any amount of time, you've probably noticed that the merger conditions affixed to its rotating crop of mega-mergers are usually hot garbage. Frequently the ankle-height goals are proposed by the companies themselves, and are usually something the companies planned on doing anyway. Telecom companies also know full well that regulators historically can't be bothered to check their math on such promises, letting them essentially trot out a rotating crop of feel good, but totally hollow "obligations" before they get to work laying off redundant employees and raising rates.

It's a win-win relationship of dysfunction, where giant companies get to grow ever larger, and regulators score cheap political points for "toughness" thanks to a media that can't be bothered to actually read the fine print of such deals, lest readership get bored.

When Comcast was pushing for its 2011 acquisition of NBC Universal it crafted a new wrinkle in this old story. It proposed offering $10, 5 Mbps broadband to low-income homes if regulators signed off on the deal. And while regulators were happy to promote this as yeoman's work in bridging the digital divide, it didn't take long before low-income families began protesting in the streets, pointing out the plan was hard to find, hard to qualify for, and difficult to sign up for. Still, Comcast's "Internet Essentials" plan has been a PR bonanza, with the cable giant holding an endless barrage of PR junkets advertising its selfless altruism.

To get regulators to sign off on its $69 billion DirecTV acquisition, AT&T proposed a similar $10 low-income broadband program it calls "Access." Under Access, low-income homes can get discounted, slow DSL service for an unspecified limited time -- provided they are in AT&T territory, have no outstanding debt with AT&T, and have at least one resident who participates in the US Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Under the program, users can get 5 Mbps or 10 Mbps DSL for the $10 price point, or 3 Mbps for $5 a month, which certainly sounds promising.

But the National Digital Inclusion Alliance this week issued a report noting that the company oddly omitted homes that can only get speeds of 1.5 Mbps. Given ISPs' tendency to refuse to upgrade many low-income areas, this naturally exempted a significant number of inner city applicants that might otherwise qualify for the service:

"You might think we're talking about a few isolated rural areas here. Think again. According to data published by the FCC from its Form 477 surveys of providers, AT&T's fastest reported download connection for VDSL (its current version of Digital Subscriber Line service) was 1.5 mbps or less for households in about 21% of all Census blocks in the cities of Cleveland and Detroit. Those blocks are mostly in inner-city neighborhoods with many low income households."

In a city like Cleveland, where AT&T has had little competitive incentive to upgrade its low-income urban networks, you're ultimately talking about a significant number of the poorest communities being unable to get speeds much faster than 1.5 Mbps:

So the group asked AT&T if they wouldn't mind, you know, actually offering the discounted service to these slower-lines, and found their request flatly refused:

"About two months ago, NDIA contacted senior management at AT&T and proposed a change in the program to allow SNAP participants living at addresses with 1.5 Mbps to qualify for Access service at $5/mo. Yes, we know we were asking for the minimum speed to be lower than it should be, but paying $5/mo is better than paying full price and in many neighborhoods, both urban and rural, Access is the only low-cost broadband service option.

I'm sorry to report that, after considering NDIA's proposal for over a month, AT&T said no. “AT&T is not prepared to expand the low income offer to additional speed tiers beyond those established as a condition of the merger approval."

That shouldn't be too surprising. These low-income programs sound great upon shallow inspection, but once you've weeded out consumers that already have service, or owe their phone or cable company money (kind of common when you're struggling to pay the bills), you've already eliminated a huge swath of qualified applicants. AT&T apparently thought they could shave off another few million qualified households countrywide by refusing to provide service to its slower 1.5 Mbps DSL customers, hoping nobody would notice.

Of course, it's possible that AT&T will buckle should this story gain some mainstream media attention (unlikely), and promote its inclusion of 1.5 Mbps as just another generous act of altruism in the company's neverending quest to protect the poor.

AT&T's other "major" DirecTV merger condition was that it would deploy fiber to millions of additional homes, but as we've long noted, the company has a long history of fiddling with numbers to falsely inflate its deployment projections for such services. When it comes to fiber deployments, AT&T's often just lighting up some existing, already buried fiber at high-end housing developments, then crowing in a rotating crop of press releases that it has "launched" yet another market -- despite the fact that few can actually get the service.

After more than a generation, AT&T is the master of the merger condition two-step, having effectively tap danced around conditions affixed to most of its previous acquisitions, including BellSouth. For that deal, AT&T promised stand alone DSL at a discounted rate, then went out of its way to hide the offer from consumers. Regulators often don't bother to fact check or enforce such flagrant middle fingers after the fact since it would be an admission that the conditions -- and the mega-mergers they help prop up -- quite often actively harm the consumers regulators are supposed to be looking out for.

Filed Under: broadband, doj, fcc, low income, merger, requirements
Companies: at&t, directv

14 Comments

After Massive Cable Industry Lobbying And Disinformation Effort, The FCC Is Forced To Weaken Its Cable Box Reform Plan

Failures

from the disinformation-nation dept

Thu, Sep 8th 2016 6:23am — Karl Bode

Back in February, the FCC approved a new plan to bring some much-needed competition to the old cable box, resulting in better, cheaper, and more open hardware. But fearing a loss of control (and $21 billion in annual cable box rental fees) the cable industry launched an unprecedented lobbying campaign featuring an endless barrage of editorials attacking the plan for encouraging piracy and even being racist. The cable industry even managed to get the Copyright Office to fight on its behalf, spreading false claims that the plan would "harm copyright" despite having really nothing to do with the subject.

This lobbying and disinformation plan caused several of the Commissioners who voted yes on the plan to unfortunately waffle on the original proposal. As such, FCC boss Tom Wheeler had to return to the drawing board, and is cooking up a heavily modified "compromise" plan that would focus on forcing cable providers to provide their content via an app:

The purpose of the proposal would be to make apps more ubiquitous across streaming devices, and allow subscribers to forgo the cable box altogether. Wheeler has criticized the industry for collecting monthly rental fees for their set-top boxes from consumers, even after the cost of the devices have been recouped.

The proposal would require that cable companies make their apps available to other devices, such as smart TVs and gaming consoles, according to sources familiar with the plan and filings from industry representatives.

Wheeler appears to be cooking up a plan that looks a lot like an underwhelming cable industry counterproposal circulated back in June. But as we noted at the time, providing content via tightly-controlled apps isn't the same thing as open hardware, and isn't all that different from what the cable sector offers today. Such apps usually are just as tightly controlled and restrictive as the cable boxes they're meant to supplement or ultimately replace.

The cable industry has also strongly hinted that if it's forced to offer programming via app, it will just seek its pound of flesh in other ways -- such as charging consumers a new fee if they want to record and store content via cloud DVR. And while the FCC's plan hasn't been released yet, consumer groups and hardware vendor groups like INCOMPAS worry that an "app-based" proposal could simply swap out one ham-fisted attempt at control with another.

Given the cable industry spent millions to successfully manipulate the press, public, politicians and The Copyright Office to protect its anti-competitive cable box fiefdom, you'd think it would be happy about its success in weakening the FCC proposal. But the sector is still complaining, and is worried that the FCC would still be able to dictate terms of their license agreements with streaming box manufacturers like TiVO or Google:

"Cable operators and media companies also are suspicious of a proposed new FCC process for licensing their apps to device makers, viewing it as a chance for the FCC to meddle in their contracts. The FCC’s “updated proposal will unequivocally fail if there is a possibility of governmental or other third-party intervention in the programming rights, obligations and restrictions negotiated by program suppliers, broadcasters and [cable firms],” the National Association of Broadcasters said in written comments to the agency Friday."

Again, if the cable industry is forced to kill the cable box and shift its content to apps, it's going to want to develop all manner of creative new ways to recoup that $21 billion in lost cable box rental fees. Whether that takes the shape of a $20 per month DVR recording fee or a $10 per month "because we said so" fee isn't clear, but it is very clear the cable sector doesn't want the FCC policing how these apps are licensed and presented. It took no time at all for stories to pop up online proclaiming that the FCC was on a power-hungry quest to create a "copyright licensing office within the FCC":

"Instead, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler is now considering the creation of a copyright licensing office within the FCC, replacing complex separate arrangements with device manufacturers with a single contract overseen and possibly written by the Commission’s staff....It would also unilaterally substitute the FCC for the Copyright Office in establishing and enforcing compulsory licenses for programming, without any indication–let alone legislation–from Congress authorizing such a radical shift.

But like so much said about the FCC's plan over the last seven months, that's simply not true. The FCC would primarily act to ensure the cable industry didn't just supplement one bad idea (the locked down cable box) with another (apps saddled with onerous restrictions and fees), which is a pretty far cry from an entirely new copyright apparatus being forged in the belly of the FCC. And again, contrary to the Copyright Office's claim, this debate has absolutely nothing to do with copyright, and everything to do with control.

If the FCC can't get its own commissioners to support a meaningful cable box reform plan, it may not be worth the fight. A regulator-mandated attempt to replace the cable box with a half-cooked app-based approach may just deliver more of the same shenanigans in a different hat. An easier path may be for the FCC to give up on cable box reform, let the pay TV sector evolve or die organically, and focus its efforts on the biggest problem of the streaming video age: the lack of broadband competition and all of the anti-competitive chicanery (usage caps, net neutrality violations, zero rating) such dysfunction enables.

Filed Under: competition, copyright, copyright office, fcc, set top boxes

18 Comments

What Net Neutrality? While The FCC Naps, AT&T Now Exempting DirecTV Content From Wireless Usage Caps

Wireless

from the slippery-slopes dept

Wed, Sep 7th 2016 10:49am — Karl Bode

When the FCC crafted its new net neutrality rules, we noted that the agency's failure to ban "zero rating" (exempting your own company's content from usage caps) was going to be a problem. And lo and behold, with the FCC AWOL on the subject, companies are starting to take full advantage. Verizon and Comcast now exempt their own streaming video services from usage caps without penalty, while companies like T-Mobile and Sprint have launched new confusing and punitive data plans that throttle games, music and video content -- unless users pay a premium.

These were all concepts net neutrality rules were supposed to prevent. But because the FCC's rules didn't go quite far enough, we're effectively looking at rules that make net neutrality violations ok -- provided you're just a little bit creative about it.

Outside of the vague promise of an "information inquiry" that began last January, the FCC hasn't said much of anything as ISPs test the limits of the existing rules and pretty much finds that so far -- there really aren't any. Encouraged by the FCC's apathy on the subject, AT&T this week quietly began exempting DirecTV video content from its usage caps after buying the satellite TV provider last year for $69 billion. A quiet update to the DirecTV app indicates that the company is now pushing this as a new "data free TV" option":

AT&T is getting into the messy business of zero-rating, offering wireless data subscribers the opportunity to stream video from the DirecTV mobile app with no data costs at all. According to update notes from the latest version of the app released today, users can "stream DirecTV on your devices, anywhere — without using your data."

This promise was tested by Verge staff this morning, who were able to play DirecTV content on their mobile without any noticeable impact to their data allowance. However, the release notes for the app warn that there are restrictions. Under some unspecified circumstances users may still "incur data charges," says DirecTV, and any free video streaming is subject to "network management, including speed reduction."

Much like T-Mobile's Binge On efforts (which zero rate only the biggest video services) the idea of getting something for "free" sounds wonderful upon superficial inspection. At least until you realize that AT&T's decision to give its own content an unfair leg up in this fashion puts its competitors, like Netflix and Amazon, at a distinct disadvantage. That's why so many people had urged the FCC to follow India, Japan, Finland, Iceland, Estonia, Latvia, Norway, The Netherlands, and Chile's approach to net neutrality rules and ban zero rating entirely.

The FCC didn't, and thanks to its failure, we now face a scenario where net neutrality can be trampled without repercussion -- and may even be celebrated by the press and public -- provided you just use the right shade of public relations paint.

And there's every indication AT&T's just getting started. This particular announcement (made on Apple product announcement day to capitalize on the tech media's distraction) was just AT&T dipping its toe into the zero rating water. The company plans to launch three different streaming services under the DirecTV brand later this year, and you can be fairly sure that AT&T intends to use zero rating to give all of them a distinct, and notably unfair, market advantage.

Filed Under: fcc, net neutrality, streaming, tv, zero rating
Companies: at&t, directv

25 Comments

FCC Gives Up On Municipal Broadband Fight

Broadband

from the knocked-out-in-the-first-round dept

Wed, Aug 31st 2016 10:46am — Karl Bode

While over-shadowed by the net neutrality vote the same day, the FCC's decision last year to protect municipal broadband was potentially more important. For more than fifteen years incumbent ISPs have quite literally been allowed to buy state laws that hinder communities from improving their broadband networks, or even in some instances from striking public/private partnerships with the likes of Google Fiber. These protectionist laws, passed in nineteen different states, are a huge reason why you currently only have the choice of one shitty cable provider and one shitty telco for broadband service (if you're lucky).

The FCC originally believed it could use its Congressional mandate to ensure "even and timely broadband deployment" to strike down the most restrictive portions of these laws. But as we noted earlier this month, an appeals court ruled that the FCC doesn't have this authority under Section 706 of the Communications Act. And in speaking with the New York Times this week, the agency stated for the first time publicly that this is a fight it won't be pursuing further:

"The F.C.C. does not plan to appeal the federal court’s decision “after determining that doing so would not be the best use of commission resources,” Mark Wigfield, a spokesman for the agency, said in a statement. That means municipalities that want to keep expanding their municipal broadband networks will have to fight to overturn state laws on their own."

Easier said than done. Telecom incumbents, like so many large players, have an absolute chokehold over state legislatures. So much so that ISPs like AT&T continue to have success passing new laws of this type despite growing, significant bipartisan public opposition to them. For years ISPs quickly passed these laws by framing this as a partisan issue of government "competing with the free market." But as Comcast and AT&T consumers get an ongoing master class in how broken and not free the telecom market is, members of both parties have grown increasingly hostile toward protectionism of this type.

What happens now? In a statement (pdf), FCC boss Tom Wheeler proclaimed that he would happy to testify on the behalf of municipal broadband ISPs and their supporters, should they try to push this issue further:

"Should states seek to repeal their anti-competitive broadband statutes, I will be happy to testify on behalf of better broadband and consumer choice. Should states seek to limit the right of people to act for better broadband, I will be happy to testify on behalf of consumer choice."

Some members of Congress are pushing a law that would repeal state laws that curtail local broadband rights, but it has virtually no chance of passing in a Senate equally beholden to AT&T, Charter, Verizon and Comcast campaign contributions. A group of 42 mayors and local government officials have also fired off a letter (pdf) to muni-broadband deployments in North Carolina and Tennessee, expressing "solidarity" in the face of the FCC's court loss:

"While our paths vary, we are united by our commitment to competition and the right of self-determination for all our communities, free from interference," states the letter. "The recent decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit was a disappointing reminder that the ability of local communities to make our own internet decisions remains at risk."

So despite the court loss, there is a critical mass of people, activists, and small providers trying to do something about ISPs writing protectionist state law. But without some federal help and laser-like focus, their ability to magically fix the pay-to-play state legislative process remains a tall order.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, fcc, muni broadband, municipal broadband

16 Comments

AT&T Dodges FTC Throttling Lawsuit Using Title II Classification It Vehemently Opposed

Wireless

from the some-fine-tap-dancin' dept

Tue, Aug 30th 2016 9:36am — Karl Bode

Back in 2011, AT&T stopped selling unlimited wireless data plans, and began heavily pushing more expensive capped and metered plans. Existing unlimited users at the time were grandfathered, but the company engaged in all manner of sneaky behavior to try and make life as unpleasant as possible for these users, ranging from blocking them from using Facetime unless they migrated to metered plans, to heavily throttling these "unlimited" users after only consuming a few gigabytes of data. Ultimately AT&T faced a $100 million fine by the FCC (currently being contested by AT&T), and a 2014 lawsuit by the FTC for misleading consumers and dramatically changing the terms of service while users were under contract.

Originally we noted how AT&T had used a Schrodinger-esque attempt to derail the lawsuit by claiming that since it would soon be a common carrier under Title II of the Communications Act (something its lawyers fought and continue fighting to this day), it didn't technically qualify as a common carrier under the FTC Act. At the time, consumer groups like Free Press found AT&T's tap dancing rather funny:

"It is rich to see AT&T in two different appellate courts at once, simultaneously arguing in this case that its mobile broadband is a common carriage service -- and therefore not subject to FTC jurisdiction -- while telling the DC Circuit that AT&T's mobile broadband cannot be treated as a common carrier service."

Initially it seemed like the laugh would be on AT&T, with a court last year denying AT&T's motion for dismissal (pdf), ruling it was "unambiguously clear" that only AT&T wireless voice, not wireless data, was classified as common carrier when the lawsuit was filed last fall. But this week an appeals court in California contradicted this finding and dismissed the FTC's case entirely, the ruling (pdf) stating AT&T can no longer be held in violation of the FTC Act because it's now classified as a common carrier under the Communications Act:

"The common carrier exemption in section 5 of the FTC Act carves out a group of entities based on their status as common carriers. Those entities are not covered by section 5 even as to non-common carrier activities. Because AT&T was a common carrier, it cannot be liable for the violations alleged by the FTC. The district court’s denial of AT&T’s motion to dismiss is reversed, and the case is remanded for entry of an order of dismissal."

There's some indications in the ruling that the court wasn't sure that the FTC ever had authority over AT&T under the FTC Act (Title II or no). But it's still amazing to realize that AT&T was simultaneously arguing before two different courts that ISPs should not be classified as common carriers under Title II, while at the same time using this pending reclassification as grounds to dismiss the FTC lawsuit. Fancy footwork, that. AT&T may still face the $100 million FCC fine for lying to its customers, provided its lawyers can't tap dance out of that punishment as well. This all occurs, of course, as AT&T's lawyers and trade groups continue their original assault on Title II and the net neutrality rules Title II allowed.

Filed Under: fcc, ftc, net neutrality, throttling, title ii
Companies: at&t

T-Mobile Declares It's On 'The Right Side Of History' As It Laughs At Net Neutrality

Broadband

from the words-no-longer-have-any-meaning dept

Tue, Aug 30th 2016 6:23am — Karl Bode

While T-Mobile has certainly done some good things for the wireless industry, the company's ongoing tone deafness on net neutrality isn't doing the carrier any favors. T-Mobile fought against real net neutrality rules, then, once passed anyway, got right to work trying to find creative ways around the rules using zero rating (exempting only some content from usage caps). When net neutrality advocates and scholars repeatedly pointed out T-Mobile was violating net neutrality and being a bit hypocritical ("we're edgy and love consumers but not real net neutrality!"), the company dug a deeper hole by attacking groups like the EFF.

Last week T-Mobile upped the ante with new plans that promise "unlimited" data, but are not only more expensive, they throttle tethering, throttle overall consumption at 26 GB, and throttle all video to 1.5 Mbps or 480p. Users who want HD video to actually work correctly can apparently pony up $25 more per month. Emboldened by T-Mobile and a (so far) apathetic FCC, Sprint revealed similar "unlimited" data plans of its own, which throttle all video, games and music to 1.5 Mbps, 2 Mbps, and 500 kbps respectively, unless you pony up another $25 per month.

Groups like the EFF were quick to point out that installing ISPs as middlemen who get to determine how well your services work based on how much you pay in a marginally-competitive broadband market sets a horrible precedent. If regulators allow T-Mobile to charge more money for HD video to work, what stops Comcast from charging you more if you want 4K Netflix streams to work? Or AT&T deciding it can charge you more if you want your Steam games to download at full bitrate? This is a door that, once opened, won't be easily closed. And once this practice is a standard, it will be abused.

T-Mobile, for whatever it's worth, continues to be annoyingly tone deaf about the slippery slope it's dragging the entire industry toward. However bad zero rating was, the act of throttling entire classes of traffic unless you pay your ISP more money is notably worse. Highlighting how video conferencing isn't throttled but YouTube is, The Verge tried to get T-Mobile to define "video" and "data" but came away stymied:

"I asked T-Mobile for the company’s definition of "data" and a spokesperson said "that’s not something I could give you," but suggested that the company was on "the right side of history," and that the goal was to make "unlimited sustainable for the mass market." That’s an admirable goal! But let’s not dance around the fundamentals of the situation. Net neutrality is the law of the land, and T-Mobile has aggressively pushed the boundaries of net neutrality by manipulating the traffic on its network."

But again, violating net neutrality principles isn't the same as violating net neutrality rules, and the FCC's rules were carved out with numerous exeptions that allow all manner of throttling -- provided ISPs claim it's for the health of the network. That's why T-Mobile frames this as a matter of "sustainability," even though it's really about adhering to basic dictionary definitions and not selling an "unlimited" service if you're not actually willing to offer it. For a company that markets itself as a pro-consumer alternative to traditional wireless carriers, T-Mobile seems increasingly hell bent on continuing some of the industry's worst habits.

Filed Under: bingeon, fcc, net neutrality, throttling, video, wireless
Companies: t-mobile

19 Comments

How Is This Not A Net Neutrality Violation, Sprint?

Broadband

from the so-much-for-net-neutrality dept

Fri, Aug 26th 2016 11:51am — Karl Bode

While the United States' net neutrality rules are certainly better than nothing, we've noted a few times how they contain enough loopholes (and ignore enough hot button topics) as to be more than a little problematic. More specifically, they contain so much wiggle room they let ISPs of all stripes violate net neutrality -- just so long as they're a bit more creative about it. Verizon and Comcast were quick to highlight this when they began cap-exempting their own content, while still penalizing their competitors (without so much as a real peep from the FCC).

T-Mobile pushed these creative barriers further with Binge On, which exempts only the biggest and most popular video services from the company's usage caps (aka "zero rating"). This automatically puts thousands of smaller video providers, non-profits, educational institutions and startups at a notable market disadvantage, but by and large nobody outside of the EFF and academia seems to give much of a damn because a: ill-informed consumers are happy laboring under the illusion that they're getting something for free and b: the public (and by proxy media) is lazy and tired of debating net neutrality.

But the door being opened here leads to a monumental, potentially dangerous shift not only in how broadband service is purchased and sold, but in just how open the internet of the future is going to be.

Last week T-Mobile moved the bar even further with its new T-Mobile One plan, which provides 'unlimited' data, voice and text messaging for $70 per month. Users generally don't like the plan because it's technically more expensive than T-Mobile's previous plans. But it's also saddled with caveats, such as the fact that tethering (using your phone as a modem or hotspot) is throttled to 128 kbps, 'unlimited' technically means 26 GB, and by default all user video is throttled to 480p or 1.5 Mbps by default. Unless users pay T-Mobile a $20 monthly surcharge for HD quality.

Emboldened by T-Mobile and an utterly comatose FCC, Sprint has taken this idea even further, last week unveiling its own not-really-unlimited "Unlimited Freedom" plan with its own set of annoying caveats. Tethering is forbidden, "unlimited" actually means about 23 GB before your full connection is throttled, and by default all video is throttled to 1.5 Mbps, all games are throttled to "up to 2mbps" and all music streams are throttled at "up to 500kbps." That's a god-damned generous definition of unlimited by any measure.

But rejoice, this week Sprint came up with a "solution" for customers who, you know, would like all the services they use to actually work. The company has announced a new "Unlimited Freedom Premium" plan that raises all these arguably arbitrary limits -- if you're willing to shell out an additional $25 per month:

"This plan provides a premium quality mobile streaming experience with HD streaming videos at up to 1080p+, HD music streaming at up to 1.5 Mbps and streaming gaming at up to 8 Mbps."

Again, so we're clear: this is an ISP forcing users to pay more money if they want the services they consume to actually work properly. That's the exact sort of thing net neutrality rules were supposed to prevent. Yet here we are, dancing on a slippery slope, staring down an incredibly fractured, confusing, and potentially exploitable new paradigm for the already uncompetitive broadband sector. And frankly, nobody seems to give all that much of a shit. Either because they're bored of paying attention, or they can't see a few plays ahead on the chess match between net neutrality advocates and large ISPs.

If Sprint and T-Mobile can charge users premium to avoid video, game and music throttling, what prevents Comcast from charging users a premium if they want 4K video streaming to actually work? What stops AT&T from charging users a premium if they want their Steam games to download at full speed? The answer? Nobody, apparently, since the FCC has made it abundantly clear it believes that usage caps, zero rating, and pay-to-avoid-throttling schemes are just creative market experimentation. Except the only creativity on display here involves marketers convincing consumers to root against their own best, self interest.

As noted above, net neutrality violations are still perfectly legal here in the States, you just need a little creative showmanship when shafting the consumer. The FCC's Open Internet Order (pdf) is chock-full of "rules" that don't apply if you provide a bullshit-laden technical justification about how you're only throttling "for the health and security of the network." But congestion has always been used by the telecom industry to justify all manner of bad behavior, including unnecessary usage caps on captive customers. And regulators and the press can rarely be bothered to fact check these congestion claims (remember the exaflood?).

And while spectrum constraints on wireless networks are certainly real, that's no justification for the sea change. If your network can't actually handle unlimited data? Either raise prices transparently to pay for the necessary upgrades, or stop marketing "unlimited" services. What we don't want is the telecom sector with a generation of documented anti-competitive behavior under its belt dictating just how well services perform based on how much users are willing to pay. Because make no mistake, without vibrant, organic market competition (which is only marginally better in wireless) they will abuse the concept like an insatiable swarm of termites.

Initially, I assume both T-Mobile and Sprint will try to argue that this isn't that big of a deal, because users can always switch to metered plans that don't involve charging you more money for un-throttled services. At least until those other plans quietly disappear over a period of months, and paying a premium to actually use content the way it was intended is all the consumer has to choose from. And given that the majority of the public has no idea what a gigabyte even is, these new caveats and the horrible precedent they set will fly (and are clearly flying) right over their collective heads.

I understand that net neutrality is a convoluted and hyperbole-heavy debate that has gone on for more than a decade. As such there's clearly plenty of people happy to labor under the illusion that last June's FCC net neutrality win was the end of the conversation and they can take a nap. It's not, and they can't. We'll be fighting for an open internet for as long as ISPs keep trying creative ways to abuse the lack of last-mile broadband competition. In other words, forever.

Filed Under: fcc, net neutrality, streaming, throttling, video, video gaming, wireless
Companies: sprint, t-mobile

12 Comments

One More Time With Feeling: Net Neutrality Didn't Hurt Broadband Investment In The Slightest

Broadband

from the dollar-a-holler-science dept

Wed, Aug 24th 2016 6:29am — Karl Bode

You'll recall that ISPs (and the lobbyists, think tanks, politicians, and consultants paid to love them) argued incessantly that if we passed net neutrality rules, investment in broadband infrastructure would grind to a halt, leaving us all weeping gently over our clogged tubes. ISPs like Verizon proudly proclaimed that net neutrality rules would "jeopardize our investment and the development of innovation in Broadband Internet and related services." ISP-tied think tanks released study after statistically-massaged study claiming that net neutrality (and the reclassification of ISPs as common carriers under Title II) would be utterly catastrophic for the broadband industry and its consumers alike.

But as time wore on it became abundantly clear that these warnings were the empty prattle of a broken industry, using a thick veneer of bunk science to defend its monopoly over the uncompetitive broadband last mile.

Since net neutrality was passed there has been absolutely no evidence that a single one of these claims had anything even remotely resembling merit, with broadband expansion pushing forward at full speed, constrained only by the ongoing lack of competition in many markets. We've watched as outfits like Google Fiber continue to expand its footprint. We've watched as Verizon suddenly promised to deploy fiber to cities long neglected. We've watched as Comcast and AT&T rushed to try and keep pace with gigabit investments of their own. In short, nothing changed, and things may have even improved.

And now companies like Comcast, AT&T and Verizon are doling out what could be as much as $86.4 billion in what may be the most expensive spectrum auction ever:

"The FCC’s forward auction headed into Round 8 on Monday with a total of more than $11.5 billion in bids, according to the auction dashboard. The figure was up from just $8.5 billion in auction proceeds from the first round of bidding last week. Demand appeared to be holding strong...Forward auction bidders are striving to hit an $86.4 billion price target set by broadcasters in the reverse auction. If demand does not reach supply, then a second reverse auction will be held with a lower clearing target of 90 MHz, the FCC has said.

You'd think that carriers tripping over themselves to pursue fifth-gen (5G) wireless alone would be enough to put onerous claims about the negative impact of net neutrality rules to bed. But you'd be wrong. Revolving door regulators like Verizon lawyer turned FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai have consistently tried to claim that net neutrality somehow stifled investment, we just apparently didn't notice. Other sector chicken littles have turned to citing unrelated business downturns to try and obfuscate how full of crap the lion's share of these organizations and consultants were on the subject of net neutrality.

Tech Freedom, for example, spent some time last week rewteeting claims that Cisco's decision to lay off an estimated 5,500 employees was somehow thanks to net neutrality:

Hey, @FCC, how's that post-Title II infrastructure investment going ... ?#WhatHappensWhenYouIgnoreEconomics https://t.co/1E8umiojLZ
— Gus Hurwitz (@GusHurwitz) August 17, 2016

Except Cisco's global layoffs have nothing to do with some relatively simple net neutrality rules passed in the States. Cisco is downsizing because of the rise in virtualization and the company's shift from its hardware roots into a software-centric organization, something the company itself admits, and something you'd think an economist would understand. This conflation attempt isn't unique. Industry-tied think tanker Hal Singer has done yeoman's work the last year or two trying to claim networking investment is down despite all evidence pointing to the contrary.

Singer, whose study played the starring role in the industry's manufactured denial, continued to beat the same drum beat on Twitter last week:

@derekkerton @GusHurwitz @mmasnick no one is denying investment. Question is, compared to what benchmark? Relative to 2014, we're down 8%.
— Hal Singer (@HalSinger) August 18, 2016

But as noted previously Singer's 8% stat comes from his own study. A study repeatedly criticized for cherry-picking unrelated data to intentionally indicate a network investment downturn that doesn't exist. In many instances he included companies whose CAPEX was dropping because they'd just finished major deployments (Charter's finished deployment of new digital set top boxes, for example). Elsewhere, Singer and other think tankers have tried to claim that CAPEX reductions and cost savings due to the rise in software-defined networking (SDN) and network function virtualization (NFV) were actually caused by net neutrality.

Ironic, then, that Singer took to The Hill to pen an op-ed accusing the FCC of playing fast and loose with empirical evidence when it comes to efforts like net neutrality or cable box reform:

"It is simply irresponsible for regulators to rely on gut feelings – or political pressure or public opinion polls. Rather they should be guided by empirical evidence, rigorous analysis of regulatory costs and benefits and basic economic principles taught on every college campus across the country together. What matters most is not the sheer number of docketed public comments or the enthusiasm of those blockading of the Chairman’s driveway, but instead a sober analysis of the need for regulation in light of proven market failures."

Again, that's an ISP-funded think tanker, freshly proven incredibly, repeatedly, and quite-possible intentionally wrong across numerous fronts, blasting the FCC for ignoring actual economic data. Gosh, it's almost as if these folks are paid to be as intellectually rigid as possible, utterly immune to any attempts at honest discourse when presented with conflicting evidence. Do you get to give people lectures on economics and integrity when your bunk studies are used repeatedly to smear net neutrality rules designed to aid consumers, startups and small businesses nationwide? Apparently.

In short, ISPs and their "dollar-a-holler" think tankers used crap science and economics to intentionally mislead the public on net neutrality, but their predictions have been proven repeatedly and painfully wrong. But instead of acknowledging error and moving on to the next misleading argument, they've decided to double down and promote a broadband investment cataclysm that never actually happened.

Filed Under: fcc, investment, net neutrality, spectrum, title ii, wireless
Companies: at&t, comcast, verizon

23 Comments

T-Mobile, Sprint Tap Dance Over, Under, And Around Net Neutrality

Wireless

from the bad-precedent dept

Mon, Aug 22nd 2016 8:35am — Karl Bode

For some time now T-Mobile has been accused of violating net neutrality by exempting the nation's biggest video services from its usage caps, and throttling all video on the network by default to 1.5 Mbps or 480p. Net neutrality advocates have repeatedly warned that giving some content or companies a leg up and fiddling with service quality sets a horrible precedent, and research has shown T-Mobile's system to be unreliable and exploitable. Still, T-Mobile has so far received applause from many regulators, media outlets and customers operating under the belief consumers are getting something for free.

As such, however bad the precedent being set here, there's no real political pressure on the FCC to act since consumers are effectively applauding what many believe to be a net neutrality violation. The FCC's net neutrality rules don't specifically prohibit zero rating, something we've long argued opens the door to creative abuses of net neutrality to thunderous applause, which is effectively what's happening here. The rules do require the FCC to explore whether zero rating is anti-competitive on a "case by case" basis, but so far, outside of a few letters, the FCC doesn't seem particularly pressed to take action.

Last week, T-Mobile introduced a new wrinkle to the entire saga by unveiling a new plan named T-Mobile One. Under T-Mobile One, users get "unlimited" data (technicaly 26 GB, after which you're throttled to 128 kbps), text and voice for $70 per month. But under this new plan, users find all video services throttled by default to 1.5 Mbps or 480p. If you want to stream video at any higher rate, you'll need to pony up an additional $25 per month. Groups like the EFF were quick to argue that the new plans still violate net neutrality:

"From what we’ve read thus far, it seems like T-Mobile’s new plan to charge its customers extra to not throttle video runs directly afoul of the principle of net neutrality," said EFF senior staff technologist Jeremy Gillula.

Right, but violating net neutrality principles and net neutrality rules is not the same thing. It's generally believed the FCC didn't crack down on T-Mobile's original plans because the FCC's Open Internet Order (pdf) not only didn't ban zero rating, but it stated that some throttling is ok if it's "a choice made by the end user." Because users could opt out of T-Mobile programs Binge On and Music Freedom, T-Mobile had creatively managed to inhabit an area not really outlawed by the agency's net neutrality rules.

But the EFF argues elsewhere that T-Mobile's decision to specifically discriminate against a particular type of traffic (in this case video) could ultimately violate the FCC's net neutrality rules:

...Gillula argues that the throttling of all video might violate the rule, despite the option to pay for high-speed video. He pointed to a sentence later in the same paragraph that says, "if a broadband provider degraded the delivery of a particular application (e.g., a disfavored VoIP service) or class of application (e.g., all VoIP applications), it would violate the bright-line no-throttling rule."

"If you just substitute 'video' in for 'VoIP,' it's pretty clear that the FCC's intent was to prevent discriminatory throttling, even if the user could pay to avoid it," Gillula told Ars. "In other words, the FCC (and EFF) are just fine with ISPs offering different tiers of service, as long as the tiers don't discriminate against different types of content. But that's precisely what T-Mobile is doing here—discriminating against data based on its content."

Given past statements one gets the sense that the FCC isn't all too worried about the obvious, problematic impact usage caps and zero rating may have on the open Internet. But we're quickly getting to the point where the FCC needs to at least help detail where the line is drawn, one way or another. T-Mobile's experiments last week resulted in Sprint unveiling similar "unlimited" data plans of their own, which also throttle all video to 480p by default unless you pay a premium for higher resolution. But you'll note Sprint goes even further:

Unlimited Freedom utilizes optimization for streaming video, gaming and music, delivering a high-quality viewing experience for mobile devices with video streams of up to 480p resolution, gaming up to 2mbps and music streams at extreme quality of up to 500kbps.

If you'll pause with me at the very top of this long and slippery slope and look down, folks with even the faintest tea leaf reading ability should be able to envision one possible future where all broadband access is fragmented and fractured in just this fashion, users paying more or less for varying qualities of different content and services. This was, if you'll recall, the sort of thing net neutrality rules were designed to help us avoid. T-Mobile opposed Title II and real net neutrality rules for obvious reasons, and groups like the EFF (quite correctly) worry T-Mobile is now happily chipping away at the very foundation of an open internet...to thunderous public applause.

Filed Under: fcc, net neutrality, streaming video, throttling, unlimited, zero rating
Companies: sprint, t-mobile

24 Comments

Appeals Court Strikes Down FCC Attempt To Eliminate Protectionist State Broadband Laws

Broadband

from the you-can't-build-it,-and-they-won't-come dept

Wed, Aug 10th 2016 1:04pm — Karl Bode

For years we've discussed how incumbent broadband providers protect their duopoly by writing and lobbying for awful protectionist state laws. These laws, passed in nineteen different states, either significantly hamstring or outright ban towns and cities looking to build their own networks, or strike public/private partnerships with companies like Google Fiber. In most instances, these towns and cities only jumped into the broadband business after being under-served for a decade -- if they were able to get broadband in the first place.

While it was overshadowed by the net neutrality vote at the time, back in February the FCC voted 3-2 to try and take aim at the most restrictive parts of these laws. The FCC argued that it could use its authority under Section 706 of the Communications act -- which requires the FCC to ensure "reasonable and timely" deployment of broadband access -- to pre-empt these restrictions working in contrast to that goal. But North Carolina and Tennessee quickly sued, arguing that preventing them from letting AT&T and Comcast write awful state laws violated their state rights.

In a huge blow to the FCC, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (pdf) has ruled that the FCC's pre-emption of these state restrictions must be reversed, because Section 706 doesn't clearly provide the FCC with the proper authority. While the FCC may have been well intentioned, all three Judges noted that the law simply doesn't give the FCC the authority to strip out chunks of state law:

"Section 706 does not contain a clear statement authorizing preemption of Tennessee’s and North Carolina’s statutes that govern the decisions of their municipal subdivisions. Section 706(a) instructs the FCC to utilize “measures that promote competition in the local telecommunications market, or other regulating methods that remove barriers to infrastructure investment.” Subsection (b) is a similar but broader instruction—it directs the FCC to “remov[e] barriers to infrastructure investment and . . . promot[e] competition in the telecommunications market."

The ruling continues, reiterating that the Communications Act language is simply too murky to be applied by the FCC in this fashion:

"Remove barriers to infrastructure investment” is unclear regarding whether it applies to public and private infrastructure investment or only private infrastructure investment. “Infrastructure,” by itself, is not specific to the public sphere. Furthermore, nowhere in the general charge to “promote competition in the telecommunications market” is a directive to do so by preempting a state’s allocation of powers between itself and its subdivisions."

While the FCC may have gotten too creative under the scope of the law, the end result of the ruling is unfortunate all the same.

For more than a generation, phone and cable companies like AT&T and Comcast have all but owned many state legislatures, who in turn make it their unrelenting mission to protect regional, geographical monopolies (duopolies, if you're "lucky") from any evolution or competition whatsoever. And while Tennessee and North Carolina were quick to breathlessly accuse the FCC of violating states rights, state leaders haven't been concerned in the slightest that letting AT&T and Comcast write bad state laws consistently hurts consumers, businesses, and the state itself.

Tennessee remains a broadband backwater for just this reason, so this shouldn't be a ruling anybody in the state (or in policy circles) is popping champagne corks over. It remains unclear what the FCC will do now, though in a statement FCC boss Tom Wheeler said he intends to continue fighting these restrictions, one way or another:

"In the past 18 months, over 50 communities have taken steps to build their own bridges across the digital divide. The efforts of communities wanting better broadband should not be thwarted by the political power of those who, by protecting their monopoly, have failed to deliver acceptable service at an acceptable price. The FCC’s mandate is to make sure that Americans have access to the best possible broadband. We will consider all our legal and policy options to remove barriers to broadband deployment wherever they exist so that all Americans can have access to 21st Century communications.

"Should states seek to repeal their anti-competitive broadband statutes, I will be happy to testify on behalf of better broadband and consumer choice. Should states seek to limit the right of people to act for better broadband, I will be happy to testify on behalf of consumer choice."

The agency could appeal, could try its luck in a different jurisdiction and hope for better results, or it could wait on Congress to properly give it the authority it needs to fight broadband corruption and dysfunction of this type (chortle, guffaw). Unfortunately for consumers, Wheeler's running out of time if, as tradition encourages, he's going to step down with the election of a new President. While we wait, the onus once again rests squarely on the shoulders of voters to be informed, and to kick cash-compromised telecom sector sycophants out of office.

Filed Under: 6th circuit, broadband, competition, fcc, municipal broadband, preemption, state laws

The Techdirt Greenhouse

Read the latest posts:

read all »

Techdirt Deals

Report this ad | Hide Techdirt ads

Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Older Stuff

Tuesday
15:55	Appeals Court Says Couple's Lawsuit Over Bogus Vehicle Forfeiture Can Continue (15)
13:30	Techdirt Podcast Episode 301: Scarcity, Abundance & NFTs (0)
12:03	Hollywood Is Betting On Filtering Mandates, But Working Copyright Algorithms Simply Don't Exist (84)
10:45	Introducing The Techdirt Insider Discord (4)
10:40	Daily Deal: The Dynamic 2021 DevOps Training Bundle (0)
09:29	Criminalizing Teens' Google Searches Is Just How The UK's Anti-Cybercrime Programs Roll (19)
06:29	Canon Sued For Disabling Printer Scanners When Devices Run Out Of Ink (41)
Monday
20:51	Copyright Law Discriminating Against The Blind Finally Struck Down By Court In South Africa (7)
15:59	LAPD Sees Your Reform Efforts, Raises You $20 Million In Bullets, Snacks, And Surveillance (17)
13:32	Study Shows How Android Phones Still Track Users, Even When 'Opted Out' (2)
12:10	Court Tells Arkansas Troopers That Muting Anti-Cop Terms On Its Facebook Page Violates The 1st Amendment (23)
10:50	New Research Shows Social Media Doesn't Turn People Into Assholes (They Already Were), And Everyone's Wrong About Echo Chambers (50)
10:45	Daily Deal: The 2021 Complete Video Production Super Bundle (3)
09:43	Apple Gives Chinese Government What It Wants (Again); Pulls Quran App From Chinese App Store (12)
05:09	Many Digital Divide 'Solutions' Make Privacy And Trust A Luxury Option (10)
Sunday
12:00	Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt (17)
Saturday
12:00	This Week In Techdirt History: October 10th - 16th (4)
Friday
19:39	Trader Joe's Threatens Man Over Parody 'Traitor Joe' Political T-Shirt (21)
16:10	Study Says Official Count Of Police Killings Is More Than 50% Lower Than The Actual Number (13)
13:35	The Surveillance And Privacy Concerns Of The Infrastructure Bill's Impaired Driving Sensors (39)
12:07	GOP Very Excited To Be Handed An FCC Voting Majority By Joe Biden (14)
10:30	Plagiarism By Techdirt: Our Plagiarized NFT Collection Can Now Actually Be Bid On (2)
10:25	Daily Deal: The Complete 2022 Microsoft Office Master Class Bundle (1)
08:14	Clearview Celebrates 10 Billion Scraped Images Collected, Claims It Can Now Recognize Blurred, Masked Faces (18)
05:10	Journalists In St. Louis Discover State Agency Is Revealing Teacher Social Security Numbers; Governors Vows To Prosecute Journalists As Hackers (63)
Thursday
20:37	Billy Mitchell Survives Anti-SLAPP Motion From Twin Galaxies A Second Time (31)
15:30	Content Moderation Case Study: Tumblr's Approach To Adult Content (2013) (5)
13:35	Court Says Google Translate Isn't Reliable Enough To Determine Consent For A Search (11)
12:17	University Of Hong Kong Wants To Remove A Sculpture Commemorating Tiananmen; To Preserve It, People Have Crowdsourced A Digital 3D Replica (13)
10:57	House Democrats Decide To Hand Facebook The Internet By Unconstitutionally Taking Section 230 Away From Algorithms (74)

AT&T's Already Happily Tap Dancing Around Its DirecTV Merger Obligations

from the ye-olde-merger-condition-two-step dept

After Massive Cable Industry Lobbying And Disinformation Effort, The FCC Is Forced To Weaken Its Cable Box Reform Plan

from the disinformation-nation dept

What Net Neutrality? While The FCC Naps, AT&T Now Exempting DirecTV Content From Wireless Usage Caps

from the slippery-slopes dept

FCC Gives Up On Municipal Broadband Fight

from the knocked-out-in-the-first-round dept

AT&T Dodges FTC Throttling Lawsuit Using Title II Classification It Vehemently Opposed

from the some-fine-tap-dancin' dept

T-Mobile Declares It's On 'The Right Side Of History' As It Laughs At Net Neutrality

from the words-no-longer-have-any-meaning dept

How Is This Not A Net Neutrality Violation, Sprint?

from the so-much-for-net-neutrality dept

One More Time With Feeling: Net Neutrality Didn't Hurt Broadband Investment In The Slightest

from the dollar-a-holler-science dept

T-Mobile, Sprint Tap Dance Over, Under, And Around Net Neutrality

from the bad-precedent dept

Appeals Court Strikes Down FCC Attempt To Eliminate Protectionist State Broadband Laws

from the you-can't-build-it,-and-they-won't-come dept

The Techdirt Greenhouse

Tuesday

Monday

Sunday

Saturday

Friday

Thursday

More

Tools & Services

Company

Contact

More

from the ye-olde-merger-condition-two-step dept

from the disinformation-nation dept

from the slippery-slopes dept

from the knocked-out-in-the-first-round dept

from the some-fine-tap-dancin' dept

from the words-no-longer-have-any-meaning dept

from the so-much-for-net-neutrality dept

from the dollar-a-holler-science dept

from the bad-precedent dept

from the you-can't-build-it,-and-they-won't-come dept

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

The Techdirt Greenhouse

Tools & Services

Company

Contact

More