Netflix Reveals It Throttles AT&T, Verizon Customers To Save Them From Usage Caps, Overage Fees

from the neutrality-soap-opera dept

Netflix this week admitted that the company has been throttling the video streams of most wireless customers around the world to 600 kbps, a practice the company claims is necessary to protect users from usage caps and wireless overage fees. It was the first time Netflix acknowledged the practice, which the company said it's been engaged in for five years. The more interesting part? The company admitted to the Wall Street Journal that it's apparently not throttling the video streams of companies whose consumer policies Netflix agrees with:

"Netflix said it doesn’t limit its video quality at two carriers: T-Mobile and Sprint Corp., because “historically those two companies have had more consumer-friendly policies.” When customers exceed their data plans on Sprint or T-Mobile, the carriers usually slow their network connections, rather than charge overage fees."

The Netflix reveal came after T-Mobile CEO John Legere spent last week defending T-Mobile's controversial Binge On service, which throttles partner video streams to 1.5 Mbps or 480p. Legere spent much of the week poking various news outlets with claims that AT&T and Verizon throttle video streams even further than Binge On, something both companies spent much of last week denying. It didn't apparently take long for the Journal to dig deeper and get an admission out of Netflix that it was the one doing the throttling.

Despite the clear admission from Netflix that it's the one throttling, Legere continues to take to Twitter to blame AT&T and Verizon, meaning he either didn't understand the story he'd read, or he's intentionally being misleading in an attempt to redirect people from recent Binge On criticisms:

2/ I called out @verizon and @att just last week about this – they denied, tried to make it about throttling and called me ‘dopey’!

— John Legere (@JohnLegere) March 24, 2016

AT&T, meanwhile, hoping to cash in on the story and paint Netflix as a hypocrite, had its top lobbyist pretend to be "outraged":

"We’re outraged to learn that Netflix is apparently throttling video for their AT&T customers without their knowledge or consent,” said Jim Cicconi, AT&T’s senior executive vice president of external and legislative affairs."

AT&T's "outrage" likely stems from the fact that the throttling kept AT&T users from hitting their usage caps and incurring overage fees sooner, costing AT&T money.

After revealing its throttling to the Journal, Netflix posted a new blog post in which it pretended it was revealing its throttling practices by choice, "announcing" it was working on tools that would help customers better manage their data consumption:

"We believe restrictive data caps are bad for consumers and the Internet in general, creating a dilemma for those who increasingly rely on their mobile devices for entertainment, work and more. So in an effort to protect our members from overage charges when they exceed mobile data caps, our default bitrate for viewing over mobile networks has been capped globally at 600 kilobits per second. It’s about striking a balance that ensures a good streaming experience while avoiding unplanned fines from mobile providers.

This hasn’t been an issue for our members. Our research and testing indicates that many members worry about exceeding their mobile data cap, and don’t need the same resolution on their mobile phone as on a large screen TV to enjoy shows and movies. However, we recognize some members may be less sensitive to data caps or subscribe to mobile data plans from carriers that don’t levy penalties for exceeding caps. As we develop new technologies, we want to give all our members the choice to adjust their data consumption settings based on their video preferences and sensitivity to their ISPs data overage charges. We’ll provide more details as we get closer to launch.

So to be clear: Netflix should have been more transparent about what it was doing and provide users with better controls (desktop users can adjust streaming quality rather easily), especially if it's going to lecture ISPs on transparency. That said, given Netflix's positions on net neutrality and usage caps, you're sure to see the story blown up into more than it is by ISPs and their various mouthpieces, who'll likely either call this a net neutrality violation itself (it's not; throttling yourself isn't like throttling a competitor, and users have a choice of streaming services) or continue the industry claim that Netflix is a shady villain that treats giant, lumbering telecom duopolies unfairly.

But the crux of the problem here remains usage caps, not Netflix. Sure, Netflix isn't being entirely altruistic. Annoyed customers banging their heads against usage caps watch less streaming video, which for many fixed-line ISPs like Comcast is the entire point. For wireless carriers it's obviously different, with the goal being to drive consumption however possible. But the fact that a company was forced to offer a lower quality service -- instead of competing to provide the best stream possible -- shows how arbitrary usage caps by their very nature distort and damage markets. And that's before you even get to the anti-competitive implications of zero rating.

Filed Under: mobile service, net neutrality, throttling, videos
Companies: at&t, netflix, sprint, t-mobile, verizon

Angolans Turning Zero-Rated Wikipedia, Facebook Into Ad Hoc File Sharing Services

from the internet-users-continue-to-be-amazing dept

Zero-rating -- the nifty trick companies use to edge around net neutrality rules -- is being offered to developing countries as a way to provide cheap internet access to their citizens. There's a bit of altruism in the offerings, but there's also a lot of walls surrounding gardens. Facebook's "Free Basics" is a zero-rated platform that functions like a twenty-first century AOL, funneling users into Facebook's version of the internet.

Wikipedia is similarly offering zero-rated access to countries with limited internet options. It -- along with Facebook -- has partnered with a local telecom to give Angolans access to data without having to pay provider rates for it. This includes its associated properties, like its Wikimedia Commons.

Angolans have taken to this pair of walled gardens and, ingeniously, turned them into an ad hoc zero-rated Pirate Bay, as Motherboard's Jason Koebler reports.

Enterprising Angolans have used two free services—Facebook Free Basics and Wikipedia Zero—to share pirated movies, music, television shows, anime, and games on Wikipedia. And no one knows what to do about it.

Because the data is completely free, Angolans are hiding large files in Wikipedia articles on the Portuguese Wikipedia site (Angola is a former Portuguese colony)—sometimes concealing movies in JPEG or PDF files. They’re then using a Facebook group to direct people to those files, creating a robust, completely free file sharing network. A description for a Facebook group with 2,700 members reads: “created with the objective of sharing music, movies, pictures, and ANIMES via Wikimedia.”

One possible solution is no solution at all: pulling the services from Angola. No one wants to look like they're depriving impoverished citizens of what's likely their only access to the internet. On the other hand, neither entity is too thrilled to be hosting possibly infringing material. Another solution is also no solution at all: playing whack-a-mole with content and new Wikipedia/Facebook accounts.

The third solution, though, is even worse. As Koebler explains, this proposed solution is predicated on some terrible assumptions about how people must behave to "earn" internet access privileges.

Many on the listserv are framing Angola’s Wikipedia pirates as bad actors who need to be dealt with in some way so that more responsible editors aren’t punished for their actions. This line of thinking inherently assumes that what Angola’s pirates are doing is bad for Wikipedia and that they must be assimilated to the already regulated norms of Wikipedia’s community. If the developing world wants to use our internet, they must play by our rules, the thinking goes.

Playing by the rules -- which basically means curbing infringement to appease rights holders -- may be a bad thing for Angolans in the long run, even if it seems like a plausible short-term solution. The "loopholes" in these zero-rated services aren't limited to spreading pirated content. They could also serve as handy tools for activism and dissent.

Angolan's pirates are learning how to organize online, they're learning how to cover their tracks, they are learning how to direct people toward information and how to hide and share files. Many of these skills are the same ones that would come in handy for a dissident or a protester or an activist. Considering that Angola has had an autocratic leader in power for more than 35 years, well, those are skills that might come in handy one day.

Shutting down dubious uses of the services will only result in greater local control of internet access, which is the last thing the country needs. The fact that people are using a service in ways it was never intended to be used is a feature, not a bug. Erecting walls only encourages people to find ways to route around them. These are important communication tools that democratizes Angolan internet access. (To a certain extent -- citizens with funds to pay for data charges will get the "real" internet, rather than the Facebook/Wikipedia version.). And this little bit of access -- no matter how controlled and contained -- is indisputably better than nothing at all. Further limiting this use will do more damage to those using this limited access to escape government control than it will to the file sharers so aptly illustrating how futile the "walled garden" concept actually is.

Filed Under: angola, copyright, file sharing, net neutrality, zero rating
Companies: facebook, wikipedia