Pay Different Prices To Access Different Sites: Virgin Mobile Leaps Through Net Neutrality Exemption With Gusto

from the pick-your-plan dept

We've talked about the mocked up versions of what a non-neutral internet service might look like -- whereby the service provider offers different "packages" to include different websites. There have been a few attempts to show what this looks like. Here's probably the most well known example: At some point, someone created a similar version that was specific to AT&T: These graphics were seen as warning signs for what internet access providers desired. But we keep hearing from those who advocate for the big broadband guys that no access provider would ever really want to do that. Well, in the midst of all this fighting over what the FCC should do about net neutrality, Sprint's Virgin Mobile subsidiary has decided to dive into the pool with a bunch of plans that look suspiciously like the ones above:

For about $12, Sprint will soon let subscribers buy a wireless plan that only connects to Facebook.

For that same price, they could choose instead to connect only with Twitter, Instagram or Pinterest—or for $10 more, enjoy unlimited use of all four. Another $5 gets them unlimited streaming of a music app of their choice.

This is all being powered by a startup called ItsOn, which looks designed specifically to break net neutrality to help access providers shake people down. It specifically filters only "approved" (i.e., paid for) services.

So far, it appears that Virgin Mobile and Sprint have wisely avoided marketing graphics like those above, but the plan sounds nearly identical. As with T-Mobile's Music Freedom plan and the famed zero-rated plans that have allowed people in various countries to access Facebook and other apps without incurring data charges, these are all positioned as being pro-consumer. That's done on purpose, but it's bogus.

The "pro-consumer" nature of these deals is only the fact that the carriers are giving people a way to get around the restrictions they themselves set up. Was it a "pro-public" move when Governor Chris Christie's staff in New Jersey "removed" the traffic blockades they themselves had put on the George Washington Bridge? Offering a (costly) exemption to your own crappy policies isn't "pro-consumer" at all. It's setting up a world in which the access providers get to pick the winners and losers, and that will be a disaster for startups and innovation. Venture Capitalist Fred Wilson put it best earlier this year about his concern for what we lose without net neutrality on the rest of the internet:

Entrepreneur: I plan to launch a better streaming music service. It leverages the data on what you and your friends currently listen to, combines that with the schedule of new music launches and acts that are touring in your city in the coming months and creates playlists of music that you should be listening to in order to find new acts to listen to and go see live.

VC: Well since Spotify, Beats, and Apple have paid all the telcos so that their services are free on the mobile networks, we are concerned that new music services like yours will have a hard time getting new users to use them because the data plan is so expensive. We like you and the idea very much, but we are going to have to pass.

Entrepreneur: I plan to launch a service that curates the funniest videos from all across the internet and packages them up in a 30 minute daily video show that people will watch on their phones as they are commuting to work on the subway. It’s called SubHumor.

VC: Well since YouTube, Hulu, and Netflix have paid all the telcos so that their services are free via a sponsored data plan, I am worried that it will hard to get users to watch any videos on their phones that aren’t being served by YouTube, Hulu, or Netflix. We like you and your idea very much, but we are going to have to pass.

The last round of net neutrality rules did not apply to wireless data, and it's unclear if any new rules will either. It's at least somewhat good news to see FCC boss Tom Wheeler investigating Verizon Wireless's recently announced plans to throttle LTE users, but will he let these new Virgin Mobile plans slide by?

The telcos and cable companies aren't dumb. They know the public is on the lookout for the extreme cases like when Madison River blocked Skype. So they're chip, chip, chipping away at the idea of a neutral network by making sure that every move is painted as "but this offers a better plan to the consumer." What they leave out, of course, is that they actually set up the "barriers" that make the other plans "worse" for the consumer in the first place. It reminds me of the classic city scam in which the guy in the street starts "cleaning" your car by making it dirtier, and then you can pay him to go away.

Filed Under: consumer friendly, net neutrality, tiered plans
Companies: sprint, virgin mobile

Thank You For Supporting Our Net Neutrality Reporting

from the you-are-amazing dept

Just a couple hours left to
support our net neutrality coverage »

Hey everyone, I just wanted to post a massive thank you to each and every one of you who helped us reach our goal in our crowdfunding campaign for our net neutrality reporting. Having spoken to people who have run crowdfunding campaigns in the past, they talk about how nerve-wracking it is, and that's absolutely true. Something you don't quite understand until you actually go and do it. We had no idea if people would be willing or able to contribute, but so many of you did -- and many others who couldn't afford to still helped out by sharing and spreading the word. That's amazing to me. If you haven't read former Congressional staffer Jen Hoelzer's explanation for how we can make a difference, please do so, because it really explains everything.

There are just a couple hours left in the campaign, and wherever we end up, this was an amazing and enlightening experience that has left me awed by the passion and support that many of you have shown over this issue and over the work that we do. Here at Techdirt, this process has really just begun. The net neutrality fight is heating up very rapidly, and we need to take the success of this campaign and turn it into something. Thank you for believing in us.

Just a couple hours left to
support our net neutrality coverage »

Filed Under: crowdfunding, net neutrality, techdirt

FCC Is 'Deeply Troubled' By Verizon Wireless's New Throttling Plans

from the not-so-fast-with-that-'network-optimization' dept

Earlier this week, we wrote about the ridiculousness of Verizon Wireless refering to its new plans to throttle heavy users of its LTE mobile data network as "network optimization" while denying that it was "throttling." However, in a bit of a surprise move, FCC chair Tom Wheeler has sent a rather angry letter to the company, questioning the plan:

I am deeply troubled by your July 25, 2014 announcement that Verizon Wireless intends to slow down some customers' data speeds on your 4G LTE network starting in October 20 14. Your website explained that this was an extension of your "Network Optimization" policy, which, according to your website, applies only to customers with unlimited data plans. Specifically, Verizon Wireless "manage[s] data connection speeds for a small subset of customers - the top 5% of data users on unlimited data plans" in places and at times when the network is experiencing high demand. Verizon Wireless describes its "Network Optimization" as "network management."

"Reasonable network management" concerns the technical management of your network; it is not a loophole designed to enhance your revenue streams. It is disturbing to me that Verizon Wireless would base its "network management" on distinctions among its customers' data plans, rather than on network architecture or technology. The Commission has defined a network management practice to be reasonable "if it is appropriate and tailored to achieving a legitimate network management purpose, taking into account the particular network architecture and technology of the broadband Internet access service." Such legitimate network management purposes could include: ensuring network security and integrity, including by addressing traffic that is harmful to the network; addressing traffic that is unwanted by end users (including by premise operators), such as by providing services or capabilities consistent with an end user's choices regarding parental controls or security capabilities; and reducing or mitigating the effects of congestion on the network. I know of no past Commission statement that would treat as "reasonable network management" a decision to slow traffic to a user who has paid, after all, for "unlimited" service.

The letter then has a list of questions it is expecting Verizon to answer concerning this program. The third question may be the most important:

How does Verizon Wireless justify this policy consistent with its continuing obligations under the 700 MHz C Block open platform rules, under which Verizon Wireless may not deny, limit, or restrict the ability of end users to download and utilize applications of their choosing on the C Block networks; how can this conduct be justified under the Commission's 2010 Open Internet rules, including the transparency rule that remains in effect?

This is, in some ways, a follow up to Wheeler's letter last week, in which he reminded access providers of those transparency rules. Wheeler has shown, a few times, that he's willing to speak up against the actions of some of the broadband companies, which is a shift from previous FCC chairs. Of course, many are still reasonably skeptical about how much bite there is behind the bark, but it's at least a marginally good sign that he's paying attention and worried about this plan.

Still, remember, that the "open internet rules" leave out wireless networks, a massive loophole that many of us warned about all along. However, in the current proposal, Wheeler did ask about whether the rules should extend to mobile operators as well, and this letter is a pretty clear signal that he sees very clear reasons to include such networks in the final rules.

Filed Under: fcc, net neutrality, network optimization, open internet, throttling, tom wheeler, transparency, wireless
Companies: verizon, verizon wireless

Reclassifying Broadband Under Title II Becoming Politically Feasible

from the this-can-happen dept

One of the most annoying things about the net neutrality fight -- as we've been noting for over a decade -- is how silly the net neutrality debate was once it became "partisan." An issue that, previously, had been a general one about the future of the internet turned into a ridiculous political circus with Republicans (misleadingly) claiming it was about "regulating the internet." You'd think that the "pro-business party," as they like to call themselves, would support a policy of an open and free internet that enables so many entrepreneurs and businesses to exist. But, of course, "pro-business" is often code for "pro-big-legacy business." Either way, the unfortunate news is this has become a stupidly partisan issue, and when that happens, reasoned debate often goes out the window. Given that, one the prevailing narratives in DC circles is that this idea of reclassification of broadband under Title II (basically common carrier status) was "politically impossible," because it would entail a huge partisan fight in Congress, and apparently no one wants to do that.

This argument, too, is kind of stupid and typical of the Jay Rosen-coined concept of the "Church of the Savvy," in which the narrative of the politics becomes much more important than the policy itself. In this case, it's pretty clear that the "fight" is happening no matter what rules the FCC comes out with. The politicians opposed to net neutrality have made it clear that they'll oppose any rules that the FCC adopts, including its currently proposed, ridiculously weak, rules under Section 706, which leave the door wide open to destroying net neutrality and creating fast lanes.

Given that, it seems like the FCC has a choice on its hands: (A) go with pretend net neutrality and have Republicans fight like hell against it, or (B) go with real net neutrality rules and have Republicans fight like hell against it. It's difficult to see how choice (A) makes any sense, except that the "savvy" claim has long been that the Democrats didn't have the political will to really fight back against Republicans over Title II (suggesting that they would be more willing to support Wheeler's fake neutrality rules).

But, a funny thing has been happening over the last few weeks, indicating that "the savvy" may not be so "savvy" after all. A bunch of Senators have come out strongly in favor of Title II reclassification. And then the big gun came out: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has basically told activists that he'd support the FCC in a political fight with Republicans if the FCC chooses Title II. Reid, unfortunately, did not go all out, and directly urge the FCC to support Title II, but his statement that he would support "any Open Internet rules" that the FCC comes up with is a pretty clear signal to the FCC that the Democratic Leadership in the Senate wouldn't shy away from supporting Title II, as many had assumed.

It may seem like a small step, but the signalling here is pretty important, because it suggests that the "politically impossible" Title II reclassification is moving towards a political possibility... if the FCC and Chairman Wheeler are actually willing to make that move. In the past, Wheeler has argued that there wasn't enough political support to go with Title II, and that's part of the reason he was leaning on the fake solution of Section 706. But as more and more support in Congress is popping up for Title II, the tide is shifting towards it being a political possibility, even if it still very much depends on if Wheeler is willing to take a stand, or fold like so many previous FCC bosses.

Now, if only some on the Republican side stopped listening to the misleading talking points on this, and took the time to understand why this actually matters, and is so important to businesses and innovation...

Filed Under: broadband, common carrier, congress, democrats, fcc, harry reid, net neutrality, republicans, section 706, title ii