Study Finds That T-Mobile's Binge On Is Exploitable, Unreliable, And Still Violates Net Neutrality

from the a-duck-is-still-a-duck dept

For a while now we've warned how "zero rating" (letting some content bypass usage caps) is a creative way for ISPs to tap dance around net neutrality --potentially to public applause. Comcast, for example, exempts its creatively-named "Stream" streaming video service from caps, but claims this doesn't violate net neutrality because the traffic never technically leaves Comcast's network. Verizon exempts its own Go90 video service from caps as well, and to date doesn't even bother justifying the move. Both AT&T and Verizon let companies pay for cap exemption.

And while these programs all laugh in the face of neutrality, many users still tend to applaud the horrible precedent because they believe -- despite paying an arm and a leg for wireless data -- that they're getting something for free.

T-Mobile has been perhaps the most creative in exploiting this belief and implementing zero rating, now exempting some 90 video services from user usage caps and throttling these services to 1.5 Mbps (or 480p) unless a user opts out. But neutrality advocates have repeatedly noted this idea still violates net neutrality given that thousands of startups, educational orgs, and non profits still aren't whitelisted -- and may not even realize they're being discriminated against.

And while T-Mobile has done some great things for consumers the last few years, T-Mobile's response to these concerns has been relatively pathetic, vacillating between lying about how the program works, to insulting net neutrality supporters like the EFF while fighting real net neutrality rules and Title II reclassification. Yet because many in the public don't understand the horrible precedent and just think it's really groovy they're getting free stuff -- T-Mobile's Binge On, happily lives on.

But a new study out of Northeastern University doesn't have much nice to say about T-Mobile's "consumer friendly" zero rating program. The researchers found numerous problems with Binge On, including the fact that T-Mobile's promise of 480p video quality is consistently less:

"T-​​Mobile says that the res­o­lu­tion for Binge On streaming is 480p (pro­gres­sive scan) or better, which is con­sid­ered stan­dard for DVD movies. How­ever, the researchers did not find evi­dence to back up these claims. In their trials using YouTube, the res­o­lu­tion was only 360p, notice­ably blurry on a modern smartphone.

They also found that T-Mobile's systems not only had trouble accurately detecting video services:

"T-Mobile’s detec­tion methods are very simple, so there’s no way they can always be right,” he says. "That means that Binge On is likely slowing down traffic that is not video. This raises serious con­cerns about com­pli­ance with the Open Internet Order."

And they found that the system was manipulable by clever T-Mobile users, potentially allowing them to zero rate services not covered by the program:

"Those simple methods open the door to exploita­tion as well, allowing sub­scribers to get free data even for non-​​video con­tent. The researchers devel­oped simple soft­ware that manip­u­lates internet traffic so that it looks like video. For example, it makes any web content—web pages, app down­loads, and photos—look like YouTube traffic. “We real­ized we could make any net­work traffic zero rated by just putting the right text in the right place," says Choffnes. "That is a secu­rity vulnerability -- it's poten­tially an open cash reg­ister that people can take from."

So in short, the report notes that T-Mobile's Binge On isn't accurate, is exploitable, and reduces video quality more than T-Mobile claims. T-Mobile (and zero rating supporters) argue that what T-Mobile's doing is ok simply because users can opt out. But the researchers noted that putting the onus to opt out on frequently non-technical consumers doesn't somehow magically mean net neutrality isn't violated by the underlying precedent. The researchers argue that regardless of public opinion on the subject -- the T-Mobile Binge On is still a net neutrality violation however you'd like to slice it:

"The internet has been hugely suc­cessful because it enables inno­va­tion, where all new internet appli­ca­tions receive the same net­work ser­vice as incumbents -- it's a level playing field," says Choffnes. "T-Mobile’s policy gives spe­cial treat­ment to video providers that work with them. What if every ISP did this, but in a dif­ferent way? In such a world, the next Net­flix, Hulu, or Pied Piper might never get off the ground because keeping up with ISPs and their poli­cies would leave them chasing their tails."

There's several reasons why we're not seeing the backlash to zero rating we've seen elsewhere in the net neutrality fight. One, again, consumers think they're getting something for free, and don't understand that usage caps are entirely arbitrary constructs to begin with, and not actually even useful for managing network congestion (should it even actually exist). Zero rating also is seeing support from companies that historically supported net neutrality (Google, Netflix) because these companies are benefiting from the additional traffic and ad eyeballs these programs send their direction.

But because consumers don't really understand the slippery slope they're happily having a picnic on -- and Silicon Valley companies are willing to turn a blind eye to these types of net neutrality violations because they profit off of them -- doesn't magically mean what T-Mobile is doing is a good idea.

With the FCC's net neutrality rules now on more secure footing after their major legal win, all eyes now turn to what the FCC intends to do about broadband usage caps and zero rating. While many countries (India, Japan, The Netherlands, Chile) understand the bad precedent at play here and have banned zero rating outright as anti-competitive, the FCC decided to weigh the anti-competitive impact of zero rating on a "case by case basis." And while the FCC is currently conducting a rather glacial inquiry into caps and zero rating, ISPs so far have been allowed to employ the practice with relative impunity.

In short, the FCC's failure to ban zero rating opened the door to net neutrality violations, provided an ISP is just clever about it. Without Netflix or Google's support, and with consumers believing they're benefiting from such models, the FCC is seeing notably less political pressure to act. So while it's wonderful that we've got shiny new net neutrality rules freshly upheld by the court system, they may wind up being useless as carriers and ISPs tap dance over, under and around them -- to thunderous public applause.

Filed Under: binge on, fcc, net neutrality, video, zero rating
Companies: t-mobile

Appeals Court Fully Upholds FCC's Net Neutrality Rules

from the pop-the-bubbly dept

After months of anticipation the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has upheld the FCC's Open Internet Order, an indisputably-massive win for net neutrality advocates. The full court ruling (pdf) supports the FCC's arguments across the board, including the FCC's decision to classify internet providers as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act. That's not only big for net neutrality, but it solidifies the FCC's authority as it looks to move forward on other pro-consumer initiatives such as the exploration of some relatively basic new privacy protections for broadband users.

Historically the DC Appeals court has been a mixed bag for the FCC, but in this instance the court declared the FCC's neutrality protections rest on solid legal ground from beginning to end, dismantling arguments by the likes of US Telecom, AT&T, and advocacy groups like TechFreedom from stem to stern. That includes industry attempts to prevent the rules from being applied to wireless networks (a split decision whereby fixed-line services were covered by wireless was not was something that had worried many telecom sector consumer advocates).

The court also repeatedly shot down ISP claims that the rules somehow violate their First Amendment rights:

"Because a broadband provider does not— and is not understood by users to—“speak” when providing neutral access to internet content as common carriage, the First Amendment poses no bar to the open internet rules."

The court also fully supports the FCC's contention that thanks to limited competition, broadband providers have plenty of incentive to act anti-competitively against "edge" providers like Netflix, and that this threat required FCC action:

"We also determined that the Commission had “adequately supported and explained its conclusion that, absent rules such as those set forth in the [2010 Open Internet Order], broadband providers represent[ed] a threat to Internet openness and could act in ways that would ultimately inhibit the speed and extent of future broadband deployment.” Id.at 645. For example, the Commission noted that “broadband providers like AT&T and Time Warner have acknowledged that online video aggregators such as Netflix and Hulu compete directly with their own core video subscription service,” id.,and that, even absent direct competition, “[b]roadband providers... have powerful incentives to accept fees from edge providers, either in return for excluding their competitors or for granting them prioritized access to end users,” id.at 645–46.

Ironically, the internet has Verizon to thank for today's ruling. The telco sued to overturn the FCC's flimsy 2010 rules, which didn't cover wireless and quite by design included massive, tractor-trailer-sized loopholes. But in overturning the rules the previous court decisions gave the FCC a path forward -- in effect urging it to reclassify ISPs as common carriers under Title II. It may also be worth noting (again) that despite industry claims that this reclassification would result in telecom Armageddon, the internet and broadband investment (at least in marginally competitive areas) has rumbled along happily.

While a huge win for net neutrality fans everywhere, it's important to understand that the open internet isn't out of the woods yet. The fight could still stumble its way to the Supreme Court. The Presidential election could similarly culminate in a total dismantling of the current FCC and a restocking of the agency with ISP-allies eager to roll back the protections -- as well as the myriad other efforts the FCC's currently engaged in (cable set top box reform).

And as we've noted a few times zero rating and usage caps also play a huge role in determining what constitutes a level playing field for startups and other smaller companies, and the rules don't specifically address such concerns. In other words, we've noted that even while legally sound the FCC's rules have plenty of loopholes allowing ISPs to hinder net neutrality -- just as long as they're somewhat clever about it.

The FCC has stated they'll be looking at the potential anti-competitive ramifications of zero rating and usage caps on a "case by case basis." With the court's full support, hopefully that inquiry will culminate in a harder policy decision sooner rather than later.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, dc circuit, fcc, net neutrality

Europe Has One Last Shot To Ensure Its Net Neutrality Rules Actually Work

from the closing-the-loopholes dept

As we noted last October, Europe passed net neutrality rules that not only don't really protect net neutrality, but actually give ISPs across the EU's 28 member countries the green light to violate net neutrality consistently -- just as long as ISPs are relatively clever about it. Just like the original, overturned 2010 net neutrality rules in the States, Europe's new rules (which took effect April 30) are packed with all manner of loopholes giving exemption for "specialized services" and "class-based discrimination," as well as giving the green light for zero rating.

The rules are so bad, Sir Tim Berners-Lee complained at the time that they even let ISPs violate neutrality -- just by claiming they're preparing for future, phantasmic congestion:

"The proposal allows ISPs to prevent “impending” congestion. That means that ISPs can slow down traffic anytime, arguing that congestion was just about to happen. MEPs should vote to close this loophole. If adopted as currently written, these rules will threaten innovation, free speech and privacy, and compromise Europe’s ability to lead in the digital economy. To underpin continued economic growth and social progress, Europeans deserve the same strong net neutrality protections similar to those recently secured in the United States. As a European, and the inventor of the Web, I urge politicians to heed this call."

As we've seen here in the States, congestion has long been used as a bogeyman to justify anti-competitive behavior, from using the bogus "Exaflood" to imply the Internet would implode if net neutrality rules were passed, to equally false claims that usage caps and overage fees are necessary to manage network capacity.

While the rules are flimsy, the European Union's Body of European Regulators of Electronic Communications (BEREC) has been cooking up new guidelines to help European countries interpret and adopt the new rules. And while this could have been an opportunity to close a number of the loopholes in the rules, a leaked copy of the BEREC guidelines (pdf) suggests that's not really happening. While BEREC appears to have tightened some language surrounding "specialized services," most of the problems (turning a blind eye to zero rating, allowing ISPs to justify violations by claiming future congestion) appear to remain fully intact in this latest update.

Yes, the rules block ISPs from engaging in the most heavy-handed of behaviors (like blocking entire websites or services), but that's not much of an accomplishment, since no ISP was willing to commit PR seppuku in such a fashion anyway.

As in the States, the lion's share of the press doesn't appear to be really helping matters. Perusing the news wires you'll see numerous instances where the media calls these rules "tough" despite them being anything but. Anonymous telecom sources are also given ample opportunity to complain about the "uncertainty" of the rules, despite the fact that having massive, tractor-trailer-sized loopholes is the best possible outcome for them:

"Given that we do not know what specialized services may emerge in the future, NRAs should assess whether a service qualifies as a specialized service on a case-by-case basis," it adds. One industry source said that while it was a positive sign that BEREC had not created a list of what can be considered specialized services, the fact that each new application will have to be assessed individually is a source of uncertainty for operators. "With restrictive guidelines, you can forget 5G and connected cars," said another industry source."

Yes, sorry, Europe -- you're not going to get fifth-generation wireless or connected vehicles unless telecom regulators make already weak net neutrality rules -- even weaker. The guidelines were formally presented June 6 at the BEREC press conference in Brussels. They'll be adopted in August after consultation with "interested parties" (read: predominantly telecom lobbyists), giving net neutrality advocates one last shot over the summer to ensure that the EU's net neutrality rules actually defend net neutrality, instead of legalizing the abuse of the idea.

Filed Under: berec, broadband, competition, eu, europe, net neutrality

Reddit, Mozilla, Others Urge FCC To Formally Investigate Broadband Usage Caps And Zero Rating

from the get-off-your-duff dept

We've noted how the FCC's latest net neutrality rules do a lot of things right, but they failed to seriously address zero rating or broadband usage caps, opening the door to ISPs violently abusing net neutrality -- just as long as they're relatively clever about it. And plenty of companies have been walking right through that open door. Both Verizon and Comcast for example now exempt their own streaming services from these caps, giving them an unfair leg up in the marketplace. AT&T meanwhile is now using usage caps to force customers to subscribe to TV services if they want to enjoy unlimited data.

In each instance you've got companies using usage caps for clear anti-competitive advantage, while industry-associated think tanks push misleading studies and news outlet editorials claiming that zero rating's a great boon to consumers and innovation alike.

The FCC's net neutrality rules don't ban usage caps or zero rating, unlike rules in Chile, Slovenia, Japan, India, Norway and The Netherlands. The FCC did however state that the agency would examine such practices on a "case by case" basis under the "general conduct" portion of the rules. But so far, that has consisted of closed door meetings and a casual, informal letter sent to a handful of carriers as part of what the FCC says is an "information exercise," not a formal inquiry.

But in a letter sent to FCC Commissioners (pdf) this week, a coalition of companies including Yelp, Vimeo, Foursquare, Kickstarter, Medium, Mozilla and Reddit have urged the agency to launch a more formal -- but also transparent -- probe of ISP behavior on this front:

"Zero­ rating profoundly affects Internet users' choices. Giving ISPs the power to favor some sites or services over others would let ISPs pick winners and losers online—precisely what the Open Internet rules exist to prevent...Given how many stakeholders participated in the process to make these rules, including nearly 4 million members of the public, it would be unacceptable not to seek and incorporate broad input and expertise at this critical stage."

Given the FCC's decision to ban usage caps at Charter as a merger condition, the agency is clearly aware of the threat zero rating and caps pose to a healthy Internet. It's possible the FCC is waiting for the courts to settle the broadband industry's lawsuit against the FCC, which could gut some or all of the net neutrality rules. But it's also entirely possible that the FCC does nothing. Usage caps are a glorified price hike, and even in its latest more consumer friendly iteration, the FCC has historically been afraid to so much as even acknowledge high prices are a problem in the sector.

Things have been muddied further by T-Mobile's Binge On program, which gives users the illusion of "free data" by setting arbitrary usage caps, then exempting the biggest video services from usage caps. And while many consumers applaud the idea, even T-Mobile's implementation sets a potentially dangerous precedent in that it fails to whitelist smaller video providers and non-profits -- most of which have no idea they're even being discriminated against. There's a contingent at the FCC and elsewhere that believes efforts like this are a positive example of "creative pricing experimentation."

Either way it's increasingly clear that the FCC needs to take some public position on the subject as ISPs continue to test the agency's murky boundaries to the detriment of users and small companies alike. Should the FCC win its court case, pressure will grow exponentially for the FCC to actually put its money where its mouth is -- and put the rules so many people fought for to actual use.

Filed Under: broadband, data caps, fcc, usage caps, zero rating
Companies: foursquare, kickstarter, medium, mozilla, reddit, vimeo, yelp

Cable Lobbying Group Claims More Competition Would Hurt Consumers

from the insult-to-injury dept

The FCC recently voted 4-1 to approve Charter's $79 billion acquisition of Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks. The agency just released its full order (pdf) pertaining to the deal, outlining the various conditions the FCC hopes to enforce to keep Charter from simply becoming another Comcast. Among them are a seven-year ban on usage caps, a seven-year ban on charging for direct interconnection (the heart of the telecom industry's battle with Netflix last year), and a ban on any attempt to pressure broadcasters into refusing deals with streaming video providers.

But the FCC says the merger conditions also require Charter to deploy broadband service to an additional 2 million locations, one million of which need to already be served by another competing provider. The faint threat of competition was enough to upset the American Cable Association (ACA), the lobbying organization for smaller cable providers. According to ACA CEO Matthew Polka, the added competition will actually be a horrible thing for consumers, because, uh, well, just because:

"The requirement on Charter to overbuild competitors will harm consumers in two ways...First, it will harm Charter's customers by preventing Charter from investing its resources most efficiently, such as by upgrading its networks to higher speeds. Second, it will harm customers of local, small providers when these customers are satisfied with their existing service."

And here you were thinking competition was a good thing. Of course, if these smaller cable operators don't want Charter coming to town and taking their milk money, they could simply offer cheaper, faster service themselves. Granted that's a totally foreign concept in the cable industry, where large and small cable operators alike have grown comfortable with not only local regulatory capture, but a lack of competition in the broadband space entirely.

Any disruption of this paradigm, no matter how minor, results in all manner of histrionics -- and a quick onset of amnesia regarding the fact that nobody likes cable companies after a generation of poor service and apathy, and therefore will never, ever feel bad for them.

If history is any indication the ACA really doesn't need to worry all that much. Traditionally in telecom, FCC conditions requiring that an ISP "expand to X number of additional homes" are usually conditions that the merging companies volunteer themselves. Why? It's most frequently because that expansion either already happened (and the paperwork hasn't been filed yet) -- or was slated to happen as a matter of course. Or it may not happen at all; such expansion promises are usually never really independently audited by the FCC, which lets companies string the FCC along with an endless flood of expansion promises that more often than not aren't even real.

In other words, the ACA's decision to insult the intelligence of an already annoyed customer base by pretending competition would be bad for them -- only adds insult to injury. Instead of whining about competition, how about just competing? Better yet, how about competing with Charter using a strange, outdated idea known as better customer service?

Filed Under: broadband, cable, competition, fcc, matthew polka
Companies: aca, american cable association, bright house networks, charter, time warner cable

Comcast, Wireless Industry Using 'Diversity' Groups To Oppose Net Neutrality, Fight Cable Set Top Box Reform

from the sockpuppetry dept

We've noted several times how one of the sleaziest lobbying tactics in telecom is the co-opting of minority or "diversity" groups to support policies that actually hurt these groups' constituents. Such theater benefits large telecom companies by presenting the illusion of broad support for what usually are extremely anti-consumer (or anti-small business and startup) policies. And it's not just minority groups being used in such fashion; telecom lobbyists have long used "retired seniors," hearing impaired groups and cattle rancher associations to push bad policy.

This kind of disinformation is pervasive, incredibly destructive, and common practice in everything from the construction industry to patent reform.

But telecom lobbyists have long been masters at this particular game. It works something like this: an ISP like Comcast (or some other telecom-affiliated lobbying group) will help fund a group's new event center. In exchange, these groups parrot any policy Comcast puts forth, be it opposition to net neutrality or support for the latest merger. Quid pro quo obligations are never put in writing, letting these groups claim their positions only coincidentally mirror that of their donors.

One of the key groups being used in this fashion in telecom is the "Multicultural Media, Telecom and Internet Council," or MMTC. A few years ago the Center for Public Integrity called out the group as being a cornerstone of cable industry "astroturf" (phony grass roots). Organization documents show the group takes money from Time Warner Cable, Comcast, and Verizon, and Comcast political operative Joe Waz just so happens to be on the group's board of directors (surely a coincidence). The group came under fire in 2014 for forcing one website to pull critical coverage of the group's extremely dubious behavior.

And as the FCC pushes to open the set top box market to competition, the MMTC has once again surfaced to happily mirror the cable industry's absurd claims that more set top box competition will somehow mean less diversity in programming. MMTC, alongside similar telecom-affiliated groups, recently fired off a letter (pdf) to the FCC urging the agency to pause its set top efforts to first further study diversity. Another widely circulated announcement (pdf) parrots cable industry claims that additional set top box competition will somehow demolish the pay TV sector:

"However, the approach the Commission has chosen to ensure consumer choice in their navigation devices causes collateral damage to the entire TV network ecosystem, with the greatest harm falling upon diverse content creators on multichannel video programming distributor platforms (MVPDs, such as cable and satellite). In essence, the NPRM requires MVPDs to hand over TV Network content to online video distributors (OVDs) and third-party device manufacturers who would then be able to do what they want with the content, without negotiation, and without compensation to the creators or programmers."

For one thing, increased set top box competition benefits everybody by bringing cheaper, better hardware to market, and putting an end to the $21 billion in captive set top rental fees the cable industry enjoys annually -- the only thing really driving cable's opposition. But increased set top box competition also puts an end to the cable walled garden, exposing all consumers to a broader and more diverse array of online streaming content than ever before. As such the argument that the FCC's effort will somehow harm diversity simply holds absolutely no water, yet it's useful in bogging the regulator down in diversity concerns that are driven by incumbent money, not an actual interest in bridging the digital divide.

Using bogus diversity concerns to hamstring pro-consumer regulatory reform has been such a successful lobbying tactic for Comcast, the company changed the title of top lobbyist David Cohen to "chief diversity officer." That's not to say that nothing Comcast or Cohen does ever benefits diversity, but it's hard to suggest you're helping minorities when you've been actively pitting minority and diversity groups against the interest of their own constituents on an industrial scale for the better part of the last decade.

The FCC's quest to "unlock the cable box" is only one such area where these groups have been employed to great effect. The MMTC has also been at the heart of cable, phone and wireless industry efforts to derail net neutrality rules. In fact the MMTC surfaced again last week when it released a "study" claiming that zero rating of content (letting select content bypass user caps) is an incredible boon to consumers and minorities everywhere (pdf):

"Zero-rating is also poised to play a key role in helping to close the digital divide by addressing cost concerns and strengthening the value proposition offered to skeptical non-users, two key considerations for the millions of Americans who remain offline. The actual contours of the free data plans are fluid, responsive to consumer demand, optional, and, unlike many other online offerings, they do not rely on targeted ads to pay for the data. Accordingly, policymakers should not categorically ignore the very real benefits of free data and should instead allow this kind of innovation and experimentation to continue without unnecessary interference.

But zero rating has the potential to do the exact opposite, something the MMTC can't be bothered to mention. The big criticism of zero rating has been that if you give some content, companies or services cap-exempt status, you're immediately putting other companies and organizations at a disadvantage. That's particularly problematic for startups, educational institutions, or other non-profits (like MMTC itself) that may not even be aware their services are being discriminated against.

All told, the MMTC opposes net neutrality, opposes set top box competition, and even supported AT&T's failed acquisition of T-Mobile, which would have lessened competition in the wireless space, driving up costs for everyone. Yet when pressed, the group continues to claim these kinds of anti-consumer positions are entirely coincidental, and in no way tied to contributions from major telecom incumbents. With friends like these...

One reason for the continued success of this kind of pay-to-play policy regurgitation is that neither regulators nor the press can be bothered to call this behavior what it is: marketing and lobbying. While DC insiders certainly are aware of what the groups are doing, they very rarely can be bothered to point out the puppetry (though reports suggest Comcast's use of such tactics played some role in scuttling its last merger attempt). In the last fifteen years FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn is one of the only regulators to even comment on the MMTC not actually reflecting its constituents' best self interests, though even then her comments were more passing observation than serious criticism.

But the press continues to take the lion's share of the blame when it comes to perpetuating such astroturf efforts. When the press talks about groups like the MMTC, you'd be hard pressed to notice any mention about the organization's documented ties to telecom industry coffers, its repeated history of opposing pro-consumer policies, or the group's relationships to what has become a very deep web of underhanded efforts to negatively influence Internet discourse. In fact of the half dozen news outlets commenting on the MMTC's zero rating study, the very worst the group is called is a "leading civil rights non-profit." Outlets are also all too happy to publish editorials from "diversity advocates" without disclosing what should be obvious ties to telecom cash.

Ultimately it's up to these groups' constituents to refuse to fund organizations actively working against their best self interests, and for similar groups with integrity to continue to inform the public about this kind of behavior. In the interim it might be nice if the media could stop playing obedient lapdog to a deep and destructive network of what can only be called pay-to-play propaganda.

Filed Under: competition, diversity, fcc, net neutrality, set top boxes, stb
Companies: at&t, comcast, mmtc, verizon