Facebook Hopes Renaming Internet.org App Will Shut Net Neutrality Critics Up

from the it's-only-bad-when-other-people-do-it dept

Mon, Sep 28th 2015 11:41am — Karl Bode

Facebook is trying its best to defuse worries that the company is trying to impose a bizarre, walled-garden vision of the Internet upon the developing world. As we've been discussing, Facebook's Internet.org initiative has been under fire of late in India, where the government has been trying to not only define net neutrality, but craft useful rules. Early policy guidelines have declared Internet.org to be little more than glorified collusion, since while it does offer limited access to some free services, it involves Facebook determining which services users will be able to access (and encrypted content wasn't on the Facebook approval list).

Initially, Facebook's response to these concerns was tone deafness. Mark Zuckerberg proclaimed that net neutrality supporters worried about Facebook's plans were extremists who were hurting the poor. But in more recent weeks Facebook has been softening its stance, allowing a broader range of content on board the free service, and also renaming the Internet.org app in the hopes of blunting criticism:

"Today the company said it will change the name of its Internet.org app and mobile website, now available to mobile phone users in 18 countries, to Free Basics by Facebook. The change is intended to better distinguish the app and website from Internet.org, the larger initiative that spawned it and is incubating many technologies and business models to help get the web to new users faster."

And by "better distinguish," we mean help Facebook distance the app from criticism that the company is setting itself up as the gatekeeper to content in the developing world. To be fair, renaming it "free basics" and eliminating the "Internet.org" name does help clarify what Facebook's actually offering. And the company does appear to be opening the door to more content partners, and is working to ensure encrypted services will work "wherever possible." Still, many people still don't like the precedent set by letting Facebook be the gatekeeper for what's considered acceptable content, and argue that if Facebook really wanted to help the poor, it would offer subsidized real Internet access.

Other than changing the name and opening the Facebook gates slightly wider, the company is showing no sign that it plans to back off the core idea behind the Internet.org initiative. It also shows no sign that it actually understands why some critics are troubled by Facebook's vision. Former FCC Commissioner Kevin Martin (a huge friend to US telcos during his tenure) is now Facebook's vice-president for mobile and global access policy (read: global lobbyist), and recently declared that Facebook couldn't be a bigger friend to net neutrality:

"When users purchase internet access, they should be able to go where they want to, and that concept of net neutrality rules in context of operators who originally wanted to sell different tiers of speeds to consumers so that certain services can be accessed on a faster basis....He said that Facebook supports the concept of net neutrality and its program internet.org is to enable people to realize the importance of internet by providing access to basic web service free of data cost."

In short, that's a former FCC boss with no credibility on the subject basically implying that Facebook couldn't possibly be violating net neutrality, since that's something only a telecom operator can do. Facebook still apparently believes that nobody is bright enough to see past its shiny veneer of altruism to realize that the company is trying to corner developing nation advertising and content markets for the next thirty years. Hopefully more intelligent and nuanced thinking prevails, and those purportedly so desperate to help the poor will ultimately decide to do so by offering dirt-cheap Internet access, not a bastardized, AOL-esque vision of the Internet buried under layers of cheap public relations paint.

Filed Under: free basics, india, internet access, internet.org, net neutrality, zero rating
Companies: facebook, internet.org

32 Comments

Government Report Declares Broadband An Essential, Uncompetitive Utility, Wistfully Ponders If Perhaps We Should Do Something About It

Broadband

from the bureaucratic-prattle dept

Fri, Sep 25th 2015 10:34am — Karl Bode

For years players in the telecom sector have bickered over whether or not to call broadband an essential utility (water, electricity), or keep on acting as if it's simply a luxury. A semantic battle for sure, though ISPs have traditionally fought the former classification because it generally means regulators actually doing their jobs, like checking to make sure that ISP broadband usage meters are accurate (helpful tip: they often aren't and regulators couldn't care less). Also if you declare broadband a necessary utility, that means somebody has to do something about the fact that the lion's share of the country remains on sluggish, last-generation speeds thanks to limited to no real competition.

In an otherwise rather droll report this week, the United States government stopped beating around the bush and formally declared broadband an essential utility. The full report by the government's new "broadband opportunity council" (pdf) is the latest hang-wringing, bureaucratic effort to study the broadband sector to death, despite the fact that even the nation's sixth graders likely know the core problem with the broadband industry is duopoly power and regulatory capture. The report, after consulting "248 diverse stakeholders" ranging from telecom companies to consumer advocacy groups, shockingly concludes that the government hasn't been acting in accordance with this new reality:

"Broadband has steadily shifted from an optional amenity to a core utility for households, businesses and community institutions. Today, broadband is taking its place alongside water, sewer and electricity as essential infrastructure for communities. However, not all Federal programs fully reflect the changing social, economic and technological conditions that redefined the need for and benefits of broadband. In some cases, programs that can support broadband deployment and adoption lack specific guidelines to promote its use. Other programs have not integrated funding for broadband commensurate with its importance and role in program execution and mission.

Gosh, are we daring to suggest that blindly throwing subsidies at AT&T and Verizon, ignoring how that money gets spent, and then turning a blind eye to the lack of last-mile competition hasn't really been working? While previous, pricey government brainstorming sessions comically turned a blind eye to the lack of competition (our bland, politically-timid 2010 National Broadband Plan jumps immediately to mind), this latest report by the freshly-forged council at least acknowledges the reality on the ground:

"Today, nearly 40 percent of American households either do not have the option of purchasing a wired 10 Mbps connection or they must buy it from a single provider. Three out of four Americans do not have a choice of providers for broadband at 25 Mbps, the speed increasingly recognized as a baseline for broadband access. Lowering barriers to deployment and fostering market competition can drive down price, increase speeds, and improve service and adoption rates across all markets.

The report proceeds to give a number of no brainer recommendations, like paying attention to where taxpayer subsidies go (ingenious!), removing ISP-written state laws preventing communities from improving local broadband when nobody else will (insightful!), and actually basing policy on real-world evidence instead of simply playing partisan patty cake (pioneering!). Of course these are all things that should have been obvious for the last fifteen years; government was just too terrified of upsetting deep-pocketed campaign contributors (and NSA partners) like AT&T and Comcast to actually make meaningful progress.

Hopefully in another five years we can look forward to a new report that realizes that if you want better broadband, perhaps you shouldn't let the nation's duopoly providers write all of our telecom laws, all-but own state legislatures and Congress, and effectively act as institutionally-bone-grafted government intelligence analysts?

Filed Under: broadband, competition, government

Jeb Bush Proudly Promises To Axe Net Neutrality If Elected

Broadband

from the going-backwards dept

Wed, Sep 23rd 2015 9:34am — Karl Bode

The Jeb Bush campaign this week unveiled a major part of the candidate's technology platform, and it likely includes taking a hatchet to net neutrality rules. The new policy outline on Bush's website spends some time butchering the very definition of net neutrality as well, parroting several long-standing incumbent ISP narratives that net neutrality is somehow about content companies not paying their fair share, or that modernization of existing rules is somehow "antiquated." Indeed, Bush's definition of net neutrality is rather unique:

"The Federal Communications Commission’s Net Neutrality rule classifies all Internet Service Providers (ISPs) as “public utilities,” subjecting them to antiquated “common carrier” regulation. Rather than enhancing consumer welfare, these rules prohibit one group of companies (ISPs) from charging another group of companies (content companies) the full cost for using their services."

Except as we've been over this ad nauseum; net neutrality isn't about prohibiting ISPs from charging content companies, it's about mammoth broadband providers abusing the lack of last-mile competition to give themselves a leg up in emerging markets. I assume the Bush campaign is referencing the FCC's plan to police interconnection deals between ISPs and the likes of Netflix, something that has actually improved the health of the Internet already. Bush doesn't appear to understand this (or is pretending not to understand this), and proceeds to trot out examples of some poor, little ISPs that will be hurt by the FCC's push to encourage a healthier Internet:

"Small broadband operators—like KWISP (475 customers in rural Illinois) and Wisper ISP (8,000 customers near St. Louis, Mo)—have declared under penalty of perjury that the Net Neutrality rule has caused them to cut back on investments to upgrade and expand their networks."

Any ISP or WISP that has actually cut back on necessary infrastructure investment due the FCC's net neutrality rules frankly either doesn't understand them, or is playing personal partisan patty cake. Even the nation's lumbering mega-ISPs, who've fought net neutrality tooth and nail, have admitted (through their own SEC filings and earnings reports) that their network investment is as healthy as ever. As noted recently, if there are network investment declines, data suggests they've got nothing to do with net neutrality. That net neutrality kills network investment is a dated, disproven dodo that simply won't die.

The Bush policy missive then parrots the idea that the FCC imposed net neutrality rules in "relative obscurity," despite a decade filled will countless open meetings, roundtables, and endless (sometimes nauseatingly so) conversation:

"Agencies today make far more laws than legislators. But unlike courts and legislators, regulators conduct their deliberations in relative obscurity, often outside of the public’s view and effectively accountable to no one, not even the president."

That's just the thing though: net neutrality was passed by regulators only after an unprecedented groundswell of public support demanded protections. It's about protecting consumers and small businesses from the AT&T, Verizon and Comcast's of the world in the absence of competition. Bush is too busy pandering to the mega-ISPs to bother mentioning what his solution for this lack of broadband competition is, or if he's even capable of admitting a lack of competition exists. But in standing up for the mega-ISPs Jeb makes it pretty clear his technology policies are dated somewhere around 2002 or so.

None of this is surprising, since earlier this year Bush proudly declared that net neutrality was the "craziest idea he's ever heard." Of course the craziest idea I've heard is a candidate running in 2016 who thinks it's a smashing idea to defend AT&VerizoCast, and walk back a decade of progress on a subject it's abundantly clear he doesn't actually understand.

Filed Under: broadband, jeb bush, net neutrality, politics

50 Comments

Cox Sues Tempe, Arizona For Its Nefarious Plan To Bring Google Fiber To Town

Broadband

from the pouting-and-crying dept

Tue, Sep 22nd 2015 8:28am — Karl Bode

Google Fiber continues to expand and bring much needed competitive pressure to (and public conversation about) duopoly-logjammed broadband markets. Most recently the company stated it was striking preliminary agreements with San Diego, Irvine, and Louisville, negotiating "fiber hut" placement, coordinating install logistics, and getting cities to sign off on franchise deals. The company also recently announced that it had struck a preliminary deal with Tempe, Arizona, laying the groundwork for the deployment of thousands of miles of new fiber in the city, bringing Google Fiber's potential footprint to sixteen cities.

Like any good incumbent broadband ISP, Cox Communications' first reaction wasn't to welcome the challenge of a new competitor, it was to whine like a petulant child about the fairness of it all:

"It's unfortunate that the Tempe City Council is willing to favor a new entrant into the market, and in doing so appears to have violated federal and state law. The waivers granted by the City also give Google Fiber a free pass on obligations that affect public safety; such as emergency alert messaging and protection of subscriber privacy."

Cox has subsequently followed up this early whining with a new lawsuit accusing the Tempe city council of violating the law. According to the suit (pdf), Tempe violated federal law "by establishing a discriminatory regulatory framework" that gives Google Fiber preference over traditional cable companies:

"Tempe’s bald assertion that Google Fiber is not a cable operator is incorrect," Cox argued. "And based on this incorrect assertion, Tempe’s regulatory scheme allows Google Fiber to provide video programming service to subscribers in Tempe under terms and conditions that are far more favorable and far less burdensome than those applicable to Cox and other cable operators, even though Cox and Google Fiber offer video services that are legally indistinguishable."

Here's the thing though: reports out of Arizona indicate that the Tempe city council's vote opened the door for companies like Cox to negotiate their own, new agreements with the city. Indeed, nothing stopped incumbent ISPs from striking new gigabit fiber deployment deals before Google Fiber, they just lacked the competitive incentive to do so. And while some mega-ISPs originally whined about these deals, they quickly quiet down once they realize these new potential deals let them cherry pick broadband deployment (read: just wire high-end developments), something that pre-Google Fiber days used to be considered a bad thing. Note these recent comments by AT&T:

"In the past if we wanted to go into a city environment, the requirement was you build out the entire city," Stephenson explained in a keynote at the J.P. Morgan Global Technology, Media and Telecom Conference. Doing that requires a huge capital investment, one that AT&T felt it couldn't make, he noted. Google's entry into Austin, in particular, enabled AT&T to ask the city for the same terms as Google Fiber received. "Google came in and was very targeted in where they wanted to deploy fiber, and they got municipal endorsement (on that). …We said we'll take the same deal that Google got. And we got the same deal that Google got," Stephenson said."

So yes, under the din of enthusiasm over Google Fiber there is a conversation nobody seems to want to have about the problem of cherry-picked next-gen broadband deployment, but that's obviously not what Cox cares about. Cox sees something in local Tempe law that will allow it to bog Google Fiber's progress in Tempe down in the courts (Google Fiber is also slated for Cox's turf in Phoenix, where it has not filed suit). Cox could simply take Google Fiber's market entry as a challenge to negotiate a new citywide deal and up its own game, but apparently the cable operator thinks that hand-wringing and wasting everybody's time with lawyers is the more sensible tactical option.

Filed Under: arizona, broadband, competition, fiber, google fiber, lawsuits, tempe
Companies: cox, google

Verizon's Screwing New Jersey Even Harder Than Previously Believed

Broadband

from the regulatory-capture dept

Thu, Sep 17th 2015 6:12am — Karl Bode

We've previously discussed how in 1993 Verizon conned the state of New Jersey into giving the telco all manner of subsidies and tax breaks in exchange for a promise to wire the majority of the state with symmetrical fiber. Fast forward to 2015, most of New Jersey remains on aging DSL, and the state decided it would be a wonderful idea to simply let Verizon walk away from its obligations. Of course this isn't new: Verizon's regulatory capture allowed it to do the exact same thing in Pennsylvania, and it's currently busy trying to dodge New York City FiOS build out requirements as well.

But apparently, New Jersey is getting screwed harder than state residents even knew. In addition to the sham 1993 agreement, Verizon got New Jersey officials to sign off on a 2006 statewide franchise agreement that also let the company wiggle out of FiOS deployment obligations. Essentially, Newark and Fulop Mayors began noticing that many buildings in their cities were waiving their right to have FiOS installed, something not happening in more affluent areas:

"Mayor Steven Fulop of Jersey City and Mayor Ras Baraka of Newark are expected to call a press conference to discuss whether Verizon is fulfilling its obligations under the act. Public records show that 21,392 different properties in Newark have waived their access rights under the franchise agreement, opting out of any right to FiOS availability. In Jersey City, that number climbed to 25,311, nearly a fifth of the city’s properties. In richer municipalities like Trenton, Weehawken, and Hackensack, that number never climbed above 3,000."

Verizon's 2006 franchise agreement required that the telco make its fiber-based FiOS service available to New Jersey's 70 densest municipalities, including poor areas in Newark and Jersey City that might not otherwise see coverage. But Verizon appears to be abusing a loophole in the franchise agreement that allows it to add buildings to an acceptable "waiver" list of exemptions should Verizon run into trouble during installs. But Verizon appears to be making it intentionally difficult for landlords in poorer cities to successfully contact and schedule installs with Verizon:

"What we understand the practice to be is that, if you're in a wealthy high-rise next to the water in Jersey City, they will bend over backwards trying to get into that building," says Seth Hahn of the Communication Workers of America union, which has supported the mayors in their efforts to get more cable laid. "But if you live on the other end of the tracks, they'll send you a letter saying, 'We'd like access to your building.’" After a labyrinth of phone calls and offerings, the landlord will often end up on a waiver list without realizing it, Hahn says."

None of this is to say landlords can't be difficult. In a 2013 PSC filing with the state of New York (pdf), Verizon claims many landlords refused the telco access to building infrastructure, and some even tried to charge the telco for building access. But looking at the data, it seems somewhat obvious that there's a big discrepancy among waiver totals in poorer cities: Verizon Waivers

Now this could be coincidental, but given Verizon's history on this front, claims that Verizon's using landlords as a bogeyman to justify failure to adhere to obligations seem very likely. You'd need to investigate to be sure, but since New Jersey is already pretty lax on holding Verizon accountable, it's painfully unlikely that the state will ever bother. And letting Verizon get away with this kind of stuff isn't unique; this same story plays out in dozens of states nationwide. Repeatedly.

But the core of this problem is again regulatory capture and these statewide TV franchise agreements. The new laws were pushed by AT&T and Verizon in dozens of states around ten years ago, and were quickly rammed through by campaign-cash soaked state legislatures under the promise of new jobs and lower TV prices thanks to increased competition. But most if not all of the agreements were written by telco lobbyists and lawyers. As such, most of them are basically phone company wishlists, and in some places like Wisconsin, went so far as to gut all consumer protections and even some eminent domain rights.

So yeah, if you didn't realize it already companies like AT&T and Verizon all but own many state legislatures, as evident by the fact they literally write the laws governing their behavior. The end result of that may not be surprising, but the fact that we never seem to learn from decades of this kind of behavior should be.

Filed Under: fiber, fios, fulsop, loopholes, new jersey, newark, poor, waivers
Companies: verizon

24 Comments

FCC's Pai Desperately Tries To Pretend He Was Right About Net Neutrality Rules Killing Broadband Investment

Broadband

from the revolving-door-chicken-littles dept

Thu, Sep 10th 2015 10:45am — Karl Bode

Before the FCC passed new net neutrality rules, countless ISP consultants, think tankers, and various other sockpuppets desperately proclaimed that the rules would totally destroy the Internet and stifle all network investment. Now months after the rules took effect, everything seems to be operating as it was before -- if not better. Google Fiber continues to deploy to a growing number of underserved cities, municipal broadband providers and smaller ISPs continue to push gigabit upgrades, and even Comcast has announced it's deploying two gigabit service to around 18 million subscribers before the end of the year.

While the broadband industry still suffers from a lack of overall competition, it appears completely unbothered by what many claimed was "draconian regulation for a bygone era" that we were repeatedly told would "utterly crush innovation" and "stifle network investment." In fact, we've seen several instances where the rules already have put big ISPs on their best behavior, most notably on the interconnection front. Granted, numerous ISP execs predicted there'd be no issues, not that anybody heard them under the din of AT&T and Verizon fear mongering.

Of course, these folks can't just admit they were wrong and were motivated to make shit up to scare people away from net neutrality, so they're now trying to retroactively claim they were right -- despite the total absence of any real evidence. Case in point is FCC Commissioner (and former Verizon regulatory lawyer) Ajit Pai, who this week proclaimed that net neutrality chicken littles were right all along, and the FCC's use of Title II net neutrality rules has utterly depressed broadband investment:

"As evidence, Pai pointed to research that showed a decline in capital expenditures by the major wireless companies of 12% in the first half of 2015 compared to the same time period in 2014—when the FCC was still expected to restore open Internet rules without reclassifying broadband.

"In my statement dissenting from the Commission’s Title II decision, I warned that '[b]roadband networks don’t have to be built. Capital doesn’t have to be invested here,'" Pai said. "'Risks don’t have to be taken. The more difficult the FCC makes the business case for deployment—and micromanaging everything from interconnection to service plans makes it difficult indeed—the less likely it is that broadband providers big and small will connect Americans with digital opportunities.' And that I fear is what we are now witnessing."

Right, except we're not witnessing that at all. Pai can't be bothered to show his math, but it appears he pulled the 12% number from a recent editorial by industry-linked think tanker Hal Singer, whose work has been the backbone of a decidedly pointed attempt to mislead the public over the last few weeks. Singer's the same guy who was widely criticized for manipulating statistics for the broadband industry to help them claim that net neutrality would result in $15 billion in new taxes. You'll be shocked to learn that most of his worst-case-scenario predictions supporting these numbers show no indication of being true.

In his Forbes editorial, Singer makes these specific claims:

"They said it wouldn’t happen. They offered assurances from three Wall Street analysts, who insisted that Internet service providers (ISPs) would continue to invest at the same levels regardless of the regulatory climate...AT&T’s capital expenditure (capex) was down 29 percent in the first half of 2015 compared to the first half of 2014. Charter’s capex was down by the same percentage. Cablevision’s and Verizon’s capex were down ten and four percent, respectively. CenturyLink’s capex was down nine percent. (Update: The average decline across all wireline ISPs was 12 percent. Including wireless ISPs Sprint and T-Mobile in the sample reduces the average decline to eight percent.)

Except, causality does not equal correlation. If you bother to look at AT&T SEC filings, you'll note that AT&T already planned to scale back capex because it was already winding up an upgrade initiative dubbed "Project VIP," which had nothing to do with net neutrality. Indeed, Verizon and AT&T (which comprise the lion's share of the capex cuts) were already dramatically scaling back their fixed-line network investments, which also had absolutely nothing to do with net neutrality. Charter, meanwhile, just finished up its all-digital network upgrade, and its declines too have nothing to do with net neutrality.

On the wireless side, AT&T and Verizon have acknowledged winding down massive LTE network upgrades, and all of the wireless carriers have been engaged in a little belt-tightening as they deal with the disruptive behavior of T-Mobile. There are about a million reasons for capex cycles, including a lack of competition resulting in muted network upgrades, completed projects, to numerous ISPs in holding patterns as they wait for mergers and acquisitions. But there's absolutely no data that directly links these capex reductions to net neutrality or the FCC's implementation of Title II to govern ISPs. And, meanwhile, just a few days before Pai claimed that companies like Verizon were no longer investing in wireless... Verizon announced that it was ramping up its schedule for 5G deployment (the next big upgrade after LTE), which will lead to the next big round of capital expenditure in wireless. So, apparently the new rules did not scare off Verizon -- arguably the biggest opponent of net neutrality in the United States.

So basically you've got a revolving-door regulator who used to work for the broadband industry, citing statistics from a think tanker with ties to the broadband industry, both hoping that a wish, a dream, some out-of-context data and a little make believe will fool people into thinking these guys weren't utterly full of crap all along.

Filed Under: ajit pai, broadband, capital expenditure, fcc, hal singer, investment, net neutrality, title ii, wireless
Companies: at&t, verizon

16 Comments

Videotron Tests Neutrality In Canada: Biggest Music Apps Now Cap Exempt

Broadband

from the bad-ideas-dressed-up-as-good-ideas dept

Fri, Sep 4th 2015 2:05pm — Karl Bode

Canadian cable and wireless operator Videotron is hoping to see just how far Canada's net neutrality rules will stretch. The company last week was the latest to experiment with a new zero rated usage plan that exempts the biggest music services from the company's usage caps. Dubbed "Unlimited Music," Videotron's new effort will initially exempt services like Stingray, Rdio, Google Play, Deezer and Spotify from usage limits. Depending on popularity, additional services will be placed on the company's usage-allotment whitelist in the coming months. According to Videotron, this is about "getting ahead" of consumers' needs:

"We want to get ahead of our customers’ needs once again by bringing them a unique, innovative service: Unlimited Music will help make the connection between fans of music from Québec and around the world, and the major music streaming players."

On the surface most users initially like the idea of cap-exempt content. Indeed, carriers have tried to frame such a concept as "1-800" or "free shipping" for data, where the content company bears the brunt of the cost of delivering the content to the end user. Consumers pay less for data and select companies gain a marketing advantage. It's a huge win for everybody involved, right?

Well, no. Remember that usage caps imposed by carriers are utterly arbitrary and are barely bound to any real-world economics or engineering. These are artificial limitations carriers then charge consumers and companies to navigate. By letting the biggest companies be exempt from these arbitrary limitations (sometimes for pay, sometimes not), you've immediately put small businesses, independents, and non-profits at a massive disadvantage. This has been a huge issue overseas where Facebook and Google have faced fierce opposition to their dreams of turning the Internet into a zero rated, selectively curated, walled-garden advertising kingdom.

Back in the States, VC Fred Wilson put it this way a few years back:

"The pernicious thing about zero rating is that it is marketed as a consumer friendly offering by the mobile carrier – “we are not charging you for data when you are on Spotify." But what all of this zero rating activity is setting up is a mobile internet that looks a lot more like cable TV than our wide open Internet. Soon a startup will have to negotiate a zero rating plan before launching because mobile app customers will be trained to only use apps that are zero rated on their network."

For some reason, many people can't see the threat posed by zero rating. Stop by any Reddit thread on the subject, and you'll usually find most users utterly clueless to the potential pitfalls of letting carriers inject themselves as middle men in this fashion (free Spotify, bro!). Even T-Mobile, currently the US wireless industry consumer darling (whose "Music Freedom" idea Videotron is copying), doesn't understand the pitfalls of zero rating. Regulators too have gone out of their way to avoid seriously addressing zero rating, meaning that companies can dance over and under net neutrality rules, just as long as they're clever about marketing the violations as a boon to consumers.

In Canada, zero rating is supposed to be a subject the CRTC examines on a case-by-case basis. But when the CRTC can be bothered to enforce neutrality, they've only taken action against the most obvious offenses (like phone companies exempting their own video services from their caps, but not competing companies' traffic). Though they'll fumble in admitting as much, North American regulators see caps and zero rating as "creative" pricing experimentation.

With regulators napping and many consumers cheerfully and obliviously rooting against their own best self interests, it's pretty clear we intend to collectively discover just how stupid and slippery the zero rating slope can be. Perhaps real-world experience will be educational in a way that warnings about zero rating couldn't be. But it's kind of like the boiling frog anecdote; once you're fully aware of the temperature of the water, you've already traveled beyond the point of no return. Once we've accepted the carrier meddling and unlevel playing fields inherent in zero rating, it may be too late to backtrack.

Filed Under: broadband caps, canada, crtc, net neutrality, zero rating
Companies: videotron

13 Comments

T-Mobile CEO Vows To Hunt Down 'Thieves' And 'Clever Hackers' That 'Abuse' Company's Unlimited Data Plans

Wireless

from the unlimited-is-limited dept

Tue, Sep 1st 2015 5:30am — Karl Bode

For more than a decade now wireless carriers have struggled with this rather simple definition:

unlimited, adjective

1. not limited; unrestricted; unconfined: unlimited trade.

2. boundless; infinite; vast: the unlimited skies.

3. without any qualification or exception; unconditional.

While carriers have long insisted they offer "unlimited" data, they go to great lengths to avoid offering said advertised product when the gluttonous masses inevitably come calling to partake in the all-you-can-eat buffet. Countless companies have had their wrists slapped for the failure to disclose that their "unlimited" plans are in fact quite limited. Verizon settled a lawsuit from NY's AG back in 2007 for advertising capped and throttled services as unlimited. When Verizon and AT&T later ditched all unlimited plans, they both still waged a quiet war on unlimited users, again throttling or otherwise restricting their data consumption.

In recent years T-Mobile has taken advantage of this shift and marketed itself as one of the last companies that truly embraces unlimited data. Well, sort of. If you sign up for an unlimited T-Mobile smartphone plan, T-Mobile's website will quietly inform you that by "unlimited" T-Mobile actually means 21 GB, after which (provided you're on a congested tower), you'll have your speeds "de-prioritized" for the remainder of your billing cycle. Customers that sign up for unlimited data are also greeted with this notice, usually down below the advertisement:

So under T-Mobile's "unlimited" plans, unlimited smartphone use may actually be somewhere around 21 GB, while data consumed when tethering the phone as a modem or hotspot is throttled after 7 GB of consumption. Now to be fair, those allotments are pretty generous. And as carriers are quick to argue, the fact that you can still use data beyond those limits (albeit at reduced speeds) still technically means the connection is "unlimited." But the industry's still playing it a little loose with what is a clearly-defined term (I've underlined the key synonyms above if any confused carriers are reading).

For a while now, T-Mobile customers that install third-party ROMs have been able to skirt the 7GB tethering throttling limit. This has, apparently, greatly annoyed T-mobile CEO John Legere, who has taken to the company's blog to declare he's now hunting down data "thieves" for the benefit of all mankind:

"...These violators are going out of their way with all kinds of workarounds to steal more LTE tethered data. They’re downloading apps that hide their tether usage, rooting their phones, writing code to mask their activity, etc. They are “hacking” the system to swipe high speed tethered data. These aren't naive amateurs; they are clever hackers who are willfully stealing for their own selfish gain."

According to Legere these "clever hackers" only comprise around 1/100 of a percent of the company's 59 million customers, and a few of them have been eating as much as two terabytes a month of data. So why is T-Mobile making so much noise about a small number of customers it could easily shove to metered plans privately? T-Mobile's trying to get out ahead of media criticism for imposing limits on "unlimited" data, and to avoid the FCC's net neutrality and transparency rules by clearly stating intent (even if the T-Mobile FAQ on the issue doesn't really offer technical specifics).

It should be noted that every ISP on the planet has to deal with a small subset of extremely heavy users. This is nothing new, and if T-Mobile had said nothing, people probably wouldn't have given a damn. But after insulting his userbase, Legere proceeds with false bravado to pretend that the perfectly ordinary practice of protecting the network from gluttons somehow makes T-Mobile an industry leader:

These abusers will probably try to distract everyone by waving their arms about throttling data. Make no mistake about it – this is not the same issue. Don’t be duped by their sideshow. We are going after every thief, and I am starting with the 3,000 users who know exactly what they are doing...I won't let a few thieves ruin things for anyone else. We’re going to lead from the front on this, just like we always do. Count on it!

Good job I guess? To be clear: outside of its wishy-washy net neutrality stance I like T-Mobile, and think the company has done some great things to nudge the industry forward (like killing subsidies and reducing overseas roaming costs). I also think these allotments are more than fair for the price being paid, and T-Mobile has every right to police its network, since two terabytes of mobile consumption is gluttonous by any standard. That said, acting like it's the pinnacle of "clever hacking" and villainy to modify a device you own to get a service advertised as unlimited is a tad specious and theatrical. And Legere's decision to subsequently bicker with users on Twitter for the rest of the day wasn't the "uncarrier's" finest PR hour:

@LEVST3R as I said the abusers will try to confuse the issue and this is one of the ways..nice try
— John Legere (@JohnLegere) August 31, 2015

Snark, fanboys and fisticuffs aside, the core of the problem continues to be the use of the word unlimited to sell products that simply aren't. Since the first time the term was marketed it has confused the hell out of users who don't understand that in the age of finite spectrum, intelligent network management and hungry bean counters, there really is no such thing. If you're not willing to offer truly unlimited data (and frankly no spectrum-constrained wireless carrier truly is), stop advertising unlimited data, put your next-best offer clearly on the table, and stop molesting the god-damned dictionary.

Filed Under: john legere, streaming, tethering, unlimited
Companies: t-mobile

62 Comments

Google Lobbied Against Real Net Neutrality In India, Just Like It Did In The States

Broadband

from the only-a-little-bit-evil dept

Mon, Aug 24th 2015 3:22pm — Karl Bode

While Google is still seen as (and proclaims to be) a net neutrality advocate, evidence continues to mount that this is simply no longer the case. Back in 2010 you might recall that Google helped co-write the FCC's original, flimsy net neutrality rules with the help of folks like AT&T and Verizon -- ensuring ample loopholes and making sure the rules didn't cover wireless at all. When the FCC moved to finally enact notably-tougher neutrality rules for wired and wireless networks earlier this year, Google was publicly mute but privately active in making sure the FCC didn't seriously address the problems with usage caps and zero-rated (cap exempt) content.

While the company pretends this isn't a notable turnaround from previous principles, the evidence is on the table for all to see.

As India has been exploring net neutrality rules it's again apparent that, if not at least leaning into the anti-neutrality rule camp -- Google sure as hell is not helping. Both Google and Facebook have come under fire recently for their zero rating efforts overseas, which include exempting some select partner content from usage caps, and setting up walled garden fiefdoms under the banner of selfless altruism. Critics charge that these plans create vast inequalities in connectivity and violate Internet openness, and that if the companies' really want to help the poor, they can help subsidize truly open Internet access.

While Facebook has responded to this criticism by insisting that all of its critics are extremists should they dare question Facebook's noble intentions, Google's again chosen a more subtle route; staying mute on the subject publicly but quietly working behind the scenes to weaken the final rules:

"Google joined hands with Facebook to try and prevent the Internet and Mobile Association of India, which represents some of the largest Internet companies in India, from taking a stand that counters Zero Rating. According to emails exchanged between IAMAI’s Government Relations committee members, of which MediaNama has copies, Vineeta Dixit, a member of Google’s Public Policy and and Government Relations team, strongly pushed for the removal of any mention of Zero Rating from the IAMAI’s submission, as a response to the Department of Telecom’s report on Net Neutrality. Please note that Google hasn’t responded to our queries, despite multiple reminders...

Apparently Google was preparing to launch its own zero-rated effort in India but put those plans on hold once it saw Facebook taking a public relations beating. And while Google's been very careful to even avoid having any of its positions on the record, these e-mails show it pushed India's wireless carriers to make sure they all were on board supporting zero rating:

"Dixit’s email to the IAMAI government relations committee, while reasoning that there is no consensus on Zero Rating, asked for its removal from the submission, saying: “We would like to register strong protest against this formulation and would request you to remove this (Zero Rating) from the submission."

So yes, this is basically Google's net neutrality modus operandi now: publicly say as little as possible (while harvesting press and public acclaim for being a net neutrality "supporter") while privately undermining real neutrality. As we've discussed with both AT&T's sponsored data and T-Mobile's Music Freedom, such a model gives preferential treatment to larger companies while making life immediately harder for smaller outfits, independents and non-profits. And Google's ok with that. Worth remembering the next time Google (or a press outlet) proclaims that Google's still a noble champion on the net neutrality front.

Filed Under: india, lobbying, net neutrality, zero rating
Companies: facebook, google

49 Comments

Verizon Quietly Backs Off Throttling 'Unlimited' Wireless Customers, But Only After It No Longer Matters

Wireless

from the limited-unlimited dept

Tue, Aug 18th 2015 5:04am — Karl Bode

In July of 2011, Verizon announced it would no longer offer its wireless users unlimited data plans, and instead began pushing more expensive and capped shared data plans (complete with shiny $15 per gigabyte overage fees!). While Verizon did grandfather existing unlimited customers, like AT&T, it immediately began waging a quiet war on these users, throttling these purportedly "unlimited" connections to try and drive these users toward pricier metered options.

In Verizon's case, the company started by throttling unlimited customers on its 3G network. When Verizon Wireless announced in 2014 it was going to start applying these "network optimization" practices to its LTE 4G network, the company received a surprise wrist slap by FCC boss Tom Wheeler, who warned the company that he saw through its use of congestion to drive revenue:

"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."

As we frequently note, phantom network congestion has long been a useful bogeyman to defend predatory or otherwise anti-competitive behavior in telecom. In Verizon's case, the company responded to the FCC by effectively claiming that everybody was doing it, something that didn't sit well with Wheeler in a follow up warning to the company just about a year ago:

"'All the kids do it' was never something that worked with me when I was growing up and it didn’t work with my kids,” Wheeler told reporters on Friday. Wheeler said that response wasn’t good enough to calm his concerns that the company was trying to milk users for more profit. "My concern in this instance is that it is moving from engineering and technological issues into business issues,” he said.

Verizon ultimately decided to scrap its plans to throttle unlimited LTE users, and the FCC proceeded to pass tougher new net neutrality rules in February of this year. AT&T, in contrast, tried to push its luck, and continued throttling unlimited users until it received a $100 million FCC fine (which AT&T is still fighting) and was socked with an FTC lawsuit for false advertising (which AT&T is also still fighting). Verizon, meanwhile, quietly continued throttling its unlimited 3G users -- until only just last week. Verizon "announced" the changes in a bit of fine print on the Verizon website:

"Beginning in 2011," it reads, "to optimize our network, we managed data connection speeds for a small subset of customers — those who are in the top 5% of data users and have 3G devices on unlimited data plans — and only in places and at times when the network was experiencing high demand. We discontinued this practice in June, 2015."

And by "optimize its network," Verizon means "optimize its revenues." In speaking to the Washington Post, Verizon claims this was just a run of the mill business decision, made because it impacted so few customers:

"We make business decisions all the time," Verizon said in a statement to the Post. "Because it was such a small subset of customers who were affected [by the 3G throttling], we made the call to discontinue even a limited approach to managing data connection speeds."

Right, well, it's only now such a small subset of customers because Verizon drove them all to metered, LTE plans already. But basically, Verizon was allowed for four years to advertise a product falsely as "unlimited," and to use network congestion as bogus justification for driving its users to more expensive plans -- with little more than a wrist slap. With the net neutrality rules now in effect (you know, the ones that were supposed to have destroyed the Internet by now) there's some basic protections in place for consumers moving forward.

But with AT&T and Verizon's history of outright fraud and misleading consumers, and network gear getting ever more sophisticated, enforcement is going to require that the FCC remain uncharacteristically tough and attentive. And that's no given; as noted recently usage caps similarly use the congestion bogeyman to drive revenue and raise consumer rates, but the FCC has remained notably mute on the subject.

Filed Under: 3g, fcc, throttling, unlimited
Companies: verizon

11 Comments

<< Newer Stories

Older Stories >>

Follow Techdirt

Essential Reading

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

Monday
09:18	Comcast Admits Broadband Usage Caps Are A Cash Grab, Not An Engineering Necessity (32)
08:01	Dianne Feinstein Worries That Net Neutrality Will Block ISPs From Censoring 'Terrorist' Content She Doesn't Like (59)
Friday
18:37	FCC May Finally Include Price & Usage Caps When Weighing Broadband Deployment Progress (4)
Thursday
10:16	Canada Is Still Doing A Half-Assed Job Enforcing Its Net Neutrality Rules, Highlighting Importance of Competition (3)
Wednesday
07:04	Canada Opens Incumbent Fiber Networks To Competition, Cue The Hysteria (19)
Tuesday
15:41	New York City Decides To Actually Pay Attention To Its Verizon Contracts After Getting Ripped Off On FiOS Deal (17)
Friday
13:51	FCC Approves AT&T's $69 Billion DirecTV Merger, Announces It Late Friday And Hopes Nobody Notices (11)
10:38	AT&T's Version Of Wireless Price Competition: Raising Prices (6)
Thursday
09:35	FCC Commissioner O'Rielly: Nobody Takes Me Seriously After Voting Down Every Consumer-Friendly FCC Policy This Year (14)
06:21	Cable Industry Still Proudly Thinks Cord Cutting Is A Media-Manufactured Crisis (39)
Wednesday
12:39	FCC Signs Off on AT&T DirecTV Merger, And Early Indications Are The Conditions Are Hot Garbage (23)
Friday
14:10	Quicken Loans Founder Dan Gilbert Follows Google Fiber's Lead, Brings $70 Gigabit Fiber To Detroit (12)
Tuesday
06:25	Comcast's Answer To Google Fiber, A Service That's Twice As Fast, But Four Times As Expensive (45)
Thursday
06:23	Google Fiber Has Accomplished More For Broadband Than Our National Broadband Plan Ever Did (40)
Monday
14:42	Sprint Tries To 'Compete' By Throttling All Video To 600 Kbps, Then Talking Some Shit On Twitter (13)
Wednesday
15:48	Seattle City Council Member Urges Grass Roots Broadband Revolution After Ten Years Of Failing To Fix Broken Broadband Duopoly (20)
10:38	Audit Reveals Verizon Tried To Corner NYC Broadband Market By Striking Exclusive Landlord Deals (5)
Tuesday
09:31	EU Moves To Create Internet Fast Lanes, Pretends It's Net Neutrality By Redefining Basic Words (71)
06:23	FCC Commissioner Legally Tasked With Bringing Broadband To All Americans Doesn't Think Broadband's All That Important (37)
Thursday
13:36	Charter Hires Leading Net Neutrality Advocate To Write Its Net Neutrality Commitments, Promises To Go Further Than FCC Rules (11)
Wednesday
15:45	Sprint Plans To Kill The One Thing That People Liked About It: Unlimited Data (27)
13:35	No, We Still Can't Definitively Prove Your ISP Is Slowing Netflix Traffic To Make An Extra Buck (8)
Tuesday
13:40	The First Net Neutrality Complaint Has Been Filed, And It's Stupid (But Important) (8)
08:11	Eight Years Later, New York City Officials Wake Up To Verizon's Fiber Broadband Bluff (20)
Monday
15:51	FCC Gives Cable Industry Just Enough Rope To Hang Itself (9)
Wednesday
12:40	FCC Moves To Fine AT&T $100 Million For Throttling 'Unlimited' Plan Users (20)
06:20	Comcast Thinks Using Misleading Polls Will Somehow Fix Its Horrible Reputation (17)
Monday
11:36	Reporting Net Neutrality Violations Is Now A Snap... Actually Identifying Them Not So Much (10)
Thursday
14:38	Appeals Court Rejects ISP Stay Of Neutrality Rules, Which Officially Go Live Tomorrow (9)
08:18	House Tries To Use Appropriations Bill To Kill Neutrality Rules, Strip FCC Authority And Funding (96)

from the it's-only-bad-when-other-people-do-it dept

from the bureaucratic-prattle dept

from the going-backwards dept

from the pouting-and-crying dept

from the regulatory-capture dept

from the revolving-door-chicken-littles dept

from the bad-ideas-dressed-up-as-good-ideas dept

from the unlimited-is-limited dept

from the only-a-little-bit-evil dept

from the limited-unlimited dept

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

The Techdirt Greenhouse

Tools & Services

Company

Contact

More